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

WP:TENDENTIOUS editing:

1. Long term edit warring at Kurds since April, attempting to remove sourced information about the Kurds being an Iranian people, claiming it to be "controversial" and "Pan-Iranism" without anything to back it up [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7]. They even just violated WP:3RR in that article right now - just before they did that, they reverted a edit warring warning I gave them, saying it "It is not an edit war"
2. WP:NPA/WP:ASPERSIONS: Paniranism Paniranism Your entire history is POV not my edits
3. Included the ancient Median language as part of Kurdish, no source [8]
4. Disregarded the note twice in the WP:CTOP article Death of Mahsa Amini, adding "Kurdish" in October and December [9] [10]
5. Disregarded the consensus at WP:RSN, reverting with no explanation [11]

--HistoryofIran (talk) 21:28, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Edit warring on Kurds, that's a good enough reason for a partial block for that article. Perhaps that will make User:Serchia understand that we are serious about these things, and perhaps it will be an incentive for them to practice talk page discussion. Older diffs are also of concern, but they're too old to be weighed in this incident. Drmies (talk) 21:40, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• It is obvious that the edit war was started by users from Middle Eastern nations with a history of oppressing Kurds. I removed the term "Iranian" from the opening paragraph of "Kurds" with the valid point that the term is very controversial, and as other credible encyclopaedias such as Britannica don't mention it, there is no need to mention it here. It is also a term that offends most Kurdish people and they do not agree to be called "Iranian". This is the main point here, and as for the other points you outlined, there is no need to mention here. Serchia (talk) 21:52, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Serchia It's sourced, but that doesn't seem relevant to you. If it were, you would have started a discussion after being reverted more than once. The WP:3RR has already been violated, so the best course of action for now would be a short-term block on you. Jerium (talk) 22:15, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think that Drmies was generous with a three month pageblock on just the Kurds article since this editor has disrupted other articles in the Kurdish topic area. Serchia, consider yourself warned that any further ethnonationalist disruption may well lead to more stringent sanctions. So, be cautious. Cullen328 (talk) 06:08, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Discussion of this on the talk page goes back to 2005, and this is just a sampling:
  • Talk:Kurds/Archive 2#Regarding recent edits and the Kurds status as 'Iranian' people
  • Talk:Kurds/Archive 13#We need to qualify the statement that they are an Iranian people
  • Talk:Kurds/Archive 6#Kurds are ethno-linguistically Iranian people
  • Talk:Kurds/Archive 12#Iranian classification is linguistic - we kurds are not iranian ,we are medes ! our free group since 540
  • Talk:Kurds/Archive 15#Kurds would never call themselves Iranian people
• It hasn't always gone well over the years (Special:Diff/266730161, Special:Diff/253670639) but it looked like we reached the what-do-other-encyclopaedias-say point in 2012. The next step is to try to find expert sources, rather than be the edit warrior who aligns with those over the years who were just making assertions with nothing to back them up but IP addresses and pseudonyms. This has happened over and over in all sorts of topics, with people arguing their own personal views instead of doing the research. This is not the way to approach things.

  Uncle G (talk) 06:50, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It is clear that, for good reasons, contemporary Kurdish leaders do not want to be associated with the modern Islamic Republic of Iran, which was founded in 1979. But the concepts of "Iran" and "Persia" and "Iranians" and "Persians" are much older, and frankly, much broader. Uncle G has dug up diffs going back many years, some of which are very ugly and disruptive. I certainly do not claim to be a subject matter expert, but it seems clear that many scholars classify the Kurds as an Iranian people, broadly defined. That does not mean that they are associated with the mullahs in Tehran in any way today. Whether or not that is an assessment widely shared by the most respected academics in the field, I am not prepared to say. I agree with Uncle G that tallying up what various other encyclopedias say is not the proper way to proceed. Instead, the best way is to study what respected academics have written about the matter. The first "academic journal" article thst I found discussing the Kurd/Iranian connection was issued by a predatory publisher, Scientific Research Publishing, which issues journals of "questionable quality". What is needed is a serious assessment by editors with an established track record of competent evaluation of sources in the broad topic area. In my opinion. the OP, HistoryofIran, is one of very few active editors with that expertise, and we should take that editor's assessments seriously. Cullen328 (talk) 08:42, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate that. I'm home in like 8-9 hours, I can gather some WP:RS by academics with expertise in the area then. HistoryofIran (talk) 14:42, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Whomever has gone about and added "Kurds are an Iranian people" to the first sentence of all the Kurd-related articles, is ethnonational pov pushing. That wasn't there last time I was in the topic area (two years ago or so) and everything I remember reading said that the origin of Kurds is much disputed and debated by scholars. Sounds like another way of saying "there is no Kurdistan/there are no Kurds." Levivich (talk) 16:12, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also I just looked at the talk page of Kurds and there are more threads about this than listed above. Looks like a steady stream of people talking about "Iranian/Iranic," I see threads from this year, last year, 2019... this needs an RfC or something. Levivich (talk) 16:18, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Content tagged {{dubious}} and sources/quotes at Talk:Kurds#Kurdish people are an Iranian ethnic group?. That's the content dispute part, which will be resolved on the article talk page. I still think that whomever went around and added "are an Iranian ethnic group" to the first sentence of all the articles has engaged in misconduct (specifically, POV-pushing, and also source misrepresentation, because those sources cited don't say "Iranian ethnic group"). Levivich (talk) 18:08, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like it was added a few years ago.[12] PackMecEng (talk) 20:41, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I saw another one at another article from earlier this year Special:Diff/1131147468; from a quick look, it seems to be one of those things that's been added/removed multiple times, as well as discussed a lot on talk pages (or at least Talk:Kurds), for many years. Levivich (talk) 21:28, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

At another article in 2022 Special:Diff/1124346370, at another in 2019 Special:Diff/881369287 with the edit summary referencing previous iterations... looks like one of those perennial edit wars. Levivich (talk) 21:34, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• It's good to see that we're now back at the level of Talk:Kurds/Archive 13#We need to qualify the statement that they are an Iranian people when Dougweller and Kurdo777 were involved. A small correction to the above: It's not 2005. It's 2004. Vide Talk:Kurds/Archive 1#Iranian?. There was not much edit warring in the article at the time, although Special:Diff/13200475 is an edit from 2005, notice. This goes back way before 2020. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 03:59, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Oh, Wikipedia. We should rename it Sisyphedia. Levivich (talk) 04:15, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Related to these reverts, but also a content issue, see Talk:Mahsa Amini#Mahsa Amini was a Kurdish-Iranian. Levivich (talk) 19:39, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• At the WP:CTOP article Death of Mahsa Amini, Levivich basically repeated [13] what Serchia did; disregarded the note and long-time consensus, adding "Kurdish", without any form of discussion, let alone a WP:CONSENSUS. Looking at Levivich's comments here and elsewhere, they seem like a person who does their research of the article history beforehand. So, they were probably already aware that countless discussions regarding this had taken place in the article's talk page (and surely aware of MOS:ETHNICITY as well), yet still decided to go on with their edit. At Talk:Death of Mahsa Amini, I've asked them twice to revert themselves and make a RFC if they must, which they have ignored. Why a RFC and not a discussion first? Well, because there have already been the same countless discussions in that article, and the recent discussion with Levivich at Talk:Kurds was fruitless; They failed to show a single WP:RS that challenged the claim of Kurds being grouped as an Iranian group and they kept asking me the same questions and making the same arguments, instead of addressing my responses to those, which led to a WP:REHASH fiesta between us (obviously, this is just my perception, I could be wrong, I could be right, maybe a bit of both, ultimately that's for the readers here to decide). --HistoryofIran (talk) 04:20, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The user breaks the rules and returns erroneous edits after correcting them in Afro Tech, displaying disruptive behaviour. After I explained the reasons for these necessary corrections on User talk:ToosieJoosie and asked to return my corrections - they suggested to keep violating the rules and started getting personal, so I think it would be better to resolve the situation with the intervention of someone from the outside so as not to escalate the situation. Solidest (talk) 21:08, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As per written on your Talk page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Solidest

RE: Article:Afro Tech , contributions and edits

1. They are clearly two seperate words, and how the subgenres name is predominantly displayed as well as typed across a plethora of sources and platforms, not a stylization. (Your move also only suspiciously, took place after the pages views were increasing. After your move ,it's back to near 0). Again ,seems malicious and unecessary, not even by accident or genuinely wanting to improve.Thus, if the bots or more established admins haven't found a problem, I think you should disregard it. 2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Fusion_music_genres ; "This category contains music genres that could be considered fusions of various historical genres; that is, they combine elements of different genres together." As per numerous sources and evidence , this is or will definitely be the case , in future, if not so, already. 3 None of the sources , source nothing , if you have time to read properly ,they all mention or highlight the topic/ article. Thank you. ToosieJoosie (talk) 19:58, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have actually just found that you are the last and only editor on the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afro_Tech page's contributions that created at least three duplicate , citation, instead of re-using, which I have to rescue and fix, now. I don't know what your problem is but please stop with the fixation and malisciousness.

The user https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Solidest also displays https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_ behaviour across , at least 3 different accounts , all evidentially what seems like constantly only "tracking" my edits, almost daily since I started my user account, I am new and not perfect , still learning and honing my editing skills, this user's behaviour has been highly perturbing. Please assist and/or advise further. ToosieJoosie (talk) 21:19, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And if not https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet, piggbacking and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppetry#Meatpuppetry, there are literal , sabotage edits in my first and only page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afro_Tech , such as duplicate, citation source references and then later on my talk page accusing me of listing "fake sources". Removing text and edits as well as labeling them as "copy editing" and constant incorrect grammar edits, I would have to correct , after the user(s) block the "undo" function , forcing me to do manual "undos" when I am a new editor. ToosieJoosie (talk) 21:32, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like a content dispute and neither of you have engaged on the article's talk page. That's where this discussion needs to start. @ToosieJoosie, unsupported accusations of sockpuppetry are inappropriate. If you feel there is a genuine concern and can back it up with diffs, go to WP:SPI. Schazjmd (talk) 21:36, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It could be proof that the user is infact maliscious , since he/ she is a more experienced and longstanding editor. He/ she would've known to do that, instead comes straight here which highlights the constant sabotage and tracking of my edits and page creation. Perhaps the user's aim is not only to discredit me however to entirely get my account deleted. As per advised, I have replied to the user on my talk page where the user , again started a discussion instead of the article's talk page. Let's hope it will be resolved civilly and not reach that far. I kindly, thank you. ToosieJoosie (talk) 21:47, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@ToosieJoosie, your path at Wikipedia will be much smoother and you'll be more successful at achieving your desired results if you focus your comments on content, not on editors. Your most recent post to Solidest on your talk page takes a battlefield approach that simply escalates hostilities. I understand that Afro Tech is a new article and it's the first article that you created so it's natural to feel possessive over it. However, you don't own the article. Please, stop the accusations. Schazjmd (talk) 22:14, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the statements made such as sabotage duplicate citations, then later on accusing me of listing fake sources and incorrect grammar edits after my editing are not accusations & can be tracked. Any mistakes I have or may have made are obviously because I am a new(beginner) editor. On the other hand,clearly disruptive edits made by more experienced user(s)/ editor(s), is highly suspicious. ToosieJoosie (talk) 22:24, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed/ reverted (deleted) my post on @Solidest's talk page as per Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Solidest&action=history . I really wish I wasn't experiencing what seems like ; Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers and Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. ToosieJoosie (talk) 23:10, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The page has already been reviewed twice by a user and a bot (user/s bot). Without any problems or highly concerning instances. I do feel as though @Solidest's behaviour is highly perturbing and accusations , exaggerated for alleged reasons mentioned prior to and perhaps others. @Solidest could we agree to disagree and you perhaps , fixate on something / someone else or create your own page(s),as what you're currently doing now is not only time as well as energy consuming but highly unecessary,too. As @Schazjmd mentioned it is a mere "content dispute", not such a big deal.

@Schazjmd I have focused on the content , @Solidest wrote on my talk page and I was simply , reiterating the reply on his talk page too as he/ she had done on, mine. The page move wasn't necessary as there are title(s) of the genre displayed the same/ in a similar manner without any issues.The user keeps on bringing up disputes that he/ she can self-pacify via researching or actually reading the "fake sources" I have been accused of. The user's arguments are also a clear indication of not researching or having any actual knowledge in the topic however creating disputes just "for the sake" of it. ToosieJoosie (talk) 22:21, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@ToosieJoosie: please read WP:OWN, a policy page you still don't seem to have read, because asking Solidest to stay off an article you created is not allowed. You're both at risk of getting blocked from editing that article entirely because neither of you has started a discussion at that article's talk page. I'm not sure what you mean by "As per advised, I have replied to the user on my talk page" but in their first message here, Schazjmd told you this discussion ought to happen at Talk:Afro Tech. City of Silver 22:47, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I never ever asked anyone to stay off an/any article, what I stipulated or meant rather could be interpreted as him/ her @Solidest please not warring on my talk page or disruptive edits, without clearly researching or clearly for "the sake of it" - on my edits. I had no issues whatsoever , not even starting any talks on the page's article or anyone's talk page, whereas there's / was clear evidence of disruptive edits/ vandalism. @Schazjmd mentioned it was supposed to be initiated on the article's talk page, because @Solidest only initiated a discussion directly on my talk page, that's where I had to respond. That's what I meant by "as advised". ToosieJoosie (talk) 22:54, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@City of Silver & @Schazjmd

RE: I have removed/ reverted (deleted) my post on @Solidest's talk page as per Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Solidest&action=history . I really wish I wasn't experiencing what seems like ; Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers and Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point ToosieJoosie (talk) 23:12, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My edits are routine style corrections that I make on a regular basis within the music genre taskforce. I made the edits and gave reasons in the comments why wikipedia does it this way and not the other. ToosieJoosie started reverting and rolling everything back. I started the conversation on their personal page, not on the article's talk page, as I thought the issues of WP:MOS and sources placing were more about the user editing practice than the subject of this exact article (but I wasn't sure if that was right, and that's where I was wrong). I replied with more details about why it should be like that and provided links where it is written, they still disagreed and moved on to accusing me. This over-dramatisation over disagreeing with trivial edits is exactly what I was trying to avoid. If someone doesn't agree that wiki guidelines should be followed, I don't have the motivation to prove otherwise. Regarding the accusations of "fake sources" - my phrase was "false sources" and I further explained that I was talking about using the source where it doesn't support or match the sentence in which it was posted. That reference use was brought back to the same place. In the other place, I put {{Not in source}}, which ToosieJoosie also removed for no reason without making any corrections. The problem really isn't so much with the article itself (which is why I didn't make any more edits there), but with ownership and disagreement with the wiki's guidelines, and instead of finding a solution, it went straight to accusations and personal attacks, and accusations of puppeteering here sound even more ridiculous. Solidest (talk) 23:22, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am no longer going to back and forth regarding this specific article or "my faults". I tried to only focus on the content and even now a user/ editor has removed relative emphasis information and shortned the lead for what appears no valid, reason.Which I will try to restore as I mentioned it is, relevant information. All of "these kinds" of edits were not taking place on the article , nor my edits elsewhere until "you"/ recently. Thank you everyone @Schazjmd, @CityofSilver and @Solidest for your feedback as well as encouragement, I look forward to being a positive and insightful editor , as well as to become as skilled as y'all one, day. Take care. Peace ✌😊🧿-`♡´- ToosieJoosie (talk) 00:01, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@ToosieJoosie, before you revert this other editor's changes, please try discussing your disagreement with their changes on the article talk page first. Don't get into an edit war. Schazjmd (talk) 00:34, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Talk:Afro Tech ,

• WP:ADMINABUSE
  • WP:TOOLMISUSE
    • WP:MEATPUPPET
      • WP:ADMINACCT

ToosieJoosie (talk) 11:16, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, that's the second time you've accused someone of sockpuppetry or coordination (WP:MEATPUPPET). Either provide evidence at WP:SPI or you will likely receive a block. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:33, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you being biased and not referring to what clearly seems as disruptive / nonsensical/ unecessary edits highly suspiscious for a long standing , more experienced user , even in a discussion , couldn't back or explain? You are not focusing on the content and behaviour. Furthermore my life doesn't revolve around that article, I just highlighed it as the circumstances I was even "brought" to this page as a newcomer was exaggerated and unjustified when @Solidest didn't start any discussion on the said article's page and also wrote regarding the specific article on my user page. Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers. Even , @Schazjmd stipulated that the initial talk was supposed to be done on Talk:Afro Tech , not here, I also apologized for "fixing" the disruptive edits instead of engaging in tallking first , why am I now what seems like being constantly baited into edit wars or provoked?

