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

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]

I get that you want to defend yourself against a possible topic ban, Ngunalik, but with the interaction ban in place and your insistence that your woes are entirely Cookiemonster's fault, your best bet is to do the same thing I suggested to Cookiemonster that they do: sit down, stay quiet, let other editors discuss the merits, and accept their consensus. Your continuing repetitive, argumentative posts is no more a better look than were Cookiemonster's. Ravenswing 03:39, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Uninvolved admin, as requested. I agree that the edit is an IBAN violation, although a bit close to the border. Defending oneself against a TBAN is legitimate and necessary dispute resolution, but Ngunalik's comments exceeded what was necessary for that defense. I would probably just warn for that, but then I noticed that, after C.Fred. started this subthread, Ngunalik contacted six editors to invite them to participate in this talkpage discussion, itself filed after the IBAN was enacted (but a few hours before C.Fred started this subthread). That talkpage discussion concerns the categorization of Lango people as Nilotic versus Hamitic, and as related to the Ateker versus the Luo, two things that Ngunalik and Cookiemonster have edit-warred over. The talkpage post solicits the invited editors to restore Ngunalik's edits, i.e. to revert Cookiemonster. I don't see any way to view this other than as gaming the IBAN—asking others to make a revert that they cannot. Given the explicit warning against gaming at the time of the IBAN's enactment, plus the fact that they were already on notice about potential IBAN violations and still contacted editors to point them toward the talkpage discussion, I am blocking Ngunalik for 72 hours. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|she) 19:02, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is a reasoned and quite restrained response. Thank you, @Tamzin. I think this user is approaching WP:IDHT territory. Every editor that has had contact has tried to help them. These edits are a clear gaming of the IBAN. I can understand defending yourself but the other editor is also in the same position and subject to the same restrictions. They have to find a way to do so without mentioning each other. The TBAN proposal was not as a result of their interaction but specific edits and editorial behavior. When Ngunalik specifically brought up Cookiemonster in the discussion referenced as opposed to the edits made it crossed that line. And the editor was warned of that. They were also warned about gaming by one of the users they wrote. Still they wanted to argue. I hope the 72 hour block will get their attention. --ARoseWolf 15:54, 22 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]
  • @Uncle G: While the geolocation of the IP jumps around, the behavioral pattern is very distinct, which makes me confident it is a single person. They focus on a very narrow subset of locomotives, continue editing drafts/articles after switching IPs, and often respond to themselves to fake consensus; the editor interaction is particularly telling. (115.64.191.187, which you mentioned above, has more than a dozen overlaps with the other IPs.) The drafts are refbombed to pass AFC, often with errors that indicates they don't actually have access to the source and are simply copying the citation from elsewhere. They have other behavioral tells that are obviously different from legitimate new editors (not revealing them here, but feel free to email me.) I am quite sure that any actual new editor editing railroad articles from an Australian IP would not be mistaken for this person. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 21:39, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Then you are going to have to address my concern about the egregious overreach of "any future IPs" under this heading of "Australian", which you have failed to do. That's licence to block a whole country. And you should be reaching out to the AFC reviewers who let things based upon Lulu books pass AFC, as the problem there is that the poor sourcing actually got a pass when it should have been raising red flags. I did. Given Special:Diff/1185987251 then Special:Diff/1186025564 you should add your voice. Uncle G (talk) 10:17, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

      You're criticizing a proposal that no one's making. What anyone's talking about is WP:DUCK: dubious notability, ref-bombing, fixation on American locomotives of a certain era, geolocates to Australia. I don't think that translates to a licence to block a whole country. Mackensen (talk) 12:03, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

      Perhaps @Uncle G's concern is that when an IP address is identified that what is being proposed is that the IP address be indeffed and that would result in undue collateral damage? Rather I think this proposal is that this specific IP user who is clearly identifiable per WP:DUCK be blocked. Given the IP user changes IP address every couple of weeks, there's no reason for example that 30 day blocks couldn't be used each time an IP address is identified? TarnishedPath^talk 22:59, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • This is a rather absurd comment. This is a highly specific pattern of behavior and extremely narrow topic area within the area of trains (specifically an obsession with Southern Pacific) which makes it incredibly obvious these IPs are the same editor. Making nonsensical slippery-slope fallacies is unhelpful. Had you looked at the IPs, you would see they locate to Sydney and Melbourne exclusively, and had you fully examined the evidence or asked us, you would have noticed a clear and distinct pattern of behavior which makes it quite obvious we are dealing with a single individual. I am extremely disappointed you ignore all the obvious misconduct by this editor, from maliciously editing a closed AfD discussion, to sockpuppetry, to copyright violations [7], to misrepresentation of sources. Regarding your last point, a number of these AfC accepts were inexplicable and reflect very poorly on the reviewers in question. Above all, you are clearly rushing to scream "injustice!" without anywhere near a full understanding of the facts. I have been dealing with this specific editor for several months. Nobody here has associated this editor with a registered account, so please strike that false claim. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 22:45, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • One the contrary, I observed, as I said, one bad actor. But in addition, this is a quite pointed observation that you two bringing up the primary example of this as Southern Pacific 4450 (AfD discussion) above and making it how it is ignoring a consensus of 2 people — maliciously, as you've characterized it repeatedly now — is proven to be wrong. That article was created and edited by Insomniac186 (talk · contribs) in March 2006, and that was what you nominated for deletion, not something associated with these IP addresses. I've apparently looked into this better than you have, although at the time of your deletion nomination you should have seen its edit history too. This "malicious" ignoring of a 2 person consensus seems to be because you were 1 of the 2 people. And you aren't proposing blocking even just Sydney and Melbourne, which again is rather a lot of editors, but as clearly stated "any future IP" addresses used by an "Australian". Uncle G (talk) 10:17, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

