I am highly sceptical that BilledMammal is doing a true WP:BEFORE. He has nominated multiple Danish international football player articles to AfD. There are questions like, why are they international footballers, they are not called up to the national team for no reason. In fact, some of these footballers have won honours in their country of Denmark like Wilhelm Nielsen (Danish footballer) who has won the Danish Championship three times. That's not even noted on the article, this is just stub article like all the others on his AfD nominations, just because something is a stub, doesn't mean it's not a notable topic.

There is a load of articles at: Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Nominations for deletion and page moves which he has nominated.

There are multiple issues at play here, I feel there is an attack on Lugnuts who was trying to bring light to the project of useful information that can be expanded on, for these player biographies. An attack on the wiki-stub culture, it's as if an stub article is not allowed.

Another weird issue with all the AfDs in this series BilledMammal writes: Violates the general criteria of WP:NOTDATABASE due to being an article that replicates a database entry.

I have a big problem with that, as Wikipedia is a database!

Yes there is GNG issues, but this should be addressed by doing the research and not nullifying the ability for other uses to find these articles and expanding them. This delete culture is simply unacceptable. I wouldn't have posted here if BilledMammal didn't template my talk page. There is serious detrimental issues here at play, and we are about to loose a load of articles because of laziness, people not wanting to do the research to expand on them and rather delete? Who's attack who?? pfft, I am getting fed-up of people who want to feud and run policy base arguments instead of actually working and expanding on the content that actually needs work. Someone here really needs to have a word with BilledMammal about his attitude. Govvy (talk) 14:03, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing in the above paragraphs that suggest anything relevant for this board. Your skepticism is not evidence of misconduct. Your dislike of another user nominating stubs for deletion is unacceptable to you, but nothing in any policy suggests it is unacceptable to Wikipedia. That you dislike the idea of somebody making policy base[d] arguments seems to be a personal problem. Your defense for the merits of stubs would be fine for a userspace essay, but not for ANI. nableezy - 14:12, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've got to say I am also frustrated, 1. by the sheer number of AfDs that are coming in which gives editors little time to review them, 2. by questionable nominations.

Today BilledMammal nominated two dozen Danish international footballers with the surname "Nielsen". Many of these players were active before the internet age so a web search probably isn't enough to check for WP:SIGCOV. But just a quick look at some of the players' careers suggest they could very well be notable. For example:

• Allan Nielsen (footballer, born 1953): two international appearances, played abroad in the Netherlands with Roda JC Kerkrade from 1979 to 1981 – Playing abroad wasn't as common in those days as it is today. Even a quick web search turned up a long article: https://politiken.dk/navne/foedselsdage/art5439817/Allan-Nielsen The AfD nomination makes no mention of it.
• Jørgen Nielsen (footballer, born 1923): one international appearance, played abroad in Scotland with Dundee F.C. in the late 1940s – Again, playing abroad wasn't as common in those days as it is today. www.britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk suggest there's coverage of his time in Scotland.
• Erik Nielsen (footballer, born 1938): ten international appearances, played abroad in Germany with VfB Lübeck from 1966 to 1968 – Again, playing abroad… A search of Danish newspapers at statsbiblioteket.dk suggests quite a bit of coverage.
• Benny Nielsen (footballer, born 7 March 1951): one international appearances, played abroad in Belgium with K. Beerschot VAV from 1966 to 1968 – Playing abroad… Coverage in Danish newspapers.

Bottom line: It's very hard to assume that "reasonable steps to search for reliable sources" per WP:BEFORE were taken. Robby.is.on (talk) 14:23, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AGF is not optional. He could well have done all the WP:BEFORE and the nominated the articles. If it's a bigger problem maybe it should be part of the ongoing AE discussion. - LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 15:24, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah. These articles (as far as I can tell) are non-frivolous AfD nominations--which is not to presume that they deserve deletion, simply that they're worthy of discussion. Presenting evidence (as Robby.is.on has done above) would seem to be the way forward to me. That said, I feel like everyone is being a bit overly prickly here. A bit unkind to presume no WP:BEFORE had occurred, but also some unnecesary templating. The NPA business seems a bit much to me, but that's subjective. I think, if possible, everyone should try to reset and return to the evidence. As ever, reasonable minds may differ. Cheers, all. Dumuzid (talk) 15:30, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The politiken article is a good one, and had I have found it I would not have nominated the article. However, I did not; I don't know what search terms you used, but "Allan Nielsen" "Kerkrade" places it on my second page of results, and "Allan Nielsen" "Odense" places it on my third. I normally review beyond the first page for Google News or Google Scholar, depending on the topic, but for mass created articles like these I rarely do so for Google search which I find usually produces little but Wikipedia clones and unreliable sources. BilledMammal (talk) 15:52, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@BilledMammal: I understand. But how do we deal with the problem that for players that were active before the internet came about most sources that would indicate SIGCOV probably can't be found online or at least not with a simple web search? Robby.is.on (talk) 15:59, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A person writing a new article has a responsibility to make sure the article is suitable for Wikipedia. That includes making sure the subject is notable. Why not include the results of your notability search when initially writing it?

WP:BEFORE doesn’t require going to printed sources. It’s impractical otherwise, though it does create a challenge for someone who writes an article about a person who doesn’t have ongoing coverage during the internet era. The answer again is, include documentation of notability when writing the article.

We are in a bit of a bind with the mass-produced stubs. Was notability required when they were produced? If so, why didn’t the producer include evidence of notability?

And that still leaves one more mess. For stubs that met earlier laxer notability standards (primarily sports), no one is to blame, but they are subject to challenge, based on a good?-faith WP:BEFORE. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 16:52, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Notability of footballers is dormant. At one point, when that guideline reflected consensus, it was apparently thought that playing in one full international match showed presumed notability. But currently, there's no sport-specific guideline at WP:NSPORT for footballers.Jahaza (talk) 17:51, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• The way to counter a challenge of NOTDATABASE / GNG / SPORTSCRIT at AFD is by producing two or three high-quality sources with significant coverage of the subject, that’s the way for you to go here; alternatively, the content may be folded into a broader article, if one can be identified. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 15:34, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Wikipedia is not a databse. That is one of the basic principals of Wikipedia. All articles should be made to meet GNG before they are created. There is an article for creation process, which is where people should actually take material that does not meet nclusion criteria, instead of just dumping it into article space. If it has already been dumped into article space in a sub-par condition, as Malcolmx15 says you should go and find tow or three high quality sources that meet our inclusion criteria. Basically in the huge discussion of sports realted articles earlier this year it was decided that we would scrap all participation based inclusion criteria, that we wanted quality sources backing all articles, and that we wanted an end to sports stats table entries masquerading as articles. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a database. It has standard inclusion criteria, and I strongly reccomend you review the current inclusion criteria, and recognized in regards to sports figures especially they have been significantly reworded and tightened in the last year.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:13, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  In computing, a database is an organised collection of data stored and accessed electronically. What is wikipedia but a stored collection of information through it's article structure accessed digitally! Wikipedia is still a database no matter what people want to say. Govvy (talk) 18:19, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a database. Do you infer from that statement that it's better to have no article about a notable subject at all than having a stub article? Is that Wikipedia policy? Because that's what happens when dozens of stub articles are sent to AfD daily and articles get deleted because there is too little time to check for SIGCOV. Robby.is.on (talk) 18:30, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If no SIGCOV can be found during an AfD it can be included in a list instead; if it's indeed notable then eventually someone with access to sources will come along and recreate it as an actual comprehensive biography. Standalone articles are not the only way information can exist on Wikipedia. JoelleJay (talk) 18:58, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

IMO BilledMammal actions referred to here are not only proper but doubly not a behavioral issue for this board. Both the notability guidelines overall and also what happens at AFD call for the same thing.....to provide 1 or 2 GNG suitable references to establish GNG notability, and producing or being unable to produce that will resolve the question every time. Trying to ignore all of that and instead just look at wp:before and imagining that somebody didn't do it is not right. Similarly, is the poster saying that the search is too burdensome to do for the person wishing to retain the article? North8000 (talk) 18:15, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Oh for pity's sake. Govvy, do you recognize that the reason critical masses of editors agreed to remove participation criteria from NSPORTS -- and, incidentally, to sanction Lugnuts for his egregious and longstanding sub-stub creation -- was outrage at the laziness of many editors in creating so many unsourced sub-stubs for athletes, which those editors then proved completely disinterested in sourcing or improving? What I am fed-up over are editors who always feel that someone else should do that work, but oh no, not them, not ever. North8000 takes the words out of my mouth -- the extremist inclusionists are ever ready to protest attempted deletions, but generally curiously reluctant to do what's guaranteed to save the articles ... source the damn things. I'm militantly disinterested in hearing them call other editors lazy or negligent where they don't want to do the work themselves. In any event, it is no more egregious for BilledMammal to nominate a dozen soccer sub-stubs for deletion a week than it was for the likes of Lugnuts to create a hundred soccer sub-stubs a week ... something I doubt you opposed, then or now. Ravenswing 18:35, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Ravenswing: curiously reluctant to do what's guaranteed to save the articles As I outlined in my examples above that can be very hard to do when the article subject was active in pre-internet times. When I saw 18 Danish internationals called Nielsen sent to AfD today I went looking for a way to find old Danish newspaper articles and found statsbiblioteket.dk. Example: https://www2.statsbiblioteket.dk/mediestream/avis/search/Erik%20nielsen%20lübeck/page/2 The search results show the title of the newspaper, the date, the page but no article content. Now what? Robby.is.on (talk) 18:49, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Now either Danish editors get into the act, or one can resort to the text from the Danish Wikipedia ... or else an otherwise obscure footballer from a century ago gets merged into a portmanteau article until such time as someone does pull it off. WP:V requires sourcing, and there is not and never has been a waiver from its provisions just because there's some excuse for why sourcing is hard to obtain. Ravenswing 18:59, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

But no one is disputing the verifiability of these articles. The databases that they're based on are generally thought to be reliable. What's being disputed is notability.Jahaza (talk) 19:14, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And in like fashion, WP:N/GNG requires sourcing. This ought not be difficult for people around which to wrap their heads. Once again, the oft-held canard that if sourcing is hard to obtain for a subject, the provisions of WP:V/N/GNG are somehow waived in its favor is utterly unsupported in any guideline or policy. Ravenswing 06:51, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Amen amen. Write an article once you've got the sources to do so! -Indy beetle (talk) 12:49, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Whether or not BEFORE has been complied with - and I'm willing to AGF here - my biggest concern is nominating 18 (I think?) articles all at once. What is the rush? A handful of AFDs a day allows both 'sides' of a debate to spend the time to find sources and make a wiser decision. 18 in a day is too big a task. GiantSnowman 18:27, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  This is an all-too-common complaint at AfD, and I've never bought it. Decisions are made by those who show up. Neither your input, nor mine, nor anyone else's is essential to any deletion discussion. If you don't have the time to find the sources that the article creator should have included from the start, someone else may. If no one does within a week's time, then no one cared enough about the article to save it anyway.

  But beyond that, FAR too often, my observation is that those who complain loudest about how hard it is to research sources for bundled AfDs (and come on, how many of these searches require much more than a minute?) never get around to researching any of them. And surely -- if their focus was really on improving threadbare articles rather than just disrupting the process by any means to hand -- they could manage a handful? Or three? Or two. Or any. Ravenswing 18:43, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I disagree - once it is at AFD, the burden shifts dramatically to those wanting to keep. If nobody has the time or interest in finding sources, or if interested people are unaware of discussions, then it will invariably end up deleted. GiantSnowman 18:49, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  The best search for sources on mid-twentieth century (post-1921) Danish Footballers would generally require going to a library in Denmark to look at Danish newspapers. Quite a few are digitized, but the collection isn't available remotely post-1921. That's why a presumed notability guideline is sometimes a good thing to have.Jahaza (talk) 18:50, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Then why not make articles (where one has suitable sources) instead? If you don't have sources, you don't have a real article. Also presumed notability is where such is from an SNG, and it appears no SNG was even claimed on these. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 19:01, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  The SNG was WP:NFOOTBALL, which existed when the articles were created but has since been abolished. GiantSnowman 19:07, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  No, the SNG is and was NSPORT, which always required the subjects actually meet GNG and that this be demonstrated with sources in the article eventually. The article creator should still have verified that the subject was notable before making the article. JoelleJay (talk) 19:14, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  NFOOTBALL was part of NSPORT, smartarse. GiantSnowman 20:08, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Treating NFOOTY like it was an SNG unto itself perpetuates the idea that SSGs don't have to meet the wider requirements of NSPORT, which did/does not presume notability solely through meeting an SSG criterion. JoelleJay (talk) 22:52, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I can't answer for the creator of the articles. When I create articles I expect to have better sourcing than a database entry, but their creation has already happened, it's their deletion that is being considered.Jahaza (talk) 19:16, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  But there has been zero effort to demonstrate why we should presume notability for these players. What evidence do we have that they meet GNG 95% of the time? If existence of SIGCOV isn't even falsifiable in general then how can we possibly argue it should be presumed in specific instances? Not to mention the fact that we do have evidence playing for national teams in other countries in the same time period is not a reliable predictor of GNG: the many, many AfDs on those subjects where no coverage is found despite access to digitized media. That was one of the major factors that led to deprecation of participation-based SSG criteria. JoelleJay (talk) 19:08, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't see the problem with BilledMammal noms. WP:BEFORE isn't a policy so much as a courtesy expectation that can be disruptive if constantly abused, but I digress. We aren't going to sanction someone for "violating" WP:BEFORE because there is no way to prove it anyway. If he is in error, and two or three reliable sources are giving significant coverage, simply add them to the articles and note this at the AFD. If someone is constantly nominating articles that get kept, THAT might be considered disruptive, no one is claiming that. Everything you claim in this report is not actionable. This doesn't belong here, and I expect someone will close this shortly. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 18:37, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• @Govvy and Robby.is.on, databases are not a creative aggregation of facts—hard work, they are to build, but thin gruel for even a stub. An article requires creatively gathering significant coverage and using a natural language to summarize and contextualize the data. Because an athlete competed before the internet age is not sufficient reason to stop at building a "database stub". Be aware that before the internet age, orders of magnitude more newspapers, magazines, and other media existed than do now. The Wikipedia Library gives access to millions of archived print articles. Mine these. — Neonorange (talk to Phil) (he, they) 19:17, 18 July 2022 (UTC) —[reply]
• If someone is starting AfDs you think are flawed, oppose those AfDs. If you're right, the AfDs will close as keep. (This is definitional: Assuming everyone proceeds in good faith, "right" in an AfD is whatever gains consensus.) If those AfDs consistently close as keep and the person continues to start AfDs that they ought to know will close as keep, then it's a user conduct issue. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 19:23, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• My issue is not deletionists vs. inclusionists but the pace of nominating articles at AFD. I've seen editors nominate a dozen, two dozen or more similar articles within a minute of each other. I'm with GiantSnowman, this pace is unrelenting and also completely unnecessary. It falls harder on those who want to Keep articles who have to track down reliable sources within a week or two, only to see those who wish to Delete the articles shoot them down as not supplying enough evidence for notability. I follow the rules and I close AFDs with delete decisions as much as the next admin but I wish those who are seeking to sweep clean Wikipedia of certain types of articles would accept the burden they are placing on other editors when they nominate 10 or 20 or 30 articles on the same day. No editor, at least no editor who has a job and a family, can spend all of their time tracking down sources for that many articles which will be accepted by those advocating deletion. And I don't know that those advocating "Delete" should be given sole veto power on which sources are acceptable and which are not which seems to be the norm in AFD discussions these days.

This is not a comment on whether individual articles should be kept or deleted, that is for consensus that emerges from a discussion to determine, I'm just talking about the manner of which some editors go about nominating or PRODding articles and to have some consideration for the other editors who want to participate in the process. Slow down, there is no deadline, those 20 articles can be proposed over the course of a week or two, not all on the same day. Now I'll get off my soapbox. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:44, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

These articles (and one more, which I declined to nominate) were created between 18:45 and 19:38 on December 21 of last year. They also weren't the only articles the creator made that day; a total of 36 were made, excluding those already deleted. In this context I don't think there is a problem with the number of nominations. BilledMammal (talk) 23:24, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

+1 to BilledMammal. The day when article creators are limited to making a handful of new articles per day, that's when a limitation on how many AfDs/PRODs per day can be filed is appropriate. Ravenswing 06:54, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

+2, when failing articles are created at a rate of dozens a day, nomination of them at a similar rate for deletion is justified. Anything other than this is insisting that articles are never cleaned up at all. That paper archives might exist is also not a valid keep rationale - they either do or they don’t, and if they do exist then the wp:burden is on those supporting keeping the article to show that they do exist.FOARP (talk) 20:58, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I wouldn't have posted here if BilledMammal didn't template my talk page. I considered it necessary; at the AfD on Kai Nielsen every post you made was discussing behaviour and casting aspersions, rather than discussing whether the player was actually notable. These aspersions, where you accuse editors of behavioural issues without presenting any evidence, are relatively minor, but they aren't isolated incidents; a look at your recent AfD's shows that this is a common pattern of behaviour for you; for example, Rintaro Yajima, Monaem Khan Raju, and Carlo Ansermino.

In addition, the civility issues at AfD aren't limited to these accusations related to WP:BEFORE; you were warned about personal attacks at the AfD on Thomas Green, and since then I see you have issued other attacks such as suggesting articles are being deleted because everyone is too afraid to do the actual work at the AfD on Tobias Linse, and for saying that JPL's vote can be thrown out the window, it's meaningless as he doesn't care for the footy project at the AfD on Simon Gibson. BilledMammal (talk) 23:47, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not impressed by Govvy's edit summary when removing the warning and subsequent comment; Rv, pathetic comments. Concerns about Govvy's civility at AfD are valid, but that edit summary suggests they don't intend to alter their behaviour going forward. BilledMammal (talk) 21:52, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I commend BilledMammal for working to clean up these mass-created stubs and see no evidence of misconduct on their part.

I think that Govvy may have an unrealistic view of what an adequate Before search looks like: They've insisted that it requires an offline search [1][2][3][4], which would presumably require the AfD nom to travel to Denmark if they are not currently located there. WP:BEFORE actually says that if an editor has searched Google, Google Books, Google News, Google News Archive, Google Scholar and The Wikipedia Library and found a lack of sources, than they have completed their basic due diligence.

A lot of the comments here show a lack of AGF toward noms and Delete !voters, with an assumption that people who claim a lack of sources simply haven't looked hard enough while ignoring the possibility that they may have done an exhaustive search and come up with nothing. Often the folks making this argument don't appear to have done such a search themselves, as they often don't have any sources to present as evidence.

In terms of volume, this year BilledMammal has generally been nominating a batch of 10-20 articles once a month, which comes down to 2-3 articles per day if a single editor wanted to check all of them and none were relisted. The Football deletion category currently has about 125 articles. This sounds like a lot but comes down to about 4-5 per editor per day if it was split between 4 editors. This isn't excessive when you consider the number of searches that folks are presumably able to do to confirm notablity before creating these articles. –dlthewave ☎ 00:12, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Dlthewave: Umm, I do do online searches, maybe if you review a few histories on some of the nominations you will also see the updates I done to a few in the past. I've been over the Danish international player articles before. And I strongly believe this topic needs to be given to a Danish editor who can perform such tasks. It's not a great help when an article goes to AfD to get the importance it needs, very few if little, people don't seem to communicate that this article needs improvement or not. More often or not people post, this article fails GNG. And that's not helping anyone. Govvy (talk) 11:48, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Dlthewave: WP:NPOSSIBLE: "If it is likely that significant coverage in independent sources can be found for a topic, deletion due to lack of notability is inappropriate." Reasons have been given why many of these footballers are likely notable – they played internationally, they played abroad at a time when this wasn't commonplace – but I see very little acknowledgement of these sound arguments. If the database of Danish newspapers only allows access from Danish universities and libraries, how are non-Danish editors supposed to deal with that? Robby.is.on (talk) 15:19, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reasons have been given why many of these footballers are likely notable – they played internationally, they played abroad at a time when this wasn't commonplace

Except that these reasons were explicitly rejected as presumptive of even SIGCOV, let alone straight notability, with the deprecation of NFOOTY. No one has demonstrated that Danish international footballers at this time generally do have SIGCOV in these offline sources, so assertions that it exists for specific footballers have zero justification. JoelleJay (talk) 16:28, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose any administrative action against Billed Mammal based upon this complaint. One can argue about whether a bulk nomination is proper or not, but I don't see anything in the present case that suggests bad faith. Cbl62 (talk) 17:22, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm sympathetic to the argument that lots of AfDs are a lot to keep up with. But, at the same time, so are all the microstubs that have been vomited onto Wikipedia without a second thought. Do note, if an article has been deleted at AfD for failing GNG. It's very easy to simply recreate the article, providing you have found sources which you are confident would make it pass GNG if nominated again. But I'm with Ravenswing, I've come increasingly under the impression that none of the inclusion extremists would want to do that because that would require a minimum of effort. AfD isn't cleanup, but don't expect articles that aren't obvious GNG passes to never be challenged. I'll put Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rachelle Bukuru as the sports AfD that exhausted me. I nominated a current Burundian woman footballer, as there was no SIGCOV about her. Keepers cry BIAS and make baseless claims about it being impossible for us to check Burundian media sources since they must all be in print and hiding within the country, so we should give the subject the benefit of the doubt. Me being familiar with Burundian media and having done an extensive BEFORE, then demonstrate that Burundi's sole private national newspaper, the government newspaper, and a national women's magazine (all of which do regular football reporting and have online presence) show no meaningful hits for the subject's name. This wasn't enough to change people's minds - the claim that we are furthering systemic bias by deleting footballers from third world countries has everything to do with the fact that they're a footballer and nothing to with actually caring about coverage of African topics ("silly Burundian media must be racist against Burundians, us enlightened American/European Wikipedia editors know better about Africa than those dumb Africans" is the only other logical explanation aside from rabid football fanboying for such an attitude in light of the evidence). In this case it's Danish footballers, but allow me to place a bet that the keepers who are not actually looking for sources (like Robby has done, the proper way) but demanding that we prove a negative and go sift through the Danish national archives have zero intention of ever doing such a thing themselves, and will be totally content for the stub to be abandoned and stagnant for eternity, as long as it exists for whatever reason. -Indy beetle (talk) 13:32, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• I agree with GiantSnowman and Liz, but oppose sanctionable actions against BilledMammal since bulk nomination is qustionable (as in WTF?), but isn't really an actionable offense. Huggums537 (talk) 08:32, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose any action through ANI. Being on the "receiving end" of bulk AFD nominations stinks, but that is what happens from time to time. If the nominator didn't do WP:BEFORE (which isn't required) then an enthusiastic edictor can do those same actions in WP:BEFORE. If it bears fruit, simply add what you find to the articles and then that can be considered during the AFD discussion.--Paul McDonald (talk) 20:25, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose any sanction and suggest a boomerang for wasting the community's time with accusations that have no basis in policy. The source-search suggested briefly in WP:BEFORE is not a requirement; per WP:BURDEN, the ultimate burden to find sources is on the people who added or wish to retain material, not on peopel who wish to remove it. It is completely inappropriate to request or suggest that someone who has nominated an article for deletion be sanctioned for refusing to find sources on behalf of the people who wish to retain or create an article; WP:BURDEN makes it clear that they can refuse, point-blank, to do that search, and clearly indicate that they have not and will never make any effort to search for sources before nominating articles for deletion, and are 100% within their rights to refuse in that fashion. No one ever has, nor ever will be, nor ever can be, sanctioned for declining to search for sources before nominating an article for deletion; it is simply not their responsibility. They may choose to do so, but it is a mere suggestion, not a requirement - anything beyond that would clearly turn WP:BURDEN on its head. People need to stop coming to ANI with these baseless WP:BEFORE accusations - it is not and has never been a requirement, and will never be a valid basis for sanctioning anyone. --Aquillion (talk) 20:58, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose any sanctions and oppose boomerangs. Everyone involved should be roundly trouted and advised to rethink their priorities in life. Sportsballers should be adequately provided with space to sportsball. Anti-sportsballers should be given other better things to get mad at. Andrevan@ 21:05, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support limiting the number of AFD nominations made by BilledMammal. Right now, it's an unreasonable ask to have users go through 20 AFDs per day and do a proper BEFORE. It's really easy to make a nomination, and not always easy to find proof of notability especially for articles from the pre-internet era. There are wider ramifications if we use these same AFD rules to the greater Wikipedia as tons and tons of articles (biology, politics, education and the like) are vulnerable to the same type of AFD nominations.--Ortizesp (talk) 05:31, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Opppose The whole thing is a complete waste of time. scope_creep^Talk 06:35, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

State of play at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Football

I don't want to address any specific editor, but I do want to address the situation at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Football. I used to vote in many Football AfDs. Since the football notability rules changes, the flood gates have been released at this deletion sorting list. I fell inundated, to the point I choose not to participate in most them.

