Savalanni (talk · contribs) is adamant on including the ethnicity of the subject of the article Death of Hadis Najafi. I have objected to this on the grounds of whether it is actually relevant and on the grounds that the source used is subpar and does not fulfill WP:RS. The discussion on the talk page did not lead to much; no further reliable sources were given, Savalanni has continued to reinstate the edit (without changing any sources), and I (and Wikipedia as a whole) have been accused of anti-Turkic and anti-Azerbaijani censorship. I am looking for anyone to help clear up what's acceptable or not; am I in the wrong for asking for the information to be supported by reliable sources? Are the sources provided reliable (did I make the wrong call)?

This is the first time I am posting here so if I am doing anything wrong, please let me know. Beodizia (talk) 14:06, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Beodizia (talk · contribs) I have never claimed that you are anti Azerbaijani or anti Turkic, please read them carefully again: They may be sign of such things, but hopefully not! Read them again. I have given sources like TRT and GunazTV about her Azerbaijani ethnic background, there are many such sources. They are valid sources from my point of view. Why you have deleted them initially whitout any discussion? But after my reverting and asking you to go to talk page you have written in talk page. But the discussion was ongoing there you have again deleted the source content, why? Why you are not waiting for Admins reaction and decition? Savalanni (talk) 14:22, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Savalanni: Since the content in dispute was added by you I reverted the article to how it looked before the addition of that content. I don't have much experience with conflict resolution on Wikipedia so it is possible I acted wrongly in this regard. I also reverted because I'm trying to keep all the sources used reliable. You did accuse me of being anti-Azerbaijani and anti-Turkic: "Is it not a sign of anti-Azerbaijani or anti-Turkic thoughts to censor her real ethnic background", "do something against this Anti-Turkic censoreship in Wikipedia", "The motive is clear: avoid mentioning of her Azerbaijani background in Wikipedia, it does not matter how". TRT is not an acceptable or reliable source - the article on TRT on Wikipedia states that it "has received criticism for failing to meet accepted journalism ethics and standards for independence and objectivity". I can find very little on GunazTV so I also doubt that it fulfills WP:RS; hopefully someone else can weigh in on that one. The other two sources you added do not mention any ethnicity. I still do not see the relevance of having the ethnicity in the article at all, especially since the majority of the available sources do not mention it. Still feel that it is in poor taste to argue about this so hopefully someone comes along and sorts this out. Beodizia (talk) 14:30, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Beodizia: It was just one question, nothing more. You must please remain positivist and interprete my comments positively. Please read them again and try to see them from positive point of view. About TRT: based on one sentence in TRT wikipedia article (nobody knows who has written that there and why) you say TRT is not relible source! I could also find many such claims against BBC, CNN and VOA and claim these are not valid sources and so delete 80% of Wikipedia articles content! About GunazTV: The fact that you could not find much about it is not important. Because you are not the criterion in Wikipedia. From my point of view this is a valid source specially regarding such discussions related to Iran. There is also only one source about other details of Hadis Najafis life (from Radio Zamaneh); you but agree to keept them in spite of this fact that most of other sources never included such details. But in case of her ethnic background you refuse to accept the given source, saying most sourced have not included it! It is clearly a big paradox in your thinking way and argumentation. There are many such logical problems in your argumentations here. I have answered already about your other claims in the talk page of Hadis Najafi, please refer to that discussion. Savalanni (talk) 15:17, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just reiterating the same responses and clarifications over and over and I am not really interested in being attacked further so I'm not going to bother keep discussing this until an admin or other outside party weighs in. To those outside parties my concerns are 1) I feel like Savalanni went a little over the top in arguing with me, 2) is information concerning her ethnicity relevant in the first place? and 3) are the sources used to support the information Savalanni wants to add (TRT and Gunaz TV) reliable? I have for the record also asked about Gunaz TV at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Gunaz TV. I already assume TRT is not reliable based on what is said in its Wikipedia article. Beodizia (talk) 15:30, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

very helpful. You have not read at all what I have written here. You repeat your groundless argumentation full of paradoxes here and in talk page. Please read them and then answer. Savalanni (talk) 19:45, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Savalanni: What's the point? I point out how you accused me of essentially racist censorship - you claim that I read those passages wrong (how could they be read any other way?); I point out that Wikipedia does not appear to consider TRT a reliable source - you don't care; I question the reliability of Gulnaz TV - you say that it is reliable in your opinion. I think ethnicity is far less relevant than details of a person's personal life - you clearly disagree. It seems to me that your fixation on the importance of ethnicity trumps the importance of ensuring that the sources used are reliable. Someone else will weigh in on this issue here and on the reliability of Gulnaz TV on the other page eventually, it's pointless to continue this argument until then. Beodizia (talk) 20:02, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Beodizia: I agree, it is fruitless to argue with you. Savalanni (talk) 20:06, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am still being accused of censorship and "fear about people getting information" (1) and of having some anti-Turk agenda (2). I think this flies in the face of WP:AGF. Savalanni: As I have made clear several times, my concern is not to keep information out of the article - my concern is to keep the information that is in the article well-sourced and ensure that it is relevant. You don't, as you claim, have many reasons and soureces to prove them - you have a TRT source (not reliable) for the songs and the Gunaz TV source (awaiting someone to comment on) for ethnicity. Please stop insulting my character and insinuating that I have some weird agenda. As a response to There are many similiar information based on similar sources and reasons in this and in many other articles inb Wikipedia. You show never any sensibility against them. Why?: I have been on Wikipedia for four months; I mainly write articles on women and was horrified by what is happening in Iran. I wished to ensure that the articles on these victims were cited as reliably as possible and only contained verified information. I've only worked on quite a limited amount of articles. Beodizia (talk) 20:57, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Those words were not against you, they were about the current Wikipedia's policy (or mainstrem EN Wikipedia users) in regard of Turkic related articles. Mentioning you was one simple example to understand the topic. You may have just followed these negative trends in Wikipedia. And about Source: Who says TRT is not reliable at all? I need the reason for it. Savalanni (talk) 21:11, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I won't comment on the behavior, but only on the content.

If one considers TRT unreliable, they should definitely consider Gunaz TV unreliable too, because the latter is just a joke compared to the former.

According to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources, there is no consensus about the reliability of TRT World: Consensus exists that TRT World is reliable for statements regarding the official views of the Turkish government but not reliable for subjects with which the Turkish government could be construed to have a conflict of interest. For other miscellaneous cases, it shall be assumed to be reliable enough.

But the Turkic identity issue is not a miscellaneous one, in my opinion, considering the policy of Panturkism widely-adopted by the Turkish governments.

Please also note that TRT World is the International and English language version of TRT. The local language versions (such as the Azeri one used for this article) are of much less professional standards. 4nn1l2 (talk) 00:28, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

in Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources we clearly see that "TRT World" is considered to be reliable for topics like death of a woman in protests in another country based on the following sentence (where no interest of the government of Turkey could ever be existed if we have no illusion): For other miscellaneous cases, it shall be assumed to be reliable enough.. see also [59] Savalanni (talk) 07:14, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• As I have written earlier there are many sources which mention the ethnic backgrund of Hadis Najafi, it is not only GunazTV or AZnewsTV. Please as an exmaple refer to: The Caspian Post [60].Savalanni (talk) 15:46, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Savalanni, now that the discussion is returning to the content of the article and a discussion about sources, it seems more clear that some of the earlier comments have distracted from a productive discussion about the article, e.g.
  • 13:12, 9 October 2022 [...] Is it not a sign of anti-Azerbaijani or anti-Turkic thoughts to censor her real ethnic background? Hopefully not. [...] Why you do not accept the reality? Why you try to censor the reality? Is it not a sign of anti-Turkish thoughts? Hopefully not. [...] Hopefully Wikipedia Admins see my wrtings here and do something against this Anti-Turkic censoreship in Wikipedia
  • 13:32, 9 October 2022 [...] Why in the similiar article Death of Mahsa Amini and thousands other article the ethnicity is relevant but in Death of Hadis Najafi it is not? The answer is simple: because she was of Azerbaijani Turkic decent and this is considered to be a big problem in Wikipedia.
  • 13:47, 9 October 2022 [...] The motive is clear: avoid mentioning of her Azerbaijani background in Wikipedia, it does not matter how.
  • 20:39, 9 October 2022 (directed to Beodizia) [...] I think there is one senibility about what is related to "Turk". There are many similiar information based on similar sources and reasons in this and in many other articles inb Wikipedia. You show never any sensibility against them. Why?

I appreciate that after I asked you [61] to focus on the content, not editors, you stopped making comments to Beodizia that could be interpreted (or misinterpreted) as a personal attack, and had caused the discussion to shift away from the article and the quality of the sources. From my view, ad hominem statements about editors can make it more difficult for editors to work together, and can be damaging to the work of building an encyclopedia, but I am hopeful we can all work together productively in the future. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 17:19, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Beccaynr I thank you very much for your very good and professional way and manner of working in Wikipedia. I think you are one of the rare users in EN Wikipedia who behaves logically and soft. I and many other users had and have very bad experience here in EN Wikipedia against the users who want to edit Turkic related articles. They were brutally attacked specially from the side of Pan-Iranists and Pan-Persianists and their regional and western extremist and rasist supporters in a very bad way ... . I and many Turkic rights activists can give you thousands of examples for discrimination againgt Turkic people in this "free encyclopedia". I know one could say Wikipedia works based on rules, there is no systematic discrimantion against no body, and blah blah blah ... . But I and many other know that these claims are not true. We have one analogy in the real world: US had and have very advanced law system and Judiciary with very good rules and laws. But we know that Black people were and partly are under extreme pressure, discrimination and attack in that system of laws!

But about the topic and article: I have written in some other occasions that these sentences were not against a specific person. They were towards the EN Wikipedia in regard of Turkic related articles as whole and towards the typical "you" in EN wikipedia. The discussion were not initially about the validity of sources, it was about whether writing the Azerbaijani ethnicity of Hadis Najafi in the article is relevant or not. Please refer to that discussion [62]. Savalanni (talk) 18:37, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, just wow: They were brutally attacked specially from the side of Pan-Iranists and Pan-Persianists and their regional and western extremist and rasist supportes in very bad way ... And you are directing those words towards the contributors of the English Wikipedia. These are definitely against WP:NPA. We may be free to harshly criticize the Iranian/Turkish/Azerbaijani/US governments here at Wikipedia, but not the contributors of the English Wikipedia even collectively using generic pronouns (though not necessarily the contributors to other language editions of Wikipedia or other WMF projects). Please keep this in your mind. I personally won't tolerate more abusive behavior on your part. 4nn1l2 (talk) 19:03, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Savalanni, when I added the standard discretionary sanctions notice to your Talk page at 20:18, 9 October 2022, I had hoped you might review the linked Armenia-Azerbaijan 2 ArbCom decision, because it includes principles that are also guidance for navigating challenging topic areas. At this point, four editors in this discussion have expressed concerns about your conduct, and while you have explained that you did not intend to make personal attacks, this discussion has identified ways that some of your communication can be disruptive even if it is not aimed at a specific editor. I think at minimum, this discussion and all of the links to the conduct policies and guidelines in the various comments should serve as a warning about how to edit here collaboratively and productively. Beccaynr (talk) 00:53, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Beccaynr thank you for emphasizing this again. I have actually read that content and found out at least that it is not really relevant in my case, because I am not interested in Armenia-Azerbaijan topics. The aim of the links and the descriptions in that case were not fully clear. But I shall read them again to understand the sense of it, I am sure I shall find helpful content there. And regarding this topic: I have identified one clear discrimination issue in Wikipedia, I try to communicate this with responsibles here. I think there is not a working mechanism in Wikipedia (at least unknown for me) to protest against discriminations in Wikipedia, if you know please let me know how to proceed in that in best way. But real worlds experience from e.g. USA (having one of the most modern judiciary systems in the world) history shows us that there is no clear method to avoid system-based discriminations other than to protest against them, see e.g. Discrimination against Black people and their protests and reactions to it. Wikipedia is become a paradise for Pan-Iranists. They are fully satisfied with the content in Wikpedia. Even extremists among the Pan-Iranists are fully satisfied with the content of Wikipedia, because the articles have been written according to their wishes and ideals and Wikipedia reflects only their point of view and their perspective. On the other side we see extreme censorship against Turkic culture and heritage. Wikipedia should find and select an optimal way in between, not so that it satisfies Pan-Iranists and discriminizes the Turkic people. And at the end: being alone here does not necessarily mean that I am not right. I think one person may be alone in a discussion and his/her oppnents may be many, but nevertheless he/she can have right! See the history, you find plentyful of examples for this interesting fact! Savalanni (talk) 08:27, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Savalanni, the template on your Talk page refers to Armenia, Azerbaijan, or related conflicts, and the linked ArbCom decision states: Standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for all pages related to Armenia, Azerbaijan, or related ethnic conflicts, broadly interpreted. Wikipedia has a variety of options for dispute resolution, including the NPOV Noticeboard, and there is advice in the one against many essay, but I encourage you to start with the guidance for editors from ArbCom for topics that are subject to discretionary sanctions.

There are several concerns about your conduct discussed in the section below, and from my view, broadly asking if you are WP:HERE to build the encyclopedia. You did stop making comments directed at Beodizia when asked, and you stopped edit warring after I restored the status quo to the article, but some of your ongoing comments about broad groups of editors seem to suggest an WP:USTHEM and WP:BATTLEGROUND approach that is not constructive. If you are willing to adjust how you communicate, so your concerns are raised with evidence and in the proper forums on Wikipedia, without personal attacks against individual editors or groups of editors, this may help address the concerns raised by multiple editors about your conduct. We all make mistakes, and learning from our mistakes is part of being here to build the encyclopedia. Beccaynr (talk) 17:20, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Beccaynr, thank you very much again for your helping me to find the optimal way in Wikpedia to proceed in an optimal manner. Very helpful links and articles to read and learn with very helpful writing manner. Really thank you. I must invest much time to read them and think about them and try to find an optimal way to solve the earlier mentioned issue in Wikipedia namely the discrimination and censoring against Turkic related materials here. If I compare the quality and effectiveness of the discussions above of "Indef or topic-ban proposal: Savalanni" and below it, I find miles of distance and difference beween them. Really I have started to search in your contributions list to find and read your other comments and the texts written by you in other occasions. They are written in fantastic way and are solution oriented whithout traces of violence, full of kindness. Hopefully other users including myself look at them and try to learn how to treat other users. Have a nice time. Savalanni (talk) 19:09, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Writing so it doesn't get archived. --HistoryofIran (talk) 21:55, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Writing so it doesn't get archived. --HistoryofIran (talk) 14:06, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Writing so it doesn't get archived. The SPI should hopefully reach a conclusion soon. --HistoryofIran (talk) 10:25, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Indef or topic-ban proposal: Savalanni

• Comment There are no excuses for Savalannis WP:NPA/WP:ASPERSIONS comments, which they won't even apologize for nor admit. These comments (especially the one made at 19:03) makes me suspect that they may be here to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. --HistoryofIran (talk) 20:38, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, I stand by with I said, and would also like to add in WP:SOAPBOX, WP:POV, WP:TENDENTIOUS. Why you ask? Well take a look at Savalannis first two comments here [63]. Somehow they see a section named "Solidarity with Iran" as a place to spew their ethnic-related POV. Not only is this completely off-topic, but also very distasteful, have some respect for the people protesting and risking their lives. Not only do they use the term "Pan-Persianists" (whatever that is) the fact that they in that very thread fabricate that Persians make up less than 40% of Iran and refers "Persia" as "Farsistan" (whatever that is) makes me suspect that he is ironically the one that has something against other groups, namely Persians. I have been around long enough to know that this is a WP:NOTHERE user. A indef block or at the very least a topic ban would be the right thing imo, let's not waste more time on these kind of users. --HistoryofIran (talk) 22:01, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

About your claim againt me about WiR comment: Please refer to that discussion there again and please remain positivist and view them from positive point of view. It was just a pre-cuation: I can not understand that a Kurdish Woman named Mahsa Amini, an Azerbaijani Woman named Hadis Najafi and many people from other ethnicities are died in Iran protests, but I am wondering why we should consider all of them as Persian? Iran is a multi-ethnic country. Who sees Iran only as land of Persians, he/she ignores 50 Million other ethnic peoples like Azerbaijanis, Kurds, Baluches, Lurs, Arabs, Turkmens, ... . It would be a clear disrimination to do so. My discussion in that page was about this rightful fact. Please read this reliable source Iran Is More Than Persia. Most of what I have written here you can find in this and in similiar sources. Savalanni (talk) 15:41, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The title of that logo has nothing to do with ethnicities. That woman is from the Qajar period when the whole country was called Persia. Iran is a relatively new name in English. The Iranian government asked the international community to call it "Iran" in 1935. That woman predates it and that's why that logo has been named as such. 4nn1l2 (talk) 19:08, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, also it's clear that Savalanni still doesn't get that the topic was about soldarity with Iran, not a platform for to spew their ethnic-related rants. And thus perhaps a lack of WP:COMP as well. --HistoryofIran (talk) 20:02, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think HistryofVIran has not fully understood my reasoning way: it is solidarity with Iran and it must remain as such, it should not be changed to soldarity with Persia! It is the point. As you may know I am not really your opponent, I am sure you are also not mine. We better solve our issues with logic and kindeness. I have looked at your page, you come from Rasht. I love your hometown Rasht, it is one of the best cities in Iran with friendly and open minded people, I was many times there. It was for me really a pleasure to stay at night in that fantastic city. Specially if I recall my memories at road going towards that fantastic city and if I recall the traffic shield of "reduc your speed" near that beautiful city, I feel me really satisfied. Really perfect city with good memories. I think we are allowed also to speak a little bit about our common ground not always about our differences. Hopefully it is allowed in Wikipedia to speak about such things some times besides the main discussion topic, if not, please inform me. Savalanni (talk) 20:41, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pleae consider this fact that the user: HistoryofIran has been blocked 5 times in English Wikipedia for disruptive behaviour. Savalanni (talk) 19:52, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