      I'm not sure what point you're making here. We all agree that the original article wasn't written by the IP. What the IP did do was change the content of the AfD to make it look like a soft delete, then turn around and request undeletion, a bad faith act if there ever was one. The text between the two versions is not substantially different. Yes, he added a bunch of sources. Given the addition of a Diesel Era article missing the author, the title, and the full page numbers, I'm deeply skeptical. Mackensen (talk) 12:24, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

      Do you have so little understanding of how IP addresses work that you are incapable of understanding the same editor may at different times use different IP addresses, and IP addresses are routinely reassigned by internet providers? Are you also incapable of understanding that behavioral tells and editing overlaps can be used to conclusively prove different IP addresses are being used by the same individual? I suggest you stop now before you dig yourself into a deeper hole. I don't know why you're going on about things from 2006, I have never suggested the author from back then is related to the current situation in any way. I nominated that for deletion on the grounds of failing GNG, and it was deleted. The IP then falsely edited the AfD after the fact to instead say "soft delete" and tricked an admin into restoring the old article. That's all ok by you?

      And if we're supposedly looking into things, there were two delete voters in that discussion in addition to myself, the nominator, for a total of three. Please at least get the basic facts right if you're going to keep arguing with me. You are continuing to make a strawman argument based upon your belief that blocking a few specific IP ranges used by this editor is akin to blocking an entire country. Nobody is proposing to block the entire country of Australia, or entire cities in Australia. Seeing an administrator with this little understanding of IP ranges, or how to handle disruptive editors using IP addresses to edit, is very concerning and makes me question your fitness for the role. Instead of trying to argue with everyone here, maybe consider we're making a valid argument, and it is you that has created a false idea in your mind of what is proposed here.

      I also find it appalling that you think I'm supporting a block because I'm somehow upset that an article I nominated for deletion was recreated, rather than because this editor has broken policy in numerous ways. I suppose we can add WP:AGF to the list of things you don't understand. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 23:07, 21 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]
• Support. I beg @Uncle G:'s pardon but I have to disagree. These articles give the appearance of being sourced, but they aren't. Take EMD SD45T-2R, now at AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/EMD SD45T-2R. Pre-deletion version: [8]. Three books, including Jeff Wilson's 2017 Guide to North American Diesel Locomotives, which is a recent source from a reputable publisher. Cites an article in Diesel Era that appears to focus on the base model (EMD SD45T-2) and its derivatives. The first warning sign is that the article says nothing about how this rebuild differs from the base model, and I mean nothing. The second warning sign is that the linked railfan page mentions three of the sources: both Shine books, and the Diesel Era article. Those sources are also used on the EMD SD45T-2 article, as is Wilson. Wilson says nothing about the rebuilds except that some of them exist. The Diesel Era article devotes a page to the rebuilds, and it makes it clear that the changes were external and cosmetic. Not nearly enough difference to justify a separate article. It's clear that the IP editor doesn't have access to any of these references. I don't have access to the Shine books but I can't accept them on faith as sources without someone else endorsing their quality and what's in them. Are some of the topics notable? Probably. Southern Pacific Class P-8 (AfD discussion), in particular, is, but may need to be written by someone else. Mackensen (talk) 23:40, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • And yet the exact page numbers cited in Southern Pacific Class P-8 (AfD discussion) turned out to be right when I pulled them up and checked them. Maybe the railfan magazine is doing the heavy lifting with reading the sources. But neither of the magazine articles hyperlinked from Southern Pacific Class P-8 actually have any mentions of books at all. Uncle G (talk) 10:17, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    The main thread of my comment has to do with the EMD SD45T-2R. I haven't done a detailed analysis of the sources for the Southern Pacific Class P-8. Inasmuch as the sources were obviously copied from Southern Pacific 2467 or Southern Pacific 2472, I hope that they're accurate. Mackensen (talk) 12:12, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• support per nom--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:04, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Birotron (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I've previously worked on this article, and wanted to revisit today, only to be dismayed that a bunch of IPs (probably the same person) are exhibiting severe WP:OWNership issues on it, reverting just about any improvement I or any other editor made. I also discovered that what the IPs want to revert to appears to be a copyvio, so I've taken the rather drastic decision to delete the entire article per WP:G12 and re-appropriate the title as a redirect (as I believe there are enough reliable sources to mention this instrument somewhere on Wikipedia).