Part of the problem is the sheer mass of nominations. The other problem is that placing an informed voted and doing a detailed WP:BEFORE on the articles nominated is difficult. For English footballers it is easy to locate sources. But English footballers aren't the one's being nominated. There are many nominations from Pacific islands and far away places, where the native tongue is not English and I have no idea what amounts to a reliable source or not. The nomination above of the Danish footballers illustrates this. Just from looking at their record, it is apparent it is likely most of them are notable as they played in top clubs and appeared internationally. However locating sources in Danish from the 50s or 20s is not not easy. This is compounded by Nielsen (surname) being the most popular surname in Denmark, held by 5% of the population, and some of the given names being popular as well. Denmark had press, books, radio, and television in this period so offline sources are probable fro some of them.

With the current rules, I can vote keep if I see others presenting sources supporting notability. In some cases I find sources myself. But in many cases I'm left with a feeling the footballer is probably notable, but no obvious sources available as they are difficult to locate, so I don't vote either way. I don't think I'm the only one with this feeling, as many AfDs stay there with very few voters.

Would it be possible to close the floodgates some? Or at least create some yardstick that is more restrictive than the former football notability rule but at least saves us time on the more obvious cases? Maybe apply this rule only to "old articles", and not newly created articles to prevent new sub-standardly sourced stubs? As it is, the football deletion list is facing a couple of decades of stub creation thrown at it now.--Mvqr (talk) 10:16, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's exactly one of the points I wanted to make, how can you do a detailed WP:BEFORE when you're nominating that many articles. I also work during the day, right now I am on my lunch break and just popped on for a look here. I don't have enough time to do all the checks, I am not time rich like I use to be. There are a lot more people time rich around here who aren't doing the checks and that's what bothers me. Govvy (talk) 11:43, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• locating sources in Danish from the 50s or 20s is not not easy shouldn't this have been thought about before the article was created? Anyway, just recreate any of the deleted articles if sources are found; it's not like they'd ever be improved without going to AfD first. Avilich (talk) 14:59, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

shouldn't this have been thought about before the article was created? Maybe, but the articles were created at a time when there was an SNG for footballers. Anyway, just recreate any of the deleted articles if sources are found; That is possible, obviously. But having to create an article from scratch is a much higher barrier to contributing for editors. It takes more time and knowledge than editing an existing one. it's not like they'd ever be improved without going to AfD first. Huh? Robby.is.on (talk) 15:08, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is a bad argument. This entire nonstop back and forth around AFDs is because WP:BEFORE is placed incorrectly in the process. No articles should be created without multiple sources, preventing this drama. Making an article is easy, most of these were auto-generated from a database. Do the work on these articles if they are notable. I suspect many are hoaxes 2601:2C3:57F:3F8E:6874:3AEA:F7B8:F1D5 (talk) 15:32, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• having to create an article from scratch is a much higher barrier I don't see how; the AfD is on record for everyone to see, and the only difficulty is WP:G4, which shouldn't be a problem if sources actually are available. Avilich (talk) 16:54, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Most IP editors won't know what G4 is and neither did I until just now. Robby.is.on (talk) 17:00, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Would it be possible to close the floodgates some? We've been asking this question for years... about article creations. Sorry, but the community let a few editors mass-create these pages by the tens of thousands for years and years, and the result is too many non-notable, under-sourced articles. This "deletion spree", this is closing the floodgates some... closing the floodgates of mass creation. Levivich (talk) 15:50, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Then hold current creations up to a higher standard, if a new creation is subpar then sure, if the creator doesn't pony up proper sources then delete it with haste. But allow some kind of grandfather clause for older articles. Doesn't have to be one pro match, could be something more restrictive. Maybe phase back the grandfather clause slowly The reality is that the Football deletion list is flooded. Over a 100 discussions listed now, and it's been over 200 as well. For many of these discussions it is very possible there are some sources available, but the ability of editors to cope with this flood is lacking. Look at my record at deletion, I'm not shy at deleting substandard stuff, not at all. But I can't keep up with this flood and from what I see in the discussions other editors are letting these pass by as well. There were a couple of Manchester United players that were put up, for Christ's sake, which were stopped, but those are easier to catch. So sure, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jack Doughty, was obvious even within all those cookie cutter nominations, but this isn't true for other countries. The amount of editors who have experience with Danish or Micronesia footballers is miniscule.--Mvqr (talk) 16:33, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The reason I dont find this argument about its too many AFDs at all convincing is that these articles are not being deleted and salted. If at some point somebody actually finds some sources that support some player being notable they can always create the article anew. People are acting like deletion means that now and forever there will be this giant void. But that is just not true. I never understood why people are so adamant that terrible articles remain because someday some person may want to improve it. Well if that day ever comes they can create the article anew or request it be created. nableezy - 16:38, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Let me get this straight: for years, many editors have been saying that some editors are mass-creating non-notable articles. Now, what you want to do is to stop editors from doing this in the future, but grandfather the past creations? Why the heck would we want to do that? What the heck are you trying to preserve here? Non-notable articles? Why?

Look, there are tens of thousands of these. If we keep going through them one-by-one in batches of 10 or 20, it'll take us years. Years. Buckle up, the deletion is going to take longer than the creation. The fact that we don't have time to do so many BEFOREs is the proof that we never should have made so many in the first place.

Mass deletion is the consequence of WP:HIGHSCORE editing, and it always has been, as it always must be. Shoot, at least they're being taken to AFD; if it were up to me, I'd be looking for some criteria for a mass CSD. Levivich (talk) 16:53, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If the less significant small stubs with just a name, team, some stats, and no meaningful sources were just redirected to the team article or a list related to the team, then that would be much more manageable than what is going on right now in the football deletion.--Mvqr (talk) 17:06, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The manageability of the deletion is directly proportional to the manageability of the creation. There are tens of thousands of less significant small stubs with just a name, team, some stats, and no meaningful sources. Redirection won't work because players often played for multiple teams, so there isn't a single clear target, and anyway we don't need to turn entire rosters into redirects. We don't need tens of thousand of redirects any more than we need tens of thousands of non-notable sub-stubs. Again: what is it you're trying to preserve here? A redirect with a person's name? Why? Levivich (talk) 17:18, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not to mention that many of these supposedly perfect redirect targets would in no logical instance actually mention the name of the person which serves as the redirect. E.g. The parent team article which is supposed to broadly cover the whole history of the team as a well as some of the recent performance is probably not going to mention by name that one left defender who played a half season in 1923, as that would be WP:UNDUE. Not to mention the "MUST BE REDIRECTED NEVER DELETE" privileges these trivial footballers over other possibly notable subjects which might have the same name. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Harry Oppenheim, for example, whereas a result a footballer who played one match in 1909 has a redirect to a list of Austrian footballers, so if you're searching for Harry Oppenheim the newspaper publisher, or the art collector, or the South African businessman, or the Scottish politician, fuck you I guess, only football matters. -Indy beetle (talk) 14:07, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And then if it is pointed out that a redirect isn't suitable, the proposal then becomes to move the article to a disambiguated title and redirect that, before creating an unmaintainable dab page at the primary title for non-notable people in contradiction of WP:NOTDIRECTORY. BilledMammal (talk) 21:59, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

+1. With a similar case in hockey, where an editor outright defied the SNG (and it took a couple YEARS to finally community sanction him) to mass-create articles, we are still untangling his messes, several years down the road. And he created a tenth the articles Lugnuts did alone, and with more content.

If I thought that the footy project genuinely cared about turning these sub-stubs into actual articles, you guys wouldn't be waiting for AfDs, but working through the backlogs to source and improve the articles you could. But that's not happening, is it? So you will have to forgive some of us from coming to the conclusion that the sentiment is in fact just that bundled AfDs make it harder to delay and obstruct the process. Ravenswing 18:07, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Too much bad faith here for my taste. Stubs get fleshed out all the time. Robby.is.on (talk) 18:16, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To much bad faith in AFD discussions as a whole. - LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 19:39, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sure thing, I'll bite, Robby. Can you link to some of the recent footy sub-stubs you fleshed out? Ravenswing 02:56, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I won't bite. :-) Like yours mine was a general observation which cannot be proven or disproven by anecdotal evidence. Stubs or not, I generally don't write a lot of prose. Robby.is.on (talk) 08:11, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Then maybe you're not the right person to comment on the issue, hmmm? Ravenswing 03:53, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? My observation is just as valid as yours, perhaps even more so considering I actually edit footballer articles all the time so I get to see what happens in this topic area. I haven't seen you edit there. Robby.is.on (talk) 09:52, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, fair point Ravenswing, it's true that evert article arrives here fully formed. GiantSnowman 18:37, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So what if some non-notable articles hang around in mainspace longer than you'd like? I'd say the deletion of potentially notable subjects is a far greater risk than non-notable subjects not being deleted. It's much easier for a new editor to expand an article that is already there than to create a new one. NemesisAT (talk) 23:59, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

^^^^ Can we please all learn that the best way to handle off-topic comments is to ignore them, not to revert them, restore them, reply to them, or hat them. Ignoring is actually less distracting than engaging. Levivich (talk) 16:57, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, this is an unsolved and unsolvable collective action problem -- as long as you are in an open forum, there is no way to establish the necessary strong norms. Hatting, by contrast, is very effective because it can be implemented by a smaller group and helps communicate what the norms are. 66.44.49.56 (talk) 12:16, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• This is part eleventy billion of User_talk:Star_Mississippi/Archive_6#Poul_Nielson_AFD and the underlying AfD, which suggests it needs discussion to eventually reach a conclusion rather than being re-litigated quarterly across the project. Star Mississippi 20:46, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• As far as WP:BEFORE, we actually don't have to assume anything about how exhaustive a search is being performed, because at least one editor here has provided an answer outright: they generally only look at one page of Google results because "the rest are just Wikipedia clones" (except when they're not, as in the case mentioned here). That is not an exhaustive search. It's barely even a cursory search. Gnomingstuff (talk) 00:37, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • One full page of search is an entire page more than was used to create these articles. It's unreasonable to ask for more effort at afd than create time. Didn't spend ten minutes sourcing it, why should anyone else? If these aren't hoax articles, someone can write them properly. If they are hoaxes, we will forever be waiting on nonexistent "but likely to exist" sources. 2601:2C3:57F:3F8E:6874:3AEA:F7B8:F1D5 (talk) 00:43, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    There is no exception clause to WP:BEFORE for "well, they didn't do it, so I don't have to either." Nor is there anything in it that says "if you think there probably aren't sources, you don't actually have to prove it." 00:50, 21 July 2022 (UTC) Gnomingstuff (talk) 00:50, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    I believe you have misunderstood that comment, and misquoted me. I only looked at one page of normal Google search results for each of the search terms I tried, but I also looked at Google News results, Google News archive results, Google Books results, and Google Scholar results, and often multiple pages of those; I believe this is fully compliant with the expectations of WP:BEFORE.

    I would also disagree with your claim about an exception clause; considering it in the context of WP:ONUS and WP:FAIT, I believe it is permissible for editors to claim an exception when nominating mass created articles. In addition, BEFORE is only required when the main concern is notability; when the main concern is related to WP:NOT, such as WP:NOTDATABASE, such a search is not required although editors may chose to do it anyway. BilledMammal (talk) 01:11, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • WP:BEFORE is not and has never been a requirement, so it makes no difference either way. They could flatly declare that they have not and will never perform any sort of search (no matter how cursory) before nominating something for deletion, then go on to nominate ten articles for AFD immediately, and they would be 100% in the right; per WP:BURDEN, the ultimate burden to find sources is on the people who wish to retain or add material - never, not ever, on people who wish to remove it. Not even a little bit; not even a slight or cursory search is required. WP:BURDEN is a more central policy than WP:BEFORE, so it renders the suggested search on WP:BEFORE entirely optional. --Aquillion (talk) 21:04, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Here's an idea, move these stubs to draft space. Now you get six months to establish they belong and not seven days. Problem solved? nableezy - 00:44, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

until WP:DRAFTOBJECT, when literally anyone can move it back and force you to use the seven day option. Happy Editing--IAmChaos 01:59, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I feel like people in favor of deleting it wont be moving it back to the mainspace just to start the 7 day clock on them. If somebody were to move a draft to the mainspace and nominate/vote for deletion that move would have been done in bad faith and I would think worthy of sanctions. If somebody who feels that it is notable and wants to move it back, well guess anybody is welcome to start the seven day clock at that point if they feel otherwise. nableezy - 02:33, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, I haven't really seen people moving drafts to mainspace just to nominate them for deletion. The more common scenario is that an article is draftified by someone who thinks that it doesn't demonstrate notability, and then an editor who wants to keep it moves it back to mainspace which forces an AfD.

On that topic, I think it's interesting that drafts submitted through AfC are quite often rejected due to lack of SIGCOV sourcing even when the topic is likely notable. It would be helpful if we held experienced editors to the same standard as newbies rather than giving free reign to move them back to mainspace. –dlthewave ☎ 03:18, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The current policy permitting draftification refusal causes these problems. Generally, people who draftify articles are doing it for good reason, and if they’re not, the usual warning and enforcement pathways would manage abuse of draftification. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 10:13, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've constructed a list of mass created articles on Olympians by Sander.v.Ginkel (an editor who engaged in unauthorized semi-automated mass creation) and I am considering making such a proposal at the Village Pump; that all those that are not listed as having a non-statistical source are moved out of article space.

I've also constructed a similar list of mass created articles on Cricketers by BlackJack, but I'm giving Wikiproject Cricket time to work out what they want to do with those articles before I consider further action.

Draft space would be an option, but if editors want to avoid the 6 month cut off I wouldn't have any objection to a different location. BilledMammal (talk) 03:34, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I personally would prefer it if BilledMammal slowed down a bit.—S Marshall T/C 08:47, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Not just BilledMammal - we also have @HeinzMaster: who, as highlighted by @NemesisAT:, has nominated c. 25 articles for deletion in c. 20 minutes. Based on the AFD discussions so far, BEFORE was not performed because a large number of sources showing notability have been found by other users. GiantSnowman 16:08, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I also think this a bit too fast. If you have a prepared list, do some last minute searches on one, and then nominate it. Than wait at least some time and do another. It is not a race and we need to not flood the system. If you are not doing a group nomination than take time. It is also best to give us at least some sense of the before you have done. I am not sure what reasonable speeds are, but I do not think there is anyway to do more than one deletion nomination in a minute, even if the before was done earlier.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:20, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Okay, well, this is kind of a silly discussion. Has anybody bothered to pull up BilledMammal's AfD stats yet? Well, here is the stats page. The actual numbers are as follows:
  • June 11: 6 noms
  • June 15: 14 noms
  • July 18: 18 noms
• Indeed, most of the days of the month, this person is not nominating articles for deletion. So there is not a torrential downpour of noms. I don't know who was saying a couple dozen in one day: that's just wrong. However, with that said -- 18 in one day is nevertheless an extremely large number of noms to make. HeinzMaster, too, has done this: 27 in a single day, July 22, of which all were done in a twenty-minute period. This is unreasonable. Look here: the average rate, from 2005 to 2020, has been 78.9 AfDs per day. Last month, it was 73.6 per day. That's for the entire English Wikipedia. Every page that gets nominated for deletion -- whether it's crackpot nonsense, spam, an outrageous attack piece, completely unsourced, or whatever -- has to get flushed out through that same little hole in the floor. There are a finite number of people who are capable of dealing with it, and fewer still who want to do it. So... a quarter (or a third) of that entire process, for an entire day, was being used by a single person... on what? A bunch of goofy little single-sentence stubs that nobody's edited in ten years and nobody is ever going to read? A lot of editors accuse the people who write these crappy stub articles of being obsessed with minutiae, but nominating them all for deletion in a way that clogs up the entire process is just as pointless. I understand that there are a bunch of them, and I understand that it's disruptive to create ten thousand of them, sure -- people should stop doing that. And people who do that should stop complaining about them being deleted. But come on -- ten thousand AfDs is literally six months worth of them! That's six months worth of work for multiple people. We can just do things at a normal rate. I wish everyone would calm down and quit trying to rip each other's throats out over this, because the blood is getting on the encyclopedia. It should be noted that the reason HeinzMaster went berserk was, in all likelihood, frustration after having one of their own articles deleted per changed NSPORT guidelines. It's just blood on blood. jp×g 05:40, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  We can just do things at a normal rate. I am not convinced we can; there aren't only ten thousand mass created articles to go through, there are hundreds of thousands. Doing those at twenty a day will take decades, and doing them slower will take centuries.

  Currently, I'm not planning to bring any more through AfD; there are two things I want to happen first. First, I want to try and move mass created articles that violate WP:NOTDATABASE out of article space in larger groups; I'm not certain whether I try this with RfC's, as proposed above, or if I wait and see if a suitable process emerges from ArbCom's RfC. Second, I want to see if there is a consensus in the community to throttle AfD nominations; if there is, I will of course abide by it. BilledMammal (talk) 12:53, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose any sanction - AFD not being able to handle a nomination rate that is a fraction of what it needs to be to handle a necessary clean-up is not a problem of the nominators. WP:Before has to be proportionate to the effort put in by the article creator, and cannot require efforts (eg searching of paper archives in Denmark) that are clearly beyond the means of the ordinary editor. FOARP (talk) 21:35, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal

AfD can't handle this volume of deletion nominations, and it's not fair on other people who want to use AfD when a small group of editors is drawing up all the oxygen. But, this is a backlog full of ill-sourced biographies of living people, so gradualism and eventualism aren't the most responsible approach either. We can't just mass-dump these articles into draft space because that's a mass-deletion with a six month delay on it. I therefore propose that we enact a speedy userfication rule that applies only to sports-related biographies of living people that were (a) created before 1 July 2022, (b) unsourced or sourced only to databases, and (c) a good faith online search doesn't bring up any better sources, and I ask the community to say specifically that this search doesn't have to involve more effort than the original creator put in. I propose that all such userfications should be logged to a subpage somewhere where interested editors can check them, improve them as appropriate and move back to mainspace when and if the sources are improved. Userfication would have to be done by a sysop or someone with the page mover user-right (otherwise it would leave an inappropriate cross-namespace redirect) and should probably go to the namespace of the original creator.—S Marshall T/C 19:46, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What about draftification instead? Andrevan@ 20:14, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"We can't just mass-dump these articles into draft space because that's a mass-deletion with a six month delay on it". It's the third sentence in S Marshall's proposal.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:19, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops, thanks for pointing that out, sorry for the oversight. I think that mass-deletion might not be such a bad thing. Any articles that are truly notable can be saved or recreated later. Andrevan@ 20:26, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed with this. JoelleJay (talk) 22:30, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I dont know why 6 months until mass deletion is a problem. The problem was supposedly that AFD couldnt deal with this many in a week. Treat this as a mass nomination but you have 6 months to find the sources that justify the article. How is that a problem? Draftify the whole lot, if anybody moves it back to article space that one is fair game to be nominated for deletion that same day if it doesnt have the sources to support its notability. nableezy - 23:12, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I guess the thing that I'm having trouble understanding -- and something that isn't very well-explained -- is why it is important to delete a bunch of articles about soccer players. Typically, when some action is demanded to prevent something from happening, there's an obvious and tangible downside (e.g. "wearing a seatbelt" is done to prevent "being thrown through the windshield in a crash", and the tangible downside of that happening is "dying instantly"). In this case, it seems to me like the worst-case scenario of slowing down deletions is "there are some boring articles nobody cares about". Contrariwise, the worst-case scenario of mass deletions is "thousands of hours of editors' and administrators' time is spent on evaluating and processing boring articles nobody cares about". Is there some other concern here I am not aware of? jp×g 07:38, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think that comes down to why we have policies and guidelines like WP:N and WP:NOT; the reasons we need to delete them are as broad as the reasons we need those policies and guidelines.

To attempt to answer, my opinion is that they make the encyclopedia worse; they reduce its quality, and they negatively impact the reading experience. I also agree with Captain Eek when they said I believe that those stubs have only served to reinforce public opinion that Wikipedia is mostly empty around the edges, and that anything is notable. BilledMammal (talk) 08:08, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to what BilledMammal said, there is also the increased potential for harm when we have too many BLPs to monitor. The longer articles stay in mainspace, the more likely it is any misleading or libelous info is propagated to wiki mirrors and captured by Google. It also makes categories less navigable and people with even relatively uncommon names more difficult to search for due to all the stubs and redirects with the same name. JoelleJay (talk) 20:46, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is no reason, some people just get mad that their articles get deleted and not these ones, or just dislike sports in general. I haven't heard a reasonable argument from deletionists, but I also think it's just a fundamentally opposite way of looking at things.--Ortizesp (talk) 05:31, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A sensible proposal would be to limit the number of soccer-related AFDs one person can nominate in a single 24 hour period. GiantSnowman 20:57, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That would be sensible if we had limited the number of soccer-related articles one person can create in a single 24 hours period. But we didn't, so here we are. (And, of course, it's not just soccer.)