9 times actually. And so what? That doesn't make your conduct less disruptive. Interesting, first you called me a pan-Iranist/pan-Persian/pan-whatever, then you tried to sweet talk me by praising my city of origins, and now this? Can you make up your mind? --HistoryofIran (talk) 20:48, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@HistoryofIran I have never called you or any one here Pan-Iranist, ... . You or any other one can never prove it. If you read them again precisely I have always referrd to an unknown group, you may say there is no such a group here in Wikpedia; then I have referred to "NONE" from your point of view, and referring to NOTHING should not be punishable. The problem is solved so simply! Discussion about your blocking history is the mentioning of reality which is important to address and to inform users who may come here to read the discussion and to vote. Regarding praising your home twon Rasht: yes, beautiful city, I like that city and even I had plans to move there permanently. In Rasht, the majority of the people are Gilak, with Azerbaijani population as the second largest ethnic group. They had never problems with each other in form of ethnic conflicts. Azerbaijanis of Rasht have around 70 mosques and Hussainiyas in this city according to Vadud Asadi whos Azerbaijani family lives in this city in fifth generation (his great grand father immigrated there before 71 yeras). I wonder if you are originally really a Persian or a Gilak? If you are Gilak, some people would expect from you that you become active in Gilak related articles too. Savalanni (talk) 22:09, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My ethnicity is none of your business and plays no role in this. Also, no one here cares what you think about Rasht nor your obsession with other ethnicities, it's irrelevant. The more you comment, the more you keep proving that you're WP:NOTHERE. --HistoryofIran (talk) 04:28, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@HistoryofIran I tried to make the atmosphere a little bit friendly, but it seems that you do not accept it. Sorry, but the soul of your activities seems to be a little bit brutal with no considerable amount and sign of kindness. No problem! Before your trying to ban me from Wikipedia, I was active in Wikipedia in normal way to create new articles and to add content (see my global activity too), but after that I am here in this discussion page to defend myself. It means WP:NOTHERE can not be applied for me, because the evidences for it are mostly produced directly or indirectly by your actions against me. It means you withdraw this unjust nomination, I shall again concentrate me on effective activity in Wikipedia; my first priority now is to defent my rightfulness here. Savalanni (talk) 10:26, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support indef per my nomination. EDIT: Savallani has now either resorted to WP:FOLLOWING me [64] or he's a sock Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kalelizade. --HistoryofIran (talk) 22:15, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@HistoryofIran my response to your re-comment after "EDIT": it is not true. I have interest in Turkish history and I have seen that you deleted three Turkish scholars from the list, without reason for two of them. But the reality is that before that you have followed me here [65] and you have attacked me personally naming my English skills as "broken" because of my typing error. I have corrected my tpying error later [66]. Your behaoviur means WP:HOUNDING of me. Savalanni (talk) 13:19, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nice try, but I edited the Mazanderani people article as far as back in 2014 [67]. You are clearly just trying to throw back the rules you have violated towards me. I have muted you on notifications; I'm done entertaining this, I'll await an admin to deal with you. WP:BLUDGEON this thread as much as you want, it won't save you. --HistoryofIran (talk) 13:26, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I can also simply create a topic named: Indef or topic-ban proposal: HistoryofIran, and nominate you for blocking. I am sure I can find more material than you to nominate you for blocking from Wikipedia forevr. I have checked your contributions, unfortuanly full of struggle with editors of Turkic related articles, not a good sign. Savalanni (talk) 22:34, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sure you can, but there are various diffs here that support my argumentations / proves my point, including this comment right here and the one below. --HistoryofIran (talk) 22:37, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but your account HistoryofIran has been blocked 5 times in English Wikipedia for disruptive behaviour. But mine never been blocked in English Wikipedia. I think nobody shall block me in Wikipedia upon the request of a user who itself is blocked 5 times. Savalanni (talk) 19:56, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@HistoryofIran You corrected me in a previous comment (thanks for it!) that your account has been actually blocked 9 times!. Very impressive! I would have a question: why you do not learn from them how to behave yourself in Wikpedia in better way? I think one or two times blocking would be enough for most users to change their behavour and learn, but in your case you have been blocked 9 times but you continued your disruptive behaviour here in Wikipedia. I think your attacking me here is the continouing of your disruptive behavouir in Wikipedia. Savalanni (talk) 11:04, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A retaliatory filing would not reflect well on you, and likely sway more people to agreeing with a block. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:50, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have not meant it as retaliation. I have meant that it is possible for any user to nominate any other user for indef ban here! This means it does not necessarily carry meaning or importance. Savalanni (talk) 18:33, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Wikipedia is not a palce to try to limit other thoughts than your own with fabrications and with personal attcks againgt others who think different than you. What I have written has reliable sources, see as an example this one: Iran is more than Persia. Savalanni (talk) 22:29, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support regrettably. They started their Wikicareer with canvassing in order to keep a specific article (Death of Hadis Najafi). Just after the article was kept, they started pushing their ethnicity-related edits on the article using poor/unreliable sources. They attacked the entire community of the English Wikipedia multiple times calling it Pan-Iranist, Pan-Persianist(?), anti-Turk, anti-Azerbaijani, racist, etc. They seem to have a battleground mentality: Just look how they behaved in a thread about WiR and turned that irrelevant topic into an ethnic battlefield! I think their account is a single-purpose account used mainly for editing the Hadis Najafi article and will most probably be abandoned after a while, but in the meantime, wastes a lot of good-faith contributors' time. The sooner they be shown the door, the better for the community and the project. 4nn1l2 (talk) 22:39, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I have expected such a comment from you here. Do you pursue me in Wikipedia? I think your comment here is in my favor! Because you mention my work of generating new articles! I have generated this important article Death of Hadis Najafi, you wanted to delete it but I have defended it successfully! Savalanni (talk) 22:42, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Don't pick another fight. You already have too much on your plate! 4nn1l2 (talk) 22:49, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  According to Wikipedia's recommendations I have tried to be bold. I think you do not know the difference between "fighting" and being Bold. Savalanni (talk) 13:42, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Pestering, badgering, bludgeoning, and hounding is not the same as being bold. 4nn1l2 (talk) 15:41, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment @ Wikipedia Admins, @Jimbo Wales: please stop happening of such discriminations against Turkic peoples and their opinions, culture and interests in EN Wikipedia. Please see how a small user group destroy the face of Wikipedia with censoring Turkic related topics. I guarantee you that nobody in Turkic world trust and read Turkic related articles in Wikipedia anymore, day to day the situation get worse. I warn you to stop Pan-Iranists with their anti Turkic propaganda in Wikipedia before it is too late and before Wikipedia has completely lost its worth and reliability being a biasless free encyclopedia, in regard of topics like Turkic history and Turkic society and Turkic culture. Creating a new online encyclopedia is very simple for the governments of 7 Turkic states which would present true and non-censored Turkic history and culture. Please stop Pan-Iranist and Pan-Persianist Mafia-like group in Wikipedia and ban their supporters from it. Savalanni (talk) 23:22, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Indef The above comment, accusing the entire English Wikipedia of discrimination, tells all — to users with an nationalist agenda, everyone else looks like a bigot. But, if this user is not blocked, would they be topic-banned from Iran and Turkic peoples? –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 11:39, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Please read my comments again. I have never accused anybody or Wikipedia entirely. It is unfair to interpret them in this way! I am referring to an obvious problem in Turkic related articles in Wikipedia, which are the result of destroying activities of a small group here. If you are intersted in evidences to prove it, I can provide it, but you should give me the needed time, I gather the information and evidences and present them to all. For doing this I need special rights and a shield against attcks from that group. Savalanni (talk) 10:48, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support: This user, Savalanni, has unfortunately been trying to make edits only for his desire and not to help wikipedia. H2KL (talk) 12:39, 11 October 2022 (UTC) striking sock of a blocked user per recent SPI — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 14:54, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  The account user: H2KL is a Sockpuppet of user: Khabat4545 and is blocked [68] short after writing this comment. Savalanni (talk) 14:43, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - based on Savalanni's comment above [69], there is clearly expressed interest in reviewing policies and guidelines "to find the optimal way in Wikpedia to proceed in an optimal manner". This discussion can serve as a warning about conduct that can be disruptive and potentially lead to sanctions, including blocks or topic bans, to both deter and prevent future disruption. Beccaynr (talk) 19:50, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In the very comment he says "I must invest much time to read them and think about them and try to find an optimal way to solve the earlier mentioned issue in Wikipedia namely the discrimination and censoring againg Turkic related materials here." Which just goes to show they aren't going to change anytime soon, which goes without saying. It was literally just yesterday they called us a "Pan-Iranist and Pan-Persianist Mafia-like group" and whatnot. WP:NOTHERE indeed. --HistoryofIran (talk) 19:54, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

HistoryofIran, I agree that referring to a "Pan-Iranist and Pan-Persianist Mafia-like group" is an unacceptable and unhelpful way to communicate concerns. The sanctions proposed here also emphasize what may happen if disruptive conduct continues. There is a lot to read and understand about Wikipedia, and I favor providing some time to a new user who says they want to learn. Beccaynr (talk) 20:26, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support either a topic ban from Turkic and Iran topics or an indef block, which are probably the same thing for this user. WP:NOTHERE applies. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 20:24, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support indef the vast majority of edits registered at "user:Savalanni"[70] were made at Death of Hadis Najafi, were they seemingly instignated an edit war[71] and have been solely concerned at ethnicizing an ongoing protest movement against an authoritarian regime, in violation of WP:RS and WP:DUE. In addition, they are also insisting at spreading allegations about a so-called "conspiracy" (??) by "pan-Iranists" (??) on Wikipedia against "Turkic people" (??). That is an egregious violation of WP:BATTLE and WP:ASPERSIONS. As can also be seen above, they have also used pro-Turkish government propaganda sources such as TRT and pro-Azerbaijani separatist (GunAz) "outlets" during their ongoing campaign, with the former even being listed at WP:RSN for parotting the stances of the Turkish government. Looking at the compelling evidence, it becomes apparent that they are not here to build this encyclopaedia, are trying to use Wikipedia as a venue for conspiracy theories and WP:SOAPBOX, and are therefore wasting the communities' time. Take a look at the hundreds of drive-by editors who have appeared on Wikipedia over the past few years pursuing the same sort of WP:NOTHERE throughout various topic area's and please tell me otherwise. - LouisAragon (talk) 13:43, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Some more examples of user:Savalanni's egregious conduct:

1. "@ Wikipedia Admins, @Jimbo Wales: please stop happening of such discriminations against Turkic peoples and their opinions, culture and interests in EN Wikipedia."
2. "I guarantee you that nobody in Turkic world trust and read Turkic related articles in Wikipedia anymore, day to day the situation get worse. I warn you to stop Pan-Iranists with their anti Turkic propaganda in Wikipedia before it is too late and before Wikipedia has completely lost its worth and reliability being a biasless free encyclopedia, in regard of topics like Turkic history and Turkic society and Turkic culture. Creating a new online encyclopedia is very simple for the governments of 7 Turkic states which would present true and non-censored Turkic history and culture. Please stop Pan-Iranist and Pan-Persianist Mafia-like group in Wikipedia and ban their supporters from it."

I wonder who the head of this "pan-Iranist and pan-Persianist Mafia-like group" is?! Who are its members? Could you tell us? - LouisAragon (talk) 13:43, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am sure you are coincidentally here in this page to improve merely the quality of Wikipedia and practically your comments here can not be biased at all! You have no connection at all to the user HistoryovIran (who has been blocked 5 times in Wikpedia bacause of disruptive behaviour!). Look here [72]. User talk statistics: number one: your own talk page, number two: User talk:HistoryofIran. Top articles statistics: Iran, Persian, History of Iran, Iranian peoples, Azerbaijani, ... (all directly related to Iran or Persians or to the other side)

From your new comments here I can understand your love of Turks and Azerbaijanis (including me): pro-Turkish government propaganda, pro-Azerbaijani separatist (GunAz) "outlets" , ... . Savalanni (talk) 19:29, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support topic block, weak support indef user seems to have WP:IDHT about aspersions and one against many. In this report they have cast aspersions against the majority of EN-WP in several of their comments. If they cannot engage without assuming anyone who disagrees with them is racially/ethnically motivated, I fail to see how they can contribute positively. I tend to agree with their assertion that our articles are skewed to one POV in middle eastern history- however- the approach this user has taken is completely inappropriate. Nightenbelle (talk) 13:23, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @Nightenbelle thank you for your constructive comments. I fully agree with you that my initial approach in confronting with the existence of bias in some WP articles were false. I have accepted this fact already in my discussion above with the user Beccaynr, no doubt about it. This kind user has given me very valuable links to read and learn, and shown me how to deal with other users here in an optimal manner. I am now in learning phase. I did not know initially how to confront with bias or discrimination in Wikipedia's articles, but it seems Wikipedia has some mechanisms for this. Savalanni (talk) 14:00, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm going to recommend reading WP:BLUDGEON. Responding to practically every comment in this discussion is unlikely to endear you to anyone 2600:6C51:447F:D8D9:2D80:51A0:9D62:35A0 (talk) 17:35, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Thank you for the point, I have read important parts of that article, very informative; good to know. It means I should minimize my comments in a discussion, and do not comment except when I am spoken directly for example with @. I will consider it. But this point shows us clearly that editing in Wikipedia is not that simple as it is normally claimed. You need to have at least B.Sc. in Wikipedia Editing or even M.Sc. in Wikipedia Editing to be able to edit in Wikipedia in expected form! Who has a Ph.D. in Wikipedia Editing, they can even do train others as a Professor and show how to edit in expected way. My level now is student of elementary school in editing Wikipedia! Savalanni (talk) 18:21, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Let's wait for Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Equaform. --Mann Mann (talk) 14:46, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Indef: Persistent ad hominem attacks have been their primary response to criticism. That's bad news, as it suggests that they may not be capable of collaborating effectively. Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 13:38, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There has been an ongoing dispute at the page Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale for some weeks, involving the insertion of POV content at the beginning of the lead by Srijanx22 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) that is directly contradicted by well-cited other content and thus WP:BALANCE, among other issues. Initial talk page discussions yielded no progress, so the matter was then taken to DRN, at the suggestion of admins RegentsPark and C.Fred here.

Due to repeated failure to respond promptly to DRN moderator Robert McClenon's queries, in what was recognized as deliberate sabotage of the process, the moderator closed the case. His ruling was that I had the right to edit the page as I see fit, and in the event of further conflict, I would have the sole right to create an RfC if I so chose, with assistance from the moderator to ensure neutral wording; if that was interfered with, AN/I. I had no opportunity to implement this, as Srijanx22 completely ignored this ruling, creating an RfC of his own which completely fails to be neutral (textbook bad question for one, and fails to mention the sources that contradict his additions, some of which I mention here under "Sources not presented"). His stalling-out of the DRN process to failure, followed by this snatching of RfC, back-to-back, were recognized by both myself and the DRN moderator as grounds to file here.

This matter involves two discussions and a now-paused edit conflict, but going through both would help to get the picture. IMO, while the immediate concern is the halting of an illegitimate, non-neutral RfC that Srijanx22 had no right to create, which leaves out a slew of sources from the view of potential participants, the wider issue here is BALANCE regarding two opposing narratives, the determined avoidance to abide by such, and the stonewalling refusal to address it that has been a pattern over multiple discussions now. Sapedder (talk) 03:47, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think you misunderstood the outcome of that DRN. @Robert McClenon: for clarification just in case, but I'm certain they didn't mean that you had the sole right to create an RFC; that wouldn't be a reasonable outcome of a DRN. What they were telling you was that you could go ahead and make your edits (as anyone can do) and if those edits were reverted or if there was more conflict, you could use an RFC to resolve the issue - essentially the normal way to handle discussions that have broken down. That doesn't prevent the other party from opening an RFC themselves. And at a glance, I'm not seeing what's non-neutral about that RFC - it seems to just be asking which of two versions is preferred. You can make your argument for your version (and present any additional sources you think ought to be considered) in a comment on that RFC, which is how it's normally done. Looking at your talk page, it looks like Robert McClenon's conduct concerns about Srijanx22 are more focused on misrepresentation of sources (ie. presenting them in a way that goes beyond what can be considered a good-faith disagreement or accidential misreading, to the point where it looks like they're misrepresenting them intentionally.) You should focus on that and summarize the specific ways you feel Srijanx22 has misrepresented the sources. --Aquillion (talk) 04:18, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The DRN case is at Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Archive_223#Jarnail_Singh_Bhindranwale.

My concerns during the mediation were about failure to participate in the mediation process, and I have the uneasy feeling that Srijanx22 was being strategically silent in order to get out of DRN while taking advantage of DRN to set up an RFC. I don't have any specific problem with the RFC, because I haven't checked the sources. I didn't check the sources because I wanted the participants to present the sources. I have the uneasy feeling that Srijanx22 was maintaining strategic silence in order to game the system, but I can't cite any guideline to that effect.

When I open an article content dispute for moderated discussion, one of the rules always is that participants are expected to reply within 48 hours. Exceptions can be made if an editor knows that they will be unable to take part due to real-life involvement, but timely responses by the editors are necessary for disputes to be resolved within two to four weeks. I had to comment on 4 October and again on 7 October that User:Srijanx22 had not commented in 48 hours, and then in four days. I thought that they might have taken a long wiki-break, in which case the case could be closed. During the period between 2 October and 9 October, Srijanx22 made one edit, that being to keep the moderated discussion open.

After a reminder, I requested each participant to present one proposal to revise the lede of the article. Srijanx22 offered two. Then, again, they did not edit between 9 October and 12 October, and I closed the case, advising Sapedder that they could edit the article, since the other party was not discussing. Either Srijanx22 did have reasons why they could not take part in dispute resolution, in which case they could have offered an explanation, or they may have been maintaining strategic silence in order to take the initiative when the DRN was closed. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:51, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

DRN is voluntary, and a DRN moderator can't make any binding ruling; only an RFC can do that. I don't have an issue with the neutrality of the RFC as worded. I haven't checked whether Option 1 correctly states what the sources say. I have the feeling that process was gamed, but cannot cite a guideline. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:51, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am busy in real life and editing only to reply here. I see Sapedder failed to discuss this issue with me before coming here. He falsely claims that the RfC is not neutrally worded though Aquillon and Robert McClenon have confirmed that is not the case. I am not the one misrepresenting any sources. Sapedder falsely claims that it becomes a misrepresentation of sources if his "sources not presented"[73] when I exactly pasted the version he proposed here on DRN. Nobody is stopping him to modify on RfC.

I have my own concerns about Sapedder's history of being disruptive, assuming bad faith and making personal attacks often even after many warnings. See the evidence here.

If you don't know the subject then you can think about an editor trying to get rid of the word "militant" from the first sentence of Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi. Sapedder is doing that on Jarnail Singh bhinderanwale since 2020,[74] and made 7 reverts in August - September 2022 to enforce this POV pushing.[75]

What if someone is claiming that David Duke is not a figure of the white supremacist movement because Duke denies himself being a white supremacist? Sapedder uses this illogical argument for Jarnail Singh Bhinderanwale by saying "JSB disavowed Khalistan".[76]

Why Sappeder shouldn't be sanctioned? It's clear that Sapedder lacks the ability to neutrally edit this subject. He made DRN toxic enough by falsely accusing others of having a "POV" dozens of times,[77] and falsified scholarly sources to be "tertiary".[78][79] This misconduct, together with this spurious ANI report speaks of his own misconduct and should result in a topic ban from Sikhism. Out of his 750 edits, all of them are about Sikhism, especially Khalistani movement-related articles and he was admonished for personal attacks and edit warring one year ago as well on ANI.[80] Srijanx22 (talk) 07:14, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I see Sapedder failed to discuss this issue with me before coming here. Given your lack of participation in the DRN, I think Sapedder acted in good faith to come here first rather than attempt to discuss the matter directly with you. —C.Fred (talk) 17:32, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@C.Fred: Check again because I participated in DRN for nearly 1 month and it was agreed there that RfC will be next venue. Srijanx22 (talk) 19:10, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Srijanx22: See Robert McClenon's comments above. —C.Fred (talk) 03:17, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User:Srijanx22 is trying to confuse the jury (the Wikipedia community) in saying that they participated in DRN for nearly 1 month and it was agreed that RFC will be next venue. Ultimately, nothing was agreed, because Srijanx22 failed to participate in the DRN in a timely manner. Sapedder not only had no reason to try to discuss with Srijanx22, but could assume that Srijanx22 would not be responsive, just as they were not responsive to me as moderator. Srijanx22 had a right to post the RFC, but participated inconsistently in the DRN. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:52, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In response to the initial comment: @Sapedder: There is nothing in the DRN ruling that says you have the exclusive right to open a RfC. It says that RfC is a remedy available to you, but it doesn't say it's available to you alone. I don't see anything in the RfC that renders it non-neutral. —C.Fred (talk) 17:36, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

C.Fred, the ruling reads as follows: If they are reverted, they may submit a Request for Comments, or may request my assistance in preparing a neutrally worded Request for Comments. Report disruptive editing at WP:ANI. Before I was even able to take any action, the right to formulate an RfC, including with Robert McClenon's help, was disruptively denied. Essentially, I can't make much use of the ruling as of now, besides simply making my edit and hoping it doesn't get reverted (unless perhaps if an admin can ensure this). The RfC clearly makes no mention of the sources I pointed out that contradict Srijanx22's attempted additions (like the ones under "Sources not presented" here). These sources were presented repeatedly in the talk page discussion and the DRN, and were at the heart of the matter. This could have been prevented if Robert McClenon and I set up the RfC, and the failure to include those sources for potential participants may have influenced at least one vote already, as the contradicting sources were not made known to them. As pointed out by other editors here, Srijanx22 gamed the system by collapsing the DRN through deliberate nonresponsiveness, then rushed to create an RfC that omits a slew of inconvenient sources and denies me my own given options, causing a double breach in procedure. Sapedder (talk) 02:20, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't like the use of the word 'ruling' to refer to my close of the DRN. DRN is a voluntary non-binding process. I have opinions, and I can offer to help. I can't stop an editor from doing anything. I find the conduct of Srijanx22 to be distasteful, but I don't think that they violated any guideline. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:25, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Robert McClenon: Roadmap, then. The point is, it was at least a solid plan of action, complete with help from a neutral 3rd party, that could have elevated the process past the square one of constant reverting, which we're possibly back at otherwise. Sapedder (talk) 02:14, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I can see how it’s generally “disruptive” conduct in an informal sense. However based on your report no rules were actually broken so there’s nothing for administrators to do here. Participation at DRN is not enforced in any way, and anyone can start any RfC they want at any time. The RfC itself needs to be a simple, neutral question that gets put to the community, it doesn't take any opinion regardless of who started it. It makes no arguments either way. If that was not the case here, it would be a problem, but it’s not. I agree that the RfC is neutral and valid and all interested parties should make their arguments in the responses. If a followup or parallel RfC is needed, there’s nothing standing in the way of that. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 03:56, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Swarm, C.Fred, in that case, given the circumstances, before any followup or parallel RfC:

1. Could I make my own modifications to the current RfC (which you or any interested parties may review), mostly to include the sources and statements that were omitted that conflict with proposed content? Ignoring sources and WP:BALANCE was the whole core issue to begin with, the deliberate omission of those sources strikes at the currently worded RfC'S very purpose imo. The current RfC framing "which version is better" doesn't reflect the core issue or context, and implies equal footing between the proposals; one (mine) is just the stable, long-standing lead, and one is trying to add heavily disputed content. A better, more specific framing would have been something like "is this content suitable to add in spite of these sources?" or something imo.