Admins can see the deleted history of the article here. In particular, as well as plenty of edit summaries that are basically "stop editing my article", this one (again, admins only, sorry) appears to be outing an editor. And this is a flat out WP:BLP violation.

I'm conceding the fact I might be wrong about the copyvio (it's possible it's actually a reverse copyvio), in which case I'll apologise and reverse the deletion. However, in any case, I think this is worth having a discussion about. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:41, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

After looking at the history of the article I think I need mind bleach. The user in the second diff is open about his real name, so that's not an issue, but the amount of belligerent ownership is staggering. There's nothing there which would be of much use for a trying to recreate it, a blank page is it anything far more helpful, so even if it doesn't meet any particular policy who cares? The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 17:15, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Holy completely unsourced collection of fancruft, Batman! Ironically, it almost certainly is notable, but looking at the history I'd suggest that any article that makes it into mainspace be semi-protected ... for ever. Black Kite (talk) 18:36, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have rewritten the article using some of the book sources I have. In doing so, I spotted an interview with someone who I'm certain is the cause of the unreferenced fancruft that was there. Without wishing to fall foul of the outing policy myself, they self-describe as an expert on the Birotron, owning one of the few models that were actually made, and self-identify as being from the same geographic area as where their IPs locate to. I'm beginning to think this is simply a subject expert who's just never been advised on what Wikipedia policy actually is. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:03, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't checked for copyright violations, but the rewrite from the ground up seems fair, although there are a few early revisions from 2004–2007 that were untainted by any of this that it seems a shame to lose. There are some pointers to music magazines in the history, although with bare URLs that have likely link-rotted by now. There does seem to be some coverage of this in 20th century music magazines.

If you want crazy edit histories, though, the edit history of Talk:Marvin Winans takes some beating.

Uncle G (talk) 19:02, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That... just wow. What the hell? Who does that? The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 20:02, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Eh, what flavors of crazy haven't we seen on Wikipedia at one point or another? Ravenswing 23:18, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've restored the early history that is known to be copyvio free. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:18, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The previously mentioned IP was back yesterday trying to revert to the previously deleted version. Discospinster reverted them twice and left them a warning not to add copyvios. I've also had a word. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:11, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm reasonably sure this was reverse infringement (or, at best, not copied from the site mentioned in the G12 summary - I haven't looked for this content elsewhere). The earliest wayback archive of the page is from October last year, and our version of what's there was built up piecemeal over many edits a long time ago (representative example). —Cryptic 09:24, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm really confused. Why is this not at DRV? Are we reviewing deletion decisions here now? Is there anything AN/I isn't for?—S Marshall T/C 00:41, 22 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 [9]? Deleting a bunch of infobox parameters claiming COI [10]? How on earth was this rewrite remoteley acceptable [11]? 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]

I'm now coming round to the idea that Balancingakt is simply a troll, and having had their appeal against the short block from ANI declined twice, have probably decided that the game's up, they can't needle Earl Andrew anymore, and have probably abandoned the account and have got another one to troll with instead. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:21, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

While this is possible, they have gone for long periods without editing before, so I'm not holding out hope quite just yet.-- Earl Andrew - talk 14:22, 21 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.[12] 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]

  I'd argue that chronically misusing edit summaries to make a WP:POINT is disruptive enough to earn a block. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 15:00, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I'd say you'd still have to issue a warning first, and not one that is followed by a block in ten minutes. If this were a named user we would not be so eager to block, I don't think. It'd take a short discussion here at least before that block would be handed out. --Licks-rocks (talk) 09:35, 22 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 [13], [14] and [15]. 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]