I support this proposal, or something like it. I don't have the quarry skills for this but I wonder how many articles match these criteria: (1) only external link is to a database, and (2) no edits except the creator. Those ought to be mass-userfied. For everything else, some kind of PROD where you can only remove the PROD if you add a reference to a non-database source (I think this has been proposed before). Levivich (talk) 22:39, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a project AfD where we could encourage editors of significant standing (who are experienced in topics) to join and become regular reviewers? This could be similar to new article and draft reviewers? Maybe create a similar rule that AfD discussions remain open for a long periods of time too? The issue seems to be more that AFDs just dont attract traffic from people to review them and take part in the discussion? >> Lil-unique1 (talk) — 22:58, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not many, but only because of (2); every articles picks up gnoming edits eventually. In addition, I don't think database sources is sufficiently broad; there are also issues with editors using lists of names, and with editors using statistical books. Instead I would suggest a slightly broader criteria, and suggest that articles that match these criteria should be mass userfied: (1) only references are to statistical sources, and (2) no significant edits except the creator. BilledMammal (talk) 01:01, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Then we'll just get editors insisting a governing sports organization's website that lists basic biographical info and competition results isn't a "statistical database" because it doesn't contain "parameter data", but at the same time it is SIGCOV (because it's a whole page dedicated to one person!) by an independent RS (because how could FIG "get an advantage" from such a profile?). The disruption is never-ending... JoelleJay (talk) 06:01, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If people are mass creating stubs (I mean dozens a day) on borderline or clearly non-notable footballers (e.g. sourced only to database) they should be topic banned. GiantSnowman 13:56, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bingo! Footballers and all other sports. But we didn't do that a dozen years ago, when we should have done, so now the problem is how to handle the hundreds of thousands of borderline or clearly non-notable sports BLPs. AfD is not the way to go because the maximum rate of AfD nominations would take many years to chomp through the backlog even if we could somehow stop people making new sports BLPs completely. As it is, we'd swamp AfD trying to exceed the creation rate.

The rules at WP:BLP say that we must "be very firm about the use of high-quality sources". But AfD is not for cleanup, anyone can remove a prod, and tags can be ignored indefinitely. So no venue exists where editors can "be very firm about the use of high-quality sources". We need to create one that can manage the problem at pace.—S Marshall T/C 17:02, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Levivich: Here is a list of all articles sourced solely to olympedia.org, olympics.com, or sports-reference.com. Limiting it to biographies (as the list articles are likely appropriate) would not be difficult, but what will be difficult is building a list of statistical sources.

I believe all of those articles have been edited by more than one editor, but once we have a definition of a "significant edit" it wouldn't be hard to exclude those with such edits by editors other than the creator - although I'm not certain we want to, given that the additional editors don't change the nature of the sources. BilledMammal (talk) 08:27, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@BilledMammal how about articles solely to soccerway websites as well? – robertsky (talk) 14:24, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's awesome, thank you for putting it together. I'd add worldfootball.net to the list. By the way, I agree with you that if it only has one database source, then no edits by other editors would be relevant (to the sourcing problem), so it probably isn't worth pursuing that prong. (I was thinking about whether some substantial number of these could be WP:G7'd.) Levivich (talk) 15:58, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Done both. I would note that these aren't just articles with only one statistical source; it's articles with no non-statistical source. For example, it's common to have both Olympedia and Olympics. On that note, I think that most of the links from Template:Sports_links and Template:Authority control would be worth adding; I believe almost without exception that all are statistical sources, and many are links that I suspect have always been dead, such as at Jan Koutný. BilledMammal (talk) 10:35, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Related discussion at WT:AFD

It seems to me that batch AfD nominations tend to cause a lot of headache -- we don't really have a good process for dealing with dozens (or hundreds) of articles in a single go. Basically, we only have two ways to do this.

1. The first method is to make nominations one at a time, which causes a lot of redundant effort from participants, who must make a large number of identical arguments across many pages (as well as monitor all the discussions individually, which is difficult even if you use your own AfD stats page to get a current list).
2. The second method is to make one nomination which includes many articles. This practice of "batch nomination" was created as an alternative to the first method, but it still leaves much to be desired. For example, the AfD format lends itself to a single thread of discussion; people who don't have the same opinion about every article in the batch end up having to make awkward comments (to say nothing of the huge task for closers). It's hard to discuss things in a batch AfD, because there are several conversations happening simultaneously on the same page. Also, batch AfDs are listed by the same procedures as normal ones, which makes no sense to me -- if we agree that it takes seven days to discuss one article, why the hell would it also take seven days to discuss a dozen articles?

Because of this, I think it may be worth contemplating some kind of supplemental guideline (or even a new process) for batch nominations. I've created a section at WT:AFD (here). jp×g 05:13, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Owing to overlap with proposed remedy 12 from Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Conduct in deletion-related editing/Proposed decision, may I suggest pausing the discussion on this facet of the problem until Arbcom's deliberations have crystallized into something actionable?—S Marshall T/C 16:18, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think you might have intended to link to proposed remedy 11. At any rate, I am not confident in my understanding of the process, but from what I can tell, all it would mean (if passed) is that the Committee opens an RfC to solicit proposals such as this. I don't think that really conflicts with the existence of the proposal itself. jp×g 19:24, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, confusing. It's the 12th remedy in the order, but numbered 11, because there are two 9s.—S Marshall T/C 22:34, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Don’t forget that we also have a massive problem with mass-created Geostubs. FOARP (talk) 21:35, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Related discussion on mass creations

To prevent the problem of mass created articles from expanding I have also been looking at editors currently engaged in mass creations and asking them to determine if there is a community consensus for the actions. In some cases, this may be forthcoming; in others it might not.

Today, one of these editors was kind enough to do so, and has opened a discussion at the bots noticeboard. Interested editors may contribute to this test case there. Note that this discussion should focus solely on content, not conduct; the editor is clearly acting in good faith and has done nothing wrong, even if there isn't a consensus for this mass creation. BilledMammal (talk) 03:33, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

BerkBerk68 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

In the talk page sections of Talk:Turkic history [5] [6] [7], concerns were made against its neutrality, including the addition of groups of disputed origin (the Xiongnu and Huns), with the only person being an advocate for inclusion of these groups being BerkBerk68. However, 4 users opposed this, and thus mention of those groups were removed. What does he later do? Completely ignores all the discussions there, and proceeds to make the article even less neutral, restoring mention of the Xiongnu and Huns, as well as other stuff [8]. For example, recently at the Talk:Timurid Empire, he showed his dissatisfaction with the word 'Turco-Mongol', only wanting it to say 'Turkic' instead. I responded to him, showing that WP:RS says otherwise, etc. In his addition, he added the very proposal he had made in the talk page, completely disregarding my reply as well as WP:RS. Let me just show some few examples of what the main articles say versus his own additions;

Qajar Iran; "Qajar Iran was an Iranian state[9] ruled by the Qajar dynasty, which was of Turkic origin"

BerkBerk68's addition; "The Qajars were a Persianate Turkic royal dynasty,"

Sultanate of Rum; "The Sultanate of Rum[a] was a Turco-Persian Sunni Muslim state"

BerkBerk68's addition; "Seljuk Sultanate of Rum was a Turkish state founded by Oghuz Turks following Turks’ entrance to Anatolia"

Mughal Empire: "The Mughal Empire was an early-modern empire that controlled much of South Asia between the 16th and 19th centuries."

BerkBerk68's addition; "Mughal Empire was an early-modern Persianate empire with Turkic origins"

Khwarazmian Empire: "The Khwarazmian or Khwarezmian Empire[note 2] (English: /kwəˈræzmiən/)[7] was a Turko-Persian[8] Sunni Muslim empire"

BerkBerk68's addition; "The Khwarazmian Empire was a Sunni Muslim state located in present-day Iran and some parts of Central Asia, ruled by the Khwarazm-Shah dynasty, which was of Turkic origin."

As you can see, he tried to reduce the non-Turkic mentions and/or increase Turkic mentions, i.e. WP:POV and WP:TENDENTIOUS editing.

Other concerning stuff;

[9] Here he proposes to add 'Turco-Iranian' instead of 'Iranian' in the lede... using a source that says 'Persian dynasty'. Right before then, he was shown multiple sources in another thread, that 'Iranian/Persian' was the used term in WP:RS [10], but once again he didn't care.

[11] Wanted to minimize the use of the term 'Turco-Persian' here, completely disregarding the vast WP:RS in the article that supported this very term. He also ignored this and proceeded add a even more POVish version in Turkic history: "The Seljuk Empire was a Turkic[31][32] Sunni Muslim empire"

[12] Tried to portray a political tactic as some sort of "early Pan-Turkism", completely disregarding a vital piece of information in the very WP:RS source he used [13]. Even now he is still completely disregarding WP:RS and following his own personal conjectures/opinions [14]

Based on all this, it seems that BerkBerk68 is here on a mission to Turkify articles rather than build an encyclopedia. I'm gonna be blunt here; I suggest a topic-ban in all Iranian and Turkic related articles. --HistoryofIran (talk) 19:42, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, I'd like to mention that I have not noticed his comment on the main article of the Timurids and I have told that already at the Turkic history talk page. I even told him that he can fix Timurids and openly imply that I am agreeing with him [15].

About Xiongnu and Hun situation at the lastest version written by me, I utterly reject that I am trying to Turkify them, I have never claimed that Xiongnu or Huns were Turkic, I just added the claims (with underlining that they are claim/theory), genetic researches and the non-primary sources about Chinese historical records, similiar with the Turkic peoples model. I have not also pushed or reverted the calendrical history deletions after the calendrical deletions got the majority on talk page (including a deletion without achieving consensus here [16], I even tried to save the lastest version of calendrical informations (that the disputed subjects are already deleted) by opening a new article [17] and opened a talk page discussion [18] instead of rewriting it.

I thought that "Turco-Iranian" would fit better for Afsharids because the reference itself says Empire's origins are based on a Turkic tribe,[19] and Afsharids used Turkic language as official military language just like many other Turco-Iranian civilizations. I didn't even make an edit, I just expressed my thought on the talk page.

I didn't even understand what exactly is the problem with Nader Shah's Turkmen policy, reference is Iranica there.[20] ("Nāder departed substantially from Safavid precedent by redefining Shiʿism as the Jaʿfari maḏhab of Sunni Islam and promoting the common Turkmen descent of the contemporary Muslim rulers as a basis for international relations." "Nāder’s focus on common Turkmen descent likewise was designed to establish a broad political framework that could tie him, more closely than his Safavid predecessors, to both Ottomans and Mughals." "Nāder recalled how he, Ottomans, Uzbeks, and Mughals shared a common Turkmen heritage. This concept for him resembled, in broad terms, the origin myths of 15th century Anatolian Turkmen dynasties. However, since he also addressed the Mughal emperor as a “Turkmen” ruler, Nāder implicitly extended the word “Turkmen” to refer, not only to progeny of the twenty-four Ḡozz tribes, but to Timur’s descendants as well." )

I also mentioned that I am trying to support the encyclopedia, [21] I am just interested in Turkic topics just like how HistoryofIran is interested on Iranian topics. BerkBerk68^talk 20:43, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

HistoryofIran is here on a mission to Iranify articles. All of them are sourced informations. Also we reached consensus on that page. But as we can see in Reddit or Twitter HistoryofIran is ruining Turkic related articles and try to ban newcomers here to build encyclopedia users with his policy knowledge. Belugan (talk) 20:43, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

HistoryofIran isn't here on a mission to Iranify articles. Patachonica (talk) 21:04, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Right? My goverment, right Belugan (talk) 02:03, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Down below you were already told twice that off-wiki links are not helpful in this situation. Also, I'm not sure how a link of someone being dissatisfied with me and accusing me of loads of stuff is helpful. However, it's clear that you have been stalking me for a very long time, which is concerning. --HistoryofIran (talk) 12:53, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is about the article Turkic history

Firstly, if one has disputes about certain sections of an article, they are free to talk about it on the talk page. Reverting an ENTIRE edit just because one disagrees with what is written in SOME parts of the edit is not feasible. A consensus must be reached in the talk page if one is going to reverse a 50,000 byte edit just because they disagree with SOME parts of the article. It is uncivil and is bound to lead to edit warring, which will lead to grudges. All of this has been seen in this particular case, as evidenced by the talk page of the article (specifically the thread titled "Calendrical Timeline") and the locking of the article.

Onto the concerns stressed by HistoryofIran . Quotations come directly from the edit. There were two main concerns; the Xiongnu and Huns. It isn't pushed forward by the edit that the Huns and the Xiongnu were Turkic. Instead, BerkBerk68 states that Chinese Han sources *CLAIMED* that the Xiongnu spoke a proto-turkic language ("It was even claimed in Chinese Han records that the Xiongnu spoke a Proto-Turkic language"), and also provides the opinions of other scholars;

"It is also a popular thought among scholars that Xiongnu is most likely to be a confederation of different ethnic and linguistic groups"

The concern here has been addressed. Nothing is definitively pushed forward, and multiple ideas of differing scholars have been presented.

Now onto the Hun section;

"Hunnic armies led by Attila, who had conquered most of Europe, *MAY* have been at least partially of Turkic and Xiongnu origin.

"Huns were *ALSO* considered as Proto-Mongolic and/or Yeniseian by some scholars*"

Again, multiple viewpoints stated, nothing definitively pushed, thus is not contradicting the Hun page. No concerns to be held here.

However, since I am not biased, I sided with HistoryofIran on their concern with multiple parts of the article, and have, for example, amended the Timurids section and stated that the Timurid Empire was a "Persianate Turkic-Mongol" Empire, instead of "Persianate-Turkic" Empire, as it is written in the original article.

• I was about to amend nearly all of their concerns stated in their now archived post in ANI when I had finished reading them, but was unable to because of the article being locked due to edit warring.

• IT IS ALSO TO BE STRESSED THAT THIS IS A NEW EDIT

Thus, the previous concerns are not really valid anymore as the previous article is COMPLETELY different to the new edit, which contains claims of differing scholars which are are sourced with new, reliable, and arguably unbiased sources since they are not Turkish & thus there's no chance of there being pan-Turkist biases. It is also NO LONGER pushed forward in the edit that the Xiongnu and Huns were Turkic, unlike the original version of the article. The previous concerns are months-old, I have read them. The additions are very similar to what is written in the main articles of the Huns and Xiongnu - that the origins of both people's are disputed, and that scholars state they COULD be Turkic. Nowhere in the article is it claimed that they ARE Turkic. And this is further stressed by the inclusion of differing opinions on the origins of both peoples from many different scholars.

The article is no longer as biased like it was before (the previous edit was a carbon copy of the Turkish article. There's bound to be bias, and thus concerns were raised in the talk page about Xiongnu and the Huns. This has been eliminated with the new edit, though).

It is to be acknowledged that there are parts of the edit which are inconsistent with the original articles of some topics, which is why I support and suggest that admins restore the edit made by BerkBerk68 since it is the closest to what we will get of a detailed article on Turkic history, and amending it where necessary. Thanks. zenzyyx_^talk

Nothing has been addressed, you are simply sweeping it under the rug. You are repeating the same old points you made earlier, which has already been replied to [22]. One of the many concerns is that the Xiougnu and Huns origins are still disputed, and thus shouldn't be there no matter how you spin it, hence why it was removed in the first place. BerkBerk ignored that and went on to restore it. As you've already been told various times, we have a rule named WP:ONUS. Also, see WP:TLDR. I'll let the admins take over. --HistoryofIran (talk) 21:04, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your answers were inadequate as you did not acknowledge that the edit solved the question of whether the Huns/Xiongnu should be mentioned in the article - it should as it isn't being pushed forward that they were Turkic, but that they could be. Thank you for admitting that you did not read how the edit solved this issue, this just proves you've been blabbering on about "concerns" without even reading how the Xiongnu/Hun problem in particular has been solved. Yes, let's leave it to the admins. zenzyyx_^talk

Sigh, even the fact that they could be Turkic was also rejected, I’m not sure how many times you to have be told that. Pretty rich of you saying that I am the one blabbering. HistoryofIran (talk)

The fact they could be Turkic is NOT rejected and is still pushed by many scholars of the West, as evidenced by the sources provided in the new edit, and in the main articles of the Xiongnu and the Huns. Ignorance really isn't bliss. zenzyyx_^talk

Youre not even following. It was rejected to be in the article by 4 (veteran) users in the previous discussions just this month - you know, an actual community discussing, i.e. WP:CONSENSUS. Ignorance truly isnt a bliss. HistoryofIran (talk)

In the original article, it was pushed forward that the Xiongu and the Huns were Turkic. This is what is talked about in the talk page. The new edit introduces multiple perspectives and does not state that they are Turkic, but that there are scholars who believe they are. Mentioning this doesn't contrast anything - and even if a few people came together and decided that it shouldn't be mentioned, nothing is set and stone. Wikipedia is a hub for debates, and thus views of multiple scholars on issues are required. The only thing correct in your statement is the last sentence. zenzyyx_^talk

Let myself repeat myself for the 6th time: 4 users were against inclusion of those two groups no matter what. Why? Because their origins are disputed. Also, the original version which was removed also mentioned other perspectives, at least for the Xiougnu. WP:CIR. HistoryofIran (talk)

Let "myself repeat myself" for the billionth time (might want to read WP:CIR yourself), their origins are disputed, and this is stressed in the new edit which provides multiple perspectives to their ethnic origins. We're going around in circles at this point. Again, nothing is set and stone, Wikipedia is a place where debate is facilitated, and thus a consensus reached by 4 editors can be challenged. zenzyyx_^talk

It can be challenged indeed, but that should be in the talk page first, just like the first time (WP:ONUS and WP:CONSENSUS, which you keep ignoring), not by forcing it onto the article, which you participated in. HistoryofIran (talk)

I constantly told you to create another section in the talk page about your disagreements with solely mentioning the Xiongu and Huns instead of reverting the ENTIRE edit, but of course, since you're biased against the Turks (as evidenced by all your edit wars in Turkish-related articles), that never happened. Anyways, there's no point continuing the discussion any further. It will only lead to more ad homs being used. I suggest we end the conversation here and leave the ultimate choice to the admins as we've cluttered this ANI. zenzyyx_^talk

You lose the argument and proceed to accuse me of being biased against Turks, classic. As for the rest of your comment, you just keep proving me right about your WP:CIR issues. HistoryofIran (talk)

You've got it all wrong. The fact that you see this as an argument is just sad and proves what kind of an editor you are. Again, you've got it all wrong. I'm not accusing you of anything, I know for sure that you have an anti-Turk bias, as evidenced by all your edit wars relating to Turkish/Turkic articles. zenzyyx_^talk

So edit warring in Turkic articles = anti-Turk? Thanks for proving that you shouldnt be taken seriously. HistoryofIran (talk)

Haha, no. It proves that you're obsessed with erasing anything Turkic and replacing it with Iranian (as seen in the Hun article, which you have heavily edited). Anything Turkic seems to bother you for some reason, as evidenced by your numerous edit wars in Turkic-related articles. So I can comfortably come to the conclusion that you have great bias against the Turks and the Turkic people. zenzyyx_^talk

For the record:

Belugan's first comment at ANI was made at 20:43, 26 July 2022[23]; BerkBerk first commented at 20:43, 26 July 2022[24]; Zenzyxx first commented at 20:45, 26 July 2022.[25] All three are newly registed "accounts" with a pro-Turkish irredentist POV and a strong axe to grind with veteran editor HistoryofIran. Coincidence calling?

I have checked edits of User:Zenzyyx on Turkish Wikipedia, he doesn't have much edits, his first edit was a letter replacement on Alexander's article. He changed "varisi" (successor) to "varişi", which is not a Turkish word, he probably thought that the proper word was "varışı" (arrival), which is completely irrelevant to the section. He also doesn't know the "i/ı" difference, which is a major difference on the Turkish vocal. We have talked about a song in Turkish Wikipedia yesterday, he expressed that he is Sephardic Jew (He had major grammatical errors there too) and that is pretty consistent considering these datas.

Calling people that has different opinions "Turkish irredentist", There is obvious WP:ASPERSIONS at the comment unsigned by User:LouisAragon[26]. BerkBerk68^talk 17:58, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My account is 4 years old. It really is funny how you accuse me of being a Turkish irrendist when I'm not even a Turk. How sad (for you). zenzyyx_^talk

• "But as we can see in Reddit or Twitter HistoryofIran is ruining Turkic related articles and try to ban newcomers here to build encyclopedia users with his policy knowledge."

Thanks for admitting that this is an IRL-related grievance, and thanks for admitting that you are trying to import these IRL-related grievances (Sevres Syndrome?) into Wikipdia. That's the problem with people swallowing state funded negationism by authoritarian states; they believe everything is a conspiracy.

- LouisAragon (talk) 21:09, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"swallowing state funded negationism by authoritarian states" = like '4000 years old Iranian state' propaganda by Dictatorship of Iran? that you spread. Belugan (talk) 22:40, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

State funded negationism? And "we" (I don't even know who is us) believe in conspiracy theories? Oh please, Turkish government banned Wikipedia and blocked Turkish Wikipedians to contribute on the development of the encyclopedia for years. I seriously hope that you don't have any stereotypes on people according to their ethnic origin. BerkBerk68^talk 21:25, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Zenzyyx and @Belugan participated at the Turkic history debate on talk page, they would ofcourse be aware of the ANI. The absurdness of this argument is that you have made your first comment at 21:09, 26 July 2022‎ [27] right after HistoryofIran's one at 21:06, 26 July 2022‎ [28] and you have not even participated on talk page. I do not claim anything, I am just telling that the argument mentioned can be used with different perspectives. BerkBerk68^talk 21:38, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Highlighting the bias of an editor who persistently gets into edit wars in articles anything-Turkish/Turkic isn't an IRL grievance, is it now? Biased editors ruin Wikipedia, and thus deserve to be exposed on here. Hope to see a Wikipedia without them - but, of course, that is not possible. zenzyyx_^talk

You have not presented any evidence of off-wiki Reddit or Twitter threads that prove HistoryOfIran is biased, and even if you did, we are not interested in any off-wiki disputes. Only diffs here on Wikipedia are acceptable as evidence. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). 22:44, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I don't think that Zenzyyx's comment is related with Belugan's claims. BerkBerk68^talk 19:06, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

one of his false accusation from a Persian user Belugan (talk) 01:58, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Again, off wiki disputes matter nothing here. In fact, neither you nor zenzyyx have provided any diffs at all, as far as I can tell. If you cannot bring any evidence to the table at all, then this report is without merit. If you think that is in error, then reply with an actual diff link, rather than having to resort to off-wiki links because you literally have no evidence. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). 02:17, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for admitting that this is an IRL-related grievance Cherrypicking nonsense, I didn't admit anything. You can easily find sone Arabic or Turkish people complain about HistoryofIran's bias edits in anywhere of social media and you can also find meatpuppeting by some (hmm guess who :)) in Wikipedia community with Telegram groups. Don't try to manipulate community with these nonsense arguments. Belugan (talk) 22:22, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We aren't interested in what off-wiki users on social media have to say; you must provide evidence of bias within Wikipedia itself, not on other unrelated sites. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). 22:57, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(non-admin comment) "hmm guess who :)" No, you tell us - with evidence - or (...) No-one here is interested in your insinuations. Narky Blert (talk) 01:49, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I guess he was just a banned trolling user that created a new account. BerkBerk68^talk 19:08, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note that Belugan (talk · contribs) has been blocked for being not here to edit Wikipedia, per the thread above. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). 00:59, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not surprising, thanks. BerkBerk68^talk 12:17, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Back to topic

This report has steered too much into the direction of off-topic as a result of excessive bickering, some of it instigated by a now indeffed account. I'll make a quick TLDR of the most relevant bits of my report; BerkBerk68 completely disregarded the WP:CONSENSUS in Talk:Turkic history (everything was discussed here [29] [30] [31]) by re-adding groups of disputed origin (the Xiongnu and Huns) [32], a edit which also added several entities, however now with more Turkic/less non-Turkic mentions compared to its (well-sourced) main article counterpart (which I demonstrated in the initial report). I would appreciate it if someone would look into this mess. --HistoryofIran (talk) 19:02, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I pretty much agree, this case turned into a defamation mess especially when @LouisAragon called a Sephardic Jewish user (@Zenzyyx) a "Turkish irredentist who is influenced by Turkish government propaganda" at his unsigned comment [33][34] (WP:ASPERSIONS).