2. Also given the circumstances, may I invite back any editors that may have voted to take a second look at the RfC once it includes the aforementioned sources, and review their vote in light of them? Sapedder (talk) 02:14, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Do not edit the RfC. It is neutral, you are straightforwardly arguing that it should be made less neutral. That is not going to happen. You can make whatever points you want there and it is the community who will decide whether they agree with you. Yes, you may invite interested parties as long as it does not appear to be gaming the RfC. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 09:47, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I mention this because the user prominently presented their sources, then highlighting snippets from them in bold in the RfC, while permitting no such opportunity for the ones mentioned earlier, as a mod-assisted RfC would have. That's not neutral. Neither is failing to mention that my "proposal" is in fact just the long-standing lead, and that this is a conflict over adding a sentence's worth of disputed content, not two new versions. Regardless, as permitted, I will just invite back relevant parties for a second look. It will not be gamed to death like the DRN was. Sapedder (talk) 02:51, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fowler&fowler (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Disclaimer:- This will be a long post with multiple diff's from past few days so the administrator who will be reviewing it needs to be patient

While, I am generally not from those who posts at ANI (unless someone is a outright vandal); but now it's getting out of a tolerable zone and not only with me, this user is frequently doing it to multiple articles with battleground mentality, random uncivil rants, tangential shift of discussion etc.

1) To begin with - F&f appeared on 2 October 2022 at Talk:Muhammad of Ghor (a article they never contributed to in the past) and posted there in typical of battleground mentality that since the Pakistani editors are away and now this page is turned into a Hindu nationalist one - [81], I asked them in a polite tone about their problem with the page and they replied in typical uncivil tone abusing historian K. S. Lal as a R. S.S. hitman [82] and asked me to remove the quotebox - I did that to avoid getting into a futile argument as can be seen here:- [83], [84]

2) The editor though, showed no pause and used a comment from different article altogether to remove the entire section - [85] While, its nearly impossible to deny the large-scale temple destruction by the Ghurids in Ganges Basin, they started misusing the WP:Tertiary argument to remove a selected section which they aren't comfortable with (see here as I explained the whole argument - [86]

3) Leaving aside it for a moment the editors behaviour of assuming ownership of the page is something which can be seen even today - where they removed sources from still widely cited and respected ABM Habibullah and K.A. Nizami regarding the indentity of Muhammad of Ghor's assassins and labelling them as dated (they are from last 60 years (1970) and (1951) and not from 1770 and 1751 - diff (possibly to remove the bit that Hindus assassinated Md. Ghuri with Ismailis) and again here with "not so civil" edit summary - [[87] (omitting his well known debacle in Mount Abu 1178)

4) Even tolerating all these, the editors thuggish behaviour and branding others as Hindu nationalists, playing dangerous Hindu nationalist game, R.S.S Hitaman [88], [89], [90] and self-bragging about his own contributions with zero-regard for any other are just among many of their uncivil ranting - [91] and [92]. These instances are substantial enough to get them blocked, bar edit waring, assuming ownership of pages, battleground mentality among the others.

5) Their bad faith accussation on me for defaming the Muslim community (in general) and so on. diff, ignoring that they themself has the neck of whitewashing the destructions by the Muslims rulers as attested by पाटलिपुत्र; here - ([93])

For the record - I never edited any articles related to Muslims/Hindus/Buddhists apart from historical pieces and adding reliable content from WP:HISTRS is vilifying according to them, Isn't Wikipedia not supposef to be censored ? Unfortunately they still got a very light warning from the admin for this [94]

6) If anyone thinks that I am the only one who is having issues with this user then don't worry here is another one from a Bollywood actor - Akshay Kumar article where they were agressively pushing for adding about the actor so called Hindu nationalist bending [95]); despite being opposed by regular contributors there (isn't it absurd that adding Hindu nationalist bit on a actor page is due, {WP:BLP flys under the raddar}, but adding a religion part on a medieval ruler biography which is a normal protocol in historical article is not ?)

7) There battleground mentality, uncivil ranting, pov pushing was quite obvious there as well which even annoyed senior contributors there like Shshshsh & Krimuk2.0, see here - [96], [97] and [98]. (they promised to give both Krimuk2.0 and Shshshsh a good run for the money and not even counting it as a threat - [99]

Conclusion:- This is possibly second time F&f is having a trip at ANI in less then a month, leaving multiple instances of his uncivil tone which have flyied under the radar. There has to be some limit and this isn't restricted to a certain kind of pieces either - it's going on multiple fronts. ∆ P&t ♀√ (talk) 09:53, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The previous thread from early Oct is at: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1109#Fowler&fowler. The admin mentioned (quoted?) as having given him "a very light warning" is Vanamonde93. Packer&Tracker, I find mobile diffs too visually jarring to easily parse, so I (and I suspect many others) are unlikely to review your complaint closely until these are converted to normal diffs. El_C 12:48, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments of Fowler&fowler

I was going to post at AE to request that Packer&Tracker (talk · contribs) be topic banned from medieval India-related topics broadly construed, but they beat me to it and brought our dispute here while I was asleep. They have been blocked before for tendentious editing on controversial Hinduism-related pages such as Persecution of Hindus. Let me begin with their last bone of contention, the page of Akshay Kumar, a Bollywood superstar, where I have painstakingly collected a total of 15 sources, all highly reliable, 13 from newspapers and news magazines (including BBC, Caravan Magazine, The New Yorker, South China Morning Post, Al Jazeera, Haaretz, and a host of Indian newspapers and one from Nepal, all have very likely passed muster at RS/N) and two journal articles. Together they make a decisive case that the actor has promoted Hindu-majoritarian views in some of his films and in interviews granted to the media. Here are the references: Talk:Akshay_Kumar#F&f's_sources_on_Akshay_Kumar's_political_canvassing_for_the_Hindu_right

BLP concerns cannot be employed as a kind of universal trump card to make any living person immune from criticism. To say that I do not know about due weight when I have spent my 16 years on Wikipedia pursuing just that, on a large number of South Asia-related articles (including the flagships the FA India and History of Pakistan) does not add up.

At the Muhammad of Ghor too I have collected highly reliable sources: Talk:Muhammad_of_Ghor#F&f's_modern_introductory_broad-scale_history_books_on_South_Asia_and_Islamic_societies I will add diffs of Packer&Tracker's edits promoting original research to promote the Hindutva view later. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:25, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Both of you should explain the problem or problems briefly and present a limited number of diffs (non-mobile) alongside brief summaries. These ought to be prioritized with both the recent and the egregious in mind. Otherwise, the chances of an uninvolved review of either complaint drops considerably. I'd also recommend to limit boldface (P&t) and unnecessary links (F&f), because it just makes each post jarring to look at. El_C 14:42, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Do what you must user:El_C and other administrators. I will not go out of my way to cater to what you find necessary to make life easy for yourselves. I am tired of relentless POV pushing by Hindu nationalists, equally tired of cautious pussyfooting administrators on Wikipedia who refuse to do the work they need to for examining the record of a blatant POV-pusher. It is apparently easier to penalize productive editors with a long record of NPOV for minor issues of behavior than do the work admins need to do to maintain a reliable encyclopedia. Editors such as I get baited again and again by POV-pushers until we blow up. I'm done. I will shortly make an announcement that I will stop editing the major South Asia-related articles. I will also ask user:SandyGeorgia at the India WP:FAR that it be delisted because given Wikipedia's priorities, it will never be stable. Pinging @Vanamonde93, RegentsPark, Bishonen, Abecedare, Sitush, Bb223, and TrangaBellam: I'm sure there are many others, but I'm done. If you want to permanently ban me, be my guest. Wikipedia has done me no favors, none at all. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:19, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is a pity that is happening with you El_C because I thought we had a good relationship going all the way back to Kashmir. But c'est la vie. Nothing personal is meant. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:27, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fowler&fowler, I'm not gonna do anything. I'm perfectly content in leaving both of you to your own devices. You can take my suggestions at face value or ignore them. It's all the same to me at this point. El_C 15:31, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm with El_C on this, that briefer, with minimal non-mobile diffs, will make this easier to parse. I'd also add that, Packer&tracker, you rewrite your post without the egregious attacks they include ("thuggish behavior", "whitewashing", etc.) and without throwing the kitchen sink at fowler. Note that Fowler has a long and respected history of editing here and bringing up multiple allegations will, fairly or unfairly, not wash. If you have a beef with fowler, that's one thing, but listing everyone's beef, nope. Fowler, I can only say that El_C's advice, both here and in the earlier ANI report, is well meant and worthwhile heeding. --RegentsPark (comment) 22:58, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Looking through some of the diffs above, this appears to be similar to the previous report in having been prompted by Fowler's brusqueness. Unfortunately, the problem they mention regarding topic in question does exist, one of those perennial issues Wikipedia is not good at dealing with. WP:ARBPIA offers some tools for admins, but that doesn't solve the valuable resource of editor (including admin) time. ARBPIA combined with the usual issues around celebrity BLPs is not an appealing prospect for anyone. I am a bit surprised at the request Fowler posts a shorter comment, as their first one here is a reasonably short one. CMD (talk) 02:58, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You misread, CMD. It can be 1 sentence. I said: Both of you should explain the problem or problems briefly and present a limited number of diffs (non-mobile) alongside brief summaries.

Obviously, Fowler&fowler's 3-paragraph response is relatively brief, but has zero diffs currently (though, he promised to bring some later for some items, which is fine). And obviously Packer&Tracker 10-paragraph OP is not brief, but has diffs (though once I realized they were mobile diffs, I stopped reading).

I contend that if the two complainants subscribe to my 1-sentence advise, fully, they'll increase the chances of an uninvolved review of either complaint. Which I think is sound advise. But they don't have to do it. They're both free to believe that I'm wrong, or to just not bother, whatever it is. Again, it's all the same to me at this point. No good deed, etc. It is what it is. Added: Packer&Tracker's shortened complaint below still uses mobile diffs. Okay. El_C 04:44, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

OK, @Chipmunkdavis and El C: I will post diffs, although I have no heart for this. Wikipedia is impotent in the face of bias. It is the main reason it is not considered reliable. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 10:02, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well, don't do it for me, Fowler&fowler, since I'm done here. I was just explaining my position, and puzzlement, at your vehemence in response to my rather standard advise. That's it. El_C 13:13, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@El C: Beg-pardon for inconvenience on my part - regarding mobile diff. I did it now in my recent post. ∆ P&t ♀√ (talk) 13:30, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Good. That's a promising sign, Packer&Tracker. I'm still out, though, obviously through no direct fault of your own. I wish you both success in finding an amicable end to this. El_C 14:02, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, no, it didn't work, Packer&Tracker. Here's are simple ways to do it using your first diff as an example: [100] (mobile) → [101] (desktop). Or alternatively: Special:MobileDiff/1116035193 → Special:diff/1116035193. And piped: diff → diff / diff → diff. HTH. El_C 14:12, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@El C: Putting it on hold for a moment, the editor's deceptive notice of quiting S.Asian article and last line of it ? Is such behaviour valid ? (saying that male user wrongly disguise themself as female ?) ∆ P&t ♀√ (talk) 15:04, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Packer&Tracker, I agree, that entire thing in the new notice at the top of Fowler&fowler's talk page that reads (in part): very likely there are also males posing as females for reasons best known to them (emphasis added) — I have no idea what that's about, but on the face of it, it sounds quite inappropriate the way that's worded ←[[Added: ES] But whatever, in light of him inexplicably taking that action in the first place as a response to my rather standard and neutral advise (and seemingly the mentality that he's owed something from me), I'm gonna leave all that to others. If I could have nothing further to do with all of this, that'd be ideal for me. Ultimately, It's Not My Cross to Bear. That said, you, however, should not continue to edit a user talk page after said user had asked to stop. That, too, is inappropriate. //Out (well, hopefully, this time). El_C 17:00, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I would not post at their talk page, but even in their recent reply, their never ending brusqueness is still intact, where they dragged poor User:पाटलिपुत्र and vented out by branding him/her as "inveterate POV-pusher" - special:Diff/1116644991 I won't be surprised that it will be swept under the carpet as well among many other of his random personal attacks (their nescience about Md. Ghuri but still a desire to counter my so called "Hindu right" narrative is apparent from a number of factual error, pov, plethora of verbiage they inserted in lead which I will point out once they will be finished) ∆ P&t ♀√ (talk) 18:13, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@El C:: I have reverted my user page and user talk page to the respective versions of the days before this ANI began, the rationale being expressed in this diff. Although it was not an expression of vehemence but rather of extreme despondency. I apologize deeply to all concerned. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:31, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Some diffs →[102], [103] , [104], [105], [106], [107], [108], [Please briefly go through, to get a better picture of it]

1.) Firstly regarding Akshay Kumar's article and for pushing Hindutva branded lead, every public figure at one point or other have political leanings but that doesn't mean that their lead will cover that part or a random comment (to teach about native Indian rulers over the Turks in the discourse of school) at film promotion worth a inclusion in article. Unless the actor is very clearly involved with a political party, it would be all but pov-pushing

→ This part is best explained by the involved senior editor there - [109]

→ The main issue with Akshay page as well as the others, I pointed out apart from WP:OWN behaviour is uncivil commentaries, let's assume that I got it wrong [110], don't think the other editors who shares the same view got that wrong either - [111] & [112] (both are veteran editors around for over a decade)

2.) Now coming to Muhammad of Ghor's article - they are indeed right that they posted decent sources, but they didn't mentioned that 70% of them didn't even mentioned the subject on whom the argument was supposed to be (Md. Ghuri and if it does then it was extremely brief to the point of being vague)

3.) It's clear case of misusing the tertiary source policy to remove only a selected chunk of article (religion section) by deviating the main argument. (look at tiresome posting on Talk:Muhammad of Ghor where Muhammad is not even remotely mentioned in most cases); I am open to discuss that part considering F&f bring something explicit to the table about the subject. I actually conceded rather easily on removing K.S. Lal quotebox to avoid a needless bother see - [113] & didn't even reverted blanket removal of religion section [114] untill today where they introduce a pov-factually incorrect lead (entirely different from the body) [115] only to get reverted by पाटलिपुत्र. (see here [116] - I explained their factually incorrect addition in 5th & 6th point)

4.) To sum up my part; I won't be proposing a T-ban as that's never a solution but keeping aside his pov pushing [117], batteground mentality [118] which concerned other much senior contributors as well despite their (F&f's) competence as a editor. Leaving all these points aside, their uncivil conduct and frequent bashing of their colleagues as Hindu nationalists, abusing historians as R.S.S. hitman and then playing innocent card is not acceptable.

5.) Every editor doesn't matter despite the seniority/juniority factor, must need to be civil and accomodating during discussion regarding contentious topics (by staying relevant to the topic and not deviating needlesly) which is apparently my main concern leaving aside all other issues. Yes, as RP said, the user has been around for years but that doesn't mean that they can get so many free passes, infact that's even more unfortunate. I included other's beef (briefly) with F&f only to highlight that off late it's going on at several fronts and I am not the only one who is complaining about it.

→Conclusion:- Please take a look at their recent notice of unwatching S.Asian articles as well on their userpage where they used verbals yet again, apart from their usual brusqueness, they also accused (indirectly me) that some male editors here wrongly disguised themselves as female - that's just baloney and blatant personal attack.∆ P&t ♀√ (talk) 04:20, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fowler&fowler's statement

Please do not post in this section. Post in the section below. Please do not post in this section. Post in the section below.

• First, the page of the actor Akshay Kumar; whether (in the reliable sources) he is linked with Hindutva and with promoting India's Hindu nationalist government of Narendra Modi; and whether I am violating WP:BLP as alleged by Packer&Tracker.

Akshay Kumar

• Sources describing Akshay Kumar's support of Narendra Modi have been in place in the article for at least two years. An example is in my edit from September 2020, citing a Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC) report that had mentioned, "(Former prime minister Stephen) Harper campaigned in 2011 alongside one of Modi's biggest celebrity backers, Bollywood star Akshay Kumar, who was later given a special grant of Canadian citizenship." (diff)
• As to whether I am riding roughshod over BLP and maligning the actor, here is a diff of another editor, user:Shshsh, who has long edited that page, stating: "For the record, if your contribution is fair, balanced, and well in place, I will be the first to support you just as I supported the citizenship section." (diff) and my reply (diff)
• For the specific question of "Hindutva" and whether the actor has promoted it in words or deeds, a topic that has received significant media attention in the last two years, I have created a separate section on the article's talk page, listing 13 reports from newspapers or newsmagazines, including The New Yorker, South China Morning Post, Al Jazeera, Haaretz as well as many South Asian ones.diff and two journal articles diff) These mention the actor's promotion both of Hindutva and the current national government in India headed by Narendra Modi. I haven't added anything to the article yet, nor even drafted anything.
• Whether there were no obvious issues of WP:PROMO in the article, here is another recent diff of Shshsh stating: "Okay, thank you for cutting the POV pushing. The last edit about acclaim should also be reverted. Agree?" diff.

Religion section and Hindu majoritarian bias

( Note: I removed the Religion section, citing an administrator's comments about another article with similar issues of bias (diff and diff) and its relation to WP:ONUS; so it is not currently there in the article, but my removal has been disputed by Packer&Tracker.)

1. Packer&Tracker's "Religion" subsection gratuitously vilified South Asia's medieval-era Islamic conquerers, engaged in original research, and promoted WP:UNDUE content associated with India's Hindu majoritarianism. This was done without the necessary nuance, irony, modulation or narrative distancing required. Here are some examples from the added Religion section:
   • "Chronicler Minhaj al-Siraj, in his Tabaqat-i-Nasiri, stated that Muhammad of Ghor (along with his brother) ordered a massacre of all the Ismailis across the Ghurid empire and purified the region from their 'infernal impurity'"
   • "According to the contemporary chronicler Hasan Nizami, Muhammad of Ghor destroyed idols in thousand temples in Banāras (Kashi) alone and converted them into the 'house for the Musalmans'".
   • "During his conquest of Ajmer, Nizami stated that the Ghurids ('Army of Islam'), slaughtered thousands of cow worshippers and sent them to the 'abode of perdition'".
   • "According to Juzjani 'about three or four lakhs (300,000–400,000) of infidels who wore the sacred thread were made Muslamans during this campaign'".
   • "When the crow-faced Hindus began to sound their white shells on the backs of the elephants, you would have said that a river of pitch was flowing impetuously down the face of the mountain of blue. The army of Islam was completely victorious, and a hundred thousand grovelling Kaffirs swiftly departed to the fire of hell." (This egregious example was in the quote box.)
   • When we quote medieval chroniclers matter-of-factly in a serial fashion without modulation or narrative distancing, we are no longer just adding the occasional vignette, we are using them vilify Islam in Wikipedia's voice.
2. To aid discussions in Talk:Muhammad of Ghor, I have rewritten the lead on the subpage of my talk page (diff). All sources are modern.(diff) and the rationale for using them is in the: diff (Updated 09:19, 20 October 2022 (UTC) Fowler&fowler«Talk» 05:28, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Packer&Tracker's previous blocks, warnings, and editing practice

1. They were blocked on March 29, 2022 for two months from editing Persecution of Hindus by admin Bishonen. (diff
2. They were warned on 11 April 2022 by admin RegentsPark on their edits on Prithviraj Chauhan and its talk page; the warning ended with, "(you're likely to end up with a topic ban on South Asian history because that tone is not productive.") diff)
3. The were blocked the following day for 31 hours (diff) for making personal attacks on Talk:Prithviraj Chauhan. (diff)

My behavior

1. I have sometimes been accused of being brusque. As proof of this diffs are offered, and quite often the same diffs seem to make the rounds, attempting to measure the empty portion of my glass of charity and civility on Wikipedia. What is seldom mentioned or simply taken for granted is how full that glass is. I have an extensive history in South Asia related topics which despite WP:ARBIPA is riven by scores of disputes. There are also scores of examples of my cooperating with other editors to build encyclopedic content. Although I usually make amends in instances of intemperate language, I agree, collegiality is non-negotiable. I apologize and will continue to make an effort to improve. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:25, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Patliputra

पाटलिपुत्र (talk · contribs), (the Indic script in Sanskrit is transliterated as Patliputra in English) has not only contributed text on temple desecration to the Muhammad of Ghor article along with Packer&Tracker but has a long history of 1. original research, spamming both image and text across hundreds of Wikipedia articles, 2. of attempting to reconstitute pre-Islamic Indian artefacts in Wikipedia illustrations, 3. displaying xenophobia and expressing or implying Hindu majoritarian views, 4. baiting me to edit war, keeping careful tabs and taking me to ANI; they have done so three or four times, and when the decision has not gone their way, they have persistently queried the administrator to the point that the administrator closed the thread; 5 Patliputra has added content antithetical to Islamic conquerors of India, and by implication, to Islam but without nuance or narrative distancing to a number of articles ("spamming")