I'd like to comment that Sol505000 has never raised any question about the denti-alveolar/alveolar difference until the day he did his last revert. Previously, I had undid Nardog's revert twice because he didn't read the discussion at all - had he read it I would never undid his edits, but that past problem had been resolved before Sol505000's coming. Nardog did have some problem with the source of most added Chinese examples that is not inline, but that's a Wikipedia template technical problem, which I compromised by adding inline citations in a <!-- --> way. As I was adding inline citation and double checking reliability of every example, Sol505000 came and revert my edit in the name of "full rv edit warrior", forcing me to do my last corrections with an undid function and immediately did a self-revert. Since Sol505090's questioning of the phonemic independence of "acoustically rhotic" sound (a convenient ad hoc name I used in analogy of rhotic vowel which Sol505000 strongly disliked for being "phonetic"), I have never done any insertion of "rhotic alveolar" in the article, nor did I list the source to actively put that idea in the talk page (because I wanted to double-check some sources, etc. before preparing a persuative point with not just academic primary sources but also secondary ones that Sol505000 has to accept). It would take another week to see if everyone accepts that point for me to add it to the article. So there's no need for semi-protection if issues listed in the discussion page are concerned, however, I am going to push the inclusion of those examples unless anyone actively questions the citations supporting their inclusion (Nardog did, for lack of inline citation, I added inline ones and he was okay with that, case closed), which is not the case. I don't think that has any violation against any Wikipedia policy (except for being verbose^[1]) because you can't say "No you cannot add that and I'm not going to tell you why you just can't". When Sol505000 did the last revert due to "denti-alveolar approximant",^[2] not only did he report that as "reinserting OR" albeit nobody had ever questioned that before in previous discussion, but he also reverted the inclusion of those examples with which he appeared to have no problem (to simply remove denti-alveolar from my edit, instead of a full revert, was easy). To me that's somewhat disruptive. --146.96.25.55 (talk) 23:43, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would like some experts in Wikipedia:WikiProject Linguistics to resolute the dispute. Sol505000 doesn't seem to be familiar with Sino-Loloish phonology. I would hope a linguist who speak Danish/Icelandic/Mandarin/Dahalo to comment there. Both Sol505000 and Nardog have a false claim that the English /ɹ/ could never be "alveolar" in the way that File:Alveolar approximant.ogg was articulated. Such claim is in contrary with most English phonology descriptions (most reliable sources) and in contrary with most Wikipedia articles as well. There is an elephant in the room, and it seems most linguists in the Danish/Icelandic/Mandarin/Dahalo circle are aware of it but nobody wants to touch it. If a linguist inside the circle can join the discussion I believe it will be solved well. 146.96.25.55 (talk) 01:23, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This page is not for resolving the editing disagreement. It's about the fact you kept forcing the content into the article against consensus. Just take it to the Talk page, follow dispute resolution steps, and accept the outcome. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 15:03, 21 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]

@Femke: I don't force higher criteria, but what is the point to stick with GA criteria if you can easily make it above without additional effort? Ultimately we agreed, and the article was improved. I know GA criteria are lower than FA criteria and I not demand it. Eurohunter (talk) 18:01, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Let's take a specific example, the review of "the heart wants what it wants". You did ask for links in citations to other WP articles, and for archives to be added. This is (boring?) work not required by the GA criteria. This can put people off nominating.

In the future, if you want to mention "extras", please let the nominator know it's optional, and not required for the review to pass. Can you confirm you understand these are optional and should not hold up a review? —Femke 🐦 (talk) 18:12, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Femke: It's actually good idea. Eurohunter (talk) 18:24, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to be a pain here, but what does "it" refer to? Mentioning what is optional? Or requiring archives and links? Can you explain in your own words what you should not demand in a GA review? —Femke 🐦 (talk) 19:12, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Femke: No problem. "please let the nominator know it's optional" - it's good idea and article could pass without perform these tasks. Is this answer satisfying? Eurohunter (talk) 20:36, 23 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]