I apologize for using those links, however I think Wikipedia:Civility should be used in fairness for all editors. Nowhere have I harassed or "bitten" anyone , instead it seems like the other way around.

• WP:BLOCKNO
• "Assume good faith on the part of newcomers. They most likely want to help out. Give them a chance!
  • Experience or associated privileges shouldn't be misguidedly interpreted as a reason for default acquiescence from other members, and no Wikipedian is above any other Wikipedian. Editors who exercise these privileges should provide unambiguous clarity as to why, based on policies"
  • "How to avoid being a "biter"[edit] Newcomers' ideas of how things should be handled within Wikipedia will largely be out of context. It's a jungle in Wikipedia, and it may take some time before a newcomer becomes accustomed to how things work here. Keeping that in mind may help you avoid becoming a "biter". To avoid being accused of biting, try to:
    1. Improve, Don't Remove. If something doesn't meet Wikipedia's standards, try to fix the problem rather than just remove what's broken. (Nothing stops new contributors from coming back like having all their hard work end up in the bit bucket.)
    2. Avoid intensifiers in commentary (e.g., exclamation points and words like terrible, dumb, stupid, bad, etc.).
    3. Moderate your approach and wording.
    4. Always explain reverts in the edit summary, and use plain English rather than cryptic abbreviations.
    5. Avoid sarcasm in edit summaries and on talk pages, especially when reverting.
    6. Strive to respond in a measured manner.
    7. Wait, i.e. calm down first.
    8. Be gracious.
    9. Acknowledge differing principles and be willing to reach a consensus.
    10. Take responsibility for resolving conflicts.
    11. Reciprocate where necessary.
    12. Listen actively.
    13. Avoid excessive Wikipedia jargon. When linking to policies or guidelines, do so in whole phrases, not wiki shorthand.
    14. Avoid deleting newly created articles, as inexperienced authors might still be working on them or trying to figure something out.
    15. Even the most well written and helpful deletion template message may seem frightening or unwelcoming to new users. Consider writing a personalised message.
    16. Don't fill the page with maintenance templates or join a pile of people pointing out problems. Having multiple people tell you that you did something wrong is unfriendly and off-putting, even when each individual comment is gently phrased and kindly intended.
    17. Avoid nominating user talk pages for deletion.
    18. Remember that it's okay to make mistakes—we're all only human. Standard welcome or warning messages are both cordial and correcting. Consider using these templates for welcoming, or the first two here for warning. Strive to be a responsible Wikipedian. By fostering goodwill, you will neither provoke nor be provoked, and will allow new Wikipedians to devote their time and resources towards building a truly collaborative encyclopedia."

ToosieJoosie (talk) 19:48, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(Contd.) Besides @HandThatFeeds, I may have stipulated that out of annoyance for the said reasons above nor myself or the said user, at the time even engaged in any disruptive discussion or "edit war". I will accept and internalize @Schazjmd advice "stop with the accusations". Please let's just leave it at that, this is all not normal at all , highly toxic and time/ energy consuming. Take care. Peace ✌😊🧿-`♡´ ToosieJoosie (talk) 20:03, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@ToosieJoosie: You said that Solidest is making edits that are "highly suspicious". The best place to address that concern is WP:SPI and if you want, I'll help you file a report once I know what evidence you have that Solidest is violating the WP:SOCK policy.

And I'll say it before anybody else does: please don't copy and paste large sections of text like this. A link to WP:BITE would have worked just fine. City of Silver 20:13, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@City of Silver in the plethora of texts and my replies here, is all the relevant information, reasoning ,apologies and justifications. RE: I am not going to repeat myself or back and forth. Please stop & don't WP:BITE.Take care. Peace ✌😊🧿-`♡´ ToosieJoosie (talk) 20:18, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am the IP editor who made prose edits at Afro Tech. I have few edits but am a lurker on this noticeboard (and others). I don’t have any particular attachments to the edits at this article, I understand it’s under construction and they were more to point out prose issues than completely solve the problem. However, ToosieJoosie accused me of vandalism because I am an IP editor while acknowledging in their edit summary (diff 1184978801 - sorry I am on mobile and in a rush) that they will take my changes into account (i.e. they are useful and not vandalism). I was a bit put off by this and would just like to say please don’t do that anymore ToosieJoosie. That isn’t what vandalism means on Wikipedia. You make a big deal of others biting you but seem to have no qualms biting me. That’s all. Happy editing, everybody. 2001:1970:5E26:5A00:7DFE:FFF8:E754:89AE (talk) 03:36, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your response and opinon. Please see User talk:Daniel Case#Afro Tech semiprotection @Daniel Case, for mine (response) in referance to specifically you and your edits. As well as the summary description/ comment on only- specifically my edits as "ruff / clearing out prose fluff" etc. which included , blanking, if I recall correctly - I replaced the edits , in a manner taking your opinion edit into consideration to avoid WP:BITE ing your edit "as an IP" furthermore not to seem bias WP:OWN as the author, whilst retaining the edit and source(s). especially blanking which happens to have a paragraph at WP:VAND, if I am not mistaken. ,directly after another user also on the exact same day referred to the lead cite etc. as "irrelevant when that's the standard music genre box parameter" etc and blanked.Please forgive me if I am wrong and used the incorrect, description. Again, I think this discussion or if other suggestions/ edit/ content disuputes should be initiated at the specific article's talk page Talk:Afro Tech. Please respect my wishes , RE:" I also please wish to no longer continue in this dialogue, any further. ToosieJoosie (talk) 17:04, 14 November 2023" . Thank you and likewise. ToosieJoosie (talk) 11:02, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@ToosieJoosie: Does "I'm not going to repeat myself" mean you're not going to compile evidence for a report at SPI? City of Silver 20:22, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I never ever requested an investigation or said that I would anywhere for any user(s), as a newcomer I simply stipulated the phrases as into try and understand what was going on and out of being WP:BITE.n, and annoyance, as per RE: n the plethora of texts and my replies here, is all the relevant information, reasoning ,apologies and justifications. Once again, Please stop & don't WP:BITE.Take care. Peace ✌😊🧿-`♡ ToosieJoosie (talk) 20:27, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@City of Silver ToosieJoosie (talk) 20:28, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@ToosieJoosie: I apologize if you feel badgered. I promise you, I'm doing my very best to keep you from getting blocked for breaking a rule that you, since you're a newcomer, might not fully know. You are not allowed to say or imply that Solidest is sockpuppeting and/or meatpuppeting if you're not going to request an investigation because that would be you violating the policy that says personal attacks aren't allowed. As The Hand That Feeds You said earlier, you have to "provide evidence at WP:SPI or you will likely receive a block." City of Silver 20:39, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@City of Silver, thank you. Would @Solidest writing directing on my user page regarding a specific article and initially mentioning "I was engaging in an unhealthy manner" , as well as then furthermore "bringing" me here instead of again having not started a talk on the specififc article's talk page also warrant as , personal attacks aren't allowed?

• WP:MEATPUPPET stipulated "The term meatpuppet may be seen by some as derogatory and should be used with care, in keeping with Wikipedia:Civility. Because of the processes above, it may be counterproductive to directly accuse someone of being a "meatpuppet", and doing so will often only inflame the dispute." I was not aware that simply, stating it as a newcomer out of annoyance for and for all reasons above , results in getting blocked. Thank you for informing me, now I know. Again, not once have I harassed anyone , I further even reverted my post on his talk page in response to his on mine, which he never did nor directly apologized for. Lastly, this is resulting in mundane and unecessary back and forth as well as repetition of statements which I am trying to avoid. Again, please stop & don't WP:BITE.Take care. Peace ✌😊🧿-`♡´

ToosieJoosie (talk) 20:49, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, at this point I believe you need blocked for WP:DISRUPT and WP:NOTHERE. Continuing to demand Solidest be punished while crying WP:BITE and posting extremely long copy/pastes of rules (which you clearly did not read, hence having to explain MEATPUPPET to you repeatedly) is either intentionally disruptive, or indicates you do not understand the rules well enough to contribute here. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 21:19, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support block. This editor's recent report at WP:RFPP is entirely beyond the pale; please see my message at User talk:Daniel Case#Afro Tech semiprotection for more. City of Silver 21:57, 13 November 2023 (UTC) Whoops, forgot to add "and per User:HandThatFeeds" because yeah, of course. City of Silver 22:01, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@City of Silver, @HandThatFeeds, @Schazjmd & @Solidest please see my response ; User talk:Daniel Case#Afro Tech semiprotection 🙏 ToosieJoosie (talk) 22:13, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What were we supposed to look at there? I don't consider the edits that were made by IP to be anything destructive and worth protecting, on the contrary I think they were an improvement to bring the article to a neutral look. And you requested page protection once again showing WP:OWN. In conversations, you continue to be aggressive to anyone who makes edits to articles after you and demand that literally any change be coordinated with you (Talk:Afro Tech). At the same time you do not perceive at all the point of the complaints addressed to you. On your talk page Schazjmd explains to you again how to use and cite sources, after I pointed this out on the very same page before and asked you to return my correction (which you still haven't done). Instead, you are once again being accusatory starting with "why you are tracking my edits". Of course your edits will be tracked after this conversation, given that you refuse to correct your own mistakes, while reverting fixes of other people. Literally in every discussion you participate, you display an accusatory and aggressive attitude with throwing rules at other editors (User talk:Daniel Case#Afro Tech semiprotection) right after it was pointed out by others above. And yet you are completely unwilling to understand the point of the complaints towards you as here you say that you shouldn't be on this ANI page at all, since the claims were explained to you not through the article's talk page, but through your personal talk page, adding "I have been experiencing , 'bias', 'mob justice' like baiting and provocations both in the thread at ANI as well as via 'tracking/ WP:HOUNDING' and constant "unwarranted" threats of being blocked".

All I see from my side is many editors trying to explain to you the basics of editing wikipedia articles and communication aspects (WP:BASICS), and getting aggression and accusations in return. While you respond kindly on this page, but keep accusing the very same people on another page. You've tagged me in one day in 5 of your posts saying that I'm being silent and not editing the Afro Tech anymore (and yet you keep accusing me in some of these posts). I honestly don't make edits to the article, just to limit communication with you that is not changing at all. Solidest (talk) 13:28, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Solidest. As per mentioned on User talk:Daniel Case#Afro Tech semiprotection City of Silver appears to have WP:HOUND ed, my edit and then further directly accused the notion being carried out solely because of your (@ Solidest's) "content dispute" - (which I stipulated on numerous times was never even supposed to be initially posted here but was supposed to have begun , first and initially Talk:Afro Tech along with the other initial discussion regarding the said article in hand which you also posted on my talk page instead of the article's talk page as well ). - I merely stipulated that was not the case and further highlighted, what was the case , which @Daniel Case simply unprejudicly further reiterated not because of " WP:OWN ". Regarding, @ Schazjmd, I also stipulated that I appreciated his feedback and input whilst including "my reasoning" & opinion that I believe that he could've simply reverted, edit ( with a summary and descripting or dire case , written on the article's talk page instead , regarding the specific referencing as well - "If a sentence contains information that people might disagree on, or information that is not commonly known by most people, it likely needs a reference.".I am currently editing other and will begin working on other article , ideas, as well. Please be reassured, Solidest that I only referred to your silence not out of malisciosness however also to highlight limited communication, no longer engaging in warring or unpleasant exchanges such as here, currently, at ANI. However the matter still seemed to be ongoing , which I found strange. My intention was and is never to disrespect or undermine any editor or their edits, as stipulated numerous times I have never ever engaged in any form of harassment. Never in my wildest dream did I imagine , this to be ongoing like this and I am unfortunately slightly losing the enjoyment of editing due to all of this. ToosieJoosie (talk) 14:04, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I will remind you that you called my detailed explanation of the three corrections you rolled back "highly toxic behaviours , which includes literal bullying and gaslighting" and "a habit of twisting words into your own version/interpretation for your own gain or benefit" and "fixation(obsession)" and "highly, demotivating and shocking, which is probably what you like/want". And then after my first response here, you wrote yesterday that you expect me to apologise for it. And later today in several places you said that you were inappropriately added to this page (due to the procedure, but ignoring the fact of the claim itself). And now after you asked to react at your protection request you're calling my further response strange. Well, there's really nothing more to add here. Solidest (talk) 15:00, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your response , Solidest. To reiterate, the said discussion was never supposed to have been conducted on my talk page in the first place and that's where I stipulated my quoted opinions, frustration and annoyance but it was supposed to have been conducted on the specific ,article's talk page.