I've already mentioned that the Huns and Xiongnu sections of the edit written by me doesn't violate WP:POV since nothing has been claimed definitively; rather, it contains differing points of views by different academics. Theories, Chinese historical records and recent genetic researches were mentioned with the emphasis of the controversial situation. Let me also add that I have always supported that Huns and Xiongnu should be included on the article, not just because of the controversial claims about them being Turkic but also because of their influence on Turkic history, culture and civilization. I have already explained how and why several times (can be seen at the talk page @HistoryofIran mentioned).

Since the article was unsuitable for Wikipedia's standard (WP:MOS), and with the lack of consensus, I wanted to introduce a new, much more detailed and properly sourced edit. I put the Huns and Xiongnu in their own sections ("Early historical affiliations") to further emphasise their controversial origins and did not state that they are Turkic.

I again have to reject all claims positing that I am Turkifying the Huns and the Xuongnu. I just added their affiliation within Turkic history and included related theories, alongside multiple other theories relating to their origins, clearly expressing that nothing was definitive.

Regards, BerkBerk68^talk 11:21, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• "I pretty much agree, this case turned into a defamation mess especially when @LouisAragon called a Sephardic Jewish user..."

I said: "All three are newly registed "accounts" with a pro-Turkish irredentist POV and a strong axe to grind with veteran editor HistoryofIran. Coincidence calling?"[35] As usual, your edits are loaded with nonsense making stuff up. Good you brought this up though; more evidence of your disruptive edits for admins to see.

• "WP:ASPERSIONS"

Nope. If you'd only read the policies you are so keen to cite: " If accusations must be made, they should be raised, with evidence, on the user-talk page of the editor they concern or in the appropriate forums." The ANI case here is littered with verifiable, egregious misconduct on your behalf. So no, zero "aspersions". Its a verifiable fact that all three of you are pursuing such an editorial pattern. Belugan already got indeffed for it based on solid policy judgement. As user:Black Kite sensibly stated: "There are far too many red flags, from familiarity with obscure Wikispeak from the get-go, to the use of "we", to the reference to off-wiki collusion with like minded editors."[36]

• "...at his unsigned comment"

It wasn't "unsigned"; I adjusted part of my comment[37] that I had already placed and signed.[38] More WP:NOTHERE.

- LouisAragon (talk) 13:54, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@BerkBerk68; Yes, you have multiple times stated that you did not present the origin of the Xiongnu and Huns as definite Turkic. That was also what you stated the previous time. We get that, however consensus was still that they shouldn't be there no matter how it would be spinned, which you were told countless times (here for example [39]). What do you then do? Proceed to re-add them and repeat the very same old argument (WP:REHASH) which was already rejected. Frankly, it seems that you simply dont care about community input, and only follow your own personal opinion. And I am certainly not the first person to notice that [40]. And thus I have reported you, because time and time you have proven that words (whether its from scholars or users) dont get through to you. Wikipedia is a collaborate effort, not a individual one. --HistoryofIran (talk) 15:05, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with that Wikipedia is a collaborate effort, that's why editors had to improve the new appropriate version together instead of deleting it completely when three different users were supporting the new version on the talk page while you were the only one who didn't support the new version. I am open to discuss the article to develop the encyclopedia together, I openly supported you on Timurids topic. As it's mentioned above, I wanted to write a new version and introduce it to the editors of Wikipedia due to lack of consensus (especially about Xiongnu and Huns) and I actually got positive feedbacks more than I thought. However, you just kept reverting the version. Let me also remind that I haven't reverted any of the edits, just discussed it on the talk page.

Regards, BerkBerk68^talk 17:48, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh, even still now words are not getting through to you. You shouldn't have added that version in the first place before discussing, as there was indeed a consensus, which you even now keep ignoring. Yes, as I've already told you at least 6 times, I reverted you because it violated the previous consensus as well as WP:POV (per the diffs) even more this time (there is also WP:ONUS which you have been told of multiple times). And no, it is not my job to fix your mess, as you also have been told [41]. Either fix it yourself, or expect it to get reverted. There are no guidelines that says I have to hold your hand. --HistoryofIran (talk) 19:52, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please explain which consensus are you talking about? I don't think a consensus was achieved, every recent sections ended up with endless conflicts.

"it is not my job to fix your mess" The new version was more suitable for the encyclopedia (WP:MOS) and it's written by one editor, if you are not willing to develop the article together, then you should leave it to the other users of the community. BerkBerk68^talk 09:12, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, you shouldn't have added that version in the first place, as you've been told countless times. The fact that you still think like that and consider a version riddled with WP:POV as more "suitable" says it all really. I'm tired of explaining stuff to you, one may begin to ask whether there are underlying WP:CIR issues as well. I'll wait for an admin. --HistoryofIran (talk) 11:15, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well it's your decision [42] to participate or not, I have already informed you about all my edits and openly called to participate on developing the article. Again, it's your decision, it doesn't bother me at all. BerkBerk68^talk 14:18, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Belugan was an obvious troll, I have already expressed that [43], his actions doesn't bother actual editors who want to develop the encyclopedia. Calling editors "irredentist" or "swallowing state funded negationism" just because they have different opinions than you is not WP:CIVIL, and again, WP:ASPERSIONS.

Ironic, because you did the same with Belugan, said "No worries, we'll get to the bottom of it" on a threatening language, [44] and you didn't answer my questions when I asked about the situation. From your language it seems like there is an "off-wiki collusion with like minded editors" just like how Black Kite described, especially considering you did not participate on the lastest section of Turkic history talk page. @Black Kite, I believe that this information should be considered at the case.

Regards, BerkBerk68^talk 18:37, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oh please, you didn't say anything about Belugan's problematic behaviour till he got indeffed. In fact, even after his block you were still supporting him (just like he had been supporting you), writing a unhelpful comment in a thread that was closed [45]. But now he's suddenly a problematic troll? Also, if you're planning on accusing someone, I sure do hope you have diffs, otherwise you are being no different than Belugan in violating WP:ASPERSIONS yourself. Anyways, let's not deviate again, the only users which should be talked about are you and me. If someone has other concerns, please take it somewhere else. --HistoryofIran (talk) 19:52, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I writed that comment because of the absurdness of the claimed conspiracy. I have never defended Belugan's arguments, my only comment on his case is related to Afsharid Empire since it was the topic. But what Louis doing here is accusing editors with misbehavior without evidence, and his threatening comment at the talk page increases the confusion.

He told "No worries, we'll get to the bottom of it" while he did not even participate at the talk page discussion, only user that participated on his side of arguments was @HistoryofIran and now he is actively siding with him here. I am not claiming anything, I just want a clarification to the community to end the confusions just as I did 2 days ago [46][47][48].

Additionally, this subject is directly related to the case and it's my right to ask these questions. A clarification is necessary.

Regards, BerkBerk68^talk 21:16, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You are literally insuating that I am doing something fishy - you are the third user in this report to accuse me of something alike, and the third to do so without any form of evidence. I could also very easily point out even more questionable stuff regarding you, but I rather stick to direct evidence in the form of diffs, as seen up above. This is nothing but WP:ASPERSIONS. As for your comments in relation to Belugan, I’ll the admins be the judge of that. --HistoryofIran (talk) 22:23, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am not insuating anything, I just express my confusion and ask for a clarification from @LouisAragon since days. Threatening other editors using "we" phrase is confusing and not WP:CIVIL. BerkBerk68^talk 08:51, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As someone who just skimmed through the conversation here may I suggest a way of short circuiting a prolonged conversation that runs the risk of getting out of control? The talk page has a large amount of discussion with differing views which can make it hard to see exactly what is going on and which bits need to be changed. This may be one of the times when a formal RfC with a closure on the talk page is the best way forward as it would allow for precision when it comes to exactly what changes to make and would open it up to an uninvolved editor to close the RfC to help with any concerns about bias. As always, feel free to ignore my advice. Gusfriend (talk) 10:11, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, he doesn't react. Just as I expected. BerkBerk68^talk 07:53, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Request closure

I know this report is hard to follow, especially due to much of it having roots in another talk page, as well as due to the excessive amounts of unnecessary bickering (myself included, sorry for that), but can an admin please check and close this? It would be much appreciated. --HistoryofIran (talk) 00:04, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

FYI: there is a PERM request to restore extendedconfirmed open at Wikipedia:Requests_for_permissions/Extended_confirmed#User:BerkBerk68 - I'm inclined to grant it unless there is some exceptional reason not to from this discussion. If so, please leave a note there when closing this. — xaosflux ^Talk 21:34, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Case is inactive since over a week, it would be nice if an administrator takes a decision. BerkBerk⁶⁸ 11:16, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alsoriano97 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Portal:Current Events (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Alsoriano97's edit log at Portal:Current Events (overview of deletions and uncivil comments)

Alsoriano97 has engaged in persistent and habitual edit warring (including violations of WP:3RR), WP:CIVIL & tendentious editing over an extended period of time.

Alsoriano97 frequently edits at Portal:Current Events, primarily removing content added by other editors. The majority of Alsoriano97’s removals relate to news on Anglophone countries, with a specific emphasis on the USA. These removals frequently relate to news that, while occurring in the US, are widely reported globally in many RS's.

Alsoriano97 frequently uses uncivil language when challenged by other editors over removals. Attempts to discuss the removals in edit summaries and talk pages have failed to reach a resolution, due to the aggressive tone and reluctance to address the issue. Much of the longer explanations for this behavior are incoherent ranting, mixed with gross incivility.

While removal of content does occur at Portal:Current Events on occasion, with a range of editors doing so (myself included), the removals are usually for content which are clearly unnotable, relevant only locally, or reported in very few RS's. Such removals are rarely challenged by those who originally added the content.

In contrast, Alsoriano97's removals are frequently challenged by a range of editors who originally added the content. As per Alsoriano97's reasoning, such removals are made due to the belief that the Anglophone countries and the US in particular, is overrepresented on the page. A common comment made by Alsoriano97 is to use the country category page instead. However, this is usually contentious in relation to the entries posted.

Given the apparent consensus with Alsoriano97's faulty reasoning when removing content, the onus should be on Alsoriano97 to begin discussions to reach a further consensus to justify these content removals. However, no such attempts have been made, with no talk page topics started by Alsoriano97 to address any revert or the overarching issue. Instead, Alsoriano97 has resorted to unilateral enforcement of opinions through disruptive reverting of items that are disagreed with. When others start talk page entries to discuss the removals, Alsoriano97's replies do not address the issue, while frequently violating WP:CIVIL.

Alsoriano97 is fully aware of the restrictions relating to 3RR. He has previously been banned for 24 hours for a 3RR violation. Reference to the policy is also made on his Userpage. It should also be noted that Alsoriano97 has on many occasions cited 3RR against other editors.

Violations of WP:3RR

Alsoriano97 has previously been blocked for violating 3RR on 20 September 2020

1. 16 July 2022 [49] [50] [51] [52]
2. 12 May 2021 [53] [54] [55] [56]

Warnings & Talk Page

Significant

1. Portal_talk:Current_events/Archive_12#Multi-Revert_Issue_with_Alsoriano97
2. User_talk:Alsoriano97#Use the summary box before making an edit!
3. User_talk:Alsoriano97#May 2021
4. User_talk:Alsoriano97#Your use of the word "Domestic"
5. User_talk:Alsoriano97#Revert of Current Events
6. User_talk:Alsoriano97#Your revert about Dwayne Haskins
7. User_talk:Alsoriano97#Matt Gaetz
8. ANI Report

Routine

1. User_talk:Alsoriano97#Vandalism
2. User_talk:Alsoriano97#Artemi Panarin
3. User_talk:Alsoriano97#NYC Mandate
4. User_talk:Alsoriano97#Personal comments at ITNC
5. User_talk:Alsoriano97#Exclusion of Harry Reid from 2021 Deaths List
6. User_talk:Alsoriano97#Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion
7. User_talk:Alsoriano97#About Buccaneers
8. User_talk:Alsoriano97#Explanation wanted
9. User_talk:Alsoriano97#Warning
10. User_talk:Alsoriano97#Question on notability
11. User_talk:Alsoriano97#Removal of Current Event.

WP:CIVIL Violations

Talk Page

In general, almost all interactions on talk pages made by this user is ranting and uncivil, which can be clearly seen on upon a cursory inspection.

Some quotes are presented below.

1 Multi-Revert Issue with Alsoriano97

• Do you think that after more than a year editing Current Events I act arbitrarily and according to how I want?
• "trying to decide what represents "relevant" based on their own interests"....Jesus Christ!
• This is not a page of The Seattle Times where to put any news that has to do especially with the United States.
• t's very dangerous for Wikipedia when editors in this community make decisions and arguments against other users in a partisan, threatening and non-conciliatory manner.
• This way the concept of "community" is dynamited, and this comment speaks more about you, than about me. "he is quite an ideological person" SURPRISE! I AM A LIVING HUMAN WHO IS LIVING LIFE IN A VITAL WAY. Does that concern you?
• How dare you question my neutrality if you don't even know more than 90% of the edits I have made?

2 Your revert about Dwayne Haskins

• You admit that Portal Current Events is not an American newspaper but you still act as if it is. Can you simply follow the rule of.... Like everyone else does? This is exhausting.
• You should know that international coverage ≠ international notability. Everyone knows that.
• Let it be clear that if you add news related to the USA and I don't remove them (the vast majority) is because I consider that have the level of notability that this Portal deserves.
• I'll stop debating obvious things like this.
• When I say international coverage ≠ international notability, means international coverage ≠ international notability. That means that international coverage ≠ international notability.
• And I hope, I just hope, that you are not comparing an accident with 16 DEATHS with a collision of a vehicle with a train (which IS HABITUAL) that has caused the death of ONE PERSON. I really hope you are pulling my leg and this is a joke. If more people had died, including Haskins, I would understand. But stop. It's being ridiculous and you're acting vandalistic.

Diffs of Uncivil Edit Summaries

• [57] This is a clear US-centric bias. They are so globally popular that the explosion has been reported by hundreds of international RS! It is a pity that this is a lie and is covered by newspapers of little national or international circulation. Do the work yourself and you will see. Its site is at 2022 in the United States
• [58] Hes, culturally significant but local. Can you please check if any international newsites are talking about this? It’s not even a popular monument! This id ridicolous
• [59] But what are you talking about? I don't "get mad" because I have more important things in my life, but I only delete trivial news related to the USA that you would delete if it happened in another country. Not a regional election. Next time, delete also regional elections in Nigeria, USA, Germany that you see, so you don't look like a redneck to many people. Franco? Come on man, how old are you? Grow up.
• [60] Don’t be childish, boy. I’ve ever respected regional elections in ‘merica.
• [61] "bias"? lol nice joke. It doesn't work like that, sorry. Two very famous people fighting over slurs has neither encyclopedic nor informative value. This is not a tabloid and you should know that. Much less a local newspaper.
• [62]If he doesn't even have a wikipedia article, do you really think his murder is notorious? It's not that hard to understand!! People are murdered EVERY day.

Alsoriano97 also seems to regularly patronize people for not including the name of a country in an entry. The usual procedure for such minor technical issues is to amend it with a polite edit summary, as others who have cleaned up such mistakes have done.

• [63] Daily updatings of the fires are not necessary. At least name the country
• [64] Iowa is a new country???
• [65] rewrite it adding the country where it happened. it doesn't cost that much to do it yourselves. Learn.
• [66] Is Louisiana a new country????????
• [67] Is Idaho a new country?
• [68] Once again some users cannot mention the country....this is not a local newspaper!
• [69] Is Virginia a new country?
• [70] At least you will be able to locate the news in a country, right? Northern Virginia is a new country? This is not a local newspaper. And that you take away from the notability of a minister's murder....
• [71] country?????????????????????????? It's not hard to mention it!
• [72] Ontario what? A country?

Carter00000 (talk) 12:12, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Carter00000, on a purely procedural note: in your very long post above, you make claims about uncivil comments but provide no diffs. As filer, it's your responsibility to provide evidence, not expect others to go find it. Please note this is not a comment one way or the other on the merit of your report, just an invitation to improve it. Jeppiz (talk) 12:55, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jeppiz, thank you for your suggestion, I will add some diffs as per your comment. Carter00000 (talk) 12:59, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Go to contributions for namespace Portal and they jump out at you left and right. Some choice ones: "Stop being a jerk and using American bias. Stop doing vandalism."; calls edit-warring opponent "racist"; calls edit-warring opponent "boy" (!); "redneck", "grow up" - way over the top even provoked as it was; variants of "Country?????????????????" - 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9. —Cryptic 13:58, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a partial list of uncvil comments. Some may overlap with what has already been written. Carter00000 (talk) 14:23, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I would like to see a pattern of uncivil comments; the only ones I can see are on Portal:Current events/2022 June 19 where the IP deleting the information was not exactly civil either. As a more general point I see Alsoriano97, in the main, deleting minor, local or trivial stories from the portals - which is of course correct. Recent removals have included multiple minor updates on COVID and monkeypox stories, politicians visiting other countries, routine local political stories (including statements by politicians and unimportant elections like primaries), someone without a Wikipedia article being murdered, minor shootings in the USA (there are dozens of those a day) a fight amongst fans at an ice hockey match, a hockey team hiring a new manager, random other sports results, etc. There might well be a few debatable ones, but I certainly don't see him removing anything that should definitely be there. Black Kite (talk) 13:16, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Black Kite, on the subject of your blocks on the protal, as mentioned in your comment, I want to raise an incident for the record.

In this Talk Page Discussion that I started after I was reverted 4 times by Alsoriano97, and where I stated in the lead sentence of such reverts, you later commented to defend Alsoriano97’s rationale.

Given your familiarity with the portal and Alsoriano97, I was very surprised that you took no action; given that 3RR is a “bright line” as stated in WP regulations. I also note you seem to have no issues with blocking others on the portal for similar issues. Carter00000 (talk) 14:47, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I took no action because your edits were not improving the encyclopedia. It was story about the murder of someone who was so non-notable that they don't even have a Wikipedia article. Black Kite (talk) 17:59, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to note that "edits were not improving the encyclopedia" does not fall under the exemptions for the 3RR per the WP:3RRNO policy. This was a content dispute, where the content in your opinion was not worth adding to the portal, which does not justify your inaction. Such a dispute should have been resolved through consensus, and not edit warring, hence why I started a entry on Alsoriano97's talk page. Carter00000 (talk) 18:13, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It should have been resolved by you ceasing to insert non-notable material into the page. I was certainly not going to "reward" you for edit-warring that material back in, which is why I didn't block A97. Black Kite (talk) 18:25, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding is that what material is considered "non-notable" is a dispute of content, and thus is subject to the normal dispute resolution channels, which does not include edit warring. You characterization of enforcing a "bright-line" rule for a clear violation as a "reward" seems to be faulty. Carter00000 (talk) 18:31, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Alsoriano97#Warning isn't "routine"; it's a straight-up refusal to accept warnings from non-admins, with the inevitable result that non-admins don't warn or at least warn less, and hurried admins don't take action because there haven't been warnings. It's 100% of the reason why I went straight to a block in that 3RR block linked above, instead of warning him like I did the user he was edit-warring against. —Cryptic 13:27, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The warning appears to be about this edit, which appears to be a content dispute. I don't believe it would fit the description of WP: VANDALISM. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 13:41, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The point isn't what that specific warning was about; it's his statement that "I only admit warnings from admins, not from angry editors." —Cryptic 13:58, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Separately, this user's block log would be much, much longer if I was willing to make 3RR blocks for edit wars I observe that aren't actively in progress. Just this year, I see 3RR breaches on the Jan 1, Mar 11, Apr 9, Apr 28, May 6, Jun 1, Jun 30, Jul 6 (7 reverts!), Jul 14, Jul 26, and Jul 27 current event pages. —Cryptic 13:27, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps, as a suggestion for A97, it would be better if they did not revert every addition of trivia, but waited for a while until the activity on the daily page had died down, and then removed all the stuff that doesn't belong in one edit. Either that or we need more people patrolling the pages. Black Kite (talk) 13:37, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think the issue here is not the timing of when Alsoriano97 removes the entries, but the actual act of the removals themselves. With respect, given the context, your suggestion almost sounds like WP:GAMING.