• While the word "ban" sounds a little strong, let's be clear - the GA process is not part of the core, basic permissions of being a Wikipedia editor. And bad reviews are worse than no reviews, so there need to be some way to tell people doing bad reviews to stop. I haven't surveyed all of Eurohunter's work, so I hope I was just unlucky, but taking a look at some of these examples, these are not good reviews. With comments like "There is error in reference 3 and 31", it's nitpicking citation nonsense that isn't important and might not even be an accurate nitpick anyway ( whether to use "work" or "website" as the parameter type stuff - I'm pretty sure it all goes to the same variable at the end of the day for output). I don't doubt that Eurohunter is engaging with good faith here, but at some point, if an editor is doing something in good faith but poorly, they need to be told to improve or stop. Eurohunter, if you want to cleanup citation stuff for articles up for GA, that's fantastic, but just go do it then as a normal editor. That isn't really the core purpose of a GA review. And if you can't get to a review in time, that's fine, but don't say "someone else can continue these reviews" and make it other people's problem. Proactively withdraw and procedurally end the review yourself, maybe with an apology for wasting the nominator's time. This is something you can do directly. SnowFire (talk) 00:23, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @SnowFire: I could try to finish reviews but at this poin't I may retire them without problem. Eurohunter (talk) 20:36, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• I would agree with JPxG and Uncle G (as I usually do) if this were just about tardiness. But these are really bad GA reviews. Looking at Talk:Kwyet Kinks/GA1, we start off with an argument about whether to call the band, which is from England, an "English band". Eurohunter spent three months, on and off, pushing their personal stylistic opinion that "British" is the correct term. The issue isn't just that they called this out, but how confident they were in their objective correctness. (Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Biography § cite note-1, while about bios, can be generalized as the correct answer here: "it depends".) Confident incorrectness becomes a recurring theme in this GA review, because next up we have a nine-comment back-and-forth over whether it's correct to summarize a review in the present tense. It is, and I would expect anyone who writes English at a professional level to know this. (I was taught this in 8th grade when learning to write essays.) I gather that English may not be Eurohunter's first language, which is all well and good, but I don't know, I'm reasonably fluent in French, and I can't imagine ever going over to frwiki and asserting with such certainty that a particular stylistic matter is incorrect.
  Talk:Chuck Person's Eccojams Vol. 1/GA1 is similarly unpleasant to read. We have Lazman321's repeated attempts to get a clear answer as to what it is Eurohunter wants him to say about the next and previous album. The underlying point there is reasonable if a bit pedantic—I'd say it's right on the line of what I wrote WP:Content that could reasonably be challenged to discuss—but the communication issues displayed are, like everything else, unfair to the nominator. (This was also an issue with Kwyet Kinks—resolved faster, but still a communication problem.) There's then a lengthy kerfluffle about the verifiability of [16], which should have been resolved when Lazman said The two sources used next to reference 28 confirm its legitimacy, but was prolonged, to a hair-pulling degree, by Eurohunter's insistence that Lazman convey this the exact way Eurohunter wanted, for no reason beyond personal preference.
  That's just 2 GA reviews. I'm not saying Eurohunter necessarily needs to be TBANned, but the apology above for tardiness falls far short. Eurohunter needs to stop demanding that other editors meet their personal stylistic preferences at GAN, needs to work on communicating their concerns clearly and in plain English, and needs to listen to GA nominators' explanation of their decisions, especially when those explanations may come from a place of greater familiarity either with the norms of the topic area or with professional-caliber English writing. If Eurohunter can commit to all of that, then I think we can tentatively be done here. If they cannot, this should probably be a TBAN. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|she) 01:25, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @Tamzin: I think you are right but it isn't 100% of what follows from what. TBC Eurohunter (talk) 20:38, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I've had issues more related to general communication with Eurohunter too. I've always assumed it's a combination of a language barrier and a general sense of combativeness? I've fielded questions at WP:ALBUMS/WP:SONGS for many years, but over time I've slowed down on fielding his questions. They always start off as open ended questions, but then it always feels like he's badgering you because he didn't like your answer. Or they just get tense for no reason. I'm trying to dig up some examples from over the years. Conversations like this conversation and this conversation come to mind. I don't really know if anything is actionable here, I'm just saying...I can certainly understand the sense of frustration editor's feel with their interactions with him at least. Sergecross73 msg me 02:02, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @Sergecross73: I often ask questions that no one asked. These are few examples of open questions without simple or exact answer and yes, I often ask additional questions. I don't know how it could be a problam. In the second case there was problem with communication but I tried to explain it in best way I could and I had hope it was clear enough. I tried but ultimatelly I'm not satisfied how ddiscussion went. We wspent more time asking was is the issue than to slove the issue. Eurohunter (talk) 20:36, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Eurohunter claimed "I had hope to finish them later but it turned out to be different." One might think that they could reply to six requests to engage on their talk page, or to two pings in a discussion they falsely claimed no one mentioned them in, or to several pings in the GA reviews themselves, across a span of several months.
  Let's be honest here: whether they want to admit to it or not, they took on many reviews in the backlog drive because they wanted the barnstars; they found out rather quickly that they had bitten off more than they could chew, and instead of asking for help/trying to work through the consequences of their own actions, they decided that the best course of action was to forget about the whole matter, childishly ignore anyone who pinged them about it, and equally childishly whine that "It sounds like you can't do mistake, never" when people grow tired of their selective hearing.
  My feeling is that Eurohunter doesn't much like the GA process anymore, and that a TBAN won't achieve much. I would, however, support a formal warning over WP's civility policy ("Editors are expected to be reasonably cooperative, to refrain from making personal attacks, to work within the scope of policies, and to be responsive to good-faith questions"). ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:01, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • @AirshipJungleman29: I think saying "falsely claimed" is too much. Sometimes I have 30-50 notification a day and 10 notifications "on hold" and suprisingly or not other things in life. It's eazy to say if you look outside. But even if you look at page Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations#Abandoned reviews there is no single ping for me - and I reffered to this case. "because they wanted the barnstars", "instead of asking for help/trying to work through the consequences of their own actions, they decided that the best course of action was to forget about the whole matter", "childishly ignore anyone who pinged them about it" - these parts are your own narration. I don't see the point in saying this. I don't think that is needed. I can say that I just took many GA reviews then things started to slither around with reviews or there was no action from nominators side, then I burn out and had no time and no power to return to them so I kept postponing it until later and later and we end up in this discussion which I didn't expect. At this point I can retire without question. Eurohunter (talk) 20:36, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• This user has done some good work in similar processes, like the FL List of songs recorded by Basshunter for example. Perhaps, they could be let go with a strong warning that this behavior should not be repeated. The particular reviews in question should be assigned to someone else. If they end up in a similar pickle again in the future, then there would be a stronger justification for a TBAN.--NØ 21:18, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • @MaranoFan: I think that this behavior should not be repeated is pretty obvious. Eurohunter (talk) 20:45, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Summary: I see it may became very long discussion, we can go into many questions and answers. I always want to sort every and half thing out in detailed way. It depends on compexity of thread but people often summarzise threads while they need to be addressed separately so at this point in some cases I would need to analyze and answer for every sentence separatelly. I will ask simply how to solve this problem? What should I do? Eurohunter (talk) 20:56, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Conclusion: I started GA reviews then things started to slither around with reviews or there was no action from nominators side. There was more reviews than just these discussed above. Then I burn out and had no time and no power to return to them so I kept postponing it until later and later and we end up in this discussion which I didn't expect. At this point I can retire without question. Eurohunter (talk) 20:59, 23 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]