You initially added in the title on my talk page ; "posting false sources" as well as sarcastic and conscending tones , such as "you probably don't have the experience" ( obviously, I am a newcomer?) , "and also your approach of accusing other wikipedians who correct your own mistakes of being malicious is not healthy behaviour either."

All your edits were also conducted without talking neither elaborate or sometimes even no summary/ description or summary descriptions that were non-factual when the information was clearly stipulated or highlighted in the sources etc "., such as the page move, which I had stipulated coincided with another genre titled , in a simialr manner when you stipulated - "The title has been misspelled, does not contain standard capitalization or punctuation, or is misleading or inaccurate." i.e. Afro Tech / Hard NRG. ( even when I 'thanked' you, it was by accident and happened to be my first 'thank' and I didn't know how to "undo" the action - again, I am not perfect and still learning/ honing my skills)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Afro_Tech&action=history

I really do think this discussion was / is supposed to be taking place at Talk:Afro Tech and not here. ToosieJoosie (talk) 15:20, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't understand why you keep bringing up the this article here, when the tone and manner of your communication with other editors is the issue here. And you keep continuing to make claims against me for following standard wikipedia editorial practice, while adding made-up stuff that can be refuted with literally a couple of clicks (which I did in the post above). It seems to me more and more like you've come here just for trolling and provocation than for anything of substance, so I think I'm not going to continue this dialogue any further. Solidest (talk) 15:53, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your prompt response, Solidest.Is it not the initial and highlighted reason why you "brought me here" / started this discussion and also wrote directly on my talk page? As per contribution logs and history, there is nothing that "I am making up".

User talk:ToosieJoosie

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Afro_Tech&action=history

"I never came here", you started this discussion here and on my talk page instead of initiating on, Talk:Afro Tech. ToosieJoosie (talk) 16:05, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• I also please wish to no longer continue in this dialogue, any further. ToosieJoosie (talk) 17:04, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is looking block-worthy to me as well. One of the great weaknesses of WP:BITE is that it doesn't come with an equal corollary that in turn, newcomers have a responsibility to learn Wikipedia rules and guidelines, and to act civilly to other editors regardless of any real or imagined provocations. I am very unimpressed by ToosieJoosie ostensibly apologizing and taking swings at Solidest in the same damn paragraph, or by their apparent belief that BITE both authorizes newbies to attack experienced editors with impunity and immunizes them against following the rules. Ravenswing 13:40, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The corollary you're looking for is WP:PACT, or in the narrower case of newcomers who won't learn our policies and social norms and insist that everyone else bend to the way they expect things to work instead, WP:CIR. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:14, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

While both of those imply what Ravenswing was lamenting the absence of, an essay stating their exact point—that new editors have a responsibility to acclimate themselves to the community’s norms, does not exist and, I agree, really should be written (CIR, which has often been used to justify both blocks and unblock denials, is explicitly aimed at users unaware of these norms, most often due to inadequate English-language skills) Daniel Case (talk) 17:59, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Ravenswing, Ivanvector, and Daniel Case: Okay, I just gave it a shot; see WP:BITEPACT. I'm pretty sure that's the first time I've ever tried this so if you want to give me notes, please feel free or if you'd rather just make any changes or improvements you think are necessary without running anything by me first, please feel free. City of Silver 19:40, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, there are several essays to that effect -- I wrote one myself a number of years back -- but what I was wishing for then and now is a guideline, with equal force and validity as BITE. Ravenswing 21:26, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's clear that my initial characterization of this as a content dispute was wrong, and I apologize to the participants for my error. Schazjmd (talk) 16:23, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Block - The entire discussion on ToosieJoosie's part was more digging their own grave than actually listening and learning. — Preceding unsigned comment added by UnironicEditor (talk • contribs) 06:46, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I see that User:ToosieJoosie has made liteally hundreds of edits about the trivial issue of the capitalisation of Afro Tech and Afro house, on Wikipedia:Teahouse, Wikipedia:Requests for page protection/Increase, User talk:Fieryninja, Talk:Afro house, Talk:Styles of house music, User talk:ToosieJoosie, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, User talk:Daniel Case, and Talk:Afro Tech. ToosieJoosie shows no sign of taking on board any of the advice given to them, and no sign of slowing down their campaign against the great wrong that was done by changing the capitalisation. I think adminsitrators should consider blocking this user, because endless pointless agitation degrades the wikipedia enviroment for all of us. --Tagishsimon (talk) 20:09, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Once again the same editor performed a page move request without warning me nor initiating a talk on the article's talk page which I did when I came across the banner @Talk:Afro house as well as listed sources, it is not my fault that both subgenres are spelled like that as they originate from the same country amongst other similar attributes - I also formally requested for a third editor;s opinion which I am still waiting for , please don't take and twist my seeking for guidance and suggestions as well as stipulating my opinions which we all have a right to @ Wikipedia:Teahouse#Advice/ Assistance Request and twist it into something else and bring it here. I had also respectfully stipulated "I also please wish to no longer continue in this dialogue, any further. ToosieJoosie (talk) 17:04, 14 November 2023".

I believe I have done nothing directly wrong or seriously harmful to yourself @Tagishsimon & @Solidest to warrant for this, I have not even responded to Solidest's last response Talk:Afro house nor have I "successfully managed to even 'counter' the page moves requesting another or more page moves" which would result in a prolonged edit war as well as further disruptive edits via re-directs etc. for the page(s). Thank you. ToosieJoosie (talk) 20:24, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not "seriously harmful", but at the same time on other pages you keep saying towards me that I was " 'threatening' to move the other Afro Tech once again". When I specifically warned you (as you asked) that I'm going to do it through WP:RM to reach consensus and get other people opinions just so it doesn't look biased or harmful to you. And also that standard fixes within the music genres project on new articles (renaming according to manual of style) is once again referred by you as WP:Following and "the editor clearly appears to be 'obsessing' on me / my edits". Which just goes to show that your behavior doesn't change. So I guess it's rather "moderately harmful" to me? Also looking at your recent (unfinished?) nomination on Talk:Afro house with exactly the same arguments that you made before and I have explained in detail and politely why they are wrong, and taking in account the same conversations you multiplied on various talk pages today, you still refuse to comprehend explanations of the rules and other editors arguments, it still appears to be empty words to you. Solidest (talk) 21:01, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is the/ a 3rd party , opinion result:Talk:Afro house#c-HerrWaus-20231116203800-Solidest-20231116171100. Thank you for your response, I am referring to Afro house which was only published yesterday ,you did not warn or suggest a page move for , regarding Afro Tech the initial page mover I reverted, you also didn't warn for , only today you warned for which would be @ Afro Tech 2nd move/ move request and the first actual, warning - ever for both, in total 3 moves - and yes I do find it unfair that a page in the same genre Hard NRG that only you specifically contribute to for 3 years with a same/similar to title hasn't encountered these actions or issues. I interpreted it and felt as though it was threatening because as per previously stipulated before and previously you would never even warn before moving , so now it's even as per taunting etc. I have actually had enough of this and please have your way, you win. Move the pages 100 times more,- even if you see fit, this is unhealthy for my mental health and not what I thought or intended my editing experience would be like not even having or made edits , for more than 20 days, yet.I am even currently entirely demotivated and reluctant to create any other house/ subgenre music articles I intended and had ideas to create because it appears each time I do, it's specifically you commenting on my flaws/mistakes, shortcomings and trying to what seems like specifically only discred my edits, today I even appreciated and took 1 of suggestions into consideration and did a "clean up". However to reiterate I have really had enough, also I would please no longer like to continue in this or any other dialogues as into not constantly disturb other editors as well as creating a spectacle for 'watchers',(if, any). Thank you for everything and take care. ToosieJoosie (talk) 21:19, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support block or TBAN TJ quotes policies and links without understanding what they mean and seemingly without even reading them. There is clearly a CIR issue, and one which needs addressing. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:46, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Hi all -unfortunately once again,

  I sincerely apologize to the editors constantly being notified because of "this thread" and what seems like isn't being moved on from as well as new/ different angles to re-open and/or continue it, each time.

  @AirshipJungleman29I don't understand why you're bringing what is a clear content dispute ( please forgive/ correct me if I am wrong, here).

  Please see ; Talk:Afro Tech, as well as regional and local scenes listed in the same way, same genre /style of Hardbass, Deep house & House music - also once again not encountering these kinds of discussion/ content dispute- in reference to specifically what AirshipJungleman29 is referring to, ; I was also not even bothered with the articles edits and moved onto other edits, you made a point to specifically respond ,once again after days - obviously I would get the continued thread , new message notifcation, and it was only between the two of us. I believe I have a right just like everyone else to dispute content. Of course, since this seems like an ongoing manner perhaps you should formally request a content dispute resolution. ToosieJoosie (talk) 22:58, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  This is a perfect example of ToosieJoosie "quoting links without understanding what they mean and seemingly without even reading them".

  I have pointed out to TJ that Template:Infobox_music_genre#Parameters clearly states that the |regional_scenes and |local_scenes parameters of the infobox are explicitly for "Articles". TJ's response is classic WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, quoting three articles where they think this is not the case. They are correct at Hardbass and Deep house, and I have removed the parameters from those infoboxes. At House music, however, the infobox perfectly satisfies the parameter usage guide—each of the scenes linked are to specialized articles on localised variants of house music. Now, perhaps ToosieJoosie wishes to bring up WP:BITE? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:08, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  No, they've opened an arbitration request instead. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:52, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support block of user not prepared to edit in accordance with consensus. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:30, 18 November 2023 (UTC).[reply]

• Indefinitely blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:38, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wow! This was quick. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:29, 19 November 2023 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  Updates and Corrections

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

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

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

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

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

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

  Contact us in the page footer

  Or submit corrections and additions by e-mail to:

  Ethnologue_Editor@sil.org

  Or by post to:

  Editor, Ethnologue

  SIL International

  7500 West Camp Wisdom Road

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  For instance Kumam counting from 1-10:-

  Acel

  Aree

  Adek

  Ongon

  Kany

  Kanyapee

  Kanyauni

  Kanyongon

  Tomon

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

  The Lango in Uganda count 1-10 as Ocele

  Oryo,

  Odeke

  Ongon

  Ekany

  Ekanyape

  Ekanyare

  Ekanyauni

  Ekanyongon

  Tomon

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  Or

  Show evidence that Lango and Kumam are Lwo/Luo

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

There are lots of citations some are below

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I said we should not ignore primary research

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

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

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

Is this reliable for you?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here's another one

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Request for interaction ban enforcement against Ngunalik

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

Hi everyone.

Wikipedia states what I am allowed

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

asking for necessary clarifications about the scope of the ban

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

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

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

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

A series of IPs, of which 27.33.233.138 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) seems to be the latest, has been involved in creating articles about preserved railroad locomotives for a year now. (The IPs jump around Australia every few days, but are clearly the same person.)The drafts they submit through AfC are refbombed to get through review, but closer examination show that the refs don't actually satisfy the GNG. A typical example is Southern Pacific 5472. In at least two situations (Southern Pacific 5623 and ALCO Century 624), they've reverted merges done by AfD consensus. The IP's comments at AfD show they have no willingness to understand notability:

• Special:Diff/1184906202: It’s obviously notable but very underrated
• Special:Diff/1184725146: If it is first locomotive on SP to sport the Kodachrome livery, (which is what makes the locomotive notable for), then there's no reason to delete the article
• Special:Diff/1184725208 Besides its completely new y'know

The notability refbombing plus writing style (But a guy by the name of Dennis Mann had contacted OmniTRAX about a possible sale to sell the 4423 for its scrap value. An agreement was made, and Dennis Mann had wrote the check that was mailed to him... here) are a CIR issue already, but now they've moved into increasingly disruptive editing. The most egregious involves Southern Pacific 4450, which was deleted at AfD in 2022. They took it to RfU, using two different IPs to fake support; the request was turned down. They then remove the old request, edit the old AfD close to appear as a soft delete, and resubmit claiming it was soft deleted. That's not just a competence issue; that's actively malicious.

Courtesy pings: @Trainsandotherthings and Jay:. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 07:01, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• As undeleter of Southern Pacific 4450, I'm at fault for failing to check the cumulative diff at the AfD. It would have shown how Delete was manipulated to Soft Delete. I would suggest re-deletion. Jay 💬 07:40, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I can't fault you - that kind of dishonesty is not something I've seen in this topic area. It's why I'm looking for a block and/or ban on creating drafts for this IP user. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 20:29, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• This explains how even though I declined it as a hard delete, it got undeleted. If Jay agrees I think that Southern Pacific 4450 should be deleted due to fraudulent request. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:53, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Since this was first posted, the same editor has now engaged in obvious sockpuppetry at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Southern Pacific Class P-8, pretending to be two different users which coincidentally both locate to Australia and have a strong interest in creating articles about Southern Pacific locomotives. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:55, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I lack the time at present (check back with me in the next day) to provide diffs but I have noticed casual, unusual attempts to sock by this IP on their own drafts, but brushed them off as nothing more than eccentricities. However, following the behavior on the AfD, I think there is no doubt that this editor is a properly disruptive editor (albeit a very unsophisticated one). ~ Pbritti (talk) 04:54, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've tagged 4450 with a CSD G4. Lets see if it gets contested. TarnishedPath^talk 07:35, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've deleted it as an obvious G4. There also appears to be a Southern Pacific 4451... Black Kite (talk) 08:44, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tagged. TarnishedPath^talk 09:05, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That 4451 really was a soft delete though. If a good-faith editor requests undeletion it could be returned. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:19, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine, as long as it's not returned to mainspace in its current state. To be honest, I would be surprised if anyone could claim notability for that particular random diesel loco. Black Kite (talk) 11:30, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The long and short of it is that it isn't notable, not even close, but certain railfans (foamers, if you will) are obsessive about their favorite railroads and think everything must have an article just because they personally like it. I've spent more time than I like to admit cleaning up after this sort of thing on this website. To a casual observer, many of these articles might appear to meet GNG (and frustratingly, at least one AfC reviewer has defended their acceptance of these subpar articles). You have to look more closely and see the REFBOMBing with insignificant mentions and unreliable self-published sources to realize many of these subjects are non-notable. As there has been no action taken against this manipulative and obsessive IP editor, who in my opinion has gone well past the point a long-term block would be justified, the cleanup effort will have to continue even as they add more and more fuel to the fire. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:47, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It is worth noting some of these are fine, such as Nickel Plate Road 757, which was created as a 2 sentence stub by the IP before being substantially fleshed out with proper sourcing by User:611fan2001, an editor in good standing (and who's work I can personally attest to the quality of). Most, however, should be reviewed for notability and likely need to be merged, redirected, or deleted. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:47, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've already put GE U25BE and EMD SD45T-2R, which are mere rebuilds of GE U25B and EMD SD45T-2 respectively, up for AfD after the IP removed my PRODs. Southern Pacific Class P-8 is already up at AfD. There are some others I missed that are already up at AfD. TarnishedPath^talk 23:45, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Block proposal