In relation to "patrolling" the pages, we currently do have people removing items of trivia on a live basis, as mentioned in my original post. Such actions are almost always accepted, with very few times when the reverts are challenged. Carter00000 (talk) 14:38, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's not what I see. i see a lot of people reverting when their particular bit of trivia gets removed. Which is understandable, but it's mainly because they think that thing they think is important is actually important in an international sense ... when most of the time it isn't. Black Kite (talk) 17:57, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that some back-and-forth reverts does happen, but these reverts are usually resolved in the edit summaries, and do not involve 4RR (or even 3RR) or uncivil comments. Carter00000 (talk) 18:17, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I use to interact with this user a lot when I only worked in the Portal:Current events (ie, 2019–2020), but I was also a fairly bad editor at the time (as shown in some of the diffs linked above). The really only recent interaction I had with Alsoriano97 was during the Georgia Guidestone bombing so, I am only going to comment toward that interaction and one specific interaction linked above. Would like to note, I am not sure this went alerted as it was between multiple editors, but Alsoriano97 did violate WP:3RR with 6 reverts in an attempt to prevent that news from being listed on the Portal. [73][74][75][76][77][78] In the 5th diff I just provided, Alsoriano97 said, “This is a clear US-centric bias. They are so globally popular that the explosion has been reported by hundreds of international RS! It is a pity that this is a lie and is covered by newspapers of little national or international circulation. Do the work yourself and you will see.. This was after my interactions with them that day, but today I “did the work” via a Google search of “Georgia Guidestones bombing” and I found tons of national level WP:RS including (USA Today), (NBC News), (The Wall Street Journal) & (BCC News), so Alsoriano97 did state all those were “little national or international circulation”, which might mean a slight refresher in WP:RS is needed ontop of a significant warning for violating WP:3RR which might mean being warned/blocked for 6 reverts in a few hours from various editors. I am not here to talk about the bombing, so I will stop on that and move to the one link provided above by Carter00000, which is # User_talk:Alsoriano97#Warning. This was an interaction between myself and Alsoriano97 back in 2020, so to me it alone cannot show anything because editors can change, but in it, Alsoriano97 said, “I only admit warnings from admins, not from angry editors. Back in 2020, I was still learning what was and was not notable for the Portal:CE, so Alsoriano97 wasn’t really “wrong” for not accepting the warning, but I would like Alsoriano97 to state whether or not that statement is still true today, because that could become a serious issue down the line if a non-admin editor calls out any WP:3RR violations or even general warning/alerts. Again, most of my interactions with Alsoriano97 were months to years ago, so I cannot really comment on those, but the recent incident from earlier this month of a 6 revert violation of WP:3RR is significant and needs to be dealt with, maybe even by a post-revert event block. Elijahandskip (talk) 13:58, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Funny enough, I just had another interaction with Alsoriano97 on today's Portal:CE. Nothing worth noting for ANI as it was just an interaction, but noting the fact it happens since I haven't had much interactions with them and this happened within like an hour of my big text block post. Elijahandskip (talk) 15:19, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Per Alsoriano97: Vandalism? You've got to be kidding me. Vandalism is breaking the 3RR rule. (User talk:Alsoriano97#Vandalism) — So to Alsoriano97, he openly “vandalized” Wikipedia numerous times by breaking the 3RR rule (as shown in the various diffs above). Elijahandskip (talk) 14:32, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • But see Wikipedia:Edit warring#Exemptions, especially no 4. Deb (talk) 15:14, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't think this point applies to the original comment by Elijahandskip, given that almost all of the content Alsoriano97 removes are actual legitimate entries and not vandalism. Carter00000 (talk) 15:26, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  They're not vandalism, many are even good faith, but they don't belong there. That's why I made the suggestion that they be removed in one edit at a later date. Black Kite (talk) 18:01, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I agree with Black Kite that they are almost all in good faith and majority should be in discussion sections to avoid the 3RR rule, nevertheless, Alsoriano97 is fully aware of the rule, even mentioning it to other editors, but still broke it more than a few times. I would say maybe a 24 hour block to get their attention (especially since they have been blocked previously for it and broke it numerous times), but then also suggest removing all the edits one time and emphasize on discussing before a 2nd or 3rd revert to avoid the 3RR rule breaking again. I honestly don’t know how a 6 reverts in a few hours went unnoticed, but nevertheless, as I have learned, no matter how much the edits are in good faith, if you break the rules, there will be consequences. It should not be a significant consequence (hence my suggestion of a 24 hour block), but some level of block is fully justified for the numerous unalerted 3RR violations discussed. Elijahandskip (talk) 12:46, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Carter00000 Thank you for the reference on talk. Attempted to report this issue in October, 2021 with apparently no result [noticeboard/Edit warring - Diff, Oct 2nd, 2021] (top result in diff). The list of proof provided was:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Portal%3ACurrent_events%2F2021_September_19&type=revision&diff=1045432916&oldid=1045430468
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Portal%3ACurrent_events%2F2021_September_19&type=revision&diff=1045400547&oldid=1045399945
3. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Portal%3ACurrent_events%2F2021_September_19&type=revision&diff=1045375066&oldid=1045366985
4. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Portal%3ACurrent_events%2F2021_September_19&type=revision&diff=1045303309&oldid=1045302097
5. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Portal%3ACurrent_events%2F2021_September_19&type=revision&diff=1045272572&oldid=1045271722

Second example of 3RR from 10/1/2021

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Portal%3ACurrent_events%2F2021_October_1&type=revision&diff=1047642463&oldid=1047637998
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Portal%3ACurrent_events%2F2021_October_1&type=revision&diff=1047643131&oldid=1047642752
3. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Portal%3ACurrent_events%2F2021_October_1&type=revision&diff=1047649964&oldid=1047649055

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Portal%3ACurrent_events%2F2021_May_12&type=revision&diff=1022949962&oldid=1022925020%7C

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Portal_talk:Current_events&oldid=1023348929

As noted in the attempt to resolve dispute page above, @GWA88 also attempted to raise this issue almost a year prior to when I started discussing and encountering this issue in ~April-May of 2021. The "....Jesus Christ!" and "LIVING LIFE IN A VITAL WAY. Does that concern you?" quotes are from our talk discussion. I attempted to be civil and received those responses. Araesmojo (talk) 18:49, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Today, Alsoriano97 said, “Stop with this American bias of Current Events[79] during the removal of an ITN Nominated historic US flood event. Elijahandskip (talk) 17:24, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• ... which had already been posted the day before at Portal:Current_events/2022_July_31 ... Black Kite (talk) 18:27, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I would like to note that your reply above does not address the underlying issues expressed in the original entry, nor the topic of this filing. The original comment cited an example of Alsoriano97's typical comments, which violates both WP:CIVIL and WP:TENDENTIOUS, relevant to the topic of this filing. Carter00000 (talk) 16:24, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As mentioned above by Carter00000 and Elijahandskip, I have had multiple disagreements with Alsoriano97 over these past several years. From my own experience in dealing with him, I can say that he seems to be obsessed with removing anything "domestic" related to the United States, UK and to a lesser extent Canada and Australia from the current events portal, while seemingly not having an issue with "domestic" news from anywhere else in the world. He's often reverted by multiple different editors and when I've pulled him on this he just accuses me of being "Anglocentric". I find it quite concerning that his editing of the portal appears to be mostly motivated by ideology. And again, as mentioned above, he often ignores the 3RR and uses the edit summary box to make insults or in other cases, not bothering to use it all. As someone who has been editing the portal for 8 years now, pretty much on a regular basis, I'd have to be say that Alsoriano97 has been one of if not the most disruptive editor on the portal. GWA88 (talk) 15:53, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I note that over 450 of your last 500 edits have been adding information to Current Event Portals. It is unsurprising that some of them (a very small amount, I suspect) would have been reverted. Black Kite (talk) 18:41, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  You appear to be purposely missing the point, and then making the equivalent of ad hominem arguments. How does GWA88 being a regular and long term contributor and then noting that the user may have had "some" reverted add anything? Personal reverts were not even mentioned.

  Main issues, "reverted by multiple different editors", often responds with accusations, "motivated by ideology", "ignores the 3RR", "uses the edit summary box to make insults", "one of if not the most disruptive editor on the portal."

  Personal view, obviously contentious, and has motivated significant discussion. People are literally filing 3RR violations and block requests every year. Cryptic noted (11) eleven violations of 3RR...? Don't have enough personal experience with these issues for a punishment recommendation. Just keeping A97 off Portal:Current events would work for me. Araesmojo (talk) 19:47, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Carter00000

Meanwhile, is it only me that is somewhat suspicious of an account whose very first edit was on a Portal/Current Events page, was aware of obscurities like WP:MINORASPECT by edit 16, was filing at WP:ANI by edit 44, and was filing ArbCom cases by edit 56? Black Kite (talk) 18:12, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As I've explained to users in that previous incident, I spent quite a lot of time reading WP articles and their related talk pages prior to editing WP the first time, so picked up some WP speak. I also talk some time to look up policies when replying. I understand my initial actions on WP were not acceptable, and I've walked away for now on the disputed sections which caused the incident. I've spent the past month trying to be productive on the Current Events Portal and ITN.

I ask that you refrain from casting doubt on my character by digging up past events unrelated to this filing. It would seem that the general consensus thus far is that my complaint is justified.

This is what I previously wrote to Ad Orientem [80]

I started reading Wikipedia regularly because of the current events page. I found that it provided a more global overview of the news on a given day.

One thing I later discovered was that each article on Wikipedia had a "Talk Page" where content on a page were discussed. It was quite interesting for me to see the discussions, since there were times when I felt the content on pages were not justified, and the discussions allowed me to see how the content had been decided.

After some time, it became a habit to just read the talk page with the main article, since it gave a degree of context to almost all articles. Over time, I started to pick up some of the abbreviations used, since they came up so much. That's why I've been able to use them sometimes when I edit.

Maybe you think what I've said is just a made-up story. I wouldn't blame you for thinking that, given my actions in the past few days. But if you use the technical tools that you detect sockpuppets and ban evaders with, you'll find that my profile will come up clean.

You may also consider the fact that I'd probably not have drawn attention like I've had if I really was trying to evade or avoid anyone, since that would have clearly been counterproductive. Carter00000 (talk) 18:26, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would argue that because competence is required, the ability of an editor to understand Wiki policy and procedure early in their career wouldn't necessarily be suspicious. Not everyone immediately jumps in and starts editing, the policies and procedures exist to learn far in advance of a first edit. FrederalBacon (talk) 18:27, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• • Black Kite has every right, and in fact an obligation to mention if something doesn't add up. It doesn't mean Carter must be a sock, but it is highly, highly unusual and it isn't uncivil to ask or investigate. That is what the community wants us to do. Most of the time, someone in that circumstance is a sock. Whether you are or not, I have no idea, but time will tell. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 18:32, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    @Dennis Brown I agree that it is a obligation to raise-out information if something doesn't add up. However, I feel that in the context of @Black Kite's above comments thus far, and my scrutiny of his actions, such a comment could be seen as divisionary.

    I also note that I've been closely scrutinized previously relating to the above allegations, and evidence of such scrutiny is readily available, so it seems a bit unfair to now present it again, like its never been mentioned before on WP. Carter00000 (talk) 18:39, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Is there behavioral evidence of socking? If so, I would imagine this ANI would be a quick close if an SPI revealed Carter was a sock. FrederalBacon (talk) 18:45, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    As I stated in the previous incident, this is my only account. I invite any CU or admin to verify this themselves if needed. Carter00000 (talk) 18:50, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Black Kite and I are both admins. That's why I'm saying it is fine to ask. I don't have an opinion at this time, I'm just pointing out it's his job to ask the tough questions. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:03, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    @Dennis Brown To reiterate, I agree with your comments on the role of Admins on WP. However, in this case, I believe that Black Kite's role in the matter would fall under WP:INVOLVED. As you mentioned that you "did not have a opinion at this time", I assume you have not reviewed the case in detail, but only wanted to make a comment on the specific point of admin roles.

    I would like to note that Black Kite only started this section after I asked him to account for some of his actions above, hence my characterization of this section as divisionary. In addition, he was involved in some of the content disputes which are the topic of this case.

    I further note that I don't see the point of making this section in the first place. It would seem that the standard procedure would be to contact a CU or do a SPI if sock puppetry is genuinely suspected. Carter00000 (talk) 13:11, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Being a new editor, I get why you don't understand, but I do. We can keep jabbering on about it if you like, but it is kind of pointless. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:49, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I would like to register my objection to your characterization of this discussion as "jabbering", along with the general patronizing tone of your last reply. Let me be clear that I am asking for clarification of the abovementioned admin actions, something that each admin is obligated to provide upon request per WP:ADMINACCT.

  So, let me ask my question again. I would like clarification on the point of making this section. As I mentioned previously, It would seem that the standard procedure would be to contact a CU or conduct a SPI if an admin has genuine and legitimate suspicions that an account is a sock puppet, given that the aim should be to efficiently resolve the issue. I really don't see what this post serves to do, since it does not address the actual issue.

  As previously mentioned, I note that Black Kite only started this section after I asked him to account for some of his actions above, hence my characterization of this section as divisionary. I also noted that I've been closely scrutinized previously relating to the above allegations, and evidence of such scrutiny is readily available. Given that Black Kite has taken the time to number the edits he presented from my edit log, I assume that he is aware of the previous scrutiny

  It seems a bit unfair to now present it again, like its never been mentioned before on WP. Furthermore, I don't think its very fair that just because I'm a new editor, and happen to be well informed, that it entitles admins such as yourself and Black Kite to cast doubt on my character, especially during a AN/I filing proceeding. It very much seems like a scenario where if you're new, you either know nothing and don't get taken seriously, or you know something, but will be labeled a sock puppet, and still not be taken seriously. To be honest, this very much seems like a case ofWP:ASPERSIONS. Carter00000 (talk) 17:43, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Jabbering is this subthread, and applied to all parties, not you. You seem to be going out of your way to be a victim here. As for accountability, exactly what admin action did I take that needs explaining? That doesn't apply to simple comments that anyone can make. I didn't read the rest. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 17:47, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  My intention in pointing out the phrase "Jabbering" was to highlight my objection to the patronizing tone of your previous reply.

  "Being a new editor, I get why you don't understand, but I do. We can keep jabbering on about it if you like, but it is kind of pointless."

  If you don't see how that reply is patronizing, then I guess I have nothing more to comment on the matter. Carter00000 (talk) 18:04, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Separately, my request for explanation is for Black Kites actions, as I think I made clear in my reply. Given that you jumped into the conversation, I thought you might have further comment. If not, then I think you may leave it to Black Kite to answer. For me, either of you answering is fine. Both of you answering is fine as well. Carter00000 (talk) 18:06, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  There's nothing to "answer". He expressed a concern. The jabbering, again, was obviously referring to you and I equally. I have no idea what is so hard to understand, again, unless you automatically assume the worst in people. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 18:11, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @Dennis Brown, upon reviewing the previous incident cited above (declined RFAR [81]), I noticed that you were in fact one of those who commented. You comments were "This feels like we are being punked by an LTA." & "A CU should feel free to poke around, I would think... ".

  Given your comments, I believe that your are WP:INVOLVED in relation to myself. I formally request you to recuse yourself from this ANI filing, and cease all activities relating to the filing. While I realize I cannot force you to do so, I ask you to seriously consider this based on the standards of which are expected of administrators such as yourself. Carter00000 (talk) 15:26, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  No. First, you are misunderstanding WP:INVOLVED. Second, I haven't used the admin tools in either situation, so WP:INVOLVED is meaningless. Third, I have had no stake in the outcome with either report nor had any extensive interactions with you or the reported party in articles or previous actions, so I can't be INVOLVED. The fact that I commented as a disinterested bystander more than once doesn't make me involved in anything. So no, I'm 100% free to participate or act in an administrative or bystander capacity and shall. You're free to get all the second opinions you like, policy is quite clear on this. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 17:01, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Remedies

Pinging other involved editors who have commented on this filing to add their opinion for this section: Araesmojo, Black Kite, Cryptic, GWA88. Carter00000 (talk) 18:08, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am starting this section because too many opinions and editor replies too keep track of the actual remedies being suggested. Elijahandskip (talk) 04:00, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I suggest a 24-hour block only because it appears too many 3RR violations have occurred from Alsoriano97, who has been blocked for 3RR violations in the past and is fully aware of the rule, even mentioning it to other editors. I do believe all the 3RR violations were in good faith; however, due to their previous block & fully aware violations, a block would be the best course over a warning. As to all the other issues mentioned, I believe the blocking admin should do a message to Alsoriano97 to be more open to discussions on talk pages, not just in edit summaries, especially before that 3rd revert would occur. I believe bringing the 3RR violations to Alsoriano97's attention should lessen or hopefully eliminate the amount of NPOV edit summaries/"incivility". But no matter what, a block, even a short 24 hour block, is fully justified and warranted, especially as I have been told numerous times that if you break the rules, no matter how much good faith they were made in, there will be consequences. Elijahandskip (talk) 04:00, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As discussion has begun on the remedies, I would like to make my viewpoints known as well, being the original filer. I note that @Elijahandskip has suggested above that a 24 hour block be used as a warning.

• My opinion is that Alsoriano97 should be indefinitely banned from WP. As can be seen from the above submissions, Alsoriano97 has committed numerous violations of WP:3RR and WP:CIVIL, to many different editors, over a period of many years. Such conduct clearly shows that Alsoriano97 feels that he is above both the rules and other editors. More critically, Alsoriano97 believes that he is above the consensus forming process, a pillar which WP is built on. His disregard for the process has caused significant disruption, as mentioned many times in the above submissions.

Much of the issues relating to Alsoriano97's editing arises from his extreme viewpoints relating to the Anglosphere & USA, and its place in world affairs. Such flaws have been noted by a number of editors. Attempts to reason with his pattern of tendentious editing have failed, and has been met with hostility. Given WP's commitment to NPOV, such flawed reasoning and editing is of significant damage to the project. While I am aware that Alsoriano97 has contributed to other areas, I am unable to assess his actions in those areas, given my unfamiliarity with those areas.

Alsoriano97's response to warnings merely reiterates the above points. Despite being blocked 24 hours for 3RR once already, such a ban seems to have had no impact on him. Numerous other warnings from editors are met with hostile and uncivil responses. Alsoriano97 has also stated that he does not admit warnings from non-administrators on one occasion. Despite his attitude towards warnings, he himself constantly issues warnings to others relating to 3RR, civility and other issues.

The point of warnings and administrative sanctions is to modify an editors behavior to become acceptable to the community. It is my opinion that Alsoriano97's behavior will not be changed by warnings or other administrative sanctions. As evidenced in the previous paragraph, numerous warnings of different types, from different users, have failed to have any impact on him, and his conduct has only gotten worse overtime. It is due to the intractability of these issues that I ask for a indefinite ban in the interest of stopping the damage he continues to cause to the overall project.

Carter00000 (talk) 05:06, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Although I haven’t posted much recently, I have been watching the current events page for a long time and almost every day. As stated above, the user clearly understands WP policies, has been temp banned for 3RR before, and warns other users for the same breach of policy. I feel that something more than a warning is necessary. ( Augu  Maugu ♨ 06:15, 2 August 2022 (UTC))[reply]

• There is a lot of moderate incivility, but we usually don't start out with blocks for this, if we can get them to explain. I left a short note inviting them here, I would prefer they participate before handing out sanctions, as maybe one can be avoided. Not that it excuses the rudeness, but I can see how this is a high stress area, and maybe they just need to spend more time elsewhere. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 18:40, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Have to agree with the sentiments mentioned by Carter00000 and AuguMaugu above. I too feel like a warning in this case would be unsatisfactory. I would recommend indefinitey blocking Alsoriano97 from editing the current events portal, or at least a lengthy block, say six months or a year. It should also be noted that Alsoriano97 has continued this pattern of behaviour on the current events portal even during this discussion about him, only yesterday in fact, and once again pushing the whole "American bias" thing. Indeed, apparently people dying from floods in Kentucky and Virginia aren't as important as flood victims in other countries. He clearly had no issue with the news about flood victims in Iran mentioned here on July 29. Again, yet another example of Alsoriano97's own biases. GWA88 (talk) 23:18, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree with Elijahandskip. I cannot see any grounds for a lengthy block - the suggestion appears unnecessarily vengeful. Denying that there is any US-centricity in Wikipedia articles is to be blind to the obvious, and Alsoriano97 is not wrong to point it out when it occurs; he just needs to do it more politely. Deb (talk) 07:26, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Deb, I agree that a permanent ban on the current events page (or even a 6 month ban) might not be productive. I also agree that there are many US local news articles posted that need to be removed from the page. However, Alsoriano97 consistently removes internationally published Anglo-topic events (which appears as bias).  Augu  Maugu ♨ 07:42, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Dennis Brown, @Deb

Please note that while incivility is one component of the filing, it far from covers the whole scope of the filing. Issues relating to intractable violations of WP:3RR & WP:TENDENTIOUS also form major parts of the filing. Looking at your responses, it would seem that you have completely disregarded these sections of the filing.

I also object to the characterization of Alsoriano97's incivility issues as "moderate". As can be seen from the above discussion and presented diffs, the consensus is that Alsoriano97's's incivility issues are both severe and habitual.

I would further note my concern with your assessment that Alsoriano97's actions as described in this filing can be resolved with warnings or minor sanction's. Of the three main issues described, WP:CIVIL, WP:3RR & WP:TENDENTIOUS, Alsoriano97's violations in each issue has occurred frequently, over the course of many years. It is my opinion that Alsoriano97's pattern of behavior in any of the three sections alone would have warranted a indefinite block, let alone all three simultaneously.

I would also note that Alsoriano97 is not "starting out" in any sense of the phrase. Alsoriano97 has been warned by many editors and administrators of his actions, but to no avail. He has been blocked once for 3RR and edit warring by @Cryptic. It is my understanding that edit warring warrants a firm response given that it is a "bright line rule", with repeated violations even more so. With Alsoriano97, edit warring occurs on a near daily basis, at an extreme level, with an editor citing seven reverts in a single day of a single sections of an article. While pointing out US bias may be reasonable, such action should take the form civil talk page discussion, not unilateral enforcement through edit warring and uncivil comments.

It is highly recommended to familiarize yourself with at least the basic points of a filing prior to attempting to summarize it's status and shortcomings. It is also recommended to note the consensus among editors who regularly edit at current events and their cited experiences working with Alsoriano97. Carter00000 (talk) 15:16, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would highly recommend that you stop trying to tell the rest of the community what their opinion should be on this matter. Individuals will decide which approach they favour, based on their own judgement. Administrators have a lot of experience in dealing with such cases. Deb (talk) 16:07, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What Deb said. And as I stated above, no, I'm not WP:INVOLVED. Your behavior in this report is slowly but surely declining. I count 21 times you have responded in this thread. Unless you are introducing new evidence, it would seem that 21 is enough. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 17:02, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Dennis Brown, @Deb Noted on the WP:BLUDGEON policy and will strive to follow its principles. I was not aware such a policy existed until you pointed it out, but agree with the logic of the content in the policy. Carter00000 (talk) 17:14, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also, this As can be seen from the above submissions, Alsoriano97 has committed numerous violations of WP:3RR and WP:CIVIL, at a rate of multiple times per day, to many different editors, over a period of many years. is simply false, this Alsoriano97's viewpoint of the world is deeply flawed. and this Attempts to reason with his pattern of tendentious editing have failed, and has been met with hostile and incoherent ranting. are WP:NPA violations and I would suggest you withdraw the whole lot before it results in a WP:BOOMERANG. Oh, and while we're talking about ranting, bold underlined text gives the impression of exactly that. Black Kite (talk) 18:12, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Amended my sections to remove the content as per your comment above + other content which may potentially violate NPA. Please let me know if there is any further content which you feel falls under the category. Carter00000 (talk) 18:30, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Alsoriano97 has said that he has been on vacation and will reply later today. Dennis Brown - 2¢

Response from Alsoriano97

Well, I see I missed a lot while I was out of signal and on vacation. The truth is that I find the exhaustive analysis of my activity a bit creepy, especially by editors who have recently collaborated with Wikipedia. But let's get to the important stuff. And I will be brief.