@Cullen328, This would be great, if they truly were independent non-biased editors. It seems a rapidfire of misconceptions and ill-reached conclusions are part of what led to many of you believing this is an unreliable source. SurferSquall (talk) 02:43, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

SurferSquall, consensus is clearly and unequivocally against you on this matter, and consensus is the foundation of this project. I spoke up in your defense three days ago, but if you show disregard and contempt for consensus in other places, then there will be significant consequences. I highly recommend that you drop this subject. Cullen328 (talk) 03:01, 22 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]

See the fifty million other discussions that have already taken place on this. It’s been discussed, and I’ve refuted the majority of it. SurferSquall (talk) 02:43, 22 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]

My talk page is of little importance here, though, it’s the ability to use it as a citation on articles without it being removed that’s a problem. SurferSquall (talk) 02:44, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well, SurferSquall, that's something you'll have to live with. It is not accepted, and for now that's the end of it. You can claim you refuted all the counter arguments, but you're alone in that opinion. If you want to continue arguing on your own talk page for its reliability, that's fine, but if you start pinging other editors to join you in that mess, that's step one towards a block, another block, for disruption, and it may be the only step necessary. User:ZLEA, you will need to drop it too. Look away from that talk page. Drmies (talk) 02:50, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Except it isn’t opinion, it’s fact. Give me a single argument against it being used as a source, and I’ll refute it for you! You ignoring my statements does not amount yo my incompetence in any way. If you’re admitting that you haven’t even read what I’ve said, well, go away then, you have nothing important to add. SurferSquall (talk) 02:53, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I did jump the gun by bringing the up behavior here a bit early. That said, I would encourage SurferSquall to bring Planespotters.net to WP:RSN. The sooner we can put all this behind us, the better. - ZLEA _T\^C 03:34, 22 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]

  While it is uncommon, it is indeed possible for the majority to be incorrect on an issue. All of the points about it being an unreliable source can and have been refuted, either by myself or other editors (in earlier discussions). You are calling me incompetent without first inspecting what the issue even arose from. SurferSquall (talk) 02:47, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Even if the majority is wrong, on Wikipedia you still have to respect that consensus rules the project. All of us have ended up on the losing side of an argument at some point, and we were all fully convinced we were the one who was correct. Consider this a test of your ability to peacefully work with others - by dropping this issue and moving on to some other way to help the encyclopedia along. MrOllie (talk) 03:23, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  That would be easy to do if this was a standard issue- however Planespotters is one of the most cited sources on Wikipedia. SurferSquall (talk) 19:01, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Is this a joke? It's cited in well fewer than 2000 articles -- that's a tiny number. There is nothing about this that is not "standard issue" except for your refusal to drop the issue. --JBL (talk) 20:15, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I should’ve specified the Aviation category. Thus it is indeed one of the most common citations. SurferSquall (talk) 01:28, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

User seemingly gamed the system to obtain extended confirmed status. Endless effortless sandbox edits. I can mention the numbers, but WP:BEANS and all. User came to my attention because they posted on my talk page, an act they probably regret now. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 06:06, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, please forgive me, I really want to make changes to this Wikipedia. LionelCristiano (talk) 06:11, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I promise to be very careful from now on. LionelCristiano (talk) 06:12, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't take away my rights. LionelCristiano (talk) 06:13, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pls forgive me. LionelCristiano (talk) 06:16, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've yanked extended-confirmed; those edits weren't even pretending to legitimacy. —Cryptic 06:21, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pls give me a chance I won't do anything like this again. LionelCristiano (talk) 06:23, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

How can I get it again please help. LionelCristiano (talk) 06:24, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Will I be able to get it back again? :( LionelCristiano (talk) 06:28, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ask at WP:Requests for permissions after you've made another 500 productive, substantive edits, and be happy you escaped a block. Editing your sandbox or changing the dates in Turkey so they contradict their cited source (or saying essentially the same thing seven times in a row here!) aren't it. —Cryptic 06:34, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Are all my changes reset now ? Do I need to start over ? Isn't it possible for the last 260 edits I made to be considered invalid ? LionelCristiano (talk) 06:38, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is not fair. LionelCristiano (talk) 06:39, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Everyone deserves a 2nd chance. LionelCristiano (talk) 06:40, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And you will likely have the opportunity for a second chance; it will simply require a lot of productive editing. Cryptic let you know where you can ask for permission after doing so. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 07:04, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's very difficult to make 500 changes from scratch. I wish my last 260 changes were canceled. LionelCristiano (talk) 07:08, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