I'd like to formally propose that the current IP 220.235.238.29 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and any future IPs be blocked, and that any drafts they create be deleted. It's clear from this discussion that the person does not understand notability enough to produce useful articles, is not able to communicate usefully, and has engaged multiple times in deceptive behavior. That's a net negative to the community, and only a block will stop the behavior. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 03:38, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support – the editor is persistently behaving improperly, failing to respond to many concerns, attempting to disrupt and game article creation/deletion processes, and there seems to be little to no improvement in behaviour at all. A waste of other editors' time. — AP 499D25 (talk) 03:56, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per the nomination and WP:CIR. TarnishedPath^talk 05:47, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per the nomination and per my previous comments in this thread. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 00:41, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom. I'm not a train guy but, as an outsider, I am seeing no basis for notability in many of the REFBOMBs drafts the IP puts forward. Their socking and GAMING is too much for me to think this is all accidental. Many of the IP's drafts are getting approved to articles despite clear deficiencies (perhaps a lamentable side-effect of the ongoing and very successful AfC drive). ~ Pbritti (talk) 04:48, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• I disagree. I checked out Southern Pacific Class P-8 (AfD discussion). The book citations are genuine, and support the content based upon them. And checking the list of IP addresses and articles I find Norfolk and Western 2050 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), written based upon museum and magazine doco by a different IP address whose only apparent sin is to also be in Australia. Australia, well known rather big place. This is an egregious overreach, that tars any future Australian without an account who writes drafts about railways. And Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Southern Pacific 4450 was a consensus of 2 people, with a third only "leaning", about an article written in 2006 by none of these IP addresses. Black Kite that speedy was wrong. Look at the contents. The 2023 article isn't the same article being re-posted, and there are more sources in the rewrite and clearly doesn't match the "sourced only to one dude's self published railfan site" in the 2022 discussion. And not knowing that Lulu is a vanity press, which wasn't even cited by the original author of the draft, is something that clearly AFC reviewers are guilty of, too. So should we be banning our AFC reviewers, too, in this massive attempt to associate a whole bunch of articles and IP addresses and accounts with 1 bad actor? Uncle G (talk) 05:49, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• 118.208.124.137 (and any other IPs who are the same person) should be severely warned for changing the close statement, and their future edits should be monitored. Jay 💬 06:11, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I know I'm a bit late to the party but this is clear disruption. Making articles about preserved U-boats because "it was the first to have the Kodachrome livery" is not only extremely lame but also quite disruptive, especially continuing to do so after being told to stop. I do agree that some of the articles that have been created are on notable subjects but their quality is nothing to push forward that idea. Cutlass^Ciera 15:35, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Bilgiljilll (talk · contribs)

Consider this another account found in the dragnet thrown around disruption by new copy editors. Bilgiljilll isn't really new, and has been doing some major revision of multiple articles, but the current issue is competency in basic WP:MOS, specifically banal or deceptive wikilinking. They've received several notices, and haven't slowed down and presumably have not taken the time to read MOS:OL--in fact, they seem to have accelerated these 'junk' edits since this discussion was broached [14]. The edits include gratuitous links where one or more already exits, links to nations and common occupations, and links to dab pages that aren't helpful. Without listing all the questionable edits, here are a few examples: [15]; [16]; [17]; [18]; [19]; [20]; [21]; [22]; [23]; [24]; [25]; [26]; [27]; [28]; [29]; [30]; [31]; [32]; [33]; [34]; [35]; [36]. And this bizarre conclusion re: intros: [37].

In total, the edits raise competency issues regarding basic editing guidelines and engagement with other users. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 17:38, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

i only linked it to the respective page for better understanding , i took a long a break recently, regarding the link petting , its older and i already got a message and its reverted , i dont know why you are targetting me. Bilgiljilll (talk) 18:51, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

again, considering that you are anonymous , i really suspect you are a sock , since i recently prevented a user from doing religious based vandalism from the page kalarippayattu Bilgiljilll (talk) 19:03, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also ,most of these links you have tagged here , like toddy etc are linked in almost all pages , I linked it because in almost all pages its linked in similar articles , infact it was linked in that article itself , i relinked it because when i moved it to subsection since the lead was too long , the link was accidently lost you are selecting some edits which i already discussed to target me , recently i had a discussion with a user promoting religion and coatracking in the page kalarippayattu considering that you are anonymous , i really suspect that its the same person , i order to take a revenge. Bilgiljilll (talk) 18:59, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not the IP who made the report but I am the editor who added the original notice about overlinking after the second time Bilgiljilll added a disambiguation link to CrowdJustice (see edit 1 & edit 2 where they added links to common words). A quick ctrl-f look at their last 500 edits shows they've added 30 links tagged with the "disambiguation link" notice since 27 October 2023. So this is clearly a pattern indicating they haven't reviewed either MOS:OVERLINK or WP:FURTHERDAB. Sariel Xilo (talk) 19:18, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

well , but how things like toddy is disruptive when it is linked in other articles ? Also delinking is done because the page is not even created . I agree with that of petting , but namboodiries and nambudiris are the same , after i got the first notification , i didnt link languages . This is old. Bilgiljilll (talk) 19:24, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

well , i apologize for confusion , i will take care from this time and i will read the rules Bilgiljilll (talk) 19:26, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I joined wikipedia 2 years ago and i have not meant anything like that , i agree if i made a mistake by linking spanish language , but toddy, namboodiri etc are linked in all cases. I didnt even edited any page which require more than 500 edits . I got much time these days due to holidays , so i thought of spending time here . I promise that i will take care with linking . Bilgiljilll (talk) 19:32, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Again ,i would like to let you know that i really didnt intended to link that purposefully and i will slow down edits most of these came to me through recommendations which were easy edits, so i thought linking would improve the article. I will slow down the edits especially with links. and i had read the manual and i do understand about places, i havent linked languages such as Spanish after you gave the notification. Since i am not from the area , i thought it would improve the understanding as it do not change the meaning . Bilgiljilll (talk) 19:45, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also I request the admin to kindly check the page kalarippayattu and 2 days editing history and talk section and how a user 'afv12e' was doing disruptive editing and even stating that it(the artform kalari) is based on hinduism , and bought it into the lead , since i started a discussion and pointed out this , religious extremists are targetting me , this was much expected as part of the revenge. Bilgiljilll (talk) 19:19, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

religious extremists are targetting me

Be very careful with language like this, it can be construed as a personal attack. You also accused the IP above of being a sock puppet, another thing you should not do without evidence to back it up. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 20:58, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I said i suspect because , i since yesterday I had an arguement related to that, so when i saw an ip and its timing, i thought its an attack on me also the things like toddy which is linked in almost all indian or south asian wiki pages, how it is disruptive when it was found in the page itself ? Again i am not disagreeing with the link like petting , i should have previewed it , i thought its a specific process at the first sight , since it came as a part of recommendation ,also some pages repeatedly came to my feed as recomendation, which I got to know today only.I will take care of this and i am not gonna deal with links any soon, since it is troubling me. Bilgiljilll (talk) 21:11, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also some of the pages from which i removed links is because , the link pages were not even created and it was showing an error . These all came to me as reccomendation through my feed, else i have no intention to target any of these pages ,especially the accused ones, i didnt even search most of these. Also i said religious extremist(s) in a general sense , not specified to a person , as a general sentence and as an assumption as this can also happen , considering the situation. Bilgiljilll (talk) 21:17, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

To summarize: I've been accused of sock puppetry and instigating a vendetta based on "religious extremism"--can you say accuse and distract? Rather nervy after ignoring multiple warnings at their talk page. I've had no interest in the content issues, and have addressed the persistent sloppiness in linking only. The above comments do help substantiate my concerns re: competence, and may well invite broader scrutiny of the edit history. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 23:37, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't formed a view on the underlying issue (and don't have time to do so right now), but for anyone who doesn't recognise the IP address, this editor is a long-standing editor with a stable IP who has chosen not to register an account (which policy does not require). I can attest to their track record of combatting vandalism and spam on this project, and there should be no suspicion that they are a sock, or indeed a religious extremist acting out of malice (!). Girth Summit _(blether) 13:46, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Girth Summit. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 14:59, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Which means Bilgiljilll needs to retract those accusations. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:17, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I love how Bilgiljilll responded to every other comment within an hour, and then disappears for two days after an apology is called for. WP:FLU or just inactive? Time will tell... For five more minutes...^{it's just a single vice} 21:31, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Given their response (User talk:Bilgiljilll#Disambiguation link notification for November 17) to an automated bot comment on disambiguation links, I'm wondering if this is a competency issue. Sariel Xilo (talk) 21:50, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I kind of entirely stopped handling with linking pages after this discussion . Also again as i explained the links like toddy, nambudiri etc are linked in almost all similar pages, obviously thats why i did . I agree that i did linked certain languages and places because in my perspective i thought it would help the reader.I got all these pages through recommendations ,and i didnt mean to purposefully vandalise or link any particular subject or particular page. Bilgiljilll (talk) 06:44, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also it is written in the guidelines that But try to be conscious of your own demographic biases – what is well known in your age group, line of work, or country may be less known in others. the words like toddy etc are not really familiar atleast in the region i come from. I am sure that most readers from my region would rethink about the word. My point is that the accusation that i am purposefully targetting certain articles is completely wrong. My intention was only to enhnace the readability. Bilgiljilll (talk) 08:04, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The competency concern is that I'm not sure you understand what a disambiguation page is or why it is discouraged to link to them in the body of an article. For example, in the Thirra article you added a disambiguation link in this sentence: Toddy plays a very significant role in the proceedings, it is an offering to the gods and almost all the performers dance under the influence. By linking to "Toddy" you have linked to a disambiguation page which is not the same as linking to a specific article which might explain a term or concept; this disambiguation page includes many articles (from places to people to drinks) where Toddy is part of the name. The readability of that sentence is not enhanced because it is unclear what Toddy is being used as an offering. Sariel Xilo (talk) 18:55, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I already reacted to all those notifications I got, regarding this . I didn't purposefully searched all those ' 'linked' pages , i got it through recommendations from the 'easy category' and very very few of them from the 'related article categories'.So i do not have any special intention to do anything to this particular pages. My intention was only to enhance the readability. Bilgiljilll (talk) 06:57, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I usually try to reply to every notification that i see. The time i spend on wikipedia varies a lot . I joined 2 years ago and for an year i couldn't contribute anything . I did post lot of replies in this discussion section itself , this particular one i saw it now only. Bilgiljilll (talk) 07:09, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I used the word 'seems like ' only means i felt so, In my perspective i have explanation for that . Note - I am explaining why i suspected so ,(I do not do that anymore , since the user clarified) : 1) From the issues in this ANI board , none other than this (as per i checked ) were intiated by a non registered user. 2) This incident happended soon after i had an arguement in a page and coincidently the user also disappeared. 3) Links like nambudiri (a south asian sub ethnicity) was kind of slightly related to it. and it is linked in all pages related to it, similarly words like 'toddy' was linked in all similar pages i viewed. and some of them were previously discussed and i did not made the same mistake again. From this above points its a human psychology from my side to be suspicious about the ip who intiated this . Again clarifying Here , I am explaining that i didnt suspected the ip just inorder to escape from the allegations but i genuinely felt so , when i saw the links and time . However i am not suspicious anymore when another user pointed out that this ip is stable one. Note - This reply is entirely my reason on why i suspected the ip (intially) ( even though ,i do not do it anymore ,atleast now ). Also, I have replied to the other part separately . Thank you. Bilgiljilll (talk) 07:45, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is a (somewhat wordy) retraction of the accusation against the IP for sockpuppetry, so I think we're good on that issue. Just be very careful of doing so in the future Bilgiljill, no matter how much you genuinely felt it was true, if you make such accusations without evidence it can be considered a personal attack. I'd advise against doing it again. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:10, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lone Ranger1999 (talk · contribs · logs) appears to be an WP:SPA, whose main focus involves disputing the currently cited casualty figures on Pacific War, bringing up this issue in any avenue they can - twice on the MilHist project talk page, [38] [39], 8 separate times on the reference desk [40], and numerous other times on the Pacific War talk page [41] [42], though I'm not really sure in the latter case why they have a habit of making new sections and then deleting them. The issue of consensus and WP:IDHT aside, as they get more or less the same answer no matter how many times they ask the same question, their recent comments and their complete lack of civility and good faith lead me to believe they are NOTHERE. [43] [44] Loafiewa (talk) 22:38, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Other than those final two comments on Parsecboy's talk page, do you have any actual diffs to proffer, instead of mere links to large archives? Ravenswing 02:19, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's like you want to make yourself look crazy. Firstly, the issues I listed concerned not only US losses in the Pacific, but also other issues related to Allied losses on other fronts of World War II.Secondly, if we take the answers of other users regarding losses in the Pacific War, they are divided into 2 types: oh yes, only combat losses are indicated there, but no non-combat losses, this is of course not correct, you need to find another source and as a result nothing changes.Or they are simply confident in Clodfelder’s holy correctness, or my questions are completely ignored.The fact that I was rude to the user yesterday, I admit that I was wrong because I gave free rein to my emotions. Maybe you're right, everyone is tired of me.Perhaps you are right, everyone is tired of me. If users want to believe that in 4 years of war with a fanatical enemy in a terrible climate, the United States lost only 93 thousand killed, while killing 1.1+ million Japanese soldiers, judging by the article, that’s up to them. Personally, I believe that the US lost 40-50% of its total WWII casualties (407k killed) in the Pacific War, but as usual, everyone has their own truth. All the best. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lone Ranger1999 (talk • contribs) 06:11, November 15, 2023 (UTC)

Unless you can find a reliable source to back up your beliefs, that's all they are - and therefore fail WP:OR. Black Kite (talk) 10:53, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

They have been told that repeatedly, in several different venues. They appear to be unwilling to listen. I myself warned Lone Ranger1999 two days ago that the pattern of their behavior would inevitably end up with them getting brought here, and advised that they find another topic to edit. What I ended up getting for my trouble was the "f*ck you" diff Loafiewa linked above. Based on my observations over the last year or so, plus this particular interaction, I'm not optimistic that they'll listen to anyone's advice.