1. Comments of other editors on copying and pasting, and image spamming ( diff)
   1. I agree with F&F. Frankly, using your methods you add so much content that checking probably takes longer than adding it. It tends to unbalance articles. Detailed stuff like this is better in lower-level articles, but your additions are nearly all to very high level articles. Johnbod (talk) 13:25, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
   2. पाटलिपुत्र, Johnbod and F&F are absolutely correct. Even if it is allowed, simply copying and pasting is a poor editorial practice and makes for poor readability. Drmies (talk) 15:40, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
2. On reconstitution (diff):
   1. @पाटलिपुत्र: none of your photo-style "reconstitutions" are appropriate for WP, including the one you did of Sanchi. The Sanchi capital has more than enough surviving structure that the reader can infer the size and composition of the crowning wheel, in my opinion. ... And again, to reiterate, any depiction of a restored or original state must clearly look like a drawing/illustration, be labeled as such, and have minimal detail, and should preferably come from an RS or be a copy. SamuelRiv (talk) 15:15, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
3. On xenophobia and expression of Hindu majoritarianism(diff):
   1. "An actual Indian" पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 08:28, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
   2. "The "Society" paragraph is illustrated by a Muslim in prayer in an old mosque in Srinagar... is this really emblematic of today's Indian society? This is highly WP:Undue and border provocative for a majority Hindu country." पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 08:28, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
   3. "Why has the unique photograph in the religion paragraph have to be a photograph of a Christian church??... is this really representative of religion in India? Again, this is highly WP:Undue and border provocative for a majority Hindu country..." पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 08:28, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
      1. (Administrative response): The argument that "society" and "religion" ought not to be illustrated with images of Islam or Christianity is the sort of sectarian nonsense that I would almost recommend sanctions for. The article discusses religious pluralism in India at great length; the images in question are entirely appropriate, and if they're removed, it should not be for the reasons given above. ... Vanamonde (Talk) 16:33, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
4. Persistently querying an administrator on an ANI decision (diff)
   1. This page is not a proxy for ANI.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:20, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
   2. They have continued to bait me in ways that are sanctioned, appearing on the FA Darjeeling a week ago (a page they had never edited before and on whose FAR user:Dwaipayanc and I had worked for six months). Without a previous discussion on the talk page, Patliputra added a large map in the infobox. This was done a few weeks after the FA passed the review, during which the decision not to have any map in the infobox was made. (diff)
      1. Upon my reverting their edit, they opened a talk page thread diff. Luckily I was able to find a compact map and added it to the infobox to avoid a long discussion.
5. Finally, edits and misinterpretations antithetical to Islamic conquerors of India, and by implication, to Islam, which are simultaneously added without nuance or narrative distancing to a number of articles ("spamming"):
   1. (Background) On 19 July 2022, I cited a 2020 book in the Excavation section of Lion capital of Ashoka. diff The book was written by the late Frederick Asher, a University of Minnesota historian who specialized in South Asian art history or architecture history.
   2. On 10 August 2022, 07:17 Patliputra cited the same book (page 74) to extend a sentence in the lead. To the sentence, "The lion capital eventually fell to the ground and was buried." Patliputra added the sentence fragment, "or may have been overthrown by Muslim invaders in the 10-12th century CE." (diff)
      1. On page 74, Asher had written: "Because the pillar was found in several fragments, writers generally assume that it was damaged willfully. Daya Ram wrote, "It follows... that the columns was overthrown about the 10th, 11th or 12th century A.D. (...) The implication is that Muslim invaders were the culprits and that iconoclasm was the motive, even though the pillar and its capital have no clear religious imagery." In other words, at the end, Asher distanced himself from a commonplace inference by offering contradictory evidence.
   3. After I reverted the edit, based on my reading of Asher, Patliputra, (on 10 August, 2022, 15:22) changed his addition to, " following what many authors assume to be willfull destruction of the pillar, possibly related to Muslim invasions in the 10-12th century CE. " but again leaving out the nuance and narrative distancing in Asher. diff "
   4. After I removed the poor paraphrasing yet again, Patliputra appeared on Qutb ud-Din Aibak, on 14 August 2022, and added, "That same year, Qutb ud-Din Aibak brought massive plunder and destructions to the area of Varanasi, in order to "acquire land and wealth", allegedly destroying "idols in a thousand temples" ( diff. This time Patliputra quoted from a different page: "And then, in 1193, Qutb-ud-din Aibek, the military commander of Muhammad of Ghor's army, marched towards Varanasi, where he is said to have destroyed idols in a thousand temples. Sarnath very likely was among the casualities of this invasion, one all too often seen as a Muslim invasion whose primary purpose was iconoclasm. It was of course, like any premodern military invasion, intended to acquire land and wealth. Asher was offering both the commonplace inference (Muslims destroyed 1000 temples because of iconoclasm) and the contrasting inference. Patliputra left out the contrasting inference, i.e. that iconoclasm might not have been the primary motive.
   5. On Ghurid dynasty at 6:13 15 August 2022 Patliputra added, "After the battle, Mu'izz continued his advance to the east, with his general Qutb ud-Din Aibak in the vanguard. The city of Benares (Kashi) was taken and razed, and "idols in a thousand temples" were destroyed." It was cited to Asher (diff), and quoting the same sentence as the above in the citation, "And then, in 1193, Qutb-ud-din Aibak, the military commander of Muhammad of Ghor's army, marched towards Varanasi, where he is said to have destroyed idols in a thousand temples. Sarnath very likely was among the casualities of this invasion, one all too often seen as a Muslim invasion whose primary purpose was iconoclasm. It was of course, like any premodern military invasion, intended to acquire land and wealth" with edit summary, "adapted from own sentence at Qutb ud-Din Aibak." Again, the commonplace interence that iconoclasm was the primary motive is left out.
   6. On Muhammad of Ghor], at 07:51 19 August, 2022, Patliputra added "In 1194, Mu'izz returned to India and crossed the Jamuna with an army of 50,000 horses and at the Battle of Chandawar defeated the forces of the Gahadavala king Jayachandra, who was killed in action. After the battle, Mu'izz continued his advance to the east, with his general Qutb ud-Din Aibak in the vanguard. The city of Benares (Kashi) was taken and razed, and 'idols in a thousand temples' were destroyed." cited by quoting the same sentence in Asher 2020, but again without the narrative distancing from iconoclasm. (diff)
   7. What is the NPOV version of history cited to modern scholars? Please read Lion Capital of Ashoka, History section, paragraphs 3 and 4. Sure, WP allows you to copy-and-paste, but does it allow you to copy and paste bias or the lack of basic accuracy?

Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:24, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal

1. I became involved in this dispute on Muhammad of Ghor because it is a WP:VITAL level-4 article about someone who is commonly thought to be the "founder" of Islamic rule in South Asia. It is linked to the Delhi sultanate and to the FA India, where his invasions are described in more general language. India is to have its third FAR in 16 years. In fits and starts, much work has been done. Sections or subsections on Education, Visual Arts, Cuisine, Clothing, and Environment (Energy) have been added. The leads of a large number of articles that have bearing on it have been rewritten some of which I have listed in my comments above my statement.
2. The "Religion section" added by Packer&Tracker is unsustainable in light of the injunctions for WP:OR, WP:NPOV and WP:DUE. There is a wide gulf between that section and even the quick slapdash summary I have thus far attempted diff (again) in light of modern scholarship.
3. The talk page discussion on religion between user:TrangaBellam and user:Packer&Tracker (mainly) does not seem to be making progress. Packer&Tracker has, however, stated that they have not made significant edits to Delhi Sultanate which is also affected by similar bias; I take their word for it.
4. Statement of Proposal
   1. Proposed that Packer&Tracker:
      1. Voluntarily stay away from editing the article Muhammad of Ghor and its sub-pages such as Siege of Lahore and others, until a consensus has been reached in the talk page discussion between TrangaBellam and Packer&Tracker on the text of the lead of Muhammad of Ghor; I am continuing to work on an NPOV version of that lead on a subpage of my user page: User:Fowler&fowler/Muhammad_of_Ghor.
      2. Or: Voluntarily stay away from editing Muhammad of Ghor and sub-pages until two months have elapsed, whichever period is shorter,
      3. Or failing both: Be partially blocked from editing Muhammad of Ghor and sub-pages for two months (similar to the manner they were partially blocked from editing Prithviraj Chauhan in April, though the issues then were somewhat different.)
   2. (I had originally proposed that a no fault two-way interaction ban be implemented between user:Patliputra and I, but that does not get to the heart of the matter here, which is the promotion of biased content involving South Asia's Islamic history across a range of articles.) In light of the evidence in the seven parts of paragraph five (which begins with, "Finally, edits and misinterpretations ..." in the above sub-section, I am now amending the proposal to: Proposed that user:Patliputra be topic banned from South Asian Islamic history broadly construed (1000–1765, from the early expeditions of Mahmud Ghaznavi to the Battle of Buxar and the Treaty of Allahabad), for a period of two (2) months, whether or not they have edited those specific pages or others of that period besides the ones listed in paragraph five above.
   3. How the closing admin addressed my behavior issues is up to them. Still, I can assure them that I acknowledge my brusque language and will sincerely make a more concerted effort to avoid it in all my interactions on Wikipedia. I offer an unconditional apology not just to Packer&Tracker and Patliputra, but to all. The bottom line for me, though, is that even if I am blocked from all editing on Wikipedia for my lack of civility for two months or longer, the actions I have proposed for both user:Packer&Tracker and user:Patliputra are urgently needed, for these editors have violated core Wikipedia values of WP:NPOV and WP:DUE. Promotion of fringe and biased views is no longer blatant as it was in October 2006 when I arrived on Wikipedia; it is done in small doses, in different way:
      1. for example by user:Patliputra by spamming the main respondent, user:SamuelRiv, at WP:RS/N—who had agreed that the use of old sources in support of an assertion is undue when little or no modern sources speak to it—with an indiscriminate list of citations in this edit and eliciting in turn this response.
      2. or by Packer&Tracker by dismissing off-handedly the Wikipedia policy on the use of WP:TERTIARY (in this instance widely used undergraduate or first-year graduate text-books published by scholarly publisher) in the evaluation of undue weight on Talk:Muhammad of Ghor in this edit of this week.
      • It is the cumulative effect, across a range of articles as seen in the case of both these editors that is dangerous. For it strikes at the very root of Wikipedia's reliability and trust.

Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:53, 18 October 2022 (UTC) Updated (Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:09, 19 October 2022 (UTC))[reply]

Discussion continued

The warning is old, when I had just started editing Wikipedia and knew nothing about any Wiki policies back then. I had apologized for the mistake.[119] Fowler have thanked me on multiple instances since. [120][121][122][123]. It's only when I differ with him, he brings the warning in discussion. Apart from that, I have reverted Fowler's edits only once. Also, I had been discussing the issues on the talk page, even before the edits. Akshaypatill (talk) 12:06, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification

→ @Fowler&fowler: Well, you can't accuse others of edit waring when you have been guilty of it yourself just like on blanket removal, regardless this is just another of your ploy to deviate from the topic - the due concerns on my part is already listed in detail at t/p and onus is on you to clear your part (again factal inaccuracy, pov pushing, unrerather then accusing others.

→ So, You are now using my 7-month old block to tilt it your way ? (When I was barely 300 edits old) - It's been 7 months and around 4k edits on my part afterwards that went largely in a collaborative manner

→ If I start dugging in then, your personal attacks, repeated brusqueness might fill up a page with plethora of diff's (the fact that you have already been on ANI for it twice within a short span is another absolute given), though I choosed to be relevant by only highlighting your recent brusqueness, one of you removed from your own user page a hour ago as well, only diff. is that you get away frequently with such behaviour, though others generally don't.

→ Please reply to my concerns at talk page regarding your edits instead of using blocks and warnings issued half a year ago in contrast to it, the one your recived for it is a bit recent as well- diff. ∆ P&t ♀√ (talk) 11:58, 18 October 2022 (UTC) @Fowler&fowler: Just for the record my random act of kindness award to User:Akshaypatill was for providing me with Andre Wink 2020 book's pdf and that's only communication I had with him in a year of editing and got not interset in your past interactions with him/her either.[reply]

→ The issues with your lead (factual inaccuracies, pov pushing, unrelated verbiage, omitting military debacles of the ruler are already highlighted by me at Talk:Muhammad of Ghor

→ You will be the last one to complain about blanket removal of other editors, when you yourself do it multiple times.

Please don't deviate from topic, my concern about your sourcing as well is already in detail explained at talk page. ∆ P&t ♀√ (talk) 11:07, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

P&t reply

Just for my clarity on the recent post by User:Fowler&fowler

→ The user only picked a few of diffs from user:Shshsh to make it appear that they were all but civil throughout the argument and as far as I can see they were blatantly opposed for pushing their pov:-

→ "Who cares? He's an actor, not a political figure. You better keep your enthusiasm with Hindu nationalist movements away from articles on actors. Everyone has opinions (honestly, I didn't know all that until you just said it here but as I said, who cares anyway), Raj Kapoor did, and Dilip Kumar did, and so do the Khans, but they are actors - it's not what they're known for. I think a sentence about someone who's been public about the party they vote or something could do, but other than that, unless it gets significant coverage much to the point where they clearly become known for that, it's hardly notable" →[124]

→ Their uncivil behaviour - "Are you kidding? Is this an ego trip against other editors or actual willingness to contribute and improve this page? I think your history shows more words than actions, and this hostile explosion of ego here is exactly why many reputable WP editors do not wish to collaborate with you and have often complained about your own POV pushing. Please be warned here that your threats will not be tolerated any longer.

As for sources - it's never only about sourcing - WP:DUE is a huge part of writing articles. Please also note WP:BLP. They will lead this article, as will WP:CON. You should know that already. You do your job and others will do theirs', and we always have WP policy and other routes to achieving consensus and bringing a broaded number of opinions to fore" →[125] - this one came after F&f promised to give them a good run for the money: see [126] -

→ Here is another involved senior editor who opposed their battleground attitude and pov pushing, see "LOL. This isn't Twitter. Kindly take your battleground mentality there" by Krimuk2.0[127] - battleground mentality.. (It's very easy to add a few line to make it appear as you want but on broader picture, there antagonistic behaviour was not a sweet headache for the involved editors)

2): Now on Muhammad of Ghor page, their wild allegation that I am using sources from right-wing scholars is anything but another attempt to deviate from the topic sources i added there are from major scholars of medieval India and bar K.S. Lal none of them are even remotely close to it - the sources which donot agree with their pov, they do call them dubious, unreliable and dated.

→ The editor is not knowledgable about the subject (Md Ghuri) which is apparent from insertion of their edit - [128] and instead accused other for being pushing unreliable cruft, for which I explained them on their talk page:- [129] (lead summarizes the body which is quite a basic norm)

→ I did this with their own high quality tertiary ref. and cited the other 3 as well whom they called dated and sub standard - just for the record those 3 "dated sources" were from (Satish Chandra 2007), (Md. Habib 1981 ed Nizami), (David Thomas 2018) the first two are/were major scholars of S.Asia and explicity of medieval period and the last one is from David Thomas who had his life researching about the Ghurians.

→ I didn't even changed the running name in the article (Mu'izz al-Din to Muhammad of Ghor) without consulting all involved editors there and actually improved on factually incorrect inf. there which was there since its creation namely - his only daughter which never got any mention, his forged gravesite, his brother's death year - 1203 not 1202, his C. Asia campaigns (created Battle of Andkhud) and against the Ghaznawids post his rout at Mt Abu - 1178 (created Siege of Lahore (1186), Had I have been only intersted in pushing only a Hindu right version, there was no meaning of creating Battle of Andkhud and Siege of Lahore (1186) which are not related to this movement by any means. (actually removed far fetched Hindu right forged version of Prithviraj killing him in Ghazna)

Lastly →Please remove the forged and uncivil notice of not editing S.Asian articles as it was nothing but most likely a stunt to get commiseration of others which barely lasted for 24 hours . ∆ P&t ♀√ (talk) 12:45, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I had posted a lengthy review of their "pov", "factually incorrect, "verbiaged", "absurd comparison" lead which doesn't look any distant from a pov blog and is anything lead of a neutral encyclopedic articles with WP:OR (pov) as well like :- easy victory- Tarain (1192), expunging a military debacle which ruined all his plan for conquest of western India; listed them all. (the lead generally is a summary of citations in the body and not a place to introduce pov, factually incorrect, unrelated verbiage either)

→ The core of there edit comes from copy-pasting Richard Eaton (2019) whose basic factual inaccuracies I listed on the article's talk page with multiple contradicting reliable sources from top scholars like Andre Wink, Satish Chandra, C.E Bosworth, K.A. Nizami, Md. Habib, Aniruddha Ray, David Thomas etc, do have a look at it as well. (no issue in citing Eaton's earlier works bar this one - despite my general disaccord with his scholarship regarding religion bit)

→ I have given up on their brusqueness (listed several instances in last few days itself not from me but other editors as well, which they cherrry picked to make it appear that their pov lead was getting upvoted by senior editors)

→ My frequent posts on their talk page was more primarily on their forged and uncivil notice of quitting S. Asia articles particularly with last few lines where they as usually were making uncivil commentaries on some editors and the bona fide of it turned to be a deceptive one. Thanks. ∆ P&t ♀√ (talk) 07:14, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Packer&Tracker, could you please write shorter comments? This discussion is difficult to go through because of its length. — Nythar (💬-🎃) 11:13, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Nythar: It's not easy to explain about the issue with proper context in less words. ∆ P&t ♀√ (talk) 11:19, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Closure (likely)

→ Disclaimer:- This will be most likely my last reponse here, it will be a long one addressing all the issues, bear with me

→ While, I don't think that it's very necessary to reopen old wounds here (on warnings and blocks - I recieved half a year ago); although I do agree that my conduct at Persecution of Hindus especially (that time) was deplorable and the two month block was warranted, having said that it's been some time since then (7months) and over 3,500 edits which mostly were in line with WP policies, including appropirate use of Red Warn & Twinkle tools (mostly), F&f is bringing them up here largely to deviate from the premier issue I and some other senior editors had with them - all in recent past (last week or so, including two reports at ANI one of them already ended with a warning)

→ You can't expect a consensus to build over night (on their remark that it's not going anywhere with TB); when you yourself frequently advocate that it took months in some contentious cases, though, early days but I am alright to engage with TrangaBellam (after few days to press upon the argument of including Religion section) given their rational and to the point arguments, though I do not agree with them on their take on historian Andre Wink, but that's content dispute and will be resolved (hopefully) there without much drama (optimistic)

→ I do agree, my post on Talk:Muhammad of Ghor (clarification on typo i.e. 1148 -1173 - not certain about 1173 as well coz Minhaj al-Siraj and Firshta had 1169, another error in Eaton-2019 as Ghazni was not permanently annexed untill 1170 which he claimed in 1148, although this is not the only blatant factual error, see the whole thread for better picture) especially overnight could have been slightly better worded (first few lines) - but this doesn't seems very equitable (overloaded bit) coming from someone who was without anything accusing others of faking their ethnic/ gender identity (male as females/Pakistanis as Indians or vice-versa diff:- (not just overloaded it was degrading enough to warrants them a block there itself)

→ The frequent and tiresome accusation on me for promoting a Hindu right pov doesn't sit very well either with someone who created Battle of Andkhud & Siege of Lahore (1186) - two of his military campaigns which no one from Hindu rights (who are only intersted in his Indian campaigns - namely Kaydhara -1178, Tarain-I & Tarain-II and other naive/hillarious argument of his 17 failed invasions) have any idea about or if they do, it's very shabby one (both of them were rated as B-Class articles immediately on first review, which suggests that I do have a decent knowledge about the subject)

→ Now to brought down the curtain on my part, as they want me to get blocked from Muhammad of Ghor or stay away for two months (an article where I recieved a anti-vandalism barnstar diff and improved on it's gruesome factual inaccuracy with proper WP:HISTRS) & also on Delhi Sultanate (Heck, I barely contributed there apart from reverting vandals or just replacing a blog with proper RS - diff - it's clearly in line with their recent vow to root out the so called "Hindu nationalist bias" or according to them "villification of Muslims" from the lead of these articles - as they couldn't succeed in their ambition at Muhammad of Ghor (reverted by another editor as well against whom they used a year old hounding warning to get away); Anyway, their lead was - factually incorrect, povish with dispensable veribage, asburd comparisons & so on - listed them all here with contrasting RS.

→ There is no reason to support there filmsy argument of using so-called up to date sources, even if there are blatant inaccuracies in them, neither the sources, I added up in counter were from a century or two ago, most of them were from last 50 years and many were from post-1990 period.

→ I am contented to cooperate with anyone given the arguments are rational, to the point (not posting tiresome collection of unrelated sources, like they are doing which mentions about subject brief and vaguely - big no to Eaton 2019 -given the number of basic inaccuracies already highlighted, alright with his previous works) and have consensus among multiple reliable sources. It's a wrap on my part here (hopefully). ∆ P&t ♀√ (talk) 04:16, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

OR claims

→ For general persecution of the Ismailis:-

However, on his way from the Punjab, Muizzuddin was killed on bank of Indus river by a band of Karamatians, which we have seen were a fanatic sect which had absorbed many features of Hindu Buddhists beliefs and which Muizuddin had persecuted in his life time

(Satish Chandra 2004; pp:-28)

→

The suppression of revolot in the Punjab occupied Mu'izz al-Din's closing months, for on the way back to Ghaza he was assasinated, allegedly by emmisaries of the Isma'ils whom he had often persecuted during his life time

(C.E. Bosworth 1968; pp:-168) (Hindu right don't care about hosility of Sunnis over Ismailis either)

→

This area of proselytization presumably included Sindh, which had been annexed to the Ghurid territories. However, Muhammad Ghiyath al-Din (d. 599/1202), Al al-Din’s successor, reacted violently to the Ismaili presence. Juzjani records:-In every place wherein the odour of their impure usages was perceived, throughout the territory of Ghur, slaughter of all heretics [Ismailis] was commanded. ... The area of the country of Ghur, which was a mine of religion and orthodoxy, was purified from the infernal impurity of the Qarmatians [i.e., the Ismailis].