I apologize for my manners and for my uncivil comments (although some of those mentioned here aren't even offensive). I insist, my manners sometimes fail me (we already know that written language is often misinterpreted), but not the content of my contributions in Actualidad. I explain myself in the following subsection.

About the alleged "anti-Anglo-Saxonism" that "inspires" my contributions

Groundhog day. And I refer to what I've said countless times. The problem is not there (entirely). Wikipedia is a victim of a clear Anglo-Saxon-centrism that needs to be corrected and is seen in: Current Events, Years in Topic (births and death sections), the existence of many articles about American personalities of any branch, such as subnational politicians (which I don't think is wrong, let's be clear) and the deletion of those who are from other countries, articles of world leaders in which only (or the great majority) of photos that appear is with an American president or the SofState of the day. To give a few examples. Yes, this is a Wikipedia in English and it's natural that there should be a higher incidence of articles and biographies related to English-speaking countries, but if that language is considered the priority for its international use, we have to believe it. And this is a global enciclopedia, let's not forget it.

But you are incapable of seeing that there is an American bias that needs to be corrected. And who corrects it, is the evil one that needs to be kicked out of WP. You really don't realize it? Do you really? Really?

When I've included news about any country that I doubted of its notoriety, I've always accepted its removal if another user would remove it up. Is it so hard for you to do this exercise? If you don't do it, it's because of just what I say: patriotic pride. Centrism. Bubble. It's fine to think like that, but when someone refuses to be like that, don't bash him. If the deadly floods had been in Spain, would I have made a daily (I repeat, daily) update of the number of deaths in Current Events? No. Would I've included that the vice-president of an Autonomous Community tested positive for COVID? No. Would I have included any official trip of Prime Minister Sñanchez? No. Would it have included that the Spanish government approved a package of infrastructure measures? For God's sake, obviously not. The problem is that you believe (fortunately only some editors, I insist) that if this happens in the United States it is untouchable. And that when someone from outside those countries questions it, you think it jeopardizes the dominance of news about those countries because you think it must be so. And that is the kind of bias that should be unacceptable on Wikipedia. Just as any kind of Hispano-centrism, Franco-centrism or Micronesian-centrism should be unacceptable. You think that because you are English, American or Canadian you are above others and that any information included in Current Evenets is untouchable. For that there is 2022 in the United States.

You also recklessly ignore (being reckless is not an insult, by the way) when I remove news included that are not notorious when it happens in other countries. Even when it happens in mine. In the same way that you recklessly ignore when I don't remove news related to Anglo-Saxon countries because they are sufficiently notorious. Therefore, I'm certain that the accusations against me are, in part, arbitrary and personal.

Fortunately I participate in other articles and portals, being my attitude peaceful, neutral, without centrism, constructive, of consensus. And do you know why I've no problems with other editors, but a good (and in some cases very good) relationship? Because they are also like that and everything works better. As in Years in Topic or Candidates. I won't mention them because frankly I don't want to, nor do I think I should, bring more editors into this dissuasion. It's also seen that my contributions to Wikipedia are positive when I create new articles in good condition, improve others and participate in discussions to improve the pages.

About remedies

I think it's important that, when possible action is taken against me, it's not done from the gut. What isn't fair is that the work of more than six years (and which has been in favor of Wikipedia and recognized by many editors) that I've done here is thrown away because of my recklessness and certainties. But be that as it may, I ask that it be taken with proportionality, responsibility and rationality. I'm sure it will be taken that way. I'll assume the one that will be taken. As I've always done.

About other aspects

• Carter0000, is it necessary that you had to inform almost all Current Evenets editors that you have opened this ANI against me? What is unconstructive is to promote a kind of coven against me to try to have undoubted support for your intentions. Black Kite is partly right in what he states. You're new, that's great, welcome and I'd love to hear that you're enjoying Wikipedia. Nor is it constructive for you to state this, "While I am aware that Alsoriano97 has contributed in other areas, I cannot assess his performance in them, given my lack of knowledge of them." Do. Familiarize yourself and, then, you can judge my contributions. You are quite wrong. And yes, "international coverage ≠ international notability". That's the way it's always been.

• I've also been criticized for not intervening in other ANI (as if it were a daily or weekly thing...) or warnings; I don't have time to enter into extensive discussions and on matters on which I've already expressed myself in the past. A wise man once said: it's no use arguing if one of us doesn't want to listen. And that is how I have felt in discussions with Elijah, GW, Mount Patagonia, etc.

• GW, Elijah, Carter. You have also been rude, you have violated the 3RR rule, you have been unconstructive. What legitimacy do you have? You are not untouchable

Conclusions

I insist, I rectify (and I have done it many times) of the forms, never of the substance. But many of you don't even do that. Some of you are not even capable of trying to understand me (and us). Make the decision you think is best. I will respect it. _-_Alsor (talk) 18:00, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Questions to Alsoriano97

Starting this section because Alsoriano97‘s response is long and contains different sections. Elijahandskip (talk) 18:14, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree with Alsoriano97 that I have been rude and have also violated 3RR in the past. (In fact, I got called out for violating it yesterday). There is a reason I did not ask for you to be perm blocked/tbanned. I fully do agree that you do amazing work cleaning up the Portal:Current events. But, like I said and have personally been told/experienced: If you break the rules, there will be consequences. I was told that after a tban violation months ago that actually was added back just after a self-revert (for the violation), because it improved the article. My main question to you is: Why do you think you should or should not receive some level of a block for all the 3RR violations discussed in the discussion? In my mind (and from personal experiences), edits never go away (hence why I actually still had an editor saying I was not capable to edit Wikipedia a few months ago from edits I made 2 years ago.) If you can give an honest explanation or reason as to why you understand the 3RR rule and will strive to not violate it again, then I will reconsider my 24-hour block suggestion, which would be more of a 24-hour block warning to not violate 3RR again. I believe a violation of the 3RR rule should not always lead to a block, but it appeared that it was violated numerous times (and unless I am mistaken) they went unwarned/unchecked prior to this AN/I. So the 24-hour block would sort of be the compounded consequence for all the violations. Elijahandskip (talk) 18:14, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm a very regulatory person and if my conduct of repeated breaches of the 3RR implies some type of blockade for 24 hours, that must be applied. I would not like it, obviously, but if it must be so, so be it. I don't want to break that rule again, but we all have to do our part. _-_Alsor (talk) 18:25, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Alsoriano97, your incivility, which I labelled as moderate (but way, way too common) is more than a burden to those you are throwing those comments to. They waste MY time, EVERYONE's time, because we have to deal with these long, drawn out dramafests at ANI. So the consequences of your inability to rein yourself in a bit reach out farther than the page you are editing. There are plenty of examples to block you or consider a topic ban. It isn't about punishing you, it's about restoring order to that area of the encyclopedia. Universally, that is why we block/tban users, to quieten down an area of the encyclopedia so we don't have to keep hearing complaints. At the end of the day, we don't like complaints, it wastes time, and if you give us no other choice, that is the path we WILL take. What I want to see is clear, concise steps you would take if you weren't blocked/tbanned. I want a reason to not block you, or only block a short time. A reason to not pursue a topic ban. You owe me a couple of hours of my time, and hours of other users time. What are you offering in return? Dennis Brown - 2¢ 18:36, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I offer you the following: do not be disrespectful in the edit summary and try not to break the 3RR rule. But as I said, the other users must do their part... _-_Alsor (talk) 18:54, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Of course others are responsible for their actions, but even if they are rude, that doesn't give you a license to be rude back. It has to stop somewhere. As I've said to many others, if you are in a contentious area, do us a favor and make it EASY for us to see who is in the wrong. If you don't edit war (not just 3RR) and you aren't rude, then obviously it isn't you and would be the other guy. That makes it possible to just act without these long, ANI reports. It isn't enough to say "I won't if they won't". That doesn't fly. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:02, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes yes, this is clear. I try not to act like they do with me, but I just wanted to point out that I'm not the only irresponsible one here either. _-_Alsor (talk) 20:03, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Do you still think being reverted by an ip is reason to label them with multiple ethnic slurs? —Cryptic 19:45, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  What exactly are "multiple ethnic slurs"? The ones I received from that user when he called me "Franco"? It's clear that calling him "redneck" was not correct, but from there to talk about "multiple ethnic slurs".... _-_Alsor (talk) 19:58, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  You seem to be very badly underestimating how offensive it is to call an adult American "boy". It doesn't mean "you should grow up"; it means "you should be a slave". —Cryptic 01:58, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I think it's almost obvious that since I'm not American, by no means does "boy" or "grow up" have a racist connotation. I didn't even know this double meaning. _-_Alsor09:00, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  and taking into special consideration that in Wikipedia the ethnicity of the editors is unknown... _-_Alsor (talk) 09:02, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I’m sorry but in that same edit post you did say “‘merica” as if you understood some culture references or were just insulting Americans.  Augu  Maugu ♨ 09:05, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I’m not insulting, come on. I know references, but very few. Should I apologize for not being an American? _-_Alsor (talk) 11:21, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Alsoriano97, I’m also not American, but I don’t understand how you would expect “boys” (racial or not) to use wikipedia to issue complaints to admins against you. The only way I can see that word used against another user is derogatory.  Augu  Maugu ♨ 04:14, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Alsoriano97, why do you believe that "trying" to act appropriately is a satisfactory reason to not be blocked/tbanned? Given that you have been 24hr blocked before, how have you "tried" to fix the issue for that block?  Augu  Maugu ♨ 00:39, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Alsoriano97, you have responded to other questions yet you decline to answer this one. Why is that?  Augu  Maugu ♨ 03:56, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Frankly I think you are having a very unconstructive and superb attitude. You haven't responded to mine either, by the way. My attitude changed in several ways, such as the use of edit summaries to justify my edits and a more conciliatory attitude. I have a life beyond Wikipedia and this discussion, I guess you will understand that I don't spend as much time on it as you would like me to. _-_Alsor (talk) 04:02, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Alsoriano97, I am not in anyway acting in the way that you feel. I just look at CE every day. Your conduct has been against policy and also “unconstructive” (your words).

  As regards to the question I asked, you have still not given an answer.  Augu  Maugu ♨ 04:14, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  ” My attitude changed in several ways, such as the use of edit summaries to justify my edits and a more conciliatory attitude” is the answer. And in my country we don't use "boy" as a derogatory term, but to indicate vehemence. It’s not the same as insulting. _-_Alsor (talk) 04:20, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Why are you oblivious to the fact that the Current Events Portal is watched by so many people with different ideas and backgrounds that you can't just act as you feel is right? Please reduce the amount of your activity there until you have gained more experience as a Wikipedian. Nxavar (talk) 13:43, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2022-07-31T08:39:11 diff | thank hist +409‎ Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amitabh Vijayvargiya (2nd nomination) ‎ →‎Amitabh Vijayvargiya
2022-07-31T08:37:29 diff | thank hist +401‎ Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mukesh Sahni (2nd nomination) ‎ keep
2022-07-31T08:36:12 diff | thank hist +402‎ Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Subodh Saxena (2nd nomination) ‎ keep
2022-07-31T08:33:09 diff | thank hist +208‎ Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kishore Mahato (2nd nomination) ‎ keep
2022-07-31T08:28:50 diff | thank hist +404‎ Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sachin Dholpure (2nd nomination) ‎ keep
2022-07-31T08:27:39 diff | thank hist +405‎ Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dinkar Deshpande (2nd nomination) ‎No edit summary
2022-07-31T08:26:56 diff | thank hist +401‎ Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sanjeeva Rao (2nd nomination) ‎ →‎Sanjeeva Rao: keep 

2022-07-31T08:34:59 diff hist +1,854‎ N Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amitabh Vijayvargiya (2nd nomination) ‎ Creating deletion discussion page for Amitabh Vijayvargiya. Tag: Twinkle
2022-07-31T08:29:19 diff hist +1,682‎ N Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Subodh Saxena (2nd nomination) ‎ Creating deletion discussion page for Subodh Saxena. Tag: Twinkle
2022-07-31T08:25:40 diff hist +1,744‎ N Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mukesh Sahni (2nd nomination) ‎ Creating deletion discussion page for Mukesh Sahni. Tag: Twinkle
2022-07-31T08:22:27 diff hist +1,476‎ N Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sanjeeva Rao (2nd nomination) ‎ Creating deletion discussion page for Sanjeeva Rao. Tag: Twinkle
2022-07-31T06:01:27 diff hist +1,409‎ N Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sachin Dholpure (2nd nomination) ‎ Creating deletion discussion page for Sachin Dholpure. Tag: Twinkle
2022-07-31T05:57:43 diff hist +1,374‎ N Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dinkar Deshpande (2nd nomination) ‎ Creating deletion discussion page for Dinkar Deshpande. Tag: Twinkle 

Tl;dr: No action required, but please be aware of paid socking going on at fr-wiki by or on behalf of Avisa Partners, a private company and publisher of disinformation for their foreign-state clients. As a result of collaboration among fr-wiki users and investigative reporters at Mediapart in France, fr-wiki admins have blocked five Avisa COI socks, and are investigating further. One has been blocked here for cross-wiki abuse. Adding this in the interest of cross-wiki collaboration and awareness.

 Courtesy link: fr:Wikipédia:Bulletin des administrateurs/2022/Semaine 29 (in French;^[English])

In March, several fr-wiki socks attempted to delete the fr:Avisa Partners article on fr-wiki. In June, respected French investigative journal Mediapart published this article (in French;^[English]) about Avisa. French user fr:Jules* (talk · contribs) had been looking into Avisa as well, and contacted a journalist at Mediapart; they eventually got together and exchanged information. Mediapart published the result of their investigation into Avisa's targeting of Wikipedia,^[English] as well as a blog article explaining how Wikipedia's collaborative platform combats agents of disinformation.^[English]

Fast forward to July 21: Jules* has summarized the whole story at French ANI (same as courtesy link at top). As a result, French admins have blocked five users and suspect others:

The following have been blocked by JohnNewton8 (= French admin fr:JohnNewton8 (talk · contribs)): confirmed Avisa COI agents: fr:Melv75 (talk · contribs), fr:Rapatoast (talk · contribs); and also implicated COIs fr:Tocrahc (talk · contribs), fr:Ithaque Odysseus (talk · contribs), fr:Jaffredo (talk · contribs). (Of the five, only Jaffredo^[noping] has any contributions at en-wiki, and has already been indeffed by Blablubbs for cross-wiki abuse.)

I'll link this from French ANI and ask users there to comment here directly, if they have anything specifically related to en-wiki. Otherwise, please keep an eye out for the fr-blocked users, or check the French ANI discussion for further updates if interested. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 01:24, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think this may be justification for a discussion on formally banning the company and its agents from en.wp so as to avoid them doing the same crap Igor Bogdanov did (i.e. jump ship to en.wp when it was clear their fr.wp efforts were counterproductive). We should have absolutely zero tolerance for known bullshit-peddlers. This would not be the first time we've banned firms from Wikipedia for complete and total disregard of the project's policies. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{a little blue Bori} 02:13, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support The proposal to formally community ban them before they begin larger-scale cross-wiki abuse. Their behavior on frWiki has already eliminated any goodwill one may have for the firm, and their goals are directly opposite from the project's in the first place. Best to just nip it in the bud. Padgriffin ^{Griffin's Nest} 03:08, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. (I don't know if I can write here as I'm not sysop; delete my message if needed.) Please excuse my poor english.

I would like to let you know of two developments.

• Avisa Partners (ex-iStrat) has close ties with another company, Nativiz: founders of Nativiz (Henri and François Tillinac) were before executive for Avisa Partners; Avisa Partners is currently one of several clients of Nativiz; the last Tillinac brother, Jean, is still working as manager for Avisa Partners; source). Both companies created dozens of false information sites/blogs (mostly in french), in order to promote their clients, as documented by several French journalists, OSINT experts... and wikipedians. (And, there again, some of these websites have in their legal notice "Nativiz" but were registered by founders and current executives of Avisa Partners!). Some of these websites had dozens of citation as sources on fr-wp; we are currently cleaning all of this. Everything is about that matter is there: fr:Discussion Wikipédia:Observatoire des sources#Sites (d'infox) liés à Avisa Partners ou Nativiz.
• Looking for users who introduced in articles links to these websites, we found already known and blocked UPE accounts, accounts we already suspected, and also new UPE accounts. A few of them edited en-wp. See fr:Discussion Projet:Antipub#Faux sites d'info liés à Avisa Partners, Nativiz, etc. on this matter.

Investigation is still ongoing. Best, — Jules* ^talk 08:48, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I did a quick search for one of their black-listed sites and found it in Yubo (planete-business.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com ). Probably worthwhile to do a full investigation. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 09:07, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes @Rsjaffe, as fr:Yubo has been edited by an UPE account (and also, then, a disclosed paid edit account).

You can also take a look at en:Steeve Khawly (Louise12B (talk · contribs)) and en:Lignereux (only a suspicion, cf. Plotinus (talk · contribs)).

And definitely review contribs of Coccico2345 (talk · contribs), used a few years ago by Avisa Partners and that you can block. — Jules* ^talk 09:26, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) @Jules*: you are welcome to comment here. (I am not an admin either.)

Clarifying: his mention of UPE is en-wiki's shortcut, WP:UPE (equivalent to WP:COIPAYDISCLOSE). The French "Antipub" discussion about fake information sites related to "Avisa" can be read in automatic English translation here. Mathglot (talk) 09:13, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Another site: nextnews.fr: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com in Evolis. Another probable UPE case. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 09:36, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Jules*: You wrote: Il est cependant à noter que certains des comptes ici visés (Melv75 en est un bon exemple) consacrent beaucoup de temps à brouiller les pistes par des contributions anodines ainsi qu'en s'investissant dans la communauté (DDA, patrouille, et même dépubage !). C'est un aspect à garder à l'esprit, sans basculer dans la paranoïa. At Avisa Partners here at en.Wikipedia, we have an editor who mostly seems to have been invested in the en community since 2018, especially as a patroller, mostly doing reverts (I haven't checked how valid they are) and user page warnings, and yesterday doing a complete reversal of the initial en.Wikipedia version of Avisa Partners and making edit descriptions and talk page comments that sound reasonable at a superficial glance, but don't quite make sense; my concerns are listed on the talk page, and we'll see if the discussion that follows is rational and based on Wikipedia policy and the content of the sources, and constructive. Since I'm now a heavily involved editor, independent judgment from mine on this is needed. Boud (talk) 10:33, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Boud: I took a look at his contributions list and didn't find anything suspicious (but I may have missed something). Best, — Jules* ^talk 11:00, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks for checking. Boud (talk) 12:58, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't want to start a flame war, but your response to my page change has been completely out of proportion. Rather than acknowledge the very flawed way in which your version of the page is written, filled with NPOV, BLP, Recentism violations and an all around un-encyclopedic tone, you immediately reverted the page to your version and WP:BLUDGEON your way through it. I’m also astonished that you accuse me of being a sockpuppet just because you didn't agree with my edit.

As I said in the comment I made after the edit, the French version of the page, even trimmed down, is far from being perfect, but it's a definite upgrade over your version. I never shied away from corporate criticism on Wikipedia, my history that you seem so familiar with can vouch for that, but Wikipedia is not an investigative journalism outlet (per WP:NOR)

I would rather not engage with you on this topic too much out of fear of turning this into a flame war, but I'm open to any sort of arbitration, perhaps an RfC or just generally more people weighing in on this. Curious as well to hear @Jules*’ thoughts on the version I proposed yesterday, as I tried to hew very closely to the French version.

In the meantime, I'm going to take another look at the page in its current form and review it based on credible French/English sources. PraiseVivec (talk) 13:51, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, WP:NPOV is a Wikipedia guideline. NPOV is a good thing, not a bad thing. The fr.Wikipedia version is based on editing that is known to have been heavily edited by editors with a severe conflict of interest, so trying to start with that version would make it very difficult to converge on an article based on RS without any concerns about COI. I am happy to assume good faith, even though I have not seen significant amounts of content that you have created before. I propose that you respond in a modular way on the talk page and via edits with clear edit summaries. Please understand that in the current context, we have to have an algorithm with a fair chance of achieving consensus: modularity is a key to this. Please do not claim that NPOV is a bad thing in Wikipedia. Boud (talk) 14:36, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I prefer not to interfere with editorial matter regarding this article (I'm almost in a COI, as I worked a lot to find this agency operations on Wikipedia, helping journalists that are cited as a source in the WP article), and I don't feel legitimate to really intervene on en-wp, so it will be my sole comment on the subject. After reviewing the article historic, your version, @Boud, seems a bit POV to me: § about investigations regarding the agency seem mostly consistent to WP:NPOV (I didn't find BLP violations, but I may be wrong), but only writting on that is probably WP:UNDUE as —without underestimating the importance of recent investigations in quality newspapers— there also secondary sources about other "sides" of this company (owners, history, purchases of other companies, etc.). The PraiseVivec version, derivated from fr-wp version, seems less WP:UNDUE, but there is probably room for improvement. I would assume PraiseVivec good faith and I think that you could (should?) both collaborate to improve this article, with the help of other experimented en-wp editors. Best, — Jules* ^talk 14:38, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify: I now see that PraiseVivec meant NPOV ... violations - I misread that, sorry. In any case, the response to missing POVs is to add those missing POVs, not to delete content. I agree that my version did not include everything, such as the history of purchases, but that's a subtopic that can be expanded, since there's already some history of the company's growth; it's not a reason to delete my contributions. Regarding WP:DUE, again, adding material is the response to this, not deletion. I would also think that what the organisation actually does, apart from buying other companies, is significant. In any case, I propose that we continue regarding specific issues on the talk page, rather than reverting to the translation of the conflict-of-interest-edited version. Boud (talk) 14:55, 2 August 2022 (UTC) I'll just add: WP:NOTPAPER. Boud (talk) 14:56, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just a friendly reminder that this page is about raising incidents that Administrators of en-wiki may need to examine, or take action on. Discussions about content disagreements at articles including NPOV and other issues should be confined to the talk page of the article concerned, and seek other dispute resolution methods if needed. Concerns about user conduct such as whether editors may be engaging in COI or other improper behavior should begin at the user's talk page with good faith all around. Repeating the very first sentence at the top of this page: "This page is for discussion of urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems." Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 21:17, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is also a valid venue for banning users or organisations whose behaviour has exhausted the patience of the community. You're the one who plopped an active disinfo op into our lap, one that has the potential to expand past fr.wp and over onto the (much more heavily-viewed) en.wp. Hence why I'm advocating we ban them before they have a chance to do anything here; their presence would either inflame existing powderkeg topic-areas (such as Eastern Europe, the Balkans or Nagoro-Karabakh) or end up creating an entirely new one. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{a little blue Bori} 21:26, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have looked at the en.wiki article. It is not a BLP violation to included accurate and well-sourced information. I feel that PraiseVivec (talk · contribs) went a great deal too far with their edit, and should have discussed the changes first, especially given the sources. Elinruby (talk) 03:56, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jéské, maybe I wasn't clear: I have no problem with you or anyone proposing banning users or organisations here, and I favor it. That's why the discussion was plopped in the first place. I'll go you one better: a m:Global ban should be considered, if it turns out that the conditions for m:Cross-wiki abuse are substantiated. But shy of that, we can certainly advocate for blocks or community bans at en-wiki. This is not the first time that a fr-wiki investigation into organized abuse^{[English summary]} has had cross-wiki implications and resulted in an ANI investigation and action here. Mathglot (talk) 19:51, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Please see my latest message on meta: several old (2010-2015) edits linked to Avisa/Nativiz. Best, — Jules* ^talk 20:21, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ss112 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I pondered for a few hours whether or not I wanted to file this report, but Ss112 has been uncivil towards me on several occasions.