As many of us who've been around for a long time can attest, this type of editing ends one of two ways: a change in behavior, or more commonly, the editor will exhaust the community's patience and be banned from the site. I don't know that we're necessarily at that point as of yet, given the infrequency in which Lone Ranger brings this topic up, but I honestly don't expect their behavior to change, so I don't know if there's much point in kicking the can down the road. In all likelihood, the only benefit will be additional threads here, where Lone Ranger half apologizes but spends most of their time litigating the same argument, rather than addressing their own behavior. Parsecboy (talk) 12:55, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that there is so much academic debate around the number that I am just going to assume good faith - the biggest issue with civility is the "F* u" comment, but really I think Lonestar is not coming from a malicious place. I think a warning and maybe short ban (like 2 weeks) from history related articles is warranted so the user can refresh themselves on Wikipedia policy. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 17:48, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That statistic seems so low that I will be looking for a reliable source. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 16:30, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, Mark Clodfelter is a military history PhD; he's very much an expert writing in his area of expertise. The numbers he provides are not really in question - the problem is that we're comparing combat deaths for the US to total deaths for Japan, but that specific detail is beyond the scope of this discussion, which should be focused on Long Ranger's behavior. Parsecboy (talk) 16:53, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree - and sorry, I meant "another" reliable source. I don't think it is wise to just include 1 specific statistic when discussing causalities and that it is better to have a range. Regardless outside the scope of this thread. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 17:49, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I just don’t understand how a historian who only voiced combat losses can be taken at least somewhat seriously, because he publishes a priori underestimated data. But in any case, I am glad that I have revived interest in this issue. Perhaps caring users interested in military losses will help. Lone Ranger1999 (talk) 18:12, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you. A long time ago, the article cited figures of 161k deaths, which seems plausible to me. I will try, together with other concerned users, to find the source. Lone Ranger1999 (talk) 17:02, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest you not update the article until you find said source and discuss it on the Talk page. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:25, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I didn’t intend to, the main thing is that I revived interest in the problem Lone Ranger1999 (talk) 18:52, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, the main thing is that you went about this completely the wrong way. Don't congratulate yourself for "reviv[ing] interest in the problem" by creating your own problem. That way leads to WP:DISRUPT blocks. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 11:47, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I didn’t praise myself. Okay, let's end this pointless dialogue. Lone Ranger1999 (talk) 17:55, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That is not the point. (Or the WP:POINT.) Saying "F* you" on talk pages makes you look uncivilized and causes editors not to want to listen to you. Additionally, you should not add content (especially content that goes against many verifiable/reliable sources) withou providing sources yourself.

As for reviving the issue, you did that at the cost of making everyone annoyed. For five more minutes...^{it's just a single vice} 20:17, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

On 13 November 2023 I edited Ekos Research Associates to clean up unsourced content that violates WP:Verifiability as well as WP:Promotional, WP:Logos, and WP:COI.

User Earl Andrew ("EA") has disruptively undone my edit in various forms 5 times in the ~48 hours since.

EA's direct edits of the article are in violation of WP:COI, as they are in conflict as a self-identified employee of Ekos Research Associates and they have been warned multiple times over weeks to propose edits on the article talk page, not make them directly. EA continued to repeatedly undo my edit, at various points claiming my edit was vandalism or otherwise not providing any evidence or explanation. EA has been unwilling to meet my requests to constructively discuss the edit in the talk page. EA has a long record of conflicted, disruptive, and uncivil behaviour related to the Ekos page.

Given the persistent displays of bad faith, a level 2 warning for disruptive editing was noted on EA's talk page at 23:08, 15 November 2023. EA continued the behaviour with 2 disruptive edits since that warning.

EA is a longstanding, substantial Wikipedia contributor but seems shockingly unable to maintain perspective when it comes to Ekos, which they acknowledged employs them as a senior employee. Weeks of numerous warnings for COI and disruptive editing do not seem to matter. Could a block be necessary?

I am happy explain further if needed. Thank you.

Balancingakt (talk) 00:33, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That page history is a gong show; I've protected the article for a day so that this can be discussed in more detail. jp×g🗯️ 01:32, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is kind of a confusing thread to me. Clearly, there is a disagreement between yourself and Earl here. I am not sure what you mean by referring to WP:LOGOS; nothing there says that we shouldn't have logos in company articles. We typically do; Google, General Motors, even small random companies like Gadzoox and Intuitive Surgical. We even have logos for companies that are sussy or outright illegal (FTX, Stratton Oakmont, Enron, Halliburton, Blackwater (company) etc). I don't know how you have come to the conclusion that merely having a company's logo in an article constitutes a conflict of interest. Likewise, I am unaware of anything we have about cities or photos of buildings in infoboxes. What policy or guideline is this based on? You may have a point with the street address, but "one of the six things I kept removing actually needed to be removed" is not a great justification for edit-warring.

Nobody has particularly covered themselves with κλέος in this affair, though. I would not call myself a world-class expert on WP:COI but my understanding is that this kind of thing is discouraged (especially if it's contentious). @Earl Andrew: Aren't people with active COIs supposed to make edit requests instead of editing the employer's article directly? Why not do this? jp×g🗯️ 01:47, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the considered feedback jpxg. WP:Logos states: "Avoid using a logo in any way that creates an impression that the purpose of its inclusion is to promote something. Generally, logos should be used only when the logo is reasonably familiar or when the logo itself is of interest for design or artistic reasons." Ekos Research Associates' logo is not reasonably familiar to the general public, unlike the major companies you listed. An employee of the company being the one to select and add the logo, as Earl Andrew is, adds further to the likelihood that the purpose of its inclusion is for advertisement/promotional reason. The infobox images show up on blurbs when the company's name is run through google search, for instance.

The conflict of interest issue is a separate rationale. WP:COI sets out that users with identified conflicts of interest, as Earl Andrew is, should refrain from directly editing. Ultimately all of the content I removed had no source, other than a self-confessed employee of Ekos adding it. That is an issue with both the Ekos Research Associates page and with Ekos boss Frank Graves' pages--lack of verifiable sources. I have worked to trim that unverified content and add new content that meets WP:verifiability. Balancingakt (talk) 07:00, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:COIADVICE makes an allowance for uncontroversial edits, which the business address and logo surely are? Special:Diff/1185319514 doesn't seem worth an edit war, and multiple editors have objected on the talk page to treating Earl Andrew's edit as controversial. Mackensen (talk) 01:45, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

On this note, I am also not sure what Balancingakt means by "unsourced". The stuff they are removing is obviously sourced: the company's website is linked right there in the infobox. You can go there and see what their logo is, and their street address is at the bottom of the page. I don't think we need specific inline references for this, it's just common sense. jp×g🗯️ 01:51, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, WP:COIADVICE allows for uncontroversial edits. But these are specifically outlined to be limited to (quoting):

(1) remove spam and unambiguous vandalism,

(2) remove unambiguous violations of the biography of living persons policy,

(3) fix spelling, grammatical, or markup errors,

(4) repair broken links,

(5) remove their own COI edits, and

(6) add independent reliable sources when another editor has requested them, although it is better to supply them on the talk page for others to add.

If another editor objects for any reason, it is not an uncontroversial edit.

@Mackensen could you explain how adding the business address and logo fit into this definition? Balancingakt (talk) 08:36, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Balancingakt's edits look fairly ridiculous to me. Deleting the lead sentence of the article claiming COI [45]? Deleting a bunch of infobox parameters claiming COI [46]? How on earth was this rewrite remoteley acceptable [47]? It turned the article into little more than an attack page. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 01:53, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Some of Balancingakt's edits to Frank Graves (pollster) look to be equally terrible. They seem to have absolutely no understanding of sourcing policy or when it is acceptable to use primary sources - it is perfectly acceptable to use someone's CV/web profile to source their educational qualifications, year of birth or full name! The following Earl Andrew around, reverting completely acceptable edits made years ago while screaming policies that they clearly haven't read frankly looks like a harassment/hounding campaign. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 02:26, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Umm, yeah ... Balancingakt, what was going on in these two edits that I just reverted, to Mullaghmore, Tullyhunco and Kirklees College, both removing a reference that included an Archive.org archive URL, with edit summary Removed dead link. No archive available.? Yngvadottir (talk) 05:06, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I went back further in their edit history and there are a very large number of these edits (removing formatted citations simply because they happen to include a URL which is no longer active). I've reverted these too. I don't think this is being done in bad faith, as Bal has less than 200 edits. But I do think that there needs to be some clear guidance somewhere -- I don't know which page it should be on -- because I have seen many new editors laboring under the idea that a {{dead link}} tag means "the book/magazine/etc has retroactively ceased to exist so please remove the entire citation". jp×g🗯️ 06:22, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

One of my recent projects here has been to work through identified dead links through Wikipedia's [external links project]. My apologies if I made an error or two. Generally I believe you will find those contributions are solid. Balancingakt (talk) 06:39, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Balancingakt, thanks for responding. However, as JPxG says, removing such citations is not necessarily a good thing. Sometimes the website changed its archiving system and the citation can be found at a more recent URL, for example. Also, you haven't really answered my question: why did you remove the citations here and here when it included an archive link? You are probably using a different editing interface from me. Can't you see the archive.org URLs in those two references? JPxG, I've looked at your last three reverts and they were all indeed marked as dead links. The two I highlighted weren't simply marked that way. There was an archived URL right there in the reference! (And I don't want to completely distract from the issue of the edits at Ekos Research Associates.) Yngvadottir (talk) 06:50, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I did not intend to remove dead link citations that include an archive link. The external links project provides a way to access random pages with dead link flags. To help that effort, I locate pages with dead links and try to solve the issue through adding an archive link or identifying that a citation is needed. Either I overlooked the archive link in error or my editing interface did not display it. My apologies. Feel free to review my other edits. Balancingakt (talk) 07:05, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate 86.23.109.101's detailed review but I am concerned their arguments here are turning uncivil and not assuming good faith. Any of the edits I made to Ekos Research Associates and Frank Graves were to either remove unsourced, promotional content, content added by a self-professed employee of Ekos and Frank Graves or to add content from reliable sources in line with Wikipedia policy. Where is the attack?

I have not been following Earl Andrew around harassing him and to suggest otherwise is again uncivil and in bad faith. I am sensitive to WP:HOUNDING and I have been careful not to engage in broad, punitive investigation of Earl Andrew's entire Wikipedia history. I am trying to work with him to understand and resolve only the specific violations of Wikipedia's conflict of interest policy that he self-identified (i.e. he is an employee of Ekos Research Associates and its president Frank Graves and has made promotional edits over years to their pages). Earl Andrew has elected not to meet my constructive outreach in resolving things. I have put in hours of work editing, researching and adding to these articles to improve their previous conflicted, unsourced, and frankly promotional state in line with Wikipedia policy.Balancingakt (talk) 07:14, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am concerned that this topic has turned into an unfocused assessment of the sprawling, unrelated Wikipedia edit history of myself and Earl Andrew, starting to approach WP:WITCHHUNT instead of discussing the topic at hand: whether repeated recent edits made by Earl Andrew to Ekos Research Associates are in violation of WP:COI and WP:DISRUPTIVE and how that can be resolved long-term.

The facts are:

(1)Earl Andrew has self-declared that he is a senior employee of Ekos and has been identified and warned that WP:COI directs him not to make direct edits to the article.

(2)I made recent edits to the page to remove information that was unsourced, promotional in nature, in violation of logo policy, and/or added by Earl Andrew while he was in conflict as an employee of the subject. In other words: with rationale drawing from multiple clear Wikipedia policy violations.

(3) In violation of WP:COI Earl Andrew continued to make direct edits, reverting/rolling back my edit or re-adding the content that I edited out in line with policy. He made false claims of vandalism and/or provided no edit rationale for doing so. He was warned that this persistent unconstructive behaviour could constitute disruptive editing and politely requested to discuss in the talk page (which his WP:COI status requires of him anyway) but continued the disruptive, warring behaviour.

Refocusing on the original core of this topic: Weeks of numerous outreach, advisory, and warnings for COI and disruptive editing of Ekos Research Associates do not seem to matter to Earl Andrew. Can you help resolve the situation to ensure Earl Andrew follows WP:COI and other Wikipedia policy on the Ekos Research Associates article? Balancingakt (talk) 08:58, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Balancingakt, I see some assumption of bad faith on your part. Scroll up and you will see editors pushing back against your representation of a HQ address, for example, as unsourced when it's there in the linked company home page. There is some WP:ABOUTSELF latitude for primary sources, and one thing that links your two types of edits, removing material at Ekos Research Associates and removing dead links, is that you do not appear to be looking for sources yourself. Per WP:PRESERVE, that's the best thing to do. If you think the location of a company's headquarters should be referenced, for example, first look in the article text to see whether it already is, and if not, look for a reference in the business press. On logos, WP:LOGOS seems to me to need a bit of attention; it appears to contradict itself, saying in the intro: The encyclopedic rationale for including a logo is similar to the rationale for including portraits of a famous actor: most users feel that portraits provide valuable information about the person that is difficult to describe solely with text. Logos should be regarded as portraits for a given entity. but below, the Advertising section that you refer to: Avoid using a logo in any way that creates an impression that the purpose of its inclusion is to promote something. Generally, logos should be used only when the logo is reasonably familiar or when the logo itself is of interest for design or artistic reasons. (Both were added at the same time in 2004.) I believe the intro represents what we actually do: articles on companies as a rule have the logo at the top (usually in an infobox), and those that are too complex to be copyright-free form a significant category of fair use uploads here on en.wiki. But you've come across something that really does seem to be contradictory. Yngvadottir (talk) 09:39, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your thoughtful explanation on primary sourcing and logos Yngvadottir. My concern still remains that Earl Andrew should not be making any direct edits to the Ekos Research Associates article as per WP:COI, as he is a senior employee of the firm. I made an edit, which albeit has some room for debate. Earl Andrew disruptively reverted that edit repeatedly and disurptively, instead of discussing it on the talk page, which WP:COI binds him to do. I am trying to build a better article. I cannot do so if a conflicted contributor makes edits in violation of Wikipedia policy, refuses to discuss, and does not heed my polite personal outreach or even warnings. I am here for help if you can provide it.

Can you help resolve the situation to ensure Earl Andrew follows WP:COI and other Wikipedia policy on the Ekos Research Associates article? Balancingakt (talk) 10:08, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it has been mentioned yet, but Balancingakt nominated Ekos Research Associates for deletion, which closed as "keep". I also note that Earl Andrew commented at the AfD, but refrained from expressing an explicit view or from directly improving the article specifically because of a conflict of interest. My take from that is that Earl Andrew is well aware of what COI is, and hence no action is required.