It was at about this time that the Ismailis again lost their power in Multan, for in 570/1175, Sultan Mu^izz al-Din Ghuri ‘‘delivered Multan from the hands of the

Qarmatians.

(Shafique Virani; 2007; pp:-100)

→ Destruction of temples in Kashi:-

We do not know much about the first Muslim raid on Benares, by Ahmad Nayaltigin in 1033 AD, which appears merely to have been a plundering expedition. When Muhammad Ghuri marched on the city, we are merely told that after breaking the idols in above 1000 temples, he purified and consecrated the latter to the worship of the true God

(Andre Wink 1991; pp:-333)

• Shihabuddin captured the treasure fort of Asni and then proceeded to Benaras, 'where he converted about thousand idol-temples into house for the Musalmans

(Mohammad Habib 1981; pp:-116)

• We are told that Jaichandra had almost carried the day when he was killed by an arrow, and his army was totally defcated. Muizzuddin now moved on to Banaras which was ravaged, a large number of temples there being destroyed

(Satish Chandra 2007; pp:-67)

→ Large-scale conversion of Khokhars/Buddhists:-

The frontier tribes were the first difficulty. Sultan Mahmud had established garrisons and forts in their territory but there were still Buddhists and Shihabuddin realised that nothing short of their conversion would solve the problem. So the Tariyah infidels who lived in the hills between Ghazni and Punjab, and considered the slaying of a Muslim as path to paradise were brought in the pale of Islam through kindness and through force. About three or four lakh of the infidels who wore sacred threads were made Musalmans during this campaign

(Mohamad Habib; 1981, pp:-133-134)

The quote box and massacres was already to K.S Lal and I removed it myself before the blanket removal, in any case since the section is already removed this is rather basless accusations, I am not intersted in arguing much either here as my closing comments are already put in earlier. I don't want to stress much over it and isn't intersted in wasting more time but since it's allegation of putting OR, thats why this was posted (hopefully it's last one before admin take a call) No inention of vilifying anyone. ∆ P&t ♀√ (talk) 13:11, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

sockpuppet indian users

I agree with Fowler&fowler, there is lots of Hindu nationalist editors whom are abusing their editing responsibilities above Afghanistan and Pakistan historical articles, possibly they are one group or sockpuppet users including ∆ P&t ♀√, Utcursch, Akshaypatill. They revert everything with reliable sources and pushing their POV on it. if Wikipedia become a POV information of powerful users then nobody will trust on Wikipedia’s informative articles. Please take some serious legal action on it and don’t let to Wikipedia become a place of POV of powerful users. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.171.112.23 (talk) 18:48, 18 October 2022 (UTC) struck sock comments--RegentsPark (comment) 21:25, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Accusing others of sock puppetry without evidence is considered a personal attack. Don't do it again. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 20:25, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

no one is crazy to accuse others for sock puppetry unless who seen something wrong, you can check their recent contributions and it will tell everything and that’s evidence, such as now also the RegentsPark as a indian user are supporting thier indian editors for vandalism and pov pushing in a proxy way, why you guys can’t see the truth, these things made Wikipedia a false information resource for whom looking for information or reading, every Indian editors are edit articles for their own POV and racism or nationalist beliefs, for example the user ∆ P&t ♀√

Removed 13,704 additions with reliable sources from article Muhammad of Ghor [130]

In order to support their indian user Akshaypatill’s POV editing (unexplained removal) and User:Packer&Tracker are tryna always hide her/his disruptive editing and nationalist vandalism with random no related WP codes and that’s not make any sense actually, on the Muhammad of Ghor’s article user Akshaypatill started unexplained removal of 13,704 with reliable sources additions without engagement on talk page with other editor and it turned into a edit war [131] [132] and the edit war continued by User:Packer&Tracker [133] on behalf of Akshaypatill, it’s happens while both of them ignored the bold, revert, discuss cycle term and they violated the three-revert policy, this is a proxy game and I really tired of this much nationalist editors and racism in Wikipedia

Pataliputra's statement

One more dispute, again triggered by Fowler&fowler's inflamatory approach to collaborative editing.... Fowler&fowler is a valuable editor, but unfortunately a recurrently incivil and bad-mannered one, leading to much unnecessary disruption. His expertise in some areas of South Asia is undeniable, although he seems fairly out of his depth in matters related to ancient history and art (one example), and repeatedly resorts to "wild OR" as pointed out by User:Johnbod [134]. His typical battle lines revolve around the Muslim vs Hindu issue, and anyone contradicting him will be immediately branded an "Islamophobic" [135] or an "Hindu nationalist" [136] (for the record, I am related to neither faith, and have no relation whatsoever to India despite my user name). When in disagreement, Fowler&fowler is unfortunately rude, brutal and inflammatory, and content disputes which could be resolved by the usual discussion process inevitably heat up because of the rabidness and the invectives. Fowler&fowler has received numerous administrative warnings already for his systematic un-Wikipedian editorial behaviour, including recently 2 warnings for edit warring [137] (by Admin User:EdJohnston) and [138] (by Admin User:Bishonen), and 1 warning for personnal attacks and incivility [139] (by Admin User:El C, following this), to no avail. I dislike having to post here, and I personally value Fowler&fowler as a Wikipedia content contributor, but the behavioural issues have been going on for too long: some more radical measures have to be taken to make Fowler&fowler finally understand that incivility and personal attacks are unacceptable behaviours on Wikipedia and are extremely disruptive. I will not comment further, and will not respond to the predictable litany of abuse that will be crafted in response to this post. पाटलिपुत्र Pataliputra (talk) 09:23, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Fowler&fowler's "Patliputra" statement above

A few comments on User:Fowler&fowler's "Patliputra" statement above, which was predictably crafted in reponse to my post:
1) Fowler&fowler writes that I "contributed text on temple desecration to the Muhammad of Ghor article along with Packer&Tracker" [140]. This is basically untrue. As far as I am aware, I did not contribute a single word to Packer&Tracker's paragraph on Religion, about which Fowler&fowler has expressed a full list of issues [141]. Furthermore, I do not have any opinion about this specific paragraph, the details of which are beyond my area of expertise. The only remotely related content I added was derived from the Ghurid dynasty article, related to the military campaigns, using sources such as Asher (2020) [142]. This content essentially remains in Fowler&fowler's last preferred version of the article [143] and has not been challenged. So much for the attempts at depicting some sort of "Indian/Hindu coalition vs Fowler&fowler" (and again I have no relation whatsoever to India despite my user name).
2) All other elements provided by Fowler&fowler (1 to 4 [144]) are besides the point of this ANI thread, and seem to confuse a few Talk Page discussions, over a period of several years, with actual Wikipedia offenses.... Hopefully, we are allowed to have Talk Page discussions on Wikipedia, and sometimes even disagreements. This has to be done factually, in a cool and civil manner without making personal attacks. This is what I have always endeavoured to do, but what Fowler&fowler has repeatedly failed to observe as shown by his multiple Administrative warnings ( [145][146][147].... and these are only the recent ones). Again, I appreciate Fowler&fowler as a contributor, but he has to understand that civility with other users is non-negotiable. In so many instances in the past, Fowler&fowler has made amends and made beautiful promises not to continue personal attacks, only to break his promise as soon as discussions heat up a bit. In order to prevent such recurrent toxicity, a clear message has to be sent by Admins that Fowler&fowler's incivilities and personal attacks are unacceptable.
3) As to paragraph 5, Fowler&fowler seems to overreact everytime he feels that Islam might be slighted (and here accuses me of edits "antithetical to Islamic conquerors of India, and by implication, to Islam" [148], hmmm, no less... hopefully I will not be subjected to a Fatwa....). For the record, I am totally unrelated to either Islam or Hinduism, and have no bias towards any religion whatsoever (I actually appreciate all religions for their cultural and historical aspects). In this instance, I have simply been reporting an aspect of 12th century Muslim exactions in India in a few closely related articles, closely paraphrasing one of the foremost and most recent experts on the question (Asher 2020): "And then, in 1193, Qutb-ud-din Aibek, the military commander of Muhammad of Ghor's army, marched towards Varanasi, where he is said to have destroyed idols in a thousand temples. Sarnath very likely was among the casualities of this invasion, one all too often seen as a Muslim invasion whose primary purpose was iconoclasm. It was of course, like any premodern military invasion, intended to acquire land and wealth."[149]... As far as I know, reporting facts, as described by reliable sources, is simply what we do on Wikipedia, and this has primacy over individual sensitivities...
पाटलिपुत्र (Pataliputra) (talk) 14:31, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Unconditional apology" by Fowler&fowler

@Fowler&fowler: You are offering an "unconditional apology" above, in the sentence: "I acknowledge my brusque language and will sincerely make a more concerted effort to avoid it in all my interactions on Wikipedia. I offer an unconditional apology not just to Packer&Tracker and Patliputra, but to all." [150]. If your apologies are sincere, why don't you start by striking your past incivilities and personnal attacks? I know the task is rather titanesque, but you could start from some of the latest ones (a sample: [151][152][153][154][155][156][157]), and then go back in time progressively... पाटलिपुत्र (Pataliputra) (talk) 16:53, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• This comment is beneath one of Pataliputra's, but only because this is the bottom of the sprawling and chaotic thread. I address all the participants here and not just Pataliputra.

As encyclopaedists, our task is precis: we summarize complex matters clearly and succinctly. If you can't write a simple, clear summary that includes clear citations with evidence of all the claims you make, you are in the wrong hobby.

When dealing with editors from India I feel it would be unreasonable of us to exclude mobile diffs. Those of us in Western Europe where everyone has access to a desktop computer with reliable wi-fi need to consider that not everyone has our advantages. A high proportion of Indians are trying to contribute from mobile phones or tablets because the alternative is not to contribute at all.

And while I'm talking about cultural relativity, civility standards vary from place to place and in India, they are often relatively high. Personally it has been my experience that editors originating from India tend to display, and expect, higher standards of civility than might prevail elsewhere. What to me might be a relatively mildly uncivil remark is more offensive out there.

I think Fowler&fowler's unconditional and very handsome apology, above, is very helpful and I wish Pataliputra would (a) accept it with good grace and (b) reciprocate in similar terms for their own behaviour. I can certainly see benefits to a two-way iban between these editors.—S Marshall T/C 22:29, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Even though mobile sucks, mobile diffs should never be excluded as a rule. No one should be forced to convert them to desktop. Here, however, this was only recommended so as to increase the chances of an uninvolved review. A recommendation which the OP has chosen to adopt. I think it's fair to tell a user whose complaint has 20 mobile diffs, that these display terrible on desktop. Why should they not know? El_C 03:15, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, let us not patronise Indians. They are fools if they think they can write an encycopedia using a mobile phone. The use of mobiles is more likely to be a convenience, their convenience. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 06:45, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think the point was that some don't have an alternative to mobile, in India more so than the West. But in that instance, if they are diligent enough, it can be done. That includes converting mobile diffs into desktop — which otherwise, is liable to get inconvenient to them, when few if any outside reviewers bother to look through their (mobile) diff evidence. El_C 08:00, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kautilya3, I find your words very offensive. I'm an Indian and have used and am currently using a mobile device. But you'd never ever find me using mobile diffs or anything like that even when I edit via mobile, because I personally do not find that easy to parse and expect that it is similar for others. Because someone has chosen to not do that does not give you an opportunity to bring the entire community under a single blanket and call them fools. The problem with Indians editing using mobile is not that "they are fools", it is that the foundation has chosen to ignore the editing needs of what is now a majority demographic of Wikipedia visitors — the mobile users. Your outrage is misplaced. —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 10:35, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

^That^ 🐻ears repeating — it is that the foundation has chosen to ignore the editing needs of what is now a majority demographic of Wikipedia visitors — the mobile users. El_C 12:11, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not everyone's technically minded. If you asked me to convert mobile diffs to desktop ones, I would go and look it up because I wouldn't know how, and some editors wouldn't bother to look it up. The risk with implying that mobile diffs won't get looked at, is creating a disincentive to report issues.—S Marshall T/C 17:30, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

AFAIK, if someone lands on a mobile diff and they want to see the non-mobile version, all they need to do is scroll down to the bottom of the page and click the "Desktop" link. Or they could do as I do and load User:Þjarkur/NeverUseMobileVersion in their common.js and they'll always see non-mobile diffs, regardless of whether the person creating the diff made it mobile or not. CodeTalker (talk) 18:58, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well, this is reality, S Marshall, not an ideal type. Mobile diffs won't be looked at so much, certainly not +20 of em at once, because mobile overall is poorly optimized. In this case, though, since the OP did express an interest in converting these to desktop diffs, I instructed her on how to go about it. Which appears to have worked out fine. El_C 19:12, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Btw, 90 percent of the time, I just convert the mobile diffs to desktop myself. But usually, it isn't a set of +20 and/or I'm not that pressed for time at that time. But sometimes, times. El_C 19:48, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. One mobile diff is not a big deal, but dealing with a mob of mobile diffs is painful. Disputes on ANI are attended to be volunteers and increasing their parsing overhead is, perhaps, not the best strategy to employ. Make a case and take some time to present it properly is not a lot to ask for. --RegentsPark (comment) 14:54, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'd rather ask the WMF to spend some of their $400 million on making it so when you click on a diff, it shows you mobile or desktop based on whether you're currently using mobile or desktop, irrespective of whether the poster was using mobile or desktop. This is trivially easy to accomplish as a technical matter, and many (most?) websites don't have this crossover problem between their mobile and desktop versions. This could be solved with a script or a bot that changes external diff links to internal wikilinks. Levivich (talk) 15:09, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Recently many TFAs are extended-confirmed locked because of vandalism caused by auto-confirmed accounts. It seems that there's someone that is dedicated enough to intentionally lock these articles up, seemingly just because they can.

Evidence: Megalograptus, Borodino-class battlecruiser, Sayfo, Second Punic War (4 most recent TFAs), and more. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 10:08, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Undoubtedly so. It looks as those these were handled at the time, what else would you like administrators to do? -- Malcolmxl5 (talk) 11:18, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We could block the range Special:Contributions/99.76.0.0/19, which seems to host most of the recent trouble. The person also uses various IP6 addresses which are blocked as they appear. Some of the sleeper usernames were registered more than a year before the disruption. Binksternet (talk) 13:51, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Binksternet. Yes, I recognise an LTA that has been active this weekend on that range. There seems nothing of merit in the editing history for many months so I've blocked for three months. -- Malcolmxl5 (talk) 15:30, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The LTA rampage is still ongoing... CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 09:47, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Details? Diffs? And what do you think administrators might do that hasn’t been done already? -- Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:31, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Should all FAs be ECP'd due to that? Magnatyrannus (talk | contribs) 01:13, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Preemptively? You can start a conversation about that at the village pump bearing in mind there's already been a discussion about the protection of TFAs. In the meantime, TFAs get protected if the need arises. -- Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:35, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

On 16 October, as part of NPP patrol, I redirected an article created by this user, Polytechnic University of the Philippines Student Council to Polytechnic University of the Philippines, since I felt there was not enough in-depth coverage of the subject from independent sources to show notability. The editor had not edited in several days, and when they returned to the project on 18 October. Their first action was to use the rollback action to reverse the redirect. They then proceeded to nominate 20-25 of stub articles I had created (see their history, either through CSD, PROD, or AFD. Obviously, these were done in retaliation. These AfD's should be speedily closed, and the user should at least be warned of their behavior. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:12, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. While some of the nominations may be valid, some of them clearly aren't, and the nominator clearly didn't do even a simple BEFORE check. Merely because something is a stub does not make it deletable. I think retaliation is the likely driving force behind this conduct. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 18:02, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I was able to find sources to support the notability of several of these AFD's. For example:

• Wheatfields, Apache County, Arizona, called a "a community".
• Vopolo Havoka, Arizona, described as a "small village".

It took me about 10 minutes to find this information, but if I was doing a proper WP:BEFORE, it would take much longer. But if you look at the edit history of User:PogingJuan, these AFDs were all made a minute apart. Are all these places notable? Some will pass WP:GEOLAND, and some will not. But targeting one editor is not nice, and the stench of vexatious AFDs is strong here. Magnolia677 (talk) 18:20, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'll add to that: Wagoner, Arizona is actually a rather well known little ghost town, and I quickly found a few sources including "Ghost Towns and Historical Haunts in Arizona" by Thelma Heatwole. I also discovered it to be an important site of the Walnut Grove Dam collapse, which at least on the brightside these AfD's got me to create. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 19:46, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I was reviewing one of PogingJuan's articles during NPP, Polytechnic University of the Philippines Student Council, I asked them to remove one obvious puffery ("diversified") which was done, showing that they're usually open to feedback. However, looking at the page history IMHO the user has performed not ideal rollbacks. I'm not familiar with rollbacking, but after quickly reading through WP:ROLLBACK I'm afraid I have to disagree with PogingJuan's reverts. The user has repeatedly rollbacked Onel's edits with no explanation. Here the editor rollbacked a deprod, which doesn't fall into appropriate Wikipedia:ROLLBACKUSE and might potentially be a misuse IMHO (please correct me if I'm wrong), further, WP:PROD states PROD must only be used if no opposition to the deletion is expected. It must never be used simultaneously with a deletion discussion (AfD or FfD), and it may only be placed on a page a single time so I'm unsure if the action is entirely appropriate. Further, these diffs IMO are inappropriate usage of rollback, including rollbacking redirects, 1, 2. Unfortunately I'm a bit unsure about the use of rollback here, but WP:NPP, blank and redirect is a choice for non-notable articles, that IMO doesn't fall into obvious vandalism (criteria 1) widespread edits (by a misguided editor or malfunctioning bot) unhelpful to the encyclopedia, provided that you supply an explanation in an appropriate location, such as at the relevant talk page per the WP:ROLLBACKUSE page (even if the latter is plausible IMO, which isn't probably true for a prolific NPP reviewer, the editor didn't include any explanation at all for the revert). Further, IMHO it would be challenging (or perhaps very impressive and unlikely) to do a proper WP:BEFORE for the AfDs in one minute, so some of these might be hasty and rushed. Therefore, IMO a warning might be suitable for this user, many thanks for your help and time, if anything I said was inaccurate or misleading please let me know! Thanks again! VickKiang (talk) 21:42, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• These AfDs are clearly retaliatory, clearly done too quickly to satisfy WP:BEFORE, and, regardless of whether some might (accidentally) have merit, flooding AfD to get back at an another editor is clearly disruptive and constitutes harassment, so I've procedurally closed them all. Some of them were heading towards delete or redirect, so I expect there might be some pushback there, but I think it's important to draw a clear line in the sand when it comes to harassment, and have noted in the close that other editors are free to re-nominate them. I'll leave this thread open to discuss whether any further action is needed. – Joe (talk) 07:05, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Roe, could you reconsider this mass procedural close? Although some of these AfDs were entirely without merit and all were opened for the wrong reasons, you've also disrupted a number of ongoing discussions that must now be re-opened and re-discussed, and for what purpose? To send a message to the nominator? This seems counterproductive. It would make more sense to re-open the ones that weren't headed for SNOW keep and warn the editor. –dlthewave ☎ 09:56, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I must second this. These were all mass-created from GNIS in exactly the way that has, frankly, brought on such runs of AfDs, and it's clear from the discussions so far that lots of these are headed for deletion. Mangoe (talk) 13:14, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

+2. The elephant in the room is that it's been long-known and periodically brought to AFD that many of these Arizona places mass-created by Onel5969 are actually non-notable or misidentified content. Many of these need deleted or redirected, and prematurely closing these AFD where there's already valid delete or redirect !votes is just adding a layer of bureaucracy. I've requested on Joe Roe's talk page that they reconsider opening some of these AFDs back. Hog Farm _Talk 13:25, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

+3. Mass-production of hundreds of articles from a single database source while failing to do any additional sourcing results in a lot of junk. Already 193 articles Onel5969 made in Arizona have been deleted, with more having been redirected. Ignoring legitimate votes and continuing to put the burden on those who want accuracy rather than context-free one-liners is inappropriate. Reywas92^Talk 13:36, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Dlthewave, Mangoe, Hog Farm, and Reywas92: I realise you and others have done extensive source analysis on some of these articles, and I'm sorry that I've disrupted those discussions. However, I think in this particular case it is warranted, because, yes, it is important to send a message to the nominator that this kind of behaviour is unacceptable, and it's important to protect AfD from disruptive flooding, and to prevent the outcomes being thrown into doubt as fruit of the poisonous tree. If we discourage mass creation of articles without prior due diligence, we must surely also discourage mass creations of AfDs without due diligence.