• The first occurrence was on my talk page, in a thread I deleted. We had a disagreement, where the user expressed valid concerns. Early on I let him know that his edit was fine by me and required no further discussion, but he insisted that WP:BRD needed to be carried out. He claimed that I was trying to hide the singer Conan Gray's failures by omitting Norway from a table displaying national chart positions (the album had not charted in the territory at the time), while keeping New Zealand. The actual reason was because the Norwegian chart is in the country's native language, supplemented by the fact that at the time Gray had not entered the chart with his newest album. Not a stan antic whatsoever, but okay. In the thread, he said I was xenophobic, working on Gray's album article as a fan, and alluded to me not being a "decent editor". This can all be found quite simply at the linked thread.

• More important however, is at Lil-unique1's talk page, where he again accused me of working as a fan, ridiculed my concerns about potential bullying, made fun of my block in 2020 even though I've done a lot of work here since then. After that, I mistakenly wrote that Ss112 had placed notability tags and started a merge discussion on an article I started (I corrected myself afterward). In this edit summary, he called me an "insufferable editor" and said I was trolling. In this diff the user brought up an ANI thread that was over a year old and accused me baselessly of being a sockpuppet based on a thread where I was not declared of being a sockpuppet (thread here). None of this is helped by the fact that he's been very rude in his interactions with me.
• I will admit that my conduct was not perfect by any measure, but I believe that Ss112's approach towards me has been completely unacceptable and a breach of WP:5P4. As I mentioned before, the user brought up an ANI thread from quite a while ago (this). I have put a lot of time into reading rules like 5P4, WP:CIVIL, and essays to make sure my replies are constructive and I could get past that thread. I feel like I'm on the receiving end of the attacks that violate these rules now.

Thank you. —VersaceSpace 🌃 04:20, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• What do you want to happen here, exactly? What overblown drama this is. I think we can now firmly conclude VersaceSpace wants drama or quite simply to make a mountain out of a molehill. This is coming from an editor who has a history of making personal attacks themselves as documented at this very noticeboard, and has insisted they want nothing to do with me yet continues to find reasons to reply to me, and went looking for a place to do so after removing my thread from their talk page. I went to Lil-unique1's talk page to ask for their opinion on articles started by VersaceSpace, with no pings towards VersaceSpace, and VersaceSpace inserted themselves into it because they "have the page watchlisted" and I should "expect" a reply from them if I talk about them. I didn't want VersaceSpace's input, I was asking an uninvolved editor of their opinion on a couple of articles. As I said to you, VersaceSpace, if you wanted to talk to me, you should have kept the thread I started on your talk page there, not used another user's talk page to repeatedly reply to me when you said you "didn't want to have to think about me" again.

I didn't mention your block—I called you a "reformed vandal" based on the infobox on your userpage. I didn't "ridicule" anything—I said a few threads on your talk page and a tag in an edit summary is not bullying; I had barely spoken to you before the endless thread at Lil-unique's talk page. I also pointed out you were accused of sockpuppetry and of being Billiekhalidfan, because that's a fact. "Possible/unlikely" just means the CheckUser results were inconclusive. It wasn't declared you weren't them, it's that there wasn't enough data to conclude you definitely are. Also, please don't lie. I didn't say you were xenophobic, I specifically said "somebody is inevitably going to accuse you of having xenophobic intentions" if you preferred English-speaking countries over non-English speaking countries in matters like choosing which charts to include in a wikitable.

I'm not arguing with VersaceSpace here, I've had enough of them at Lil-unique1's talk page. Talking to this user is incredibly frustrating—they can't stick to a single thing they say. The constant replies after saying "I don't want to have to think about you" seemed like trolling, was a timesink and the general behaviour from this user is just insufferable. Now, was bringing things up VersaceSpace has been accused of the best thing to do? No, but I did it because this user was condescendingly trying to tell me how to behave when not too long ago they themselves were doing the same things they are accusing me of. So if somebody finds me to be uncivil, forgive me—this user's insistence on replying after saying that they want nothing to do with me was exhaustingly frustrating. Ss112 05:06, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ss112, perhaps there have been more damning responses at ANI in the past, but you are surely in the running for the worst ANI response ever. What makes you think that it was a good idea to respond with naked aggression and "it's OK for me to be a jerk because someone else was a jerk" type reasoning? Your behavior in this conversation so far is completely unacceptable and I advise you to drop the attitude. This is a collaborative project and you are acting in a confrontational manner rather than a collaborative manner. Clean up your act. Cullen328 (talk) 06:31, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Cullen328: Cullen, you're right, thank you for the criticism. I suppose what I was trying to get at in a blunt way was I can't understand why VersaceSpace is wanting to drag the interaction with me, somebody they "don't want to have to think about" out, and saying only I am the problem when we were both pretty confrontational in that unnecessary back-and-forth at Lil-unique1's talk page. But yes, you're right, two wrongs don't make a right and I should have just stopped instead of letting my frustration get the better of me and continuing to bring things up to point out what I saw as hypocrisy. Ss112 07:15, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm rarely confrontational. If you look at my talk page, you'll see a lot of friendly and productive discussion. Even at your thread on Lil-Unique1's talk page, I think I remained quite calm. In the original post I clearly noted that I didn't believe my conduct was perfect, but many things you've said to me in our interactions with each other were not acceptable, which are now pointed out more clearly below. I'll heed and make use of Paulmcdonald's advice by apologizing to you for two edit summaries which can be seen here. It was inappropriate of me to say that you've been here far too long, so I'm sorry. —VersaceSpace 🌃 19:13, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I'm having a hard time finding what could be considered uncivil statements and/or personal attacks. Can you provide more detail here?--Paul McDonald (talk) 12:33, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Thank you for the response. Yes, I see now that none of these were specifically personal attacks, just general incivility, so I'll remove the italicized term from the heading. However, in the second point, I give clear examples of what I consider to be "bad behavior". I'm sure people have said worse, but many of the highlighted statements were hurtful to me, especially the sockpuppetry one. If you have any other Q's I'll be happy to answer them. Thanks —VersaceSpace 🌃 12:47, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  General incivility can sometimes be simple misunderstanings. I believe that A weak personal attack is still wrong. I also encourage both editors to first attempt reconciliation at user talk pages rather than come to ANI.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:41, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• As someone who works in the music content area and frequently crosses paths with Ss112, while I agree that sometimes he comes in a little bit hot in some discussions, these are all relatively mild instances of incivility. I can't see this closing any other way beyond a note that says "Be nice you two." Sergecross73 msg me 13:39, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Really? I see plenty of personal attacks and incivility here:

  • "I think you only removed Norway because Superache had not charted there yet and you wanted the table to only include countries where Gray made an appearance with both albums."
  • "This looked like a removal because "oh no, it makes Conan Gray look slightly less successful because his second album didn't chart in one country"."
  • "Firstly, saying somebody might have removed a chart because it made the artist look less successful is not "casting an aspersion"." Without evidence, an accusation of biased motives for editing is absolutely an aspersion. The last example at WP:ASPERSIONS says "An editor must not accuse another of misbehavior without evidence, especially when the accusations are repeated or severe. This especially applies to accusations of being paid by a company to promote a point of view (i.e., a shill) or similar associations and using that to attack or cast doubt over the editor in content disputes." This is exactly that situation.
  • Yesterday: "Clearly an editor who can't stick to what they say"
  • Today: "Self-reverting to discourage this insufferable editor from replying."
  • Today: "says the editor who's made well documented personal attacks and been accused of sockpuppetry" and really the whole thing is one big personal attack:

    The hypocrisy and complete lack of self-awareness you display is simply staggering. You have a well known history of making personal attacks against editors; it's been documented at ANI. Just like the suspicions of you being a sockpuppet that I was made aware of by another editor. Best be careful you don't quack, Versace (or should I say Billiekhalidfan?), because the truth will come out sooner or later and clearly you already have editors you've feuded with watching what you do. Do feel free to continue annoying Lil-unique1 with your inevitable inane, rambling defence to these well documented things you've been accused of, though. You're accomplishing nothing and continuing to demonstrate nobody on this website should listen to what you say because you can't do the things you "request" others to do, and can't stop replying to somebody you've insisted multiple times you want nothing to do with, yet keep finding excuses ("I'm being talked about! I'm being replied to!") to talk to. Goodbye.

  • The reply in this ANI: I think we can now firmly conclude VersaceSpace wants drama...I didn't mention your block—I called you a "reformed vandal" based on the infobox on your userpage...Also, please don't lie...I'm not arguing with VersaceSpace here, I've had enough of them at Lil-unique1's talk page. Talking to this user is incredibly frustrating—they can't stick to a single thing they say.

  Ss112 should be warned to cool it. This is no way to talk to each other. Levivich (talk) 16:00, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

All of this happened at my talkpage so I'd like to comment. I have butted heads with Ss112 in the past - its usually over different interpretations of the MOS or our policies and I tend to apply WP:IAR myself sometimes if there is a good reason. I have found them a little curt and abbrasive in the past that said, I would say that Ss122 adds more to wikipedia in terms of their contribution than they take away from it (99% of the time). We have formed a good working understanding and relationship and I've enjoyed both Versace and Ss112 allies and common interest editors. I do think sometimes us "old/experienced editors" grow tired and jaded - however, what makes wikipedia a fun pass time is collaborating on topics you have common interest in. I think we should all remind ourselves that the majority of editors are acting out of good faith and speak to one another on the premise that we're all trying to make wiki a better place. I've worked with both Ss112 and Versacespace and I think they're both good editors. I archived the discussion on my talkpage as it went off topics. I think both editors act out of passion. Can the two involved editors draw a line under it and agree to work together more collegially going forward. Common topics like popular music articles often attract the same editors and its much better /easier if we can find common ground. >> Lil-unique1 (talk) — 20:04, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Lil-unique1: I'm absolutely willing to "draw a line under" the situation. I completely agree that Ss112 is not a "net-negative" by any stretch of the term. I've already apologized for one thing I said to Ss112, which can be seen above. The biggest problem for me was the sockpuppetry accusations without proof, aided by the statement that "the truth will come out sooner or later". If there was one thing I would like to be addressed before this thread is closed or archived, it would definitely be that. —VersaceSpace 🌃 17:00, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A significant proportion of User:Aonbheannaigh’s edits regards their evident personal, style-only preference for the usage of the Oxford comma. These are largely or entirely in instances where its absence is an equally valid style choice, there is no issue of ambiguity to address or the use actively goes against the consistency of style used in the given article. No meaningful explanation of any supposed necessity for the change is given in edit summaries. Requests to desist and warnings that the campaign has become disruptive have, after initial inaccurate responses, been ignored. Mutt Lunker (talk) 16:48, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As stated at the top of this page in red, an ANI Discussion Notification must be posted to the talk page of a user when an incident regarding them is posted. Please be aware that this is not optional. I have posted one to their talk page as a courtesy to you both but please be attentive in the future. GabberFlasted (talk) 17:01, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, my oversight entirely. Mutt Lunker (talk) 17:21, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

They have continued to add Oxford commas since this report was started. I suggested to them that they should be part of the conversation here. Gusfriend (talk) 11:03, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And they are continuing to add Oxford commas and mark their edits as minor. Gusfriend (talk) 10:34, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And again today, on both counts. Mutt Lunker (talk) 16:09, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

They made two responses to posts about their editing on 27th July with nothing at all since, despite numerous attempts by multiple editors to elicit a dialogue. They are evidently determined to continue their edits in like manner. Mutt Lunker (talk) 12:20, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We just went through this, and in fact are still going through this, with the passive-voice obsessive (see tail end of WT:Manual_of_Style#Fallout_from_ANI). This kind of obsessive style-warrioring (if that's a word) needs to be nipped in the bud. EEng 18:20, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

At Talk:Sigurdur Thordarson#Der Spegiel attribution there are P&G disagreements between me and two others and I think it needs an administrator to have a look as it has degenerated from any semblance of collaboration. The other editors are SPECIFICO (talk · contribs) and Softlemonades (talk · contribs). NadVolum (talk) 17:44, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The problems I saw were:

• OR trying to remove reliable sources because they don't like a cite in them or they talked to someone they don't think is good
• OR in using words out of context in the sources and removing what the source said they referred to.
• V Refusing to put in a citation and saying something is SKYBLUE even though it obviously is not. Says I should have just fixed their typos even though what was there before gave most of what was important and ws well cited.
• WEIGHT in trying to say it applied to original source when using a source which gave an assessment - and then removing three other reliable sources which say the reverse.

One editor has made clear they want to just put in something without a citation saying it is SKYBLUE when it is definitely not and saying they have weight of numbers with the other editor. How many here think the workings of grand juries is SKYBLUE? The other editor rejects there is anything wrong with assuming a cite is based solely on another if it doesn't give any other cites. And is determined we should downgrade reliability to that of whatever sites they assume an article is based on raher than that any site has their own checks and editorial oversight. They don't see that as OR and something that should be exceptional.

And they keep leaving out bits of what I say, like saying I coud have fixed the typo when I complained mainly about a citation being needed. NadVolum (talk) 19:15, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"WEIGHT in trying to say it applied to original source when using a source which gave an assessment - and then removing three other reliable sources which say the reverse." - And after a bit of back and forth, I let you have your way

"The other editor rejects there is anything wrong with assuming a cite is based solely on another if it doesn't give any other cites." What?

"And is determined we should downgrade reliability to that of whatever sites they assume an article is based on" I didnt assume anything, online articles use inline links as the most common way of citing things and thats what they did. I also didnt try to downgrade to the reliability - I asked on the talk page if it mattered. And 45 minutes before you made this post, I accepted your answer (after finally getting one) that it didnt matter.

"And they keep leaving out bits of what I say, like saying I coud have fixed the typo when I complained mainly about a citation being needed." Both times SPECIFICO and I brought up fixing the typos (maybe theres another I missed I just did control F to search for the word typo), the citation issue was also addressed directly or as part of general improvements. And the point was that just 100% reverting everything and not working with us wasnt a "semblance of collaboration" Softlemonades (talk) 20:30, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Things like "*OR trying to remove reliable sources because they don't like a cite in them or they talked to someone they don't think is good" is just untrue.

I asked "Does it matter that theyre citing Democracy Now for that (does not meet WS:RSP)? An interview with Assanges lawyer?" and never tried to remove it because of that. And its not because I dont think theyre "good" its because Assanges lawyer is a biased source (lawyers are biased for their clients) and Democracy now doesnt meet WS:RSP. And like I said above, I accepted an answer when I finally got one.

Making it sound like personal reasons isnt cool. I wasnt gonna respond to the original post, but then I saw this and had to say something.

Welcome admin review or everyone growing up Softlemonades (talk) 20:38, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Either no source on assessment or all four would be okay but just choosing the one they agreed with was not consistent with WP:WEIGHT. I certainly think the lead is better with none of them and them only being in the body but I would have been happy with all in the lead too. And then there was the effort with spurious reasons why all three other reliable sources should be removed. Motivated reasoning is what I think of it all.Yes you asked about one of the cites which had a cite to a lower reliability source. As I said even if it was true that would not be a good enough reason as it was said in their voice and they do checks. Besides which it didn't look like it was copied and we have no knowledge of what else they looked at. Anyway the site they linked to wasn't actually saying anything wrong, it just wasn't green in WP:RSP. You're still arguing that your reasoning is okay and that it isn't an inference!

As to fixing SPECIFICO's garbled text - it didn't add much but what it would have added needed a citation. Complaining to me I didn't fix his text? If you really want it in the article you can always find a citation yourself even if SPECIFICO can't be bothered.

Anyway an administrator can probably pick up all this stuff and all the rest of it pretty readily and the reason I came here was to get one of them to comment as it does not look like you are in the least ready to accept anything I say and what I've just typed will be a total waste of effort on my part. Now can someone come along and give their opinion instead thanks? NadVolum (talk) 23:04, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"You're still arguing that your reasoning is okay and that it isn't an inference!"

No, I restated what happened.

"Anyway an administrator can probably pick up all this stuff and all the rest of it pretty readily and the reason I came here was to get one of them to comment"

Didnt an admin comment on your Talk page yesterday about edit warring on that article? Softlemonades (talk) 00:05, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of days ago but yes, and I hope you read the one on SPECIFICO's talk page too. NadVolum (talk) 09:29, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What I'm seeing in that discussion is that Softlemonades came in with a question about a source, and NadVolum went straight into defensive mode. This wouldn't have been an issue except for NadVolum's apparent need to go on lengthy diatribes which drew the discussion out further than it needed to. I see nothing for admins to do here. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:13, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you read the first line by Softlemonades they say 'but @NadVolum and I cant agree'. It was not straight in. It is very easy to say something totally wrong and it takes longer to point out the problems which might be what you mean by diatribes. None was more than five lines but I'll see if I can shorten things down, I'm not keen on just quoting WP:TLAs and not explaining. But thanks for having a look after the dearth of response here. I find it unfortunate there seems no way to get someone to comment on policy and guidelines problems in a discussion where people just ignore them. NadVolum (talk) 18:26, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hildreth gazzard (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Per Wikipedia:Competence is required, I think User:Hildreth gazzard's repeated mass creation of biography stubs is creating too many issues. For starters most, if not all of their creations only cites references using bare URL's, which is a problem as it can lead to rink rot. This user has been asked before to not use bare URL's [103]. I had warned them in June 2021, that their repeated mass creations had misspelled words and bare URL's [104], yet they refuse to engage at all with any sort of criticism from their work. Moreover, most of the prose of this user's article creations is paraphrased or copy pasted from actual source, which violates copyright. Using three of their most recent article creations as examples:

1) Daniel Powell, has placed the wrong place of birth (Sutton Coldfield). As per one of the sources in the article [105] has the correct place of birth (Walsall). I don't want to carry over copyrighted prose, but the start of the second line is a direct copy paste from [106]. Some phrasing is also used directly from this source [107].

2) Ezekiel Nathaniel, again start of second line is directly copy pasted from this source [108]. The last is mainly copied from this source [109].

3) Lachlan Moorhead, the second paragraph is quoted directly from this source [110].

This user continues to insist on creating stub biographies with bare url's and copyright concerns. There needs to be some sort of intervention here before things get out of hand. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 00:50, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Not sure what the guidelines for this are, but I would like to second this if possible. As a new page reviewer, I have seen dozens of articles with all sorts of careless mistakes being thrown into the New Page Feed by this user. It is left to us to clean up. It seems like they just care about being the first to create new articles, such as recent gold medallists, with no regard to quality or copyright concerns. JTtheOG (talk) 01:35, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Good heavens, well we don’t want things to get out of hand. As I have said before, but Sportsfan 1234 may not have noticed, I don’t have all my sight and anything beyond the the bare URL is too awkward for me so instead I tag the pages as needing a citation bot. I’m not sure inclusivity is the domain of Wikipedia but I am thankful for the opportunities I have had so far, it has been a real privilege. As for the insinuations of my intention by JTtheOG, I am very grateful for all their work as a new page reviewer and it was never my intention to deliberately cause extra work for them or anyone. The answer to my intention is much simpler than maybe they imagine. If there was someone I was personally interested in reading about and they didn’t have a page I would try and throw something together in case someone else was in my position and also looking for that information. It’s really as simple as that. No one tries to make cosmetic errors, I just took to heart the notion of “if in doubt, edit” that I heard Jimmy Wales espouse on an interview a couple of years ago, and I do hope that any errors I may have made have been ironed out by other users within this wonderful tool. We mustn’t lose sight of what a wonderful thing wikipedia is and how much it enriches the lives of millions of people every day. Thank you for your time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hildreth gazzard (talk • contribs)
  • Erm. I submit that if you are too impaired to properly cite your contributions -- especially with you not being hesitant to admit that you're leaving the work to be done by others -- then that does call into question whether you're too impaired to make mainspace edits, never mind creating new articles. Ravenswing 14:46, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    I strongly object to the idea that it should be impermissible to use bare URLs as references when creating articles. --JBL (talk) 17:24, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Same here. We have bots to fix such things. XOR'easter (talk) 17:51, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    This is not the main issue at hand. A lot of this user's edits have copyright violations. The references couples with copyright issues leads me to believe there is no competence here. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 18:08, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    And it is not "impermissible" to use bare URLs. It's just lazy practice. (Nor, by the bye, can we rely on bots to get it right.) If that was the only issue, this would never be at ANI, and neither of you are ANI rookies to need to be told that. Ravenswing 16:48, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't want to understate the importance of copyright, but I looked at the three articles (and rewrote and expanded one of them, Lachlan Moorhead) and I see some exaggeration of the extent of the problem in all three. In view of Sportsfan 1234's concern about carry[ing] over copyrighted prose, I will entirely understand if an admin finds it necessary to rev-delete the following comparisons (I've used the text as last edited by Hildreth gazzard, but other than my work on one, I didn't notice any other editor changing the wording) and I'm going to try to put them under a cut.

Hildreth gazzard should do better. I see instances of overly close paraphrasing. But I personally don't see a massive copyvio problem, and I don't believe the history of the articles requires any revision deletion. (Others may disagree, hence both the examples and the attempted cut.) What I do notice is that Hildreth gazzard hasn't used the tables of wins and medals in some of the sources to fill out the previous career, and filling out the article is the best way to avoid close paraphrasing, because it dolutes the information taken from a particular prose source and the prose added from tables is by definition your own prose. Hildreth gazzard, you say above that you have vision problems. Can you see tables such as those in this source?

Alternatively, I'm wondering whether the problem with covering the references is partly caused either by the defects of the mobile app—all edits appear to be tagged "Mobile edit, Mobile web edit, Advanced mobile edit"—or with typing [ and ] so as to add the title of the reference? If the square brackets and other stuff is available, then perhaps the advice at User:Cullen328/Smartphone editing regarding using the desktop interface on a mobile phone would be helpful? I understand that you have to select the desktop interface again each session, it's not possible to change the default, but it's an option many users on smartphones and tablets don't appear to be aware of. More basically, I've run into editors who aren't aware that the citation templates are not required. You can use any format you wish for references (except MLA-style parentheticals, I believe). I personally prefer not to use the templates; they are crotchety things and their output is a bit strange. But even just the title and the name of the newspaper can be a lifesaver when trying to find an old newspaper reference; it's often there in the archive at a changed URL.