LionelCristiano, you seem to have the wrong idea about what has been done. You can still edit the vast majority of our articles. Extended confirmed status is only needed in a very few extremely contentious areas. Phil Bridger (talk) 07:12, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Now do I have to make 500 changes from scratch for this ? LionelCristiano (talk) 07:16, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

┌───────────────────────────┘
LionelCristiano, if you ask once more, you'll have to make 1000 changes from scratch. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 07:24, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm new here so I don't know, sorry. LionelCristiano (talk) 07:29, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You're fine, man. We've all done some stupid stuff as newcomers. Just read up on some important policies, don't do this kind of thing in the future, and you'll be fine. I appreciate you want to help Wikipedia, it's a nice thing to do. Dialmayo (talk) (Contribs) she/her 12:06, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

LionelCristiano, almost anything you need ECP to do directly, you can still request (usually by making an edit request): the point of that is that another editor gets to see your request and determine if it is appropriate. Why does that not satisfy you? ColinFine (talk) 15:32, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Being new is exactly the point. The reason for the 500-edit rule isn't to be mean to newcomers. It's to ensure that new editors have the experience to do certain tasks properly before gaining the permissions to do so. This is not a race, and we don't hand out prizes for being the first to cross an imaginary finish line. Ravenswing 17:43, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a race, and we don't hand out prizes for being the first to cross an imaginary finish line., couldn't have said it better myself. Babysharkboss2 was here!! (Shine on you) (Crazy Diamond) 17:49, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

LionelCristiano, if you ask once more, you'll have to make 1000 changes from scratch You can do that? damn. Babysharkboss2 was here!! (Shoot to thrill) (Play to Kill) 13:55, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Lionel - you just right now reverted an appropriate deletion of tagged, non-RS supported text. Gave no edit summary. Restored it without RS refs, in spite of wp:burden. As pointed out here[39]. Which you then deleted (fine in itself) - showing you read it - but you didn't fix the problem you created as requested and self-revert. All of this brings into question your assertions that you are a well meaning, non-gaming, "I promise to be really careful," simply well-intentioned newbie. This is not good editing. What are you doing?2603:7000:2101:AA00:7149:2D24:20FA:AD16 (talk) 04:26, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  👍🏿 LionelCristiano (talk) 06:14, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Moved from WP:AIV

 – ToBeFree (talk) 08:39, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Zenomonoz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Sorry for my poor English! I told the user a lot of times to keep off of my talkingpage. He edits again and again. I am really helpless with him and the conflict is not tiny. Zenomonoz had insulted me in the deWP, I reported this to the administrators, who yesterday banned him from the deWP infinit. After this he made a deletion request for one of the articles I contributed for the enWP. After that he now is about to delete a lot in other articles I contributed. For my opinion it is nothing than revenge what is the motive. That he sometimes is full of hatred is to be seen on an old edit, he deleted himself two minutes later. Because of him I cleared my user- and talkpage and will never have any contribution in the enWP. For my opinion his repeated edits on my talkpage are a reason to ask admins for help as for me it is a kind of vandalism. I am really scared about what happened since yesterday in deWP. If I am wrong here, I beg you pardon, I am at the age between 70 and 80, and not used to the rules in enWP. It is the first time I ask for administrator intervention. Andrea014 (talk) 07:05, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  This is an inappropriate report. I have not vandalised anything (edit: Andrea014 initially posted this on a vandalism noticeboard, so the response refers to vandalism). You appear to misunderstand guidelines.

  • You are referring to off-topic 6 year old mistakes (socking, rude comment) which I did when I was a teenager and was unblocked for after I apologised and worked hard to repair via the WP:STANDARDOFFER.
  • You are incorrectly assuming you WP:OWN articles, and complaining because I edited "your" articles: here, here, here, here
  • Here is the alleged vandalism:
    • I have added citation needed templates to your uncited work: here, here, here.
    • I have nominated one of your promotional articles for deletion at AFD after it was deleted on German Wikipedia as it lacks notability and secondary source coverage. That is not vandalism.
    • The edit history of the pages that you claim I am vandalising are here: here, here and here. None of the edits constitute vandalism.
    • On enWP, all claims must be verified through secondary independent sources per WP:VER.
  • WP:FOLLOWING states Correct use of an editor's history includes (but is not limited to) fixing unambiguous errors or violations of Wikipedia policy, or correcting related problems on multiple articles. My edits are simply improving some of the articles you have contributed to. I checked your work after seeing the poor quality of the article I nominated for AFD.
  • Note to the reviewing admin: Andrea014 also appears to be WP:CANVASSING. On deWP she said I was ruining her articles on English Wikipedia (written in Deutsch), which caused a German editor to come over and incorrectly revert me for removing one of her uncited paragraphs.
  • Also, regarding my block on German Wiki: I accidentally attributed a homophobic comment as originating from Andrea014, but it actually was left by another user. I struck this comment immediately when I realised the mistake, but I was blocked for the misattribution anyway. German WP has its own standards, thats fine. This occurred after Andrea spent days defending a misleading claim that 50% of pedophiles are homosexual (which is unsupported by research – 11:1 is 8%) but it's irrelevant here. Zenomonoz (talk) 08:12, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    What you write about deWP is wrong! As everybody can see who is able to read german. Andrea014 (talk) 08:26, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Just clarifying? You deleted my comment! Here it is:

    I write on my German takpage just for the records, as a case like this I had never before in my 9 years of writing in Wikipedia. The conflict with you startet on 1. November and ended with your block in deWP. Ended? No! Now you continue in enWP. What other people do is not my responsibility! Your kind of interacting is too aggressive and your editing on my talkpage in enWP is harassment, as I told you to keep off. Andrea014 (talk) 08:02, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Andrea, there was not a "conflict" since the 1 of Nov. There was a large discussion (link) involving another user about content on a page. That is normal, and it's also on a different Wiki. Zenomonoz (talk) 08:45, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    This discussion was not "normal"! Andrea014 (talk) 09:09, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    6 years ago you have been teenager? So you are maximum 24 years old. This is fine, but in German WP you behaved as you could be a man with expertise and lifeexperiance. I told you there about my experiance but you had nothing else to do as to ridicule me. Andrea014 (talk) 08:17, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  It seems Andrea014 may have a WP:COI. She uploaded a number of photos that were taken by Diana Ivanova as the author: [40] [41] [42]. Might be why she thinks it's a problem I adjusted the Diana Ivanova article by adding "citation needed" tags. Zenomonoz (talk) 08:43, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Zenomonoz, would you mind voluntarily behaving in the way an interaction ban might else have to work? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 09:03, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  ToBeFree Yes. I was about to suggest something like that. Do I need to also voluntarily refrain from touching the list of articles that Andrea created? Or just no interactions as outlined in the interaction ban page? (e.g. talk page, edit undos, etc). I am happy to voluntarily enact an interaction ban for the sake of resolving this quickly. Cheers. Zenomonoz (talk) 09:08, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  The best would be not touching my (only) 6 articles. For these you are not neutral!

  And that I should have an COI by uploading photos is funny! I asked a lot of people for giving fotos. But as I said in deWP you should have one it is important for you to give back. This - but only this - is no problem for me. Andrea014 (talk) 09:23, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I asked ToBeFree because interaction ban states "the interaction-banned users are generally allowed to edit the same pages or discussions so long as they avoid each other, they are not allowed to interact with each other". Content that can't be verified in a secondary source can be removed or tagged with ^{[citation needed]}, which is what I did. But let's wait and see what ToBeFree decides. Cheers. Zenomonoz (talk) 09:34, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  This is, what you did? This tells another story! Andrea014 (talk) 09:39, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I can't make an authoritative decision in this regard; bans are imposed by community consensus. My idea does include not editing the few English articles Andrea014 has created or substantively edited, as the main problem currently appears to be you following her around while blocked on a different wiki for reasons related to your interactions with the same person. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 09:51, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Understood. (edit: striking as I misread ToBeFree, I will volunteer to not edit Andrea's articles. See my comment below) It's probably easier if I voluntarily stick to the standard interaction ban rules, given the edits of the articles themselves were not ban worthy. I'm just leave the articles she created alone for a while, I'll probably lose interest. Not great that she seems to have suggested that an unrelated user on German wiki should weigh in on this ANI [43], which the user rebuffed [44], but my translation is a bit rough. It may cool things down if you are able to clarify to Andrea what the voluntary interaction ban means, and that my edits on the articles themselves were about verifiability (perhaps this will be much clearer in German)? Thanks, this is a good resolution. Zenomonoz (talk) 10:08, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  For a while? You never will be neutral for these 6 articles. Andrea014 (talk) 10:15, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  My bad, ToBeFree, I misunderstood your comment so ignore my above response. I thought you meant it did not include not editing the articles, but you actually wrote: ”My idea DOES include not editing the few English articles”. Easy to misread. I can agree to this. I will not edit the articles so the ANI can be resolved. Cheers. Zenomonoz (talk) 13:50, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  have nominated one of your promotional articles for deletion at AFD after it was deleted on German Wikipedia as it lacks notability and secondary source coverage. That is not vandalism. sounds to me like Conflict-of-Intrest/promo editing. Babysharkboss2 was here!! (Shoot to thrill) (Play to Kill) 13:58, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  No, that characterization is strange. The most relevant policy seems to be the one against harassment. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:13, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]