As I've said, you are welcome to renominate these articles immediately. Alternatively, I won't object if somebody wants to selectively (not en masse, please) undo my closes of those discussions that could have been heading for an outcome other than keep. However on the whole I stick by this as appropriate enforcement of WP:HOUNDING and WP:POINT, supported by the consensus of editors above. – Joe (talk) 14:28, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I support Joe's point. The good faith of others doesn't somehow mitigate or lessen the need to respond to the bad faith harassment that started the discussion. Starting a new, clean, discussion without bad faith harassment should (hopefully) lead to a better outcome all around. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:19, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Lightiggy makes many edits to Nazi-related articles and these are just the ones that I have noticed, because they are on my watchlist.

• Repeatedly added incorrect and unsourced information to Stefan Baretzki article, stating he was convicted of a different crime than found guilty of (murder). (March and June 2022)
• In Padule di Fucecchio massacre, removed content cited to a reliable source, claiming it's incorrect but not citing any source for that claim.
• In Theresienstadt Ghetto they added multiple paragraphs related to a different concentration camp. (September 2022)
• Repeatedly added unsourced content to Flossenbürg concentration camp, then when called out cited ww2db, a self-published website, and jewishvirtuallibrary, which is rated unreliable at the reliable sources noticeboard. (September/October 2022)
• On another article, added content that failed verification (that cited to mauthausen memorial) and cited an unreliable source (master's thesis). Here is their reaction when brought up on their talk page. (October 2022)

While it's understandable that editors might not immediately be familiar with reliable sources, it's expected that they would acknowledge their mistakes and rectify them going forward. Other editors such as Beyond My Ken, Obenritter, and Kierzek have posted on their talk page regarding issues with their edits. I've reverted their harmful edits to pages on their watchlist, but I do not have time to go through the rest of their thousands of edits on pages I don't watch. I don't know how to handle the situation given that Lightiggy doesn't seem able or willing to change their behavior, despite my interactions with them going back to March 2022. (t · c) buidhe 18:42, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Adding to this, I looked through Lightiggy's contribs. This edit [158] is just weird, adding a lot of spaces to the infobox and changing how a date is written. This one [159] just seems to extend on how the children died. Both of these edits remain current as I write this, so I don't know if they could be considered vandalism. Overall, I see a lot of edits to Nazi-related articles, which means that he is really interested in the Nazi Party. I think that we should consider a topic ban (if possible) The Shamming Man has appeared. 20:12, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think the adding of spaces is an automated thing because of visual editor. I've seen it from editors before; it's not deliberate. — Czello 20:17, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I make these edits all the time. It's a lot easier to read (when editing) when the spaces are consistent between infobox parameter and entry. Our eyes do a lot better with standard whitespace around equal signs and the like. The date formatting also seems like a standard change (mdy to dmy). --Engineerchange (talk) 20:30, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, nevermind. The Shamming Man has appeared. Sham me / Where I've shammed 20:33, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Some of these edits were due to misunderstandings.

Regarding the edit for the Padule di Fucecchio massacre article. That edit was due to a confusion.

The original statement said "Only three Nazi war criminals have ever served jail sentences in Italy for war crimes, Erich Priebke, Karl Hass, and Michael Seifert."

I was confused by this, since the the article listing Nazi war criminals who have served time in Italy for war crimes does give the names of a few other Nazi war criminals who served time in Italy, such as Herbert Kappler and Walter Reder.

Regarding the edits to the Theresienstadt Ghetto article, I listed those men since they committed crimes at in Small Fortress, which is located in Terezín, the same town where the Theresienstadt Ghetto is located. Lightiggy (talk) 20:39, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As buidhe has indicated, several of us have repeatedly tried to explain the use of proper RS to Lightiggy to no avail. This is particularly troubling since many of the Nazi-related pages this editor makes adjustments to are of a sensitive nature and require more professionalism (pardon the use of this term here, as I realize Wikipedia is open to all) and caution than most. Not sure what the corrective action might be, but this editor fully substantiates the claims hereby about the editor in question and stands concerned in much the same manner as buidhe. --Obenritter (talk) 20:45, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I was referring to this list, for clarification: ::List of Germans convicted of war crimes committed in Italy during World War II Lightiggy (talk) 21:01, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the reliable sources issue, I admittedly didn't read the reliable sources guidelines until today, when buidhe warned me about some of the other edits I made. I am not sure what to tell all of you, other than that I'll make sure in the future to avoid this problem. Lightiggy (talk) 21:28, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the facts as set forth by buidhe and with the comments by Obenritter. I have mainly had dealings with Lightiggy on the List of major perpetrators of the Holocaust where they added people indiscriminately and tried to add a few others, which do not meet the criteria for the list (see its talk page). They do not seem to have a good grasp of WP:RS, nor WP:NOTEVERYTHING and especially the sub-section WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Kierzek (talk) 15:46, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, if you are unsure about how to proceed, I will take a short break (at least a week or two) from editing any articles related to the Holocaust, aside from anything minor such as grammar. I will reread all of these sections regarding the rules. Lightiggy (talk) 18:15, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the topic of reliable sources, I can't really add much discourse. But, as a passerby to Lightiggy's edits to one single page Henry Wirz and a comment I made back in September 2022 about it reflect what looks to me as a blatant ignoring of suggestions made by peer editors (copyright, reliable sources, edit summaries). There are at least 3 comments about Lightiggy not doing edit summaries (one by me), and at least two comments of acknowledgement (suggesting they'll work on it), which as far as I can see up until this incident report were flatly ignored. --Engineerchange (talk) 20:19, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

80s Sam (talk · contribs · count) This user is a net negative. Editwarring, changing what they don't like to their preferred version, not discussing anything, not heeding warnings, many warnings just today. - FlightTime (open channel) 21:38, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to be connected to this AN post. - FlightTime (open channel) 02:07, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm seeing a lot of back-and-forth, highly personalized conflict with Sundayclose; the use of templates as weapons and lots of ANGRY ALL CAPS communications. This looks like a "it takes two to tango" kind of situation, and I'd like to hear from both sides and seeking a mutual "chill out" period based on what I am seeing from this. I will notify Sundayclose as well; the entire situation is not a good look on either party. --Jayron32 16:00, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Jayron32: Thanks for the ping. 80s Sam has a long history of changing timelines according to their personal preferences (mostly without any sourced support in the articles), and being reverted by multiple editors. As just one example, consider The Beatles, all within a few days. Note that the reverts are by several editors:

• 80s Sam
  
• revert
  
• 80s Sam
  
• revert
  
• 80s Sam
  
• revert
  
• 80s Sam
  
• revert
  
• 80s Sam
  
• revert
  
• 80s Sam
  
• revert
  

For these edits alone, 80s Sam was asked by several editors (in both edit summaries and on their talk page) to discuss and seek consensus before changing timelines. 80s Sam has never attempted discussion on any issue whatsoever. 80s Sam has edited for three years and, until the last few days after many reverts, requests, and warnings, never left an edit summary, never responded to warnings, and never attempted any discussion. Look at 80s Sam talk page and you'll see many warnings for many policy and guideline violations from numerous editors. I'll be happy to discuss with more detail if needed. I certainly don't mind a "chill out" period if 80s Sam can agree to simply leave timelines alone unless there is a clear consensus for the changes. Thanks. Sundayclose (talk) 17:37, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Even after this discussion began, 80s Sam was notified, and I made my comments here, 80s Sam made another change to a timeline with a false claim of "all cited": [160]. Sundayclose (talk) 18:38, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Sundayclose: Thank you for the diff's, all that work and we're still waiting for some kind of Admin cmt's or something.. - FlightTime (open channel) 21:33, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@FlightTime: Glad to help. Thanks to you for bringing the issue here. I also appreciate Jayron32's input. I suspect admins are waiting to see if 80s Sam responds, which I fully understand. Based on his history, I would not bet a dime that he will do so. I continue to revert his changes to timelines if he refuses to discuss. That's the only thing I know to do at this point. Sundayclose (talk) 22:21, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I will say one thing, Sundayclose: "Refusing to discuss" is not an exemption to WP:EW, and it has happened often in the past that both parties to a conflict are blocked if they both edit war. Please keep that in mind. If what you say is correct, people who aren't you will also agree and prefer your version of the articles in question. --Jayron32 10:47, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Jayron32: Thanks for the comment, and point taken. To my knowledge I have not exceeded 3RR or otherwise edit warred in reverting 80s Sam (I'm aware that edit warring can occur even without a 3RR violation). As I've noted above, multiple editors have reverted 80s Sam's edits to timelines. At least two editors have thanked me for reverting 80s Sam's changes to timelines. I'm very concerned that 80s Sam refuses to even discuss these issues in an ANI report. I will be happy to agree to stay away from 80s Sam's edits entirely if 80s Sam will simply agree to get consensus before changing timelines, as they have been asked to do by multiple editors. It's obvious by now that 80s Sam sees no need to discuss these matters and feels that they can proceed to change timelines as they wish with impunity. Sundayclose (talk) 00:33, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Actually on second thought, dealing with 80s Sam is not worth my time. I'll leave it to others to deal with 80s Sam's many problem edits, with the exception of articles related to the Beatles since I spend a lot of time monitoring those articles. I appreciate all of the comments here as well as those who have thanked me for my edits. Sundayclose (talk) 00:47, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

212.228.225.94 (talk · contribs), returning from recent block for more of same. Requesting reversion of edits and longer block. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:83FA (talk) 08:24, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

See also 212.228.213.255 (talk · contribs). 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:83FA (talk) 08:28, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've reported them at WP:AIV as this doesn't seem to merit an ANI filing (unless it's declined there). It's just an IP who's continuing the same disruptive editing that they were previously blocked for shortly after their block has expired. DonIago (talk) 13:33, 19 October 2022 (UTC) Support extending block. The AIV filing was declined for non-obvious vandalism, but I agree that based on edits like this one and these that the IP is making claims about people, at least in some cases BLPs, without providing appropriate sourcing. DonIago (talk) 14:10, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Since May 2022, 70% of the edits (156/222) in this range 212.228.192.0/18 have been reverted. Could this be ZestyLemonz? – Archer1234 (talk) 21:47, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Crickets. The vandalism continues. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:83FA (talk) 13:53, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Materialscientist blocked 212.228.225.94 for two weeks. 212.228.213.255 has not had any edits for 10 days. No other IPs are active in this range: 212.228.192.0/18. Are there other IPs continuing with vandalism that you suspect are related? – Archer1234 (talk) 15:24, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you—-I don’t see anything else. I’m away for the weekend, but appreciate the update. Cheers. 66.30.216.14 (talk) 20:11, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Back in early September, an article created by Prototyperspective was deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Academic research about UFOs and related phenomena. As the AfD noted, the article was a clear POV-fork of other content, contained considerable WP:OR, and was otherwise entirely unsuited for Wikipedia. Some time later it came to my attention that the deleted article was now in user space, almost unmodified, as User:Prototyperspective/Academic research about UFOs and related phenomena. I initially tagged it for speedy deletion under db-g4 - ' substantially identical to the deleted version...' but the speedy was declined (not by Prototyperspective). Given that I still considered that db-g4 applied, I then started an MfD discussion at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Prototyperspective/Academic research about UFOs and related phenomena. As might be expected, Prototyperspective has argued against deletion there, as they are entitled to. It has however become apparent, initally as a result of comments made there by Prototyperspective, is that the disputed page is being linked to, by them, on Reddit. Prototyperspective has stated that "others outside of Wikipedia" [161] have been reading the page, using this as an argument for retention. That, in my understanding of policy, is a clear violation of WP:NOTWEBHOST, and at least arguably, given the phrasing used on Reddit, a WP:FAKEARTICLE.

At the root of this issue is Prototyperspective's refusal to accept the result of the original AfD, despite overwhelming consensus. This refusal is ongoing, and, in Prototyperspective's latest post to the MfD discussion used as an explicit justification for retaining the content: "... many others have confirmed that they think [it useful] too...its contents are relevant to discussions...the page shouldn't have been fully deleted...". [162] Since absolutely nothing in Wikipedia policy legitimises employing user space as a platform for hosting fringe content for the benefit of Reddit readers, and as a means to circumvent article deletion, something clearly needs to be done. The MfD discussion is ongoing, so it probably isn't appropriate to pre-empt the result, but at minimum Prototyperspective needs to be told, in clear and unambiguous terms, that they are not under any circumstances permitted to link their user pages to social media in this manner, that they are not permitted to use social media to continue Wikipedia content disputes, and that user space is not provided for the furtherance of such disputes. Or for the propagation of the users own personal views to outsiders, whether on UFOs or on anything else. Given the ongoing refusal by Prototyperspective to accept the consensus at AfD, and what appears to be a general inability to accept that fringe-POV-fork essays on the subjects of UFOs aren't appropriate encyclopaedic content, it should also perhaps be considered whether a 'UFO' topic ban might be in order. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:25, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Already stated that I didn't know about WP:COPYARTICLE when I moved the page from draftspace to userspace and that this policy warrants deletion, sorry. I don't know why you think I was violating "Wikipedia is not a social networking service" there though. The MfD already points to deletion of the userspace page which I'm okay with and am not arguing against, at least not anymore. (Also I'm not 'using' "social media to continue Wikipedia content disputes", I'm allowed to link to Wikipedia articles and I'm doing so because these were relevant to the respective discussion and because the page was useful.) As I have clarified, in the discussion, I wasn't "using this as an argument for retention", but mentioned this to address your mentioned AfD, not to argue for keeping the userspace page (something being useful etc doesn't warrant keeping it as userspace page). Also see WP:RS and WP:NPOV. Again: what is being done is that the userspace article is getting deleted, in line with WP policies. Prototyperspective (talk) 13:32, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So you're saying you are linking to wikipedia on social media "Because these were relevant to the respective discussion and the page was useful... So you're admitting that you wrote a wikipedia article, and then tried to reference to it elsewhere to further your own arguments. What you've done is essentially tried to borrow 'credibility' from wikipedia by using it to platform your views? GabberFlasted (talk) 13:52, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Misunderstood me there. I didn't link it to "further my arguments". It simply was useful in a random discussion I had on the net, it was a useful resource there and instead of posting a lengthy comment I just put a link to the page there.

It's completely unrelated to any arguments, and I didn't make an argument for keeping the page saying it's useful to others, everything below the ____ at the MfD was only to address AndyTheGrumps mentions of the AfD, plain notes that weren't meant as arguments to keep the userspace page and I stated that explicitly multiple times there.

I don't really understand your latter allegations, see WP:AGF, it doesn't even make sense to "borrow 'credibility' from wikipedia by using it to platform your views" if it's a userspace page, it's certainly not what I meant to do or anything I thought of or anyhow related here. Prototyperspective (talk) 14:09, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) "I'm allowed to link to Wikipedia articles". Irrelevant, since it isn't a Wikipedia article. "Also see WP:RS and WP:NPOV". Why? What has that got to do with anything? And yes, linking user pages to social media for "discussion" is a violation of WP:NOTWEBHOST, regardless of how much waffle is used to argue the contrary. If you want people to discuss your flying-saucer-woo essay, find somewhere else to host it - there are plenty of websites that accept such content. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:57, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is what I mean when I meant you aren't addressing points in the AfD, these discussions just bloat up without discussing the actual points raised. I meant Wikipedia page there and I'm also allowed to link userspace pages. One is allowed to link Wikipedia articles in discussions. For example if I discuss pet food, it's very normal to link article pet food if it has some section relevant to the discussion instead of putting everything in the comment or copying things from the article to the comment. I already stated in the MfD that I'm currently looking for such a website and that I'm fine with that deletion. Prototyperspective (talk) 14:13, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"I'm also allowed to link userspace pages". Have you ever actually read WP:NOT? AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:17, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Is Proto actively trying to improve the article? Userfying a deleted page to allow it to be brought up to snuff and reinstated is a relatively uncontentious action. Or at least used to be, I may not be up on current practice but see Wikipedia:Userfication#Userfication_of_deleted_content (an essay not policy, but does correspond with common practice at least back in the day). --WhoIs 127.0.0.1 ping/loopback 13:57, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Prototyperspective has explicitly told us, repeatedly, that the deleted article was being linked externally on social media for the purpose of 'discussion'. Not improvement, a discussion about UFOs. And no, nothing has been done to address the many issues raised during the AfD discussion - unsurprisingly, since Prototyperspective has refused to accept the result. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:08, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, if he's not doing anything with it (I was AGF-ing that he was seeking help from others linking to it off site) then it doesn't belong in userspace. --WhoIs 127.0.0.1 ping/loopback 14:14, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes for the purpose of the discussion at the external website, not the discussion on Wikipedia. Many things have been done to address the few issues raised during the AfD (so much that they can be considered solved now), I wrote that I planned to keep working on the page but that I'm fine with deletion of the userspace page anyway. Prototyperspective (talk) 14:15, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Proto, if you truly are fine with it going away, consider slapping an author's request CSD tag on it. Would probably go a long way towards showing you understand the issue and want to adjust behavior to community norms. -WhoIs 127.0.0.1 ping/loopback 14:24, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)Many things have been done to address the few issues raised during the AfD...? That response alone makes me even more convinced that my suggestion that a 'UFO' topic ban might be merited needs consideration. Absolutely nothing has been done to remove the fringe POV-pushing, synthesis, cherry=picking of sources and general vacuous crappiness of the original article. It is the same junk it always was. Nothing can usefully be salvaged from it. Not by Prototyperspective, or by anyone else. Wikipedia is not a platform for conspiracy-theory peddling misrepresented as an article on 'academic research'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:26, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Among the things I did was removing a newyorker reference (not reliable), removing a paragraph that had unreliable references, adding a section about the status of the field, adding more info about criticism, adding more info about Mick West, and so on. I didn't cherry-pick, I searched quite long for more refs about criticism by "skeptics" (and even more so by other academics) and iirc invited others to add more info about such or anything else they consider to be missing there. I take note of Nothing can usefully be salvaged from it and conspiracy-theory peddling misrepresented as an article on 'academic research', again referring to WP:RS (and WP:NPOV and even WP:FRIND which I tried to meet per WP:AGF but apparently failed(?) even so I still don't exactly know why which I asked about but okay). Prototyperspective (talk) 14:36, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@127(point)0(point)0(point)1: Done, added a CSD to the page.