More fundamentally still, there's a bit of ABF in JTtheOG's It seems like they just care about being the first to create new articles, such as recent gold medallists, with no regard to quality or copyright concerns. I do think Hildreth gizzard could do a better job, and he does need to stop close paraphrasing. But even though sports people are not my cup of tea, covering gold medallists at major international events is pretty central to our mission of having a useful and up to date encyclopaedia, and contributes to our avoiding systemic bias. There's a link on his user page to a Guardian article that explains his motivation quite adequately, as it happens. His stubs are neither horribly short nor, in my view, terribly copyvio'd ... although yes, Hildreth gazzard, you shouldn't be getting places of birth wrong, especially on a BLP. I'd like to see you craft these articles better. For one thing, in continuing testament to the decay of WP:SOFIXIT, other than category work and someone running a bot to fill in bare references here and there (most of them; the bot apparently chokes on the Team England site), I don't see people stepping up to help shape up these BLPs. I consider myself a wikignome; we gnomes can do better. As for NPP: I'm sorry, I know it's a firehose, but the problem there partly stems from artificial scarcity of reviewers: only admins, who have the right bundled, and those willing to not only go through training to get the right but also download some tool can help out by reviewing articles. Those who do volunteer to work there and accept those requirements, please remember that nobody required you to do that, our readers do deserve to have articles on Olympic and Commonwealth Games athletes, and there's no guarantee someone else would write them. In my view, Hg's articles are neither a flood nor as bad as they're here implied to be. Yngvadottir (talk) 09:24, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User:Elijahandskip is trying to discredit damage totals on 2021-22 North American winter, and when called out for it, he edit warred over the warning, all of a sudden changed his stance on an RFC ([111]), and also is calling me a troll. There is an ongoing RFC he is trying to violate consensus against. 159.118.230.50 (talk) 03:38, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oh cool. I was in the process of making my own AN/I for this reporter. Revert on my talk page saying that me deleting a message on my talk page was ANI worthy material. I think that is considered vandalism/troll behavior if I am not mistaken. Either way, I am requesting an interaction block be put in place between myself and this user over all of our interactions. Elijahandskip (talk) 03:41, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Twisting the truth, as usual. 159.118.230.50 (talk) 03:42, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also, deleting a talk page message is not disruptive, but ignoring the message and continuing your behavior is. God. 159.118.230.50 (talk) 03:44, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To any editors or admins who see this, I have publicly denied recognition to the reporter, who then readded a message onto my talk page after I did so. I did violate WP:3RR, but due to other editors also saying previously that NOAA is used over Aon, I considered it the #4 exception for vandalism. One editor ([112]) had almost all of their edits reverted today by myself or other users. I was doing reverts for damage totals without sources being linked or any communication whatsoever. There are no edit summaries, talk page discussions, or user talk page discussions, even with me trying all 3 options. The reporter began defending said user and called me out for vandalism/disruptive editing. As far as I understood, previous standards always exist during an ongoing RfC, at least until the RfC decides for it to be different. If I am wrong, an admin can correct me, but if I am right, then this whole situation stemmed from the reporter (or group defending/adding these edits) are in the wrong. No matter what, I am requesting either a user interaction block be put in place or a warning/block for both parties (3 if you count the editor which almost all edits reverted today) involved. Elijahandskip (talk) 03:52, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, first off, I'm at a loss as to what policy changing one's mind in a RfC violates. RfCs are, after all, to form a consensus, so if you're not participating in one with the intent of changing people's minds to your way of thinking, you're doing it wrong. Secondly, before the RfC is closed, there IS no formal consensus to be violated. If this is indeed the RfC in question [113] then claiming a consensus for a RfC open for just six days is absurd; stop that. Thirdly, come on, Elijahandskip. Are you seriously claiming that using a source you personally don't happen to like constitutes "obvious" vandalism permitting you to violate 3RR? Stop that. Ravenswing 04:02, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Prior RS with general consensus (Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 375#Aon). Elijahandskip (talk) 04:05, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I'm not seeing any sort of formal consensus there. I'm seeing as many editors agreeing that a full-on RfC should be started over it -- preferably with the Tropical Cyclones WikiProject clued in -- as otherwise. Nor do I see a solid consensus that Aon is a bad source; more than some people feel that the NOAA is a better one. Nope, that's a damn shaky underpinning to blithely violate 3RR over. (Speaking of poor understandings that put an editor's competence in question.) Ravenswing 04:11, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I understand the 3RR rule, and in my mind, I was exempt from it in the 3RR violations. It appears that was wrong, so as I admitted earlier, I did violate 3RR. I know what I did wrong and as I have stated, I am done with the whole RfC and debate in general. In the morning, I hope to go back to my long work-in-progress draft or the Monkeypox outbreak task force, so I hope an admin can see that I am apologizing for my mistakes and understand them and I will not be interfering with anything related to that RfC again. Elijahandskip (talk) 04:21, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(EC) Also, acknowledged on stopping the reverts, hence why I began WP:DFTT as a hope to just get out of the situation. I hoped to delete the warning on my talk page and sleep after two comments on the RfC. Next thing I know, I get my talk page reverted (see below) and have an AN/I started, so yeah, I want to start and have stopped. Their persistence is why I declared the DFTT, but apparently, that didn't work to get out of it, so if it is ok with everyone, I'm going to back away from this AN/I and RfC and all those pages being questioned. Elijahandskip (talk) 04:12, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've notified the project as I saw no notice on their talk page. Slywriter (talk) 04:28, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Elijahandskip (talk) 04:34, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Question for User:159.118.230.50 or an admin: I certainly have interacted with this user in the past, but I am unaware of which other anonymous editor this person was. If this is truly someone I have not interacted with, then one of this was one of their first edits. Based on [114] that edit, it appears they are not User:97.79.222.14, who I interacted with today. I am assuming this is User:96.91.3.165, who I last interacted with on July 28th due to the knowledge of the RfC. Any way to know (or any confirmation from User:159.118.230.50) exactly which previous user I am interacting with? Elijahandskip (talk) 04:34, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

159.118.230.50 geolocates to Prescott, AZ. 97.79.222.14 geolocates to south central Texas. 96.91.3.165 geolocates to Charleston, SC. For what it's worth. Ravenswing 04:41, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Good to know. I guess I had never interacted with this user prior to today, so my DFTT was not called for. Strange how they knew about AN/I and an RfC that wasn't mentioned on talk pages really before today. My apologies to User:159.118.230.50 for making an assumption that appears to be untrue. Elijahandskip (talk) 04:51, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Based on everything, both myself and User:159.118.230.50 made mistakes. Whole mess, to a degree, got started because I made a wrongful assumption, but as it appears to be a wrongful assumption, I am going to assume good faith here and hope User:159.118.230.50 understand their mistake (revert on my talk page) and I hope they can assume good faith toward me that I will not revert them again nor edit in the RfC realm again. If we both can do that, then this AN/I can close for both of us. This will be my last message in the AN/I unless directly asked a question. Elijahandskip (talk) 05:19, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• 159 since you provided no diffs and I can't be bothered looking myself, can you explain how someone can 'edit war' over a warning? A warning should be given directly to a use via their talk page. A warning should not generally be given on an article talk page, and if you did so, I can understand why this cause concern. I personally would not encourage Elijahandskip to remove warning inappropriately placed on other pages themselves, however it's a bit of a wash. OTOH, if the warning was left on Elijahandskip's talk page then the warning was fine (assuming it was reasonable), then they are entitled to remove it per WP:OWNTALK. While this is not exempt from the bright line WP:3RR, any editor inappropriately trying to add back the warning is the one clearly in the wrong, indeed it's basically WP:HARASSMENT and so the editor should be sanctioned if they keep at it. Provided Elihajandskip did not break 3RR, when removing the warning the their edit warring can be ignored since they were entitled to remove the warning and no one should be forcing them to keep it. Preferably they should have linked to OWNTALK or similar when removing the warning at least the second time, but really any editor who is edit warring to add back a warning needs to take responsibility for their actions first and foremost. Nil Einne (talk) 06:08, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Nil E., the warning was posted on Elijahandskip’s talk page. In which E&S deleted as per WP:OWNTALK. Reviewing the 2021-22 North American winter history page, it appears to be more of an editing war that occurred more than a 3RR. But they are more or less the same thing.

  It appears that E&S has decided to leave things as they are, which I think is for the best. However, some input from IP159 would be appreciated. ( Augu  Maugu ♨ 06:19, 3 August 2022 (UTC))[reply]

  For clarity I was referring only to the edit warring of the warning which the IP alleged in their opening statement. There may be problems with edit warring elsewhere, but it's not something that the IP referred to in their opening statement. The edit warring over a warning is weird since as I said, it's not something that should ever happen. Not because the target of the warning should never do that but instead because there should never be an opportunity to edit war over a warning. If an editor is edit warring over a warning it suggests someone else has done something wrong which it's not clear the IP understands this. The IP's opening statement makes it sound to me like they think Elijahandskip did something majorly wrong by edit warring over the warning but I'd say not really, at most it's a minor thing. And if the edit warring was happening on Elijahandskip's talk page, their whoever was trying to add the warning back is the one majorly at fault for their harassment. Nil Einne (talk) 06:26, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Ah, I understand your post more clearly now. Sorry for the misunderstanding.  Augu  Maugu ♨ 06:31, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I was the same IP, and I admitted I got too heated (as did Elijahandskip), and I shouldn’t have edit warred over a warning but done something else. That being said, I want to draw attention to a frivolous comment by United States Man, who is now proposing to ban IPs from WP Weather, which is 15 times more ridiculous then this entire ANI was before. 12.153.230.177 (talk) 18:12, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  What's certainly ridiculous is construing "I wish we could just ban anon users from WP:Weather completely" on his talk page as being a genuine proposal. Do you really think that throwing out more overblown hysteria on this ANI filing is likely to do you any good? Ravenswing 14:39, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User:159.118.230.50

In this edit, User:159.118.230.50 says, "Also, deleting a talk page message is not disruptive, but ignoring the message and continuing your behavior is.. The edit they are referring to is this revert on my talk page, where User:159.118.230.50 reverted my deletion of their message to me on my talk page. Based on that edit and their statement on the AN/I, I am having questions about their ability to edit Wikipedia (CIR). Elijahandskip (talk) 04:01, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the geolocation in the section above, it appears this is the first interactions I have had with this user, so CIR does play a role with their comment as it appears to be from one of their very first edits on Wikipedia. Elijahandskip (talk) 04:51, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, E&S, not sure what you're asking for here? You appear to be having a content dispute with this editor because you aren't happy with the sources they're using. My interpretation of the edits they're referring to are the ones at the article in question, where the two of you appear to be edit-warring over cn/bsn tags and you've just left an edit summary reading (Adding better source after every Aon damage total due to it not being classified an official damage total and was made by an insurance company. Removal of this will be considered disruptive editing due to all the past conflicts with this specific user adding Aon damage totals after numerous WP Weather members said we do not use them. In short, removal of this and I will start WP:DFTT)? Sorry if I'm misinterpreting, having a hard time following this. On a side note, what does "I will start WP:DFTT" mean? Valereee (talk) 15:10, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

”I will start WP:DFTT is saying that I will begin to deny recognition to them, but as started above, it appears the whole thing was a huge misunderstanding and bad faith assumption on my end, due to all the IP editors I have interacted with on the same subject. Either way, this section was started for a Re-addition/revert on my talk page and the user saying reverting something on my talk page was not disruptive, which showed a lack of knowledge and denial of WP:OWNTALK, which, now that this whole situation started in their first few edits, CIR seemed to be something I considered. If you refer to my edit in the section above this, I apologized for my bad faith assumption and agreed to not edit in the realm of that RfC again or revert the user, in return, they understand that they cannot revert my edits on my talk page. Elijahandskip (talk) 15:18, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just making a brief log for any future references to this AN/I (This should not alter anything mentioned here previously), but User:192.251.69.4 is also this same editor per this edit confirmation/behaviour. Noting they were previously blocked for vandalism (June 2022). Again, this should not change the outcome of this AN/I, however, with the amount of anonymous accounts being referenced/confirmed to be the same user, I think mentioning it here was a good idea. Elijahandskip (talk) 13:30, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User:TylerDurden8823 mass changes the term "alcohol abuse" to "alcohol use disorder", even though they are different things. Wikipedia has two seperate articles for it. The article Alcohol use disorder says, "This article is about chronic alcohol abuse that results in significant health problems. For alcohol abuse in general, see Alcohol abuse." So basically, the user assumes everone who (ab)uses alcohol has a disorder which is factually wrong. Even if it was correct in certain cases, it would be an unsourced change. A previous talk page discussion was blanked (Special:Diff/1101915733#"Alcohol_abuse"_to_"alcohol_use_disorder") and an ongoing one ignored (Talk:Stevie_Ray_Vaughan#"Alcohol_abuse"_vs._alcohol_use_disorder). Even if you interpret both terms as synonyms (which wikipedia doesn't do, as again, we have two seperate articles), it would still be an unnecessary change as "alcohol abuse" is a perfectly fine term to use, and it would be a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT -- FMSky (talk) 10:56, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's not because "I don't like it". The discussion was over and my talk page had become very lengthy (people had asked me to archive my page for some time and it was becoming burdensome). There is no reason to regularly use the term alcohol abuse since it is stigmatizing when a perfectly reasonable less stigmatizing alternative exists. I'm not sure how you decided that Wikipedia doesn't interpret both as synonyms, the dictionary does, but regardless of whether you see it as an "unnecessary change," is merely your own opinion, but there's nothing wrong with it. Even if Wikipedia has two separate articles for it, that doesn't make it factually true. As below, you have acknowledged that it is a synonym and contradicted yourself. You were unable to provide a compelling case for why the term "alcohol abuse" is necessary over alcohol use disorder before too and remain unable to do so. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 21:53, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I regularly abuse alcohol, but do not have a disorder? Good point. I agree, these are not the same. We aren't all teetotalers.PrisonerB (talk) 11:58, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I never said that I am a teetotaler nor that everyone should be. I am sorry to hear that you regularly abuse alcohol though I'm not sure how that's relevant. Your opinion here about whether these terms are synonymous is irrelevant. High-quality sources say they are (see below). Wikipedia reflect what high-quality sources say. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 21:35, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that these are NOT synonyms, and @TylerDurden8823: should NOT be making such changes. Use disorder is not the same thing as abuse, and we should strive to reflect what the sources themselves say. If the source says something is "________ abuse" we should use that phrasing, and if the source says something is "________ use disorder" we should use that phrasing. They are different things, and should not be used interchangeably. --Jayron32 12:36, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Really? See the following quote from alcoholism: "Because there is disagreement on the definition of the word alcoholism, it is not a recognized diagnostic entity. Predominant diagnostic classifications are alcohol use disorder[2] (DSM-5)[4] or alcohol dependence (ICD-11); these are defined in their respective sources.[15]" The NIAAA also says you're wrong here with a direct quote: [115] "It encompasses the conditions that some people refer to as alcohol abuse, alcohol dependence, alcohol addiction, and the colloquial term, alcoholism." Merriam Webster agrees too, FYI [116] "NOTE: Alcohol use disorder ranges from mild to severe and is typically considered to encompass conditions also referred to as alcohol dependence, alcohol abuse, alcohol addiction, and alcoholism." TylerDurden8823 (talk) 21:29, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I warned him about this previously (probably 2 years ago) and was basically given the impression I needed to piss off, I just hadn't gotten around to following up. But this is a very long time problem. It would take a lot of time to go through and fix everything he has done. But they aren't the same, and he has been extraordinarily disruptive with it, to the point it will take someone going through his edits to fix it. I can't see just letting this slide. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:16, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, because your warning and conduct were inappropriate and you didn't interact well and come across as disrespectful. I have not been disruptive about it and you seem to misunderstand the differences here. Please see the quotations from very strong sources below. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 21:33, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

just looked it up, yikes: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:TylerDurden8823&diff=1018259691&oldid=1018215721 --this is a bigger problem than i'd originally thought --FMSky (talk) 20:19, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and your objections are all inappropriate. They are appropriate substitutions. It is the name for the disorder. As I have discussed in several places, it is backed up by numerous sources. I think you may need a hobby rather than wikistalking me. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 21:29, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes great thats a name for the disorder. What does this have to do with people having abused alcohol on occasion? --FMSky (talk) 21:33, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There are clearly defined criteria for what constitutes alcohol use disorder. A person can qualify even if it's periodic. So, you're admitting then that it's a name for the disorder and thus a synonym. Great, that's progress. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 21:37, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A name (not even the name, that would be "alcoholism") for the disorder yes, synonym to alcohol/substance abuse obviously not. --FMSky (talk) 21:43, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Are you really going to try and debate what constitutes a synonym with a nonsensical semantics argument? Please see the dictionary's definition of a synonym here [117]. I do not see why you are clinging so desperately to unnecessary stigmatizing language when you have acknowledged on more than one occasion that alcohol use disorder is a synonym, even in this thread. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 21:48, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

not a synonym. the end --FMSky (talk) 21:50, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You are contradicting yourself and flying in the face of the dictionary and other strong sources, FYI. This now just seems like stubborn refusal because you don't like it. Seems hypocritical to me to cast aspersions of WP:IDONTLIKEIT when this is the display I'm seeing. How about you address the actual sources I have provided? You have now acknowledged that they are synonyms twice [118] [119] and then backpedaled [120] and contradicted yourself [121] both times.(talk) 21:54, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Don't forget to focus on content. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 22:19, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't, but it doesn't prevent me from pointing out contradictions and a pattern of behavior directly aimed at me since they decided to open this can of worms back up and aren't leaving me alone.(talk) 22:22, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Didn't someone called 'TylerBurden' just get ARBCOM banned? Is TylerDurden a second cousin or something? 🤔  Tewdar  21:34, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have no clue. Unrelated. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 21:37, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies then, just a coincidence.  Tewdar  21:38, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just to make it clear that there's no connection there, Tyler Durden is a character from the novel (and movie) Fight Club. Tyler Burden is just a play on the name Durden, but both are (presumably) named after that character, one just decided to make a play on words with it. There are at least 6 editors that contain TylerDurden or Tyler Durden at the beginning of the name (which is honestly way fewer than I expected), but it's a popular character in certain circles so it's very much just a coincidence that two different editors happen to have a similar name around that theme. - Aoidh (talk) 01:46, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• In light of Tyler's comment about being a physician who has treated many people with this disorder, as well as his objection to the 'stigmatizing' nature of the term 'alcohol abuse', I suspect we might be in WP:RGW territory. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 22:02, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Nonsense and I don't appreciate the focus on character. Please focus on the content. As I have said, I have yet to hear a compelling argument for the stigmatizing term nor seen it disproved that alcohol use disorder is a synonym. The facts remain what they are. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 22:12, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Let me ask you this way: is it possible for a person without an alcohol use disorder to abuse alcohol? Dumuzid (talk) 22:15, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I refer you back to the definitions provided. But yes, if it has been under a year since alcohol use disorder refers to a slightly more longstanding pattern of this kind of alcohol consumption. Nevertheless, based on how we use this term on Wikipedia and widely in other sources, they are largely considered synonymous (see the many sources I have provided). If someone abused alcohol and then stopped for a few months and never did it again, I suppose that would be the exception to the rule. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 22:22, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that one is a disorder and the other an activity; I understand your argument here, but there is a sense in which they are synonymous (understanding "abuse" as a habit or ongoing activity) and one in which they are not (understanding "abuse" as an independent incident). By my lights, it is worth preserving that distinction for encyclopedic purposes. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 22:34, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, the disorder encompasses that. I still have yet to see you address the sources provided. Please do. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 22:38, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So, if I were to say "we have to stop alcohol abuse at fraternity parties," you would understand that I was making a mental health plea? Dumuzid (talk) 22:40, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What is your point? TylerDurden8823 (talk) 22:42, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My point is that the phrase "alcohol abuse" can indeed be used as a substitute for "alcohol use disorder," but it can also be used to refer to discrete activities. In my "fraternity" example above, I would understand the phrase to refer to overconsumption at said parties without reference to the mental state of those involved. Dumuzid (talk) 22:44, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the comments above carefully. I didn't say that they can't though others have and that's the point. Even though I would understand what you're saying in the sentence above, it would be more correct to say binge drinking or high-risk alcohol use. Again, this really seems like splitting hairs. Out of the articles I edited, I have a feeling that examples that your specific example would apply to here, if any, would likely be in a very small minority at best. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 22:51, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Taking a quick gander, the only recent example I find is Stevie Ray Vaughn's father, and while I certainly understand your point, for me, anyway, I would slightly prefer the "abuse" language. It strikes me as something closer to an objective, observable fact. "Alcohol use disorder" strikes me as more like a diagnosis from afar, even if it is one that makes a great deal of sense. In everyday life and common parlance, I think you are right, but on Wikipedia where I believe in epistemic humility, it strikes me as just a bit too far. It's like some (admittedly obvious) WP:OR. I'll be the first to say that medicine is not my forte, but I think this is an instance where we need to hew closely to the sources. Reasonable minds may differ, of course. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 23:09, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• This is a common misunderstanding I see, even sometimes among experienced editors, where someone thinks that some sources equating two things in the general case mean that we can do so in each specific case. This may be true for terms that are strictly synonymous. Like if RS agree that a wrench and a spanner are the same thing, and one source says "The Queen always carries a spanner", it might be acceptable to state that the Queen always carries a wrench. But for academic terms like these, not defined the same way by everyone, with meanings that have evolved over time, that doesn't work. If you're going to say someone has alcohol use disorder, you need a citation saying that they, specifically, do. Anything less is WP:SYNTH. If Tyler can't see that, then I'm inclined to support a TBAN. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 22:32, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I disagree that you have to have the source use that exact terminology when that is the name for the disorder. Please address the specific sources specifically saying that these are direct synonyms and the massive contradiction that we use the term "use disorder" for every other substance other than alcohol (despite many sources in the laypress continuing to use archaic stigmatizing terms-it's a mixed world out there and addiction medicine remains very misunderstood). We have used plenty of sources that probably say "opioid abuse" or abused opioids yet say they have an opioid use disorder. Your internal logic here has some major holes in it. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 22:35, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  We have used plenty of sources that probably say "opioid abuse" or abused opioids yet say they have an opioid use disorder. That's not acceptable either. Neither is saying that someone has major depressive disorder based on sources saying they're depressed, antisocial personality disorder based on sources saying they're a sociopath, etc. If you don't understand that, I worry that a TBAN from alcohol might not go far enough. And it's not my "internal logic". It's the logic of this community in creating SYNTH. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 22:51, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]