I endorse the IP's view that this edit by Balancingakt was problematic. The source was not a specific criticism of EKOS, indeed it simply mentioned general polling accuracy figures in a neutral manner without comment, so to paint it as criticism of EKOS is simply adding original research and not writing to a neutral point of view. Just because something is in a reliable source, doesn't mean it should be added to an article - other policies have to be considered as well. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:19, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Ritchie333 Thank you for joining. Yes, I nominated the article for deletion because as the record shows it had zero reliable sources for any of its information and was almost entirely built by Earl Andrew, who self-declared as an employee of the company itself. That nomination was in line with WP:AfD and helped improve the article greatly.

Ritchie333's information is incomplete: Earl Andrew did engage in direct edits and had even edited my AfD request to remove reference to his conflict of interest--very disruptive, dishonest and inappropriate. Earl Andrew has continued to deny violate the direction of WP:COI. Earl Andrew has a long record of conflicted, disruptive, and uncivil behaviour related to the Ekos page, which I can elaborate on but ANI demands brevity.

edit Ritchie referenced remains a verifiable conclusion from a reliable source, which I directly quoted in the citation. The quote explicitly acknowledges that Ekos did not meet the accuracy standard of the top 5 polling firms. Does Ritchie333 read the quote differently? If Ritchie's objection is article-scale balance, I am working on incrementally building out the reliable sources. It takes time but longer-term balance will come, if there is balance to be found in reliable sources. You don't delete an entry because it provides a distinct and well-evidenced assesment of the subject's work. Happy to discuss.

I am concerned this topic keeps losing focus on the specific topic at hand: whether repeated recent edits made by Earl Andrew to Ekos Research Associates are in violation of WP:COI and WP:DISRUPTIVE and how that can be resolved long-term. Can you help resolve the situation to ensure Earl Andrew follows WP:COI and other Wikipedia policy on the Ekos Research Associates article? Balancingakt (talk) 09:31, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"As I say, Earl Andrew has a long record of conflicted, disruptive, and uncivil behaviour related to the Ekos page." Pull the other one, it's got bells on. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:42, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The topic is whether the repeated recent edits made by Earl Andrew to Ekos Research Associates are in violation of WP:COI and WP:DISRUPTIVE and how that can be resolved long-term. Why are you engaging in ad hominem attacks in the range of WP:WITCHHUNT instead of discussing evidence related to the specific topic at hand? Does how many/what nature of edits each user has made determine whether someone violated Wikipedia policy? Balancingakt (talk) 09:54, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Balancingakt, you appear to be mistaken in some way. What do you mean, Earl Andrew had even edited my AfD request to remove reference to his conflict of interest--very disruptive and inappropriate? Their only edits to the AfD that I can see are these 2 edits noting COI and suggesting sources and this follow-up statement that they've listed sources. Those edits don't remove any text, and as Ritchie333 says, they admit the COI. What are you referring to that was "disruptive and inappropriate"? Yngvadottir (talk) 09:50, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

See 15:47, 3 October 2023 Ekos article edit here where Earl Andrew removed reference to his COI in my AfD request. Apologies if I I may not be diff referencing correctly. If there is a better way, please let me know. Balancingakt (talk) 10:00, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You're putting pipes in URL links (links with single []) (<sm>and you also appear to have an extra 0</sm>). Rather than fix your diff link above, here's the edit at the time and date you refer to. That's Earl Andrew removing parts of your PROD rationale (you PRODded the article on October 3, Earl Andrew made his edit to the rationale, you reverted him and Kvng removed the PROD all on the same day, then you started the AfD on October 6). I tend to agree with Earl Andrew, that was an unnecessarily over-the-top and personalized PROD rationale that lost nothing by being shortened. Reporting editors at this noticeboard are scrutinized too, so that we can figure out how best to solve the problem. Tone it down and be precise and you'll get a better hearing. Do you accept that the article was kept after discussion at AfD? and that Earl Andrew responded to the AfD by suggesting several useful sources (I see you used at least one of them in seeking to improve the article)? Yngvadottir (talk) 10:29, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you @Yngvadottir. Too often Wikipedia degenerates into combat, where if you are the more reserved advocate, your side loses. Your civil explanation is rare and greatly appreciated. I note that your finding means that Earl Andrew disruptively edited my PROD rationale, changing my words to remove reference to his COI, a disruptive and bad faith action to take.

I fully accept that Ekos Research Associates was kept after AfD discussion, as that discussion identified reliable sources that otherwise were otherwise completely lacking nor easily identifiable in my corrective research due to Ekos' huge search engine volume of self-produced, promoted polls that were a work product of the company/article subject. The articles for Ekos and Frank Graves were both largely filled with zero-citation, corporate-sourced, extremely promotional content and 100% met the requirements for deletion.

Per my user page I am focused on a project to bring improved rigor and evidence to Wikipedia's representations of the bias of major media outlets in Canada (including polling firms like Ekos). My intention is to have greater evidence-based discussion to be able to hold all media outlets to public account. I believe in Wikipedia and what good information can do for the public. I want this article to be better and will work do make it so if the employees of the company and its owner will allow it to.

I need your help to ensure Wikpedia users and policy dictate how that article is improved, not conflicted employees of Ekos. Can you help resolve the situation to ensure Earl Andrew follows WP:COI and other Wikipedia policy on the Ekos Research Associates article?

I will take care of the rest. Balancingakt (talk) 10:46, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

At the top of the thread, Balancingakt wrote "Could a block be necessary?" It seems one could. Balancingakt, this is a warning that if you continue to harass Earl Andrew in this manner, there will be a block. You have said enough on this subject matter and need to let consensus play out. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:17, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Should I not ensure full, correct information is provided for other ANI Wikipedians, @Ritchie333?

How am I harassing Earl Andrew? I have tried extensively to work with him to understand and resolve only the narrow, specific violations of Wikipedia's conflict of interest policy that he self-identified (i.e. he is an employee of Ekos Research Associates and its president Frank Graves and has made promotional edits over years to their pages)? I have tried to constructively resolve this with Earl but Earl continues to violate WP:COI in making direct edits to his employers page, refuses to talk about his COI, and does not heed my polite outreach including warnings of clear violations provided.

Are you here to threaten me or can you please help resolve the situation to ensure Earl Andrew follows WP:COI and other Wikipedia policy on the Ekos Research Associates article? Balancingakt (talk) 10:25, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, you are not being "threatened". You are being warned that your behavior is violating Wikipedia policies and can result in sanctions against you. You've repeatedly been told that Earl Andrew has not violated COI, but you stubbornly insist he has, which can be construed as WP:HOUNDing.

Also, cut it out with the bold. It's not helpful and comes across as shouting.

I'll get right to the point: why are you so focused on editing articles about Ekos Research Associates and its employees? — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 11:54, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have blocked Balancingakt from editing this noticeboard for 24 hours. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:58, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please explain why? Balancingakt (talk) 11:02, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As a non-admin and uninvolved user who had the misfortune of reading this entire exchange, I'll try to explain what just happened to you. After coming across something you believed to be an issue, you reported it here (which is fine), but were told that it did not rise to a level requiring administrative action. Instead of accepting that answer, you kept insisting without moving an inch, repeating the same points, the same accusations, even the same bolding of text. Many users tried to explain to you that your assessment of the situation was not correct, and that you should let the matter go. You didn't.

There comes a point when even well-meant (assuming good faith here) "wikipolicing" becomes a pain in the arse to the people who actually have to deal with complaints, as their time (the most valuable resource around these parts is time, for both admins and regular users) is wasted for no good reason, not to mention the disruption potentially caused by the flurry of complaints itself. It is at this point that the blocks come out, and you are lucky that you only got a partial block from a noticeboard for 24 hours. Use this newfound time to do something useful and move on from this discussion. Ostalgia (talk) 12:32, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello everyone, I figure I should probably weigh in my two cents on the matter, considering this involves me! Bal has been a continuous thorn in my side the last few months, and I have certainly felt harassed by them . It's nice to see that others agree with that, because I wasn't sure if my feelings were justified or not. In my 20 years as an editor, I've never had an ongoing dispute quite of this nature. At first I assumed good faith on their part, but as you can see they seem to have one-track mind, that I am a tainted editor who has poisoned this site with COI edits. At no point did they actually cite any particular edit I made that was an actual conflict of interest. From the beginning, I have been very transparent about everything, about my work history and how it aligns with my edits to the EKOS Research article. But that hasn't been enough to satisfy them, much to my great frustration. At a certain point I decided to refrain my engaging with them, as I did not believe anything productive could be achieved through our discussions, and to benefit my mental health. I am glad to see others weigh in on this, as it both justifies my feelings and also lets Bal know that their way of handling disputes with other editors is not constructive. Thank you, everyone. -- Earl Andrew - talk 15:01, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Earl Andrew I'm pretty sure I've said before that the COI policies were never designed to prevent subject experts from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, or to prevent subjects of BLPs ensuring the articles are factually accurate and verifiable. Indeed, in its current state Ekos Research Associates doesn't look like a particularly good article, and I'd go as far as to say that you should be allowed to improve it per WP:IAR. I realise that's a bit of a minority view, and you're probably best to err on the side of the caution.

Incidentally, it's not just you - I have no idea what Balancingakt's problem is with Frank Graves, but they also went after Jiffles1 (who ignored them). Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:29, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, it feels wrong for me to improve the EKOS article, outside of reverting vandalism, of course. I did feel that Bal's removal of the logo/picture/address was vandalism, though, as they left the article in a worse state than before, so I had no problem reverting their edits. In fact, it had the added bonus of them bringing this dispute to the attention of more rationale actors.

I did notice they went after Jiffles1 before me. While this is speculation on my part, I feel like Bal may have personal views that have led to them scrutinizing EKOS and Frank Graves more than anything else. I will admit that my boss has made controversial statements before that has angered people with more conservative view points, and this may be the cause of Bal's ... focus. The irony here is that Bal hides behind their username (which is completely their right of course), whereas I have been nothing but transparent about who I am, who I work for any my experience. Meanwhile, I am left to speculate what Bal's whole deal is.-- Earl Andrew - talk 16:10, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's clear that nothing productive is coming out of this and either there should be no action taken or some combination of a one-way interaction ban preventing Balancingakt from interacting with Earl Andrew and a topicban for Balancingakt for all pages and people related to Ekos, broadly construed. While the discussion started out mostly reasonable, Balancingakt has made constant accusations, assumption of bad faith, put words in editors' mouths (see the exchange with Yngvadottir above), continually demand that people talk about only the subject and possibly infractions that *they* want to talk about, to practically demanding action with their own copypasta, and WP:OWN ("I will take care of the rest"). Ritchie333 has given enough escalating warnings that Balancingakt can hardly claim they weren't warned. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 09:26, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would very much appreciate a one-way interaction ban between Bal and myself, considering I have no intention of interacting with them.-- Earl Andrew - talk 14:10, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment About Shouting

I see that Balancingakt found a way of SHOUTING that is not quite as blatant as the use of all upper case but is nonetheless obviously shouting, and did call for some action, which was taken. I remember once a few years ago that an editor used markup to increase the size of his words to maybe 24 points, which was even more disruptive than the user of all upper case because it took up space for the rest of the screen. As to the specific case in point, any form of deliberately repeated emphasis is shouting and is disruptive. Thirty years ago, some posters didn't know better than to use all upper case. It isn't thirty years ago. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:22, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

They've not edited since the 16th, so I suppose we'll have to see if they continue the shouting whenever they come back. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:16, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Scope creep (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Stravensky (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This is regarding the user @Scope creep and their actions in systematically nominating to delete any article I have submitted. Today he said he would start an incident report against me for lying and personal attack, so I am starting this conversation to bring attention to what has occurred.

On my talk page you can see that user scope_creep intends to take me to noticeboards for lying and no personal attacks for me saying I think he is personally attacking me, so I would like to make a notice of him now as well. This is an obvious move of projection for him to claim personal attack.

From what I can see, scope_creep is obsessed with deleting articles written by me and is more concerned with “winning” and feeling important than being objective, being humble, or having the ability to change his mind. A few weeks ago when he nominated some of my articles I wrote for deletion I did not assume his actions were motivated by personal and petty reasons. Now that he has selected a new batch of articles I wrote years ago to nominate for deletion, I have to at least call this out so hopefully other admins will take notice and look into his actions. If me calling this out and asking for review is lying or a personal attack by me instead somehow, then so be it. The Lane Bess deletion debate page makes this obsession clear, as most people would not make it such a hill to die on. I say he’s the first parent-child pair to go into space together, you say being the first doesn’t make you notable (most people on the planet would disagree with this, but his opinion appears to be that he is always right and cannot be swayed like an objective person would be). On several of the debate pages he clearly began looking through references AFTER nominating the page for deletion on the grounds of weak references. Several of the articles I had written over the years have already vanished due to no debate and his actions, so now I am calling out the bad faith and listing what anyone can clearly see in the public debate pages, and his response is to instead label me as a liar. It is sad that this can be the case. On Lane Bess debate page he said that something was a primary source, so still didn’t work, but the rules on primary sources are clear and I quoted them back on the debate page (which is now over and the page was not deleted). On Jesse Lewis Choose Love Movement he says two articles are passing mentions, which makes me think he didn’t read either of them as they are not passing mentions. I understand the confident approach of his works, but being confident and wrong and motivated by petty vendetta simply because the article was submitted by me makes no sense. The articles I have submitted could be improved, but he has consistently chosen a path to instead delete every one of them he can, and his motivations do not seem driven by objectivity, but instead by a personal attack against me. This is my opinion based on the above listed reasons and the public debate pages everyone can see.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Lane_Bess#Lane_Bess