I'm fine with deletion and as already stated at the MfD already looking for another appropriate Wiki to put this instead. Prototyperspective (talk) 14:42, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• @AndyTheGrump: Am I to understand that there exists a policy under which it is forbidden for me to show other people my userspace drafts? I have never heard of such a thing and I am not sure what the utility of it would be. jp×g 18:38, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I'm aware, nobody has suggested such a general policy exists. I haven't. What I have suggested though is that, regarding the specifics of this case, the recreation of the article and its subsequent linking to Reddit violated WP:NOTWEBHOST. The content wasn't in any meaningful sense a 'draft'. It was deleted content only there because the article creator refused to accept the result of the AfD, and because the article creator wished to present the deleted content to outsiders in a 'UFO' forum. Prototyperspective is of course free (subject to licensing conditions, since the article had been edited to some extent by others) to post it on a blog, on another Wiki, or elsewhere. Just not on Wikipedia, in circumstances where less-attentive readers might think it is an actual, current Wikipedia article. User-space content masquerading as articles gets deleted all the time, as a matter of course, and generally there is little fuss made over such deletions. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:51, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Over the past few days, this user has acted with incivility regarding the AfD for Liberland in which he was warned. He has edit warred on Vit Jedlicka trying to remove his officeholders infobox with the reason being that the position isn't real - even though all micronationalists have either an officeholder or royalty infobox (e.g. Carolyn Shelby, Travis McHenry, Igor Ashurbeyli etc). — Preceding unsigned comment added by MicroSupporter (talk • contribs) 15:23, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Provide diffs? GabberFlasted (talk) 15:26, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@GabberFlasted Diffs? I'm not sure what that means, sorry. MicroSupporter (talk) 15:30, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Diffs: Special:Diff/1116096998, Special:Diff/1116097990. But Andy's already been warned for this (Special:Diff/1116097938) by Tyw7, and Andy has calmed down with the sweary namecalling since then. Levivich (talk) 15:37, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It should be noted that the only source for Vit Jedlicka holding any office in regards to the zero-population 'micronation' of Liberland is Jedlicka himself. It isn't an 'office'. No such office exists, except in the imagination of Liberland supporters. The 'office' comes with no powers. Or even, it would seem likely, a physical office. At least, not one on the uninhabited island. It is an imaginary self-conferred label. And as such, entirely inappropriate self-promotional content ineligible for inclusion in the infobox, per WP:BLP policy. And if WP:BLP policy is indeed being violated elsewhere, that doesn't justify doing it in this case. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:34, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• MicroSupporter asked on my talk page for my advice/intervention regarding this situation; my reading is that in fact MicroSupporter is in violation of both WP:3RR and WP:BLPRESTORE here. I had hoped giving them this advice on my talk page would lead to them taking a step back and addressing the content dispute in the appropriate way, but instead they opened this ANI case before I finished my response. WP:BOOMERANG applies at this point. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 15:42, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I apologise. I was just acting how I'd seen other micronational WP:BLP's. MicroSupporter (talk) 15:48, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I made the above comment having only been aware of the situation at Vit Jedlicka, and not the Liberland AfD. I still think that the situation would benefit from editors taking a step back and picking up with the next step of WP:BRD, but want to acknowledge that the case of incivility identified in Levivich's diffs as a reasonable basis for starting an ANI discussion. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 15:48, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I think your first instinct was correct, Ros, because the diffs I linked were from five days ago. I'm not sure they're a reasonable basis for starting an ANI today. Levivich (talk) 16:02, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• AndyTheGrump behaved inappropriately calling someone names ("halfwit", linked in OP's link to acted with incivility) and told them multiple times to "fuck off" (linked in same discussion). AndyTheGrump was then warned by Tyw7. Since that warning, I can find no further examples of incivility in AndyTheGrump's editing history. Since the warning worked to fix the problem, what else do we need to do here? --Jayron32 15:54, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I clearly could have chosen my words more wisely back there - but it is difficult to exercise restraint after having ones views repeatedly misrepresented. As should be noted, I didn't actually !vote for deletion at the Liberland AfD. Instead, I left a comment suggesting that the article wasn't following WP:NPOV policy, in that it had been repeatedly misrepresenting self-promotion as objective fact. A subject being Wikipedia-'notable' isn't grounds for the sort of BS we've seen there, with in one case the so-called 'Minister of Justice' of the imaginary 'nation' adding himself to the infobox. [163] Somehow though, I'm the one being accused of 'bias' by MicroSupporter? So yes, I lost my temper. I suspect many people would, under the circumstances... AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:04, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Are we allowed to tell people to fuck off if we calm down after, or not? Sorry, I'm new and trying to learn the rules. Level two wikimancer (talk) 03:26, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. But if it was not appropriate, there may be consequences. Be absolutely sure of no good faith on the other side, and of this being proportionate escalation after earlier messages, by other people. SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:04, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I see, so WP:NPA is limited in scope to good faith editors. For instance, because I believe you answered in good faith, I'd get in trouble for calling you a half wit. But if I thought you weren't here to build an encyclopedia, then saying that SmokeyJoe is a half wit would be ok? Complex rules! But I'm catching on Level two wikimancer (talk) 06:00, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You'd think that a new user would be a level one wikimancer, but I suppose we're all learning new things every day. Parabolist (talk) 09:39, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Telling people to fuck off is not a personal attack, it is an uncivil way to tell them to go away. If you tell me to fuck off, you are not insulting me, you are not calling me names, you are just saying rathe forcefully that you don't want to interact with me in this or that discussion. Calling someone a halfwit, on the other hand, is a clear personal attack, it is saying something negative about the other. Nothing complex about it, just make sure that you don't ask about X (in this case, "fuck off"), and then jump to unwarranted conclusions about Y (in this case "halfwit") as if they are the same. Fram (talk) 10:34, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Fram In Australia "you half wit" or 'Fork off is probably friendly, the combination forking halfwit might cause you to loose teeth, you half-witted drongo (obs) is fine though . Wakelamp d[@-@]b (talk) 10:49, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There was indeed actually a request for comment, WP:FUCKOFF, about the general usage of that term. As a result of the RfC, a consensus seems to have developed that just using the term "fuck off" is not considered a personal attack - as Fram said. 🌈WaltCip-(talk) 12:23, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

But it is incivil regardless, and not all incivil things are personal attacks. There are lots of ways one can violate WP:CIVILITY policy, and personal attacks are but one of them. --Jayron32 17:54, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I rarely have seen the civility policy enforced beyond the most egregious violations. The fact we have a page called Wikipedia:Civil POV pushing speaks to some of the contempt that a lot of our long-time users have towards civility. And for the most part, we collectively accept it, whether or not we explicitly do so. 🌈WaltCip-(talk) 19:39, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To answer Level two wikimancer's initial question, 'Are we allowed to tell people to fuck off if we calm down after, or not?', the answer is most likely 'it depends', so try not to. As for what it depends on, opinions will differ. Some will say it depends on the circumstances (I'd argue that it probably should, but I would, wouldn't I). Others will say it depends on who says it. Which might also be a legitimate consideration on occasion, though it can certainly look like favouritism. And then there is an element of luck. Wikipedia is run by volunteers, not all of whom respond in the same way. WP:ANI, where most such cases get reported (if they get reported at all) is a hit-or-miss sort of place, with unpredictable outcomes depending on how a thread is started, and who responds. Things can often go off at a tangent, with the initial complaint rapidly getting buried under other matters, often for very good reasons. And a little uncertainly about what exactly the consequences will be isn't necessarily a bad thing. If Wikipedia were to ever try to lay down precise rules about exactly how uncivil contributors were permitted to be to each other, it would most likely to encourage people to resort to maximum-permitted-incivility as a matter of routine. Or at least, encourage some of us. And trying to create such rules would be doomed to failure anyway, since it is entirely possible to be excruciatingly uncivil to someone using nothing but the most polite language. Not having hard and fast rules hopefully encourages some people to think about the broader consequences of what they say, rather than merely dragging out the rulebook and applying permitted terms just because they can.

As for Fram's point above about personal attacks, the same considerations apply to some extent. The general rule (in as much as there are rules, which again aren't always a good idea) seems to be that you can be rude about what people do ("that was halfwitted"), but not what you think they are ("halfwit"). Or at least, if you are going to do the latter, do it in Wikipedia's preferred terms, preferably with Wikilinks (WP:NOTHERE, WP:CIR etc...), and with some evidence to back it up. So yes, I shouldn't have called MicroSupporter a halfwit. Not only was it impolite, it was unnecessary, since I'd got the evidence on my side over the matter concerned.

Ultimately though, Wikipedia is created and maintained by a disparate bunch of volunteers, with all that entails. Mostly the same stuff that applies to all human endeavours, anywhere. Being rude to each other is something people do, all the time. Possibly it's an inevitable side effect of being such effective communicators. Or maybe its the reason we developed language in the first place. (I wish I'd thought of that when I was studying anthropology at university...) Seriously though, although it might possibly seem a good thing to be perfectly polite to each other, all the time, it isn't going to happen. People have flaws. So the stuff they do will be flawed. This project certainly does, and in my (obviously biased) opinion, contributors' incivility to each other doesn't even come into the top half-dozen things wrong with it. So try not to be ruder to each other than is sometimes necessary (and yes, sometimes it is necessary to tell potential contributors that they lack the competence to do anything remotely useful here...) but don't kid yourself that eliminating incivility is more than an utopian dream. Or that anyone would necessarily want to live in that particular utopia. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:34, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

From my point of view, to answer @Level two wikimancer: excellent question, no it is not allowed, WP:CIVILITY is not just policy, it's a core policy and one of the Wikipedia:Five pillars. Telling someone to "fuck off", unless it is said in jest between friends, is never civil. HOWEVER, saying that, Wikipedia also does not punish. See WP:NOTPUNITIVE. Things like blocks or bans are enacted for patterns of behavior, refusal to accept responsibility and modify one's behavior voluntarily, "doubling down" on bad behavior, etc. AndyTheGrump was warned to stop, and has multiple times conceded there were in the wrong for losing their temper, and has also not repeated the behavior. From a Wikipedia policy point of view, that's sufficient. We have no reason to block them, because there's nothing to stop. Blocks stop bad behavior; bad behavior which has stopped on its own doesn't need a block. If AndyTheGrump does this again tomorrow to someone else, and then the day after to a third person, then we can start having a conversation about blocking or banning them. But not after an isolated incident of incivility. --Jayron32 17:54, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I have blocked MicroSupporter for edit warring on Vít Jedlička. Their conduct in the micronations topic area is approaching POV pushing. I would suggest a topic ban --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 13:49, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Have been unblocked as per review on my talk page. I apologise for any wrongdoings once again. MicroSupporter (talk) 14:23, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, Guerillero seems to have misread the dates or something. Again, my apologies for the incivility. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:48, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I see the 'micro' story is taking a toll not only on article space :) It's starting to become clear that this whole situation is starting to resemble WP:PSCI. Our collective response seems like we're still in the early stages of grief, though. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 15:15, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My grief (generally expressed in the phrase 'good grief') is more concerned with the state of 'macronations' these days. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:22, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I can fully understand Andy's frustration after having edited in that field myself, but deciding to give up on the micronations since it was bad for my blood pressure, in spite of me normally being the calmest person on earth. The Liberland article is about a totally imaginary "micronation", created and kept alive only to make money from selling "passports", "offices" and memorabilia, and thus purely promotional, using Wikipedia as a free advertising platform. So IMHO the article should be deleted and salted ASAP. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 15:34, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Unfortunately, such zero-population putative 'micronations' tend to fall through the cracks in Wikipedia's fringe-topic-treatment policies. They become Wikipedia-'notable' through media coverage that is more often than not filler copy written for entertainment rather than objectivity. 'Man starts imaginary country' is more interesting to readers than 'Man talks nonsense about creating imaginary country so he can sell useless citizenship certificates for Bitcoin' or whatever. Either notability criteria need changing, or NPOV policy needs to be enforced more thoroughly - which mostly comes down to not presenting fantasy as fact. WE could make a good start by removing the thoroughly dishonest 'infoboxes' from such articles, given that they inevitably contain promotional BS rather than verifiable fact. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:46, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  They appear to be using the infobox for recognized countries, which is absolutely a bad approach. A simple box to identify who created the micronation, when, where, and estimated size would be a neutral approach, anything else is going to be claims that can be discussed in the body but not treated as facts due to the purposes of Microstation. Masem (t) 15:56, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Hoax or not (spoiler: it probaly is), Liberland is still notable enough to exist on Wikipedia. Gatekeeping it is inappropriate. MicroSupporter (talk) 15:46, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Could you clarify what you mean by 'gatekeeping'? AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:48, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  People trying to delete it off of Wikipedia for the sole fact that it could potentially be a hoax (just like many other micronations on Wikipedia). I think Liberland's article definitely needs restructuring so it looks more like a micronation and the controversies of Liberland should also be visible on the article, but I don't think it should be deleted. The problem with micronations is some claim to be fantasy, and some claim to be serious (in reality they're all fantasy though, regardless of what they claim). This causes great difficulty of finding things to write about on the micronations that claim to be serious. I hope that makes sense. MicroSupporter (talk) 15:50, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Thomas.W doesn't seem to be suggesting that the Liberland article should be deleted because it is a 'hoax'. He says it is promotional. Which it is. And the question then comes down to whether it is appropriate to cover the subject on Wikipedia, given that the sources available are either entirely promotional themselves, or lacking the objective coverage necessary to write an encyclopaedic article. Wikipedia isn't obliged to have articles on anything, and whether we do so or not is, quite rightly, mostly dependent of the availability and usefulness of sufficient independent sources. I'm of the opinion that in almost all circumstances, it is better to have no article on a topic than a bad one, if the bad cannot be made good. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:02, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I can't see how Liberland's article is promotional, it just lacks the information on how its a micronation. Most of the articles about Liberland seem to be making them ick out of Liberland, which means they're definitely not promotional articles if they're not getting the serious coverage that they want. The article needs restructuring, but I don't think it should be deleted. MicroSupporter (talk) 16:34, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  In what sense is Liberland a 'micronation'? The territory claimed is an uninhabited island. It has never had a 'Liberlander' population. It consists of nothing more than a website, and a series of claims to existence. In a sense, all nations are social constructs (even the largest and most powerful ones), but this particular one seems only to consist of a 'claim to existence' that nobody but its promoters take seriously. If indeed they actually do, as more than a means of attracting publicity. Imaginary elephants aren't pachyderms. Imaginary 'micronations' aren't nations, and Wikipedia is under no obligation to pretend that they are. If you want to publish micronation-fanfiction, try Wikia. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:19, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm getting Poyais vibes from all of this. 🌈WaltCip-(talk) 19:33, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• User:EEng. I know it's getting a bit too long now, but shouldn't unrecognised micronations be on The List. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:19, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

   Done A most appropriate addition to that most important list. EEng 16:00, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am a Mexican editor and since three years ago I've been writing and creating around 200 articles on Wikipedia, including the majority of Real Madrid seasons, a good bunch of Juventus, A.C. Milan and Internazionale seasons, even Nottingham Forest seasons, PSV and Sporting Lisboa, and of course I've been helping with uncountable edits to other users articles. Other pages that you probably reviewed or read, those articles include prose, several sources and of course report-links.

The problem is, early October 2022 I started to write articles about my native country Mexico, the 1994-95 season with 19 football teams and plus another cancelled campaign. I followed the same WP:NSEASONS requirements, I properly included several sources, as I routinely do with my european teams articles. I've never had problems with my past 195 articles, but, suddenly after three years, I've received 10 nominations to delete my Mexican football teams articles by The Banner (talk · contribs) . Naïvely I followed the process, it was abhorrent, I've explained one time, two times several times my artciles were properly sourced, but by an incredible deletion score of 1-0 with the same user . GiantSnowman (talk · contribs) voting in my AfD discussions through a two weeks span, they were deleted by Star Mississippi (talk · contribs) through Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2022_October_19#1994–95_season_articles.

This is clearly linked to the undeniable fact that the three persons cannot accept a Mexican editor write popular articles with many views, following a Jim Crow strategy' they even don't read my articles, just nominate and delete them always the same three persons (1 nominates, 1 votes, and 1 deletes the same three always). They acted against my 200 articles only after they've realized I am Mexican. I have 18 articles deleted, they are doing the same for the other 200 Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Football.

This is the first time I am posting here so if I am doing anything wrong, please let me know.HugoAcosta9 (talk) 18:03, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, you are doing something wrong. You've made blatant personal attacks against several editors, accusing them of racism, because they had the gall to nominate some of your articles for deletion based on Wikipedia's guidelines regarding notability. I strongly suggest you refactor your post to remove any insinuation that your were targeted because of your nationality as opposed to a relatively recent consensus-driven shift in notability criteria for sports/athletes. -- Ponyo^{bons mots} 18:12, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm going to second this. Calling these editors racists, to be blunt, is a personal attack. I'm also changing the title of this section, as this again is a personal attack. RickinBaltimore (talk) 18:16, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Not surprisingly, Football in Baltimore is not popular, of course you want the 200 football articles deleted. HugoAcosta9 (talk) 18:28, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't care about the articles in question. I care about your continued personal attacks. Stop with the racism calls immediately, or you're going to be blocked. RickinBaltimore (talk) 18:41, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Heaven forbid that Wikipedia editors apply notability policies and guidelines, or that we don't treat association football articles as immune to the same. JPxG is correct that there've been sweeping changes to sports notability guidelines (after years of abuse, with some footy editors being among the worst offenders), and it's entirely possible you were unaware of that. But if you're unable to assume good faith, and you reflexively jump to the conclusion that the only conceivable reason anyone could take one of your articles to AfD is sinister intent, then Wikipedia will just have to soldier on without you. Ravenswing 19:02, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Looks like it was changed back, should I change it to "Personal attack from HugoAcosta9"? @RickinBaltimore The Shamming Man has appeared. Sham me / Where I've shammed 19:43, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  See everyone, after I wrote 200 articles I showed with exhibitions those three friendos are acting against a Mexican editor and they deflected the truth labeling as personal attacks. HugoAcosta9 (talk) 18:27, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Please read the behavioral guideline WP:AGF before you continue. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 18:40, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I can write with fear anymore over here. I will never published another article on wikipedia. HugoAcosta9 (talk) 18:42, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @HugoAcosta9: no one here is being racist, or biased against articles from Mexico. As @JPxG states below, the notability guidelines for sports articles are much stricter now; please take a moment to review the link they provided to understand the changes. (And before I get accused of racism myself, check my user page – I'm actually south of you.) –FlyingAce^✈hello 18:53, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Read 1 out of my 200 articles, if you want 1 article unsourced, then I allow you to delete all of them. HugoAcosta9 (talk) 18:59, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm not the one nominating the articles for deletion ;) I'm just saying that the nomination, even if it may have been mistaken, has nothing to do with your nationality or any other personal characteristic. I understand it's distressing, but please avoid attacking other editors because of it. –FlyingAce^✈hello 19:19, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Close as forum shopping and suggest p-block from DRV which he's bludgeoning (again) with bad faith comments and arguments. Star Mississippi 18:45, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• @HugoAcosta9: A few months ago, some rather sweeping changes were made to WP:NSPORTS, so while I think it is unlikely that you are being specifically targeted, you are not wrong in perceiving a sudden increase in sports-related AfD nominations. jp×g 18:49, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  With the difference they are lying about me writing that the 200 articles are unsourced when you red those they are sourced with 6-7 references, and using only 1 vote to delete my 200 articles from the same user. HugoAcosta9 (talk) 18:57, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Strictly spoken, I am not informed about this discussion. I was pointed to WP:AN for a non-existing discussion. But with some searching, I did find the personal attack. The Banner talk 18:56, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  False. I properly noticed you in your talk page. HugoAcosta9 (talk) 19:02, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Just read your own edit on my talk page. The Banner talk 19:21, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    I noticed you based on real claims, on the contrary, you deleted 10 Mexican football articles based on false claims, then you want my other 200 being deleted precisely the 200 european football. HugoAcosta9 (talk) 20:06, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The claims of racism and so on are unacceptable, but on the other hand I would be upset as well if someone started AfD´ing articles like 1989–90 Real Madrid CF season. Believing that this isn´t notable and no sources would exist for this club, the champions of the Spanish competition that year and one of the 5 biggest football clubs ever, is not racism but is a staggering display of ignorance, or lack of any WP:BEFORE and common sense. Fram (talk) 18:58, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Possible copyvio... The Banner talk 19:01, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Which is not an Afd reason, and needs perhaps some indication of where the text is copied from? Otherwise you are accusing an editor without any evidence, which isn´t a good look... Fram (talk) 19:08, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Based on what evidence? I carry no water for HugoAcosta9, but your seeming assertion that he committed copyvio with no other ground than a lack of sourcing is dealing in bad faith. If you think this is copyvio, prove it with a link. If you can't (or more likely haven't bothered trying), retract the accusation. Fram is exactly right: Real Madrid is one of the most prominent and popular sports teams in the world, and seeking to delete one of their season articles without the slightest attempt at WP:BEFORE is as egregious as if you sought to delete the 1990 New York Yankees or the 1990 New York Giants seasons. Ravenswing 19:15, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Boomerang per CIR - Hugo is being disruptive at AFD, disruptive at DRV, and is levelling accusations if racism against numerous editors who disagree with him (including me). Totally unacceptable. GiantSnowman 19:21, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Says the one man-one vote over my 200 artciles which unable a deletion. I showed you did not read my 200 articles and you vote to delete them. HugoAcosta9 (talk) 19:57, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I did some looking around, and this editor is virtually accusing anyone who disagrees with them a racist at virtually ever venue I checked. It's not just here - it's talk pages, AFD, DRV, etc. as much as I'm very sympathetic to people who feel they're receiving racist comments towards them...I haven't witnessed a single person say anything racist. Most didn't comment on race or the editor at all. This editor just appears to default to accusations of racism or "not reading the nomination" to anyone who dares doubt him. Sergecross73 msg me 19:25, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Agree, I wasn't aware that closing an AfD was a "Jim Crow Pattern". I understand he's frustrated, but this is spiraling beyond necessity.