I look forward to a thorough review. Stravensky (talk) 16:00, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Just a few statistics for Stravensky: they have 529 edits, 371 live and 158 deleted, since they first started editing on October 11, 2017. They have created 44 pages, of which 24 have been deleted. Other users besides Scope creep have nominated their articles for deletion.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:14, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This was covered at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 201#User Stravensky, where scope_creep analysed some of their created articles and gave opinions of them. I note that they didn't consider all of them should be deleted, and mentioned that some such as Candi Carter were actually okay. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:29, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I was planning to bring the editor Stravensky to Ani, when I came from work, for the comments made at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scott Lochmus and others. A review of the articles were done at coin Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 201#User Stravensky by editor User:Jfire. I was an uninvolved editor and took that review list and sent the ones that were indicated as being unsuitable to Afd, which I think is about 13 so far, and they have all been deleted apart from one with three others at Afd. There is a long history of promotional editing, sometimes to the extreme. Only today one was sent to draft for that reason by another editor. Several other editors have sent stuff to Afd before the coin notice even appeared. At the beginning the editor was really helpful but has changed their attitude for some reason just recently Stravensky has started making dodgy comments that are unacceptable. scope_creep^Talk 17:23, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The Lane Bess AFD mentioned above has now been taken to DRV.[48] Thincat (talk) 18:29, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I have had half an eye on the OP for a few years and while there is nothing definitive, some of their editing habits certainly seem to be consistent with undisclosed paid editing (I'm deliberately not going into details) and as evidenced from the COIN thread, several other editors agree. The fact that so many articles that they have created have been deleted at AFD further reinforces that. As to the topic of this thread though, although both OP and scope_creep have accused each other of WP:NPA, I can't see any diffs to back up the assertion from either of them. OP's argument seems to be more centred around WP:HOUNDING but given the number of articles deleted, scope_creep's actions seem legitimate. SmartSE (talk) 18:54, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  this editor crossed my radar when they accused @CNMall41 of an out of process nomination. I'm not familiar with this editor's history with Scope, who didn't nominate this article, but I've never had reason to question Scope or CNM's noms even if it didn't close in the way they nominated. Given the raised issues here, it seems a limit to draft space might be helpful. Star Mississippi 19:33, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I honestly had to look up the COIN report to refresh my memory as I didn't remember any of this. I am open for a Trout anytime or any sanctions based on bad noms, although every one I do is on a good faith assessment so I appreciate your kind words about previous noms. I will say that based on a review of this user's article creation with 20/32 being deleted (not including those currently at AfD), I would support limiting their article creation to draft space until which time they show an understanding of notability guidelines and promotional tone. --CNMall41 (talk) 20:19, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds like a sensible approach. Presumably with the requirement to submit via AFC too? SmartSE (talk) 21:03, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think that sounds ideal. scope_creep^Talk 21:12, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think the suggestion above with the requirement to submit via AFC is a good solution to this problem.  // Timothy :: talk  21:21, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If the fake referencing I've found so far at Lane Bess (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is anything to go by (see history) and added here, this would in fact be too soft a sanction. SmartSE (talk) 22:49, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Using those sources is definitely misleading and also brings up COI issues if someone knows the years yet it is not in the source provided. I see this with DOB on biographies sometimes. --CNMall41 (talk) 00:37, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The style is write whatever you want and then randomly sprinkle some URLs that are vaguely connected. SmartSE (talk) 00:49, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, it is a clear sign of a connection to the subject of the article and would support stricter sanctions. --CNMall41 (talk) 06:21, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It should probably be noted that the user's talk page consists of, most recently, twelve consecutive AfD notices from scope_creep. The most recent three were made on 12 November, but prior to that, they are all from October 17. I don't know about all of you, but whenever I've written an article that was nominated for deletion, it was a somewhat stressful process (and this was as someone with thousands of edits, multiple GAs, etc). It's hard to imagine the mental fortitude necessary to get nine AfD notifications on the same day from the same person and not get at least a little bit pissed off. I don't mean to imply that any of these nominations were bad, or that they shouldn't have been made, but I think that we should try to have a little bit of understanding for people in this situation, and perhaps the "bedside manner" is a bit lacking. jp×g🗯️ 22:13, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure that having an article one created nominated for deletion may be stressful, but in this instance I have no sympathy for an editor who is obviously an undisclosed paid editor and who keeps writing articles that the community deletes and denies that they are an UPE. I also think that a ban restricting them to article space is too lenient. I have therefore blocked the editor for UPE. We'll see what the user does in response to the block. In the meantime, if there is a consensus that my block was too harsh, I am willing to unblock.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:21, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the information supplied by SmartSE above, I would wholeheartedly support the block. --CNMall41 (talk) 06:21, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@JPxG - I can't speak on Stravensky but I had a similar situation happen to me. I took it the same exact way Stravensky did and I think anyone would. There's also much larger issues on this site that play roles in this type of stuff like post-Lugnuts notability rules that are not enforced on every single article, wikilawyering, users tracking other users and people in general being unfriendly and unhelpful to newer/less experienced users. I also do not think the new interpretation of wikipedia where we only want some topics heavily covered by the media and not everything is a message that has really been shared with the general public successfully.KatoKungLee (talk) 20:56, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I stumbled into this rabbit hole after a Wikilink in an article I watch was removed after said article, created by Stravensky, was deleted. I've never interacted with either of these users before, or even seen them around for that matter. Even if Scope creep is nominating these articles out of spite, which I very much doubt, that doesn't change the fact the articles are typically poorly cited and lacking in notability, and deserved to be nominated for deletion by someone. This of course does not mean all of them need to be or will end up being deleted, but they all look like fair candidates for a deletion discussion to me. Stravensky's articles already had a high rate of deletion. If your articles already had a high rate of deletion, and someone nominates several for deletion at once, that only indicates that you need to stop writing poorly sources articles about subjects of questionable notability. If action should be taken against someone, that person should be Stravensky. I will note it reflects badly on both these editors to accuse each-other of personal attacks, yet provide no diffs to support these claims. Damien Linnane (talk) 02:03, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the original block was a reasonable response even if I would have argued for something more solid before taking that measure. IMO the editor's description of the situation at their talk page seems sincere and credible. IMO continuation of the block at this point on the UPE rationale as described would be based on an unusually broad interpretation/ application of UPE, even more so for a boomerang on what seems like a since3re post. Suggest something mild like going through AFC, subject to renewal if there are any issues. Also suggest requesting Scope Creep to mostly let other folks handle any issues with this editor at least for a while. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 02:28, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree. I concur with several editors above that if I'd had nine of my articles AfDed by the same guy on the same day, I'd be royally pissed ... but is that action sanctionable? I can think of one occasion where I did file a bunch of AfDs on the same editor within a day or two: the massive Maltese nobility mess of fifteen years ago, where the editor in question (indeffed for his troubles, in the end) created a couple dozen articles of spurious provenance, sourced only to his self-published website and to a few other sites that proved fictional, and in some of those articles claimed titles of nobility for himself and his family members. Ravenswing 02:46, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• 1.145.73.131 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

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

They're also adding the same text to their signature.[49] Interesting, can't say I've seen that before. — Czello ^(music) 12:51, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

SamuelLion1877 (talk · contribs) is a single purpose account with a singular focus on atrocity-mongering for the period around WWI in the Balkans. In addition to edit-warring, this user displays highly uncooperative behavior, accusing others of "vandalism" and "trying to hide massacres". Examples below:

• rv subtle vandalism yet again, again, I don’t know how many times I have to say it, your claim of the figure being “exceptionally high” is, again, your own personal (irrelevant) opinion. Stop hiding massacres.
• I attempted to move this information to the Balkan Wars article and it was quickly reverted by user Khiurig. Moreover, your continuous bashing of sourced accredited historians as “dubious” due to your own (irrelevant) personal opinion constitutes subtle vandalism and trying to hide massacres
• Since it seems we have some users who are hell bent on hiding and covering atrocities towards Ottoman Muslims as much as they can, I’m restoring the page to how it was for weeks without issue until some users came in and started sabotaging the article
• Reverting vandalism

Attempts to work things out at the talkpage are met with a similar hostile attitude:

• but you seem to be clearly misunderstanding and abusing the extraordinary policy I order to further your own agenda and personal bias
• Stop your lying and hiding if massacres.
• your labeling of it as that without any other backup or consensus is simply manipulation/twisting/misunderstanding and misuse of Wikipedia’s policy. Please do not make any more disruptive changes to the page until we discuss here, see

They have recently started canvassing for support:

• if you could help me out making sure they don’t make anymore disruptive edits
• If you have time, I could use your help right now on First Balkan War and Balkan Wars, as the vandals have been utterly relentless as of late

The account clearly seems to be trying to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS and has a historical WP:AXE to grind, as indicated by labeling edits "vandalism" (always a red flag). They seem to be getting more and more belligerent and any help would be greatly appreciated. Khirurg (talk) 18:54, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Their response below is deep in WP:BATTLE territory. At this point, if something is not done, the articles will keep on deteriorating. Khirurg (talk) 19:22, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Khirurg (talk · contribs) has made nothing but false accusations against me above. Not once did I engage in “hostile” or “belligerent” behavior or anything of the sort.

Here’s the actual truth; me, Yung Doohickey (talk · contribs) , and a few others improved upon the atrocities against ottoman muslims section for the First Balkan War article, using sourced material and carefully considering our additions. The articles were fine and well received by Wikipedia as a whole, generally speaking, for weeks on end; that was until this user came along out of nowhere and decided to start relentlessly sabotaging the articles, attempting to cover up massacres by resorting to removing sourced material with little to no explanation, in clear violation of basic and obvious Wikipedia policy.

I attempted my absolute best to be cooperative and compromise with this user Khirurg, but as soon as I took HIS OWN SUGGESTION, mind you, and attempted to move the atrocities section to the Balkan Wars article, he immediately reverted the edit, and instead changed his story of a sudden and claimed that the sources are not reliable (accredited contemporary western historians/professors) with no other solid explanation other than that he disagrees with him and was attempting to misuse and manipulate Wikipedia policies to further his biased agenda to cover up atrocities towards muslims.

I have no axe to grind whatsoever, and tried to cooperate with this user to the best of my ability until he started displaying the exact behavior in which he is unfairly and baselessly accusing me of now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SamuelLion1877 (talk • contribs)

SamuelLion1877, you have now made 4 reverts, violating WP:3RR. Whatever else is happening at this article, you need to undo your last revert or you will be blocked.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 23:49, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is an ongoing discussion in the talk page, the page was left the way it was until user Khirurg once again removed material cited with not 2 but 3 sources SamuelLion1877 (talk) 23:51, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@SamuelLion1877: Ongoing talk page discussion is great. It does not absolve you from the responsibility to heed WP:3RR. If you do not revert your last set of edits at First Balkan War, I will block you.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 23:57, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

How about Khirurgs edits? Or is he for some special reason exempt from Wikipedia’s policy? SamuelLion1877 (talk) 00:07, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you'd bothered to read the link to the relevant policy, either in my warning above or the one you blanked as "nonsense", you'd understand. You are partial blocked from the article now. Discussion can continue as to whether other sanctions or admin intervention is necessary on the article.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 00:11, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I was just pinged to revert this edit adding "Avinash Walton" to the list of the Walton family, prominent American billionaires. After doing a bit of searching, it seems that SKSumanTAJ (talk · contribs) who added the edit considers himself to be Avinash Walton, saying as much on his user page, uploading an image with that title, and (presumably) adding entries to that effect for himself on IMDB, The Waltons Wiki (dedicated to a different set of Waltons, The Waltons, old TV show), WikiAlpha, EverybodyWiki which I can't link here, and probably others, but I'm tired of copying and pasting links. He hasn't made too many edits here, but has been an editor here for years, and back in 2020 added "Avinash Walton" as the "Boyfriend" of American singer Evie Clair, and started an Avinash Walton page, at least twice in 2021, each time speedy deleted, among other adventures. I admire his energy and/or his sense of humor, but think at least an admin warning is called for, if not a WP:NOTHERE block, as this is pretty clearly a trend. --GRuban (talk) 19:06, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it's cases like this that WP:NOTHERE was written for. Almost all of their edits ever are either self-promo/hoaxing, or were reverted for other reasons. Indeffed. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|she) 19:26, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry but them adding themselves to the Waltons Wiki, and no one noticing for 3 months yet, is the funniest thing I've heard today. Canterbury Tail talk 20:32, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've also deleted the uploaded image and the self-promoting userpages. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 21:09, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've salted Avinash Walton. Fences&Windows 15:00, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Fences and windows: May I politely dissent and cite my essay WP:DONTSALT? If we salt this, he'll just come back at Avinash walton, Avinash Walton (actor), etc., with it just a bit harder to piece the trail together due to the lack of obvious past deletions. I've literally seen cases where people changed stage names just to get around saltings, or created autobios under completely unrelated titles. Whereas if we stick with one title, then it's easy to spot any sox, and no harder to delete the recreations. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|she) 21:11, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I concur. I'd rather see and be able to follow the problem than for it to appear somewhere else we're not looking. Canterbury Tail talk 21:17, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. I've found it can send a clear signal, but lifted. Fences&Windows 13:49, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

185.219.93.170 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) A user admitting to a multi-IP campaign of harassment and vandalism. Unsure how it should be addressed or whether anything can in particular be done about it, but thought it was worth flagging here.

(The context was that I had warned them for an abusive edit summary, and they responded by doubling down.) --AntiDionysius (talk) 00:05, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Despite their denials, it's obviously Evlekis. I'm the one they harass periodically because I dared to have the balls to expose them. I'm tired of this asshole. oknazevad (talk) 18:27, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

OrdinaryContributor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
User is saying things like "Are you blind?" and this. In my view, this user does not have what it takes to edit neutrally. Please block them. NW1223<Howl at me•My hunts> 01:16, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(Non-administrator comment) Gotta say, that's probably the fastest report-to-block time I've ever seen on here. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 01:40, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Context of this disruption and block: the editor OrdinaryContributor translated Draft:23 March 1933 Reichstag speech from the article on the German Wikipedia, but reacted very poorly to the reasonable requirement here for reliable sources. The draft, relating to the existing article Enabling Act of 1933, is nevertheless promising edit: concerning due to how it presents Hitler's point of view without analysis or critique. Fences&Windows 13:56, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Very poorly" is a euphemism for something that my mother taught me never to say. Cullen328 (talk) 08:15, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Uinko has a longstanding history of blanking sections, adding unsourced material, and introducing grammatical errors. Every time they are warned about it, their response is complete and total indignance. 10 days ago, @Drmies— reminded Uinko of this, making them the 15th person to raise complaints on their talk page. I can send diffs if need be, but a solid number of them are available on their talk page. It really doesn't seem like this user is willing and able to change course... Cpotisch (talk) 05:34, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at it. jp×g🗯️ 09:43, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

While Uinko has certainly not been making much use of talk pages (they've only made three edits to talk pages since registering their account), I am not really seeing anything horrifying in their contributions, or on their talk page. There is a wall of automated messages, yes, but this seems to mostly be due to a lack of archiving; many of the warnings you're citing are from three years ago. Contrariwise, this would seem to be the third noticeboard thread in the last year you've opened about Uinko (both were in late November '22; 1, 2). These were both closed without action due to a lack of diffs that showed actionable conduct, so I would say that in this case the diffs do need be. jp×g🗯️ 14:10, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I will say, my apologies for this being the third time I've brought it up. The name rang a bell but I forgot that I had personally raised it, let alone twice. Cpotisch (talk) 17:21, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Contrary to this assessment by JPxG, I think Uinko has been repeatedly uncivil and disruptive, due to their insistence on relying on their own views rather than those of reliable sources. I think editing restrictions are required or they will continue to degrade content indefinitely. I propose: the editor must not remove reliable sources from any article without prior consensus; the editor must cite at least one independent, reliable source for any addition or change in content that is not a trivial edit for format, spelling, or grammar; 1RR restriction on all articles. Fences&Windows 14:56, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know, looking through their contributions I just see a bunch of normal stuff. Maybe they are on the mid side of things, but of their last three edits:

• "Environmental list is way too oddly specific and not applicable.": Avatar: The Way of Water broke Avatar's record ($77 million) for the highest weekend debut for an environmentalist film and Deadpool's record ($132.4 million) for the highest weekend debut for a 20th Century Studios film.

The citation doesn't say anything at all about "an environmentalist film"; they're right that this is a strange, OR observation to make with no reference.

• "→‎Government": Further solidifying the county's leftward shift, Governor JB Pritzker won the county by 1.3% in [[2022 Illinois gubernatorial election|2022]], making it the first time since 1948 it supported a Democrat for governor.

They're linking "2022" to the appropriate article.

• "You can get that information by looking at past elections on Wikipedia": This was the best performance for a Democrat, the worst for a Republican, and the closest election since 1999. It was also the closest gubernatorial election won by a Republican since 1991.{{OR|date=November 2023}} This was the closest gubernatorial election in the 2023 cycle.

Okay, maybe it was silly to remove this tag, but it is kind of a silly tag to begin with. It's not original research (i.e. WP:2+2=4) to note the percentage spreads in elections; maybe it's undue, and maybe it needs a citation, but it seems pretty trivial to just cite it (there are obviously reliable sources that give the results of gubernatorial elections since 1990). Whatever, maybe they shouldn't have done this.

Cpotisch said they were willing to provide diffs, so I am willing to change my opinion if there are diffs of them being completely unreasonable. jp×g🗯️ 15:22, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An anon keeps reinserting OR into voiced alveolar and postalveolar approximants. They clearly don't know a lot about the subject and they do not cite any sources (which is why I now twice removed the discussion from the talk page, it's a waste of time for everyone).

This editor either has a dynamic IP address or perhaps travels a lot. The most recent IP address is this one. The previous ones are [50], [51] and [52]. Sol505000 (talk) 07:24, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I had a look there and all of the IP addresses used to repeatedly make the disruptive edits seem to be part of the range 146.96.0.0/16. So if an admin were to stop the anonymous editor from editing the article, then the two possible actions that could be taken would be to either partially block the /16 range from the affected article(s), or semi-protect the page for at least a month. — AP 499D25 (talk) 10:25, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Has a serious attempt at dispute resolution been made? I have semi-protected for a month due to the edit warring, but the talk page has no recent edits and other articles are involved. Please get input from Wikipedia:WikiProject Linguistics. Fences&Windows 12:20, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There used to be extensive discussion on the talk page between the IP editor and other editors concerning the edit as recent as 9 hours ago, but the entire discussion has been removed by Sol505000 under the reason "WP:NOTAFORUM": see the page history of Talk:Voiced alveolar and postalveolar approximants. Also for convenience, permalink to last talk page revision before the discussion was deleted. — AP 499D25 (talk) 12:27, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, AP 499D25. Sol505000, I don't think a participant in a talk page discussion unilaterally blanking it is appropriate. See WP:TPO; these comments were not "gibberish, test edits, harmful or prohibited material". I have reverted your blanking. Fences&Windows 14:05, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Recently, as many of you will know, a highly active vandal using numerous sockpuppets and IP editing has been making large numbers of inappropriate closes of AfDs, commonly as "no consensus", sometimes as "keep". Recently they have taken to putting my signature on the closes. Since closing AfDs is not one of the tasks that I regularly perform, if you see any recent closes with my signature then it will be far more likely to be the vandal than me, so I suggest you check the editing history and if it wasn't me then block or report for a block. JBW (talk) 10:54, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also see #IP-hopping_anonymous_AfD-closing_vandal (permalink). -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 11:05, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Do we have an edit filter for this? jp×g🗯️ 14:02, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We need one. Surely if we look for unregistered users adding a regex matching User talk:.* and set it to warn that would work? Zippybonzo | talk | contribs (he|she|they) 15:35, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

IP users do still leave a user talk link towards their talk page in their signature. Perhaps something like \[\[User talk:(?>(\d{1,3}\.){3}\d{1,3}\||([0-9a-f]{1,4}:){7}[0-9a-f]{1,4}\||[^|]*)\|[^\]]*talk would work? That should filter out creating any piped links towards user talk pages where the displayed text includes the word "talk", except in the case where the user talk page is towards an IP user. Randi🦋^Talk_Contribs 20:13, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why not just a filter for IP users adding AFD close templates? At the very least, it could be a log filter; I guess it is conceivable that an IP could legitimately close a deletion discussion, but it seems like a pretty rare occurrence, so no harm in having to skip over the (?) times that happens per year. jp×g🗯️ 21:17, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I started a discussion at Wikipedia:Edit_filter/Requested#Log or disallow new users closing deletion discussions. Uhai (talk) 05:37, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, last time I blocked BCD (and knew it was him) he was adding fancruft to Power Rangers articles! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:39, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The interest hasn't gone away: Special:Contributions/173.220.150.234, etc. These days he's better known for impersonating admins. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 21:03, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Some of the stalled reviews:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Somehow although User talk:Materialscientist blocked them for disruptive edits at Evan McKie, User:70.30.45.118 has managed to still edit [53] somehow? Could the article be protected? Theroadislong (talk) 17:53, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

They were only blocked for 31 hours, and have returned to the same behaviour once the block ran out. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 18:01, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yes sorry I didn't notice it was only a temporary block. Theroadislong (talk) 18:38, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User:SurferSquall has continued their disruptive behavior on their talk page after being blocked in October (see the the previous ANI discussion). It started again several days ago with this edit, which makes it clear that they learned nothing from their block. Then they continued to spout the same worn out points that "the consensus, no matter how many people agree with it, is false" (for anyone not familiar with this case, SurferSquall has been going to extreme lengths in an attempt to get Planespotters.net to be recognized as reliable, despite overwhealming consensus that it is not). When asked once again to WP:DROPTHESTICK, they responded with "Neither you nor any admin have the right to “shut me up” over advocating for a perfectly usable source." It is clear that SurferSquall has refused to get the point, and that they never will. Given their current and previous behavior, I stand by my statements in the previous ANI discussion that I do not believe that another temporary block or a topic ban will be enough to stop their disruption, and therefore I propose an indefinite block. - ZLEA _T\^C 19:36, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An indefinite block over a source. How lovely. Someday you’ll actually take a look at the source yourself, I hope. Every time I attempted to discuss the reasons that it is a valid source, somebody, usually @SteelPillow, became harsh and defeatist; Again I state there is no reason for you guys to hate this one source despite abundant proof it is reliable. The “consensus” on this is a perfect example of public opinion not aligning with pure fact, and that’s a difficult thing for me to deal with when you all are so violently against this source. I should not have to beg on my knees for you to simply read my proof of it being reliable, and to take a detailed enough look at the site itself. Yet you will not. I have proved wrong every single accusation against Planespotters being unreliable, yet it has gotten nowhere. At rush of being labeled as a retard again, it continues to be baffling. I still ask one single person to actually look at it. Consensus, especially if flawed, always has the ability to change; and it is wholly unfair for me to be blocked over attempting to do so, and it is wholly unfair for you to expect me not to be frustrated that the “consensus” is indeed wrong. It is wrong. That is fact. It can be proven so. It has been proven so! SurferSquall (talk) 23:13, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Curiously enough, people who have already looked into the issue appear to have come to a conclusion regarding 'facts' that differs from yours. Or does 'looking into' only count if they then agree with you? AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:20, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bringing your battleground behavior to ANI is not going to help you. No one has ever labeled you a "retard" in the first place, so we can add false accusations of personal attacks to the long list of disruptive behavior. - ZLEA _T\^C 23:28, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I blocked SurferSquall for one week on October 22, 2023. Since that block expired, all that they have done is comment on their own talk page in support of the reliability of Planespotters, and then comment here at ANI. I have a lot of criticisms and concerns about the editor's behavior over time, but I see nothing justifying an additional block since the October 22 block expired. Perhaps drawing in uninvolved editors at WP:RSN to evaluate the source in question might be the next appropriate course of action. Cullen328 (talk) 07:48, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Already been discussed. See the WP:RSN thread linked at WP:PLANESPOTTERS. AndyTheGrump (talk) 10:50, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agree broadly with Cullen328, though we did the (un)reliability to death years ago and are fed up with revisiting it. The guy may be incorrigible, but they are free to state their beliefs on their own talk page, just as long as they do not bring them back into wider circulation. I still think that a topic ban, on both articles and talk pages, would help keep things that way. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 14:00, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That makes the most sense to me. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 20:05, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

for you to simply read my proof of it being reliable What proof? You insist there is proof and then refuse to show it to us (and no, the website itself is NOT proof) For five more minutes...^{it's just a single vice} 22:59, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

They're only posting on their talk page, if no one engages then there's not a problem. If you find it troubling and engage on their talk page then that's really on you. As long as they restrict the complaining about Planespotters.net not being used to their own talk page, with no one engaging, there is no issue. It takes two to argue and if no one responds and everyone ignores it they're just shouting into the wind and not bothering anyone. So I'd recommend removing their talk page from your watchlist and moving along. Canterbury Tail talk 23:34, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• SurferSquall is reading "retard" for "incompetent", and is the same sort of hyperbole as "beg on my knees" above; several people have actually talked about incompetence. Canterbury Tail makes a good point. Uncle G (talk) 06:28, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The contributions of User:Elie goodman show a trail of 500 edits since 20 October, including the addition of a bunch of IUCN profile data to animal pages before, hey presto, voting in three ARBPIA discussions once past 500 edits. Iskandar323 (talk) 21:54, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

CU-indeffed by Firefly. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|she) 23:51, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Firefly: Ditto this user? But on the theme of geography instead? Iskandar323 (talk) 20:54, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I object to this WP:SPURIOUSPROTECT (you should read this policy). I'd like to note that WP:PGAME is "Making unconstructive edits to raise your user access level," while both of the users above are clearly making constructive edits. Making 500 good edits as a "proof of being a constructive editor" prior to making good faith contributions in controversial topics is not gaming the system.

What we are seeing here is a case of WP:Please_do_not_bite_the_newcomers, after not liking how they !voted for the first time. This goes against WP:AGF and the ethos that we are trying to build here. Marokwitz (talk) 21:32, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

CU-indef would mean that there is technical evidence establishing that the account was a sockpuppet, rather than being blocked based on the merits of the report here. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:45, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm replying to the second report. To strengthen my position, note that the example given in the policy is a user making "dummy" edits or "unconstructive edits in a sandbox." The policy doesn't say anything about making WP:WikiGnome style edits. These are a great way to learn and this is actually a common advice given in Wikimedia beginner editing courses . I remember how badly I was treated when I started editing Wikipedia, and it makes me personally very frustrated when new editors (as well as old ones) are being driven away.

I'd like to note also that CU is often a subjective tool based on identifying edit styles that has a significant potential for human error, and if we, as a group, overuse this tool we are bound to lose good future editors. Marokwitz (talk) 21:51, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are confused: see Wikipedia:CheckUser. JBL (talk) 22:24, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, what am I confused about? The fact there is a potential for error? Based on following some SPI cases in the past then it is clear that yes, it is often highly subjective. Marokwitz (talk) 22:26, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What makes you think that there is an error? M.Bitton (talk) 22:35, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you've followed the link or understood the difference between "a generic sock-puppet investigation" and "the use of the CheckUser tool". --JBL (talk) 22:36, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you are not sure you know what you are talking about, the best move is to stop. GAMING of editing restrictions is prohibited. Abusing multiple accounts is prohibited. That you find the editors who engage in such activities to be advantageous to your editing goals does not change that they remain prohibited and may be sanctioned accordingly. nableezy - 22:56, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Let me be more clear as I said too many things at once- sorry for that. I'm making three points:

1. The interpretation of 'gaming the system' is a misreading of the policy - for the reasons that I explained.
2. @Firefly's verdict for the first account was 'Possilikely (a mix between possible and likely) technically and well enough connected behaviorally.' This reads as a subjective call, not a as rock-solid case.
3. I feel we are driving away potentially good newbies who have not done anything wrong, and I find this very sad for the future of our community.

Marokwitz (talk) 23:03, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your view on what is a misreading of policy is just your view, and one not shared by either other editors or admins enforcing the ArbCom sanctions. You are welcome to seek ArbCom clarification on if admins may revoke EC permission if they feel that it was gained through gaming. I expect that not to end in the result youre hoping for, but I been surprised on the internet before so YMMV. Your view on whether or not the evidence used by a CU to block an editor is sufficient is both ill-informed and not relevant because a. you dont know what the evidence is and b. you dont get a vote on if the evidence meets some threshold you would like to impose. As far as driving editors away, revoking EC only restricts access to CT topics, and only a couple of them at that. There are hundreds and hundreds of thousands of other articles that an editor can edit to gain the experience required to meaningfully participate in more contentious areas. If an editor is only here to say edit-war over the Israel lead though, yes removing EC may drive them away. Whether or not that is a sad thing is, again, personal feeling. nableezy - 23:16, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A bit less dismissive attitude could make this conversation far more productive and maybe even enjoyable. Let's try that, shall we? I have the right to voice my opinion. Marokwitz (talk) 23:32, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:PGAME should be updated to reflect community consensus and current practice that making a large number of trivial but not unconstructive edits only to hop directly into ECP topic areas without actually engaging sufficiently to learn applicable practice, constitutes GAMING. Folly Mox (talk) 04:27, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps, and I'd be happy to join an RFC for such a suggested policy change.

However, the majority of the contributions of the user in question were not trivial, and as they gained more experience, their contributions have, in my assessment, become more substantial.

Are these trivial edits?

[54] [55][56] Marokwitz (talk) 06:36, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just to sidestep all of this: I can't speak for Firefly, the admin who was pinged originally, but I don't personally see a case to revoke EC from GidiD. There is some PGAME-type behavior, but also a lot of substantive edits, and 14 days passed between them getting AC and getting EC. Overall it's not ideal but not something I'd revoke over. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|she) 06:43, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The edits don't have to be trivial or unconstructive given that an experienced sock would know exactly what to do to avoid detection. We can't possibly guess what genius scheme they'll come up with next or list all the possible scenarios in the WP:GAME guideline. What we can do, however, is make sure that we don't ignore the alarm bells, and if a CU confirms our suspicion, then for all intents and purposes, the matter should be considered closed. M.Bitton (talk) 17:10, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]