Star Mississippi 19:31, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm neutral on the AFD nominations (I dont edit in sports enough to know) and I know he must be frustrated, but he can't be bogging down good faith discussion with bad faith aspersions at every venue like this. Sergecross73 msg me 19:38, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

False. You have no evidence that my 200 articles deserved to be deleted, just deflected the real matter, Mississippi delete pages with a 1-0 AfD consensus. 1 vote is not a consensus over two weeks of discussion. HugoAcosta9 (talk) 19:59, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Zero evidence of what? I just told you I was neutral and not taking a stance on the AFDs. This is exactly the problem. You throw accusations around that don't make any sense. Sergecross73 msg me 20:25, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

he's already gone, buddy. The Shamming Man has appeared. Sham me / Where I've shammed 20:26, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, saw his comment and responded before I read the rest of the thread. Sergecross73 msg me 20:29, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

200 articles deleted with 1-0 consensus over two weeks based on false claims is acceptable to you, well thats not good faith from you. HugoAcosta9 (talk) 20:02, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe instead of fighting this, maybe you should work with these other fine souls to fix the issues in the articles? The Shamming Man has appeared. Sham me / Where I've shammed 20:19, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• This is going nowhere. I've indefinitely blocked the user.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:20, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  That also works, however what does that mean for the AfD's? The Shamming Man has appeared. Sham me / Where I've shammed 20:22, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Oops, just seeing that he was blocked. I won't waste further time responding. But regardless, it doesn't mean anything for the AFDs. They can continue on. The article creators participation aren't essential. Sergecross73 msg me 20:27, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Thank you. Star Mississippi 20:55, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Any chance you or an uninvolved admin might consider revoking TPA? Thanks either way Star Mississippi 21:34, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Sir Sputnik did.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:42, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Thank you both. There was no way that was going to end in any positive manner. Star Mississippi 21:45, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Banner conduct

Good block. But what about the WP:HOUNDING by User:The Banner? It is acceptable to go through someone's contributions when you notice problems, it is not acceptable though to nominate articles for deletion just to further bait an already distressed editor, and it is very hard to see things like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1989–90 Real Madrid CF season in any other way. Either the editor really believes the topic isn't notable, in which WP:CIR comes to mind, or they just try to rile up Hugo Acosta, in which case it is WP:HOUNDING. Fram (talk) 10:56, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• • I was about to say Good Block, with respect to the OP, who threw a boomerang at a non-existent kangaroo. But I see that the subject has changed. Yuck. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:38, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• You know, just because person A does something wrong, doesn't mean that person B didn't. Hugo clearly had gone off the deep end with his spurious and unfounded accusations of racism, and his refusal to back off that accusation. He wanted to die on that hill, and it looks like he was granted that wish. So, he was unequivocally in the wrong for accusing people of racism where none existed. However, the non-racism-accusations part of the complaint appear to have merit. Yes, we have (wisely) tightened up our WP:NSPORTS requirements in recent months, but just as the tightening of those requirements means that people cannot spam entire batches of non-notable sports articles across Wikipedia, that does not mean that people are empowered to spam spurious AFD discussions all over Wikipedia without a modicum of WP:BEFORE and common sense. AFDing season articles of literally the most successful and well-covered sporting franchises in the world is beyond-the-pale irresponsible. It isn't racist, but it's also a really shitty thing to do, and just as care and consideration needs to be undertaken before creating articles, equal care and consideration needs to be undertaken when nominating articles. La Liga is not Billy's Backyard Soccer Jamboree, and I find the "I think they are copyvios" is an unconvincing. Accusations of bad acting without evidence is casting aspersions and unless you can provide the source of the copied text, such claims are baseless. Being falsely called racists doesn't mean what you did is right, and like Fram above, I think we should not sweep these problems under the rug. --Jayron32 16:13, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

+1. I agree that HugoAcosta dug his own grave, but he had cause to be angry. The Banner filed a heap of AfDs that were just this side of spurious, targeting teams that are among the most successful in the world, and often going after championship seasons -- the analogy I've used in some of those AfDs is that even an American who knows nothing about sports might well hesitate long and hard before going after 1990 New York Yankees season. The "suspected copyvio" charge was just icing on the cake, and obviously there was no attempt at complying with WP:BEFORE. We would not tolerate such antics in a newbie editor with 200 edits, and it's appalling to contemplate that the perp here is someone with over a hundred thousand edits and who has filed well over a thousand AfDs. Some consequence needs to happen here beyond "Gosh, what a shame," and The Banner would be well advised to have some serious explanation for this egregious conduct. Ravenswing 16:57, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fully agree - the petty, POINTy nominations by The Banner of clearly notable topics is incredibly disruptive and I agree this constitutes hounding and needs resolving. GiantSnowman 19:04, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think - if possible - @The Banner should be banned from making AfD's for 24-72 hours. Once this period is done, we can go forward with a possible decision for a long-term solution. The Shamming Man has appeared. Sham me / Where I've shammed 19:17, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

[[Wikipedia:Don't shoot the messenger. A big portion of my Afds are honoured, with. the articles removed. The Banner talk 19:38, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@The Banner not only did you not give a reason for afd'ing the articles but they are extremely notable articles.Td^she/her 19:40, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, you have quite a mediocre record at AfD. AfD tools report that in the last thousand nominations you've filed, the eventual result matches yours just 57% of the time, which is not much better than random chance.

But we are not talking about AfDs you filed five years ago -- although given your recent behavior, a closer examination of your record is appropriate. We're talking the AfDs you filed against articles on highly notable subjects that HugoAcosta created, where you demonstrably did not perform WP:BEFORE, where you levied unsupported and likely unfounded accusations of copyright violations at him. Do you have an explanation for those? Ravenswing 20:40, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Another vote for temporarily banning User:The Banner from AFDs and further punishment if he continues, the AFDs he's just put up are are at best ridiculous, and at worst incendiary. Ortizesp (talk) 21:15, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed with Jayron and Ravenswing, repeated untenable nominations are bad enough, but AfDing so many that are obviously notable is beyond disruptive. JoelleJay (talk) 05:03, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• COpying my comment from one of the AfDs. I think The Banner's conduct at the ongoing AfDs needs evaluation and handling by an uninvolved admin, which isn't me. While I have no issue with Fram's responses, the AfD isn't the place for the discussion. (Will notify both momentarily. Star Mississippi 14:11, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the points made by Fram and others about TheBanner's possible HOUNDING behavior (I was very surprised to learn that this is an experienced editor after going through the batch of Spanish football club season articles AfDs they started yesterday). I'm also concerned from the post above that TheBanner doesn't understand their behavior was very likely inappropriate (asking us not to shoot the messenger?). I'm not recommending any sanction, but I would like TheBanner to consider how to handle themselves better in the future. Jogurney (talk) 20:33, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That sums up my thinking as well. Whilst I am note sure about a symbolic 24 hour AfD ban at the moment I would certainly be willing to entertain a sanction if issues recur. Gusfriend (talk) 06:42, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We don't do that here. "Symbolic bans" are not anything worthwhile. Either we believe that TheBanner will continue to be disruptive, and issue some kind of sanctions, or we believe that they are capable of self-regulating and modifying their own behavior, at which point we let them do that. Symbolic bans are pointless. --Jayron32 14:12, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1994–95 Club América season, where they nominated the article with patently false claims (and ones that are not really relevant for an AfD anyway, what matters is if sources exist, not if they are in the article), and where they apparently still can't admit their fault or withdraw the nom, even after 8 other AfDs in the series have been closed as "speedy keep" with a comment by the closer that they were a "waste of time". This is not some heat of the moment mistake by The Banner, this is an ongoing refusal to see or admit any issue with their behaviour, which has resulted in the meltdown and subsequent (well-deserved) block of a productive editor. Letting them get away with a silly 24 hour AfD ban or a severe "tsk tsk" is extremely mild for this kind of behaviour. Fram (talk) 14:12, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

On the flipside, that's an older nomination, before TheBanner was made aware such nominations were being disruptive. Digging backwards isn't helpful; we know they have a history of this; I just am not sure that before this discussion they didn't know they had a history of problems. Don't misunderstand me here. What they did was wrong. But giving them the opportunity to self-correct should be done here. Blocking or banning should come only after a person has been given the opportunity to do better. @The Banner: Do you agree to stop making these kinds of nominations? --Jayron32 14:18, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion at the bottom of the AfD indicates to me that The Banner has learnt nothing from this discussion or is being deliberately obstructive. Star Mississippi 14:25, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Again, this is not a newbie editor: this is someone with a hundred thousand edits, sixteen years of experience and many hundreds of AfD filings. At this stage in his Wikipedia career, The Banner should not have to be instructed not to disrupt Wikipedia by filing spurious AfDs or levying unfounded and unsupported accusations at other editors. Nor should he be pulling defensiveness or deflection, as above in this ANI or on the AfD Fram links; the stance that would have helped in either venue was humility and abject apology, withdrawing his remaining open noms, and as Drmies says below, to take these concerns seriously.

At this point, especially with him weaponizing AfD to drive out a productive editor, I'm no longer up for a token slap on the wrist. Let's give him a month's ban from AfD, broadly construed, and see if that gets his attention. Ravenswing 15:07, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. Work up a formal ban proposal, put it to discussion, and let's see what the consensus is. --Jayron32 15:50, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User:The Banner--this is a good time to take those concerns seriously. Being defensive is not likely to help you. I've known you for a long time and I want to keep you on board here. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 14:32, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My intention was nothing more than protecting the quality of Wikipedia. I am willing to stop looking as football articles, as it is clear that a critical look at (the quality of) them is not appreciated. I am not willing to get a formal ban because others come up with some silly made-up stories over how bad I am and what bad intentions I had. That Hugo now has a block OT, is due to his own behaviour, including accusations of racism and apartheid. I will walk away from football articles and will not care about substandard articles. To put a date on it, the rest of the year, minimum. I hope there will also be a look at the behaviour of "the other side" because to my feeling that is harassment and hounding. The Banner talk 16:58, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

With that as your unrepentant encomium, let's take you at your word. I therefore propose that The Banner receive a two month tban from AfD, broadly construed, with the recommendation that he educate himself better on the purposes of and his obligations under WP:Deletion policy. Ravenswing 19:42, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, are you just gonna keep raising it? Just make it indef until they demonstrate that they recognize the problem and can commit to correcting it. But if there's already an unwillingness to do so, what's the point of a 2 months hiatus and/or TBAN, if the issues are likely to continue once that time is up? El_C 20:15, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to propose indef instead, feel free. Since this is the first formal proposal I've made, I'm unsure where you get the idea about "raising" anything. Ravenswing 20:43, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I'm just speaking generally. I only have a vague idea as to what's happening here. But I saw you in passing above being unimpressed with The Banner's responses, thus, seeking to raise the previously-proposed 24-72 hour ban (shortest TBAN I've heard of) to one month. And then, after being further unimpressed, you proposed to raise it to 2 months. That's what I was referring to wrt raising. But I didn't realize that this was your first proposal, so now I feel like a dick. El_C 20:58, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'd support the two months, but agree that indef would be better. We don't need The Banner to stop looking at football articles -- the topic area is irrelevant -- we need them to stop disrupting AFD; the TBAN should last until they commit to doing so. Levivich (talk) 22:07, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:I've been a regular closer at AFD since January and I just wanted to add that it is not uncommon for a nominator to target a variety of article creations from the same page creator. There are times, like with those thousands of GEO stubs with terrible sourcing, when such behavior is warranted. But there are other times where it seems like a veteran editor spots one bad article by a relatively new editor (or at least an editor without a "known" profile) and just nominates all of their articles for deletion. There are rare times where it is part of a feud between editors or payback but it usually seems like we have some very experienced editors who become suspicious of editors when they find a weak article and go through their contributions to find others of similar mediocre quality. While it could very well be that these articles merit deletion I just wonder what it feels like for an editor, whether or new or old, to be going along and doing their editing work day by day and suddenly, BOOM! their talk page has 3 or 5 or 12 AFD notices on it, telling them that their articles are being considered for deletion. Unfortunately, there is no requirement with any deletion tagging to actually talk to a page creator first so they are likely blindsided by the number of their articles simultaneously being considered for deletion. I understand that Hugo Acosta crossed over a line here but I can see why he panicked, vocally defending his articles in all those AFDs and then went off the deep end. I think most content creators would get irate.

I guess my point now is that what The Banner did is unacceptable for an experienced editor but they are far from the only editor who has targeted a particular editor's page creations and tagged them for some form of deletion. And I guess those of us, both admins and regular editors, who regularly patrol AFD need to speak up more when we see this happening REGARDLESS of what we think should become of these nominated articles. Just my 2 cents. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:15, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well said. I sometimes see something similar with requested moves, merges and the like on people's talk pages and suspect that they might feel the same. Gusfriend (talk) 08:46, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is a huge difference, however, between coming across one (non-notable) article, taking to AFD, checking the creator's contribs, and nominating other (non-notable) articles - and what The Banner did. GiantSnowman 11:50, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I was talking of seeing user talk pages with a dozen messages within a few weeks mixed between different types which I suspect they find hard and this is a whole different level. Gusfriend (talk) 12:16, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Topic ban proposal re: The Banner

The Banner is indefinitely prohibited from nominating articles for deletion. Appealable to the community in two months. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 04:34, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Either their nominations are purposefully POINTy or they seriously don't understand why the articles in question are blatantly notable on GNG standards alone, without even considering the SNGs. And if the latter is true for such a long-term experienced editor, then serious questions of competence come into play. Silverseren^C 04:55, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support: based on my own comments above and Silverseren's. Either way, The Banner is unfit to participate in the AfD process. Ravenswing 11:19, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support as per my comments and concerns above. GiantSnowman 11:48, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Was going back and forth on this but the appealable in two months is what swayed me.Gusfriend (talk) 12:17, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per comments above. Levivich (talk) 13:36, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support what clinches it for me is the lack of accountability. Voluntarily walking away from the problem area is not good enough when it is accompanied by a refusal to recognize the true nature of the problem. No, the problem is not that the community refuses to appreciate a critical look at the quality of football articles. The problem is that these were some of the worst AfD nominations in recent memory. How can you call it a critical look when there was no look for sources and the deletion rationales were beneath any reasonable threshold of critical analysis? When you screw up this badly, you need to be able to take the criticism on board. But instead, The Banner's response is to dig in his heels and voluntarily walk away from the topic area because his efforts aren't appreciated. We just saw what happened to the other antagonist in this thread when he railed against everyone who disagreed with him. The Banner appears to headed in the same direction in a slightly milder tone. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 17:44, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ArbieP has been shoe horning into hundreds articles mentions of the 1911 edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica. He is splitting existing refs, adding pointless nods to EB1911. An encyclopedia article over a hundred years old is not a presssingly important source and is only added to promote their project. He has been informed by various editors that this is not constructive editing for the benefit or improvement of the WP articles. He is clearly not concerned with the well being of WP articles and doesn't particularly care. Anna (talk) 00:11, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Can you point to some diffs that are actually problematic? Because looking at some on the first page of his history they seem fine. Things like replacing broken links to ones that work. Jahaza (talk) 03:47, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This seems to be partly a content dispute about external links for John Keats?[165]? I see some places where ArbieP's additions have been questionable (like those clustered around Guy Fawkes and the Gunpowder Plot), but others seem to have been correct and neutral or useful. Jahaza (talk) 04:08, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Promote what project? (and is "their" intended as a gender-neutral singular or a group?) The only active project I'm aware of is the one I've adopted: Wikipedia:WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles/1911 verification, which is a long-term attempt to bring legacy EB1911-copied text into compliance with current verifiability policy. Other than that, I believe "nods" to EB1911 are appropriate if (a) a citation is needed and there is no appropriate primary or secondary source available (b) the online text contains illuminating further reading. ArbieP is a valuable contributor and I regret attempts to sanction him (pronoun implied by name). David Brooks (talk) 14:32, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User:Sheep8144402 has been making a lot of rapid cosmetic edits to base User talk pages using AWB [166]. This is sending a lot of unwanted "You have new messages" notifications to users. Additionally these edits are a violation of WP:AWBRULES point 4 since they do not have any visible effect on the page. 2409:4071:201C:5419:0:0:7B2:50A5 (talk) 09:26, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

They appear to be fixing lint errors, a task undertaken by wikignomes and which is generally a good thing. -- Malcolmxl5 (talk) 10:22, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why didn’t you attempt to discuss this with Sheep before posting here? 2604:2D80:6A8D:E200:9013:50B8:AF43:FF87 (talk) 13:22, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This feels like a mild boomerang encoated in "well technically" wood. Coolman2917 (talk) 15:21, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like WP:LINT specifies that these are valid repairs and encourages them to be automated. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 19:14, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

At WT:LINT, it was discussed before that these edits do not violate WP:AWBRULES. However I do agree that Linting User talk pages should be left for bots so as to avoid sending new message notification. It would have been better to discuss with Sheep first instead of bringing this directly to ANI. ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ (talk) 15:49, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note that Sheep has now submitted a WP:BRFA – Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/SheepLinterBot. This should resolve the IPs concerns. ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ (talk) 17:27, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This user has repeatedly shown unprofessional and rude behavior over the Patrick Troughton Article, more specifically on its image. Consistently removing it, Violating the 3 Revert Rule. and Ignoring talk page warnings by blanking the talk page. I am unsure if this is the proper place to report this incident but I would like to know if something could be done about this. Cheers. PerryPerryD Talk To Me 15:05, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think a 24 hour block from that page would be in order, or a warning on their talk page could work too. Coolman2917 (talk) 15:28, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If he's blanking the page and not taking the other warnings into account, then I don't think this one will be different. I think we should do a 24 hour block and see what happens. The Shamming Man has appeared. Sham me / Where I've shammed 15:41, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@PerryPerryD: So it looks like the edit war cooled down after the RfC started on talk, and you then chose to restart it, citing 3RR? Which a) isn't grounds for a revert (reverting to "enforce" the edit-warring policy is in most cases edit-warring) and b) isn't even accurate. Roderick hit 3 reverts but did not pass it. I'm not at all excusing his behavior here, but you're the one who has more recently made an inappropriate revert. If either of you reverts again, I will partially block that person from the article.

By the way, for future reference, WP:ANEW is the preferred place to take an edit war. Also, editors are allowed to remove (almost) any messages from their talkpage. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 16:27, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

185.30.88.0/22 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

If you Ctrl + F "reverted" on the contributions of this IP range [167], the right side of your screen will almost be fully yellow, that's how much this IP has been reverted, which is no surprise, looking at some of their edits. It's pretty clear that this IP range is operated by a single person, or at least like-minded people.

Their most recent "contribution" was today, writing this nasty anti-Iranian forum-like comment here, which they titled "Persian fascism and racism made Nizami a persian,whereas he was and is Azerbaijani Turk who created during Turkic Seljucs";

This is the fake and racist persian manipulation, as such this page’s value is eeual to toilet paper.

If I look even a bit further back, other blatant disruptive edits such as these come up, where the IP blatantly pov-pushes in a GA article [168] [169]. Or here for example, which is just pure vandalism, "göt" means "ass" in Turkish [170]

They have already been blocked for 3 three months at Zabukh due to disruptive editing. I think it's about time they get an overall block, as they are clearly WP:NOTHERE, and seem to on a nationalistic mission. If they think Wikipedia has the same value as toilet paper, why not help them on their way out? --HistoryofIran (talk) 19:20, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@LouisAragon: Is this (Special:Contributions/185.30.88.0/22) related to your post at User talk:Johnuniq#Thoughts? I have not had time to review the contribs but in general my thoughts re disruptive IPs have hardened and, if disruption is evident, I would support blocking for six months or longer. Johnuniq (talk) 06:17, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This user has been given multiple advisements of policies and things that need to be done on NFL roster templates and player pages. Most of these advisements of (seemingly) gone ignored. This editor has had multiple posts to their talkpage and has made zero attempts at communication or acknowledgments of what he's been advised of. This editor has continued to do or not do what he's been advised of on his talkpage. On example, NFL roster templates have a count for the number of players on each listing (active, reserve, etc.) as well as the date the template was edited. Despite multiple advisements on their talkpage this editor continues to do this, see these edits: 1, 2, 3, 4. Advisements of the count were made on this editors talkpage and the editor briefly began doing it but chose to stop again.--Rockchalk717 19:56, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

judging by the edit tags, he is on computer, so WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT (or whatever it's called) does not apply. I believe a topic ban should be considered, as he seems to add random free agents to team. This isn't NFL Blitz, last time I checked. The Shamming Man has appeared. Sham me / Where I've shammed 20:08, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cordyceps-Zombie (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Given this user's current edit-warring over on Suella Braverman's article (which I brought up on the BLP noticeboard), it's clear that this user is acting trollish and is not here to build an encyclopedia. I think a look through all of their contributions is necessary at this point – QueenofBithynia (talk) 19:59, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also, keeps accusing other users of sexism and racism without any reason. Action needs to be taken ASAP. – QueenofBithynia (talk) 20:08, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like they have been given a 1 month block for disruptive editing. RickinBaltimore (talk) 20:11, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked. The Shamming Man has appeared. Sham me / Where I've shammed 20:23, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, insists that the name she uses on her own website, and in all her own controlled social media, is not her name and anyone who disagrees is sexist and racist? They've just been issued a one month block which I think is generous. I think they should be indeffed which would force them to explain their actions and confront why their current edits are wrong to restore editing privileges. Canterbury Tail talk 20:12, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Given their continued trolling after the block, the block is now indefinite. Edit - And talk page access revoked. RickinBaltimore (talk) 20:16, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That was a strange hill to die on. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 20:31, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe the fungus finally got the better of them? I'd seen them around before, they seemed to be doing a good job. Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 15:42, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• This user has made over 21,000 edits and created some 162 articles. What the hell made them go berserk and set it ablaze over such an obviously stupid troll? Is their account compromised? jp×g 07:25, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so, it's an area they would normally edit in anyway. It's not like the article is out of left field for them. They seem to have just latched onto this one piece of trivia over why her mother named her the way she did and become obsessed with it and ignored what name they actually use and call themselves. Canterbury Tail talk 10:49, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

From the looks of past edits, this does not seem out of place for this user. As I say, I think other articles and edits made by this user should be looked through thoroughly. QueenofBithynia (talk) 17:44, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]