None Business123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): [7] legal threat, WP:NOTHERE Andre🚐 04:25, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Should probably be blocked for illiteracy too... AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:27, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

172.243.89.92 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) as well, [8] Andre🚐 04:30, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

Note that they also made an edit via this IP: 172.243.89.92. ––FormalDude talk 04:30, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

• Blocked – Muboshgu (talk) 04:49, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[9]

Skippo10 (talk · contribs) has a long history of disruptive and poor editing, including adding unsourced content to BLPs, and has been blocked twice before (2007 for 3RR, 2018 for removing AFD tags from articles). They continue to add unsourced content to BLPs and me and another admin (@ChrisTheDude:) have recently tried to explain to him about repeated OVERLINK violations. I fear this editor lacks the competence to edit. GiantSnowman 15:40, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

I will say that sports articles in general are huge violators of WP:OVERLINK the way they're structured and generally edited. Especially sports teams. Canterbury Tail talk 17:11, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

I have been editing for a number of years, and feel on the whole I do things pretty well, I believe this is a personal attack from GiantSnowman on me, I'm not sure why, every so often I make the occasional mistake, and feel a bit of guidance sometimes would be enough, but it appears that GiantSnowman is following my every move, and waiting to find any opportunity to get me blocked from editing and I feel ultimately I am being bullied by this user. Skippo10 (talk) 20:49, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

@Skippo10 do you see how some of your responses (e.g. I don't know what you are talking about. [10], thanks for trying to get me blocked...really nice of you to essentially find ways to bully people who work hard editing and bringing articles up to date, but some admins like to flex their muscles don't they [11]) do not endear you to uninvolved users who view these disputes? — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 20:58, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Your talk page - going back 16 years - is absolutely littered with warnings and comments from multiple other users regarding your poor editing - violation of MOS (mainly OVERLINK), not using edit summaries, adding POV, poor page moves, edit warring, adding unsourced content to BLPs - the list goes on. It is not the "occasional mistake", it is a clear lack of competence. I am not trying to get you blocked or bully you, I am trying to stop your ongoing disruption. Your attitude here says everything we need to know. GiantSnowman 21:00, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Contrary to the above, I don't feel Skippo "does things pretty well". They have a massive problem with WP:OR; they spent the summer updating club articles with lists of "unregistered" players (see e.g. this or this), which were completely unsourced (and to my knowledge, unverifiable). They did something similar in 2020 too when the listed players as 'out of contract' despite this not being verifiable. Number 57 21:21, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

I feel I learnt from that terrible mistake, very difficult at the level of football I update to get everything right, anyway if you lot want me blocked I guess its going to happen, its a shame you admins can't offer support to us non admins really instead of ganging up and going through the archives to prove your points. Skippo10 (talk) 21:25, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

If you learnt from it, why did you do pretty much the same thing (on at least a dozen articles) two years later??? And I have offered advice on a few occasions. The problem is that in most cases you react to anyone disagreeing with you by claiming you're being bullied (I see at least three claims of being bullied on your talkpage). Number 57 21:32, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

I don't understand how editing and generally adding links to what I do is an ongoing disruption. I feel it is bullying, I am not going to cower down in the corner because the admins are ganging up on me. Skippo10 (talk) 21:21, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

These essays may be of use to you: WP:1AM, WP:TINC — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 21:33, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Skippo10's talk page shows years of editors trying to get them to understand the problems with some of their edits, and a lack of receptiveness or willingness to learn on Skippo's part. Refusal to improve or change their editing practices based on feedback indicates a lack of competence, particularly for an editor with Skippo's longevity on the project. Schazjmd (talk) 21:33, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Refusal to improve or change their editing practices based on feedback indicates a lack of competence. Sadly, I am forced to agree. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 21:34, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Proposal: Indefinitely block Skippo10 because competence is required[edit]

Skippo10 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

See above thread. This user's talk page depicts years of other editors attempting to help them understand the rules around here. Plus 2x temporary blocks for failure to actually correct that behavior. And all of that advice is met with empty pleas, WP:IDHT, or promises to improve, without evidence of actual improvement. Add to this the user's continual appeal that, in essence, all admins are aligned against me. [12] [13] This wiki is not a no-holds-barred cage match. It is a project which requires competence and careful attention to the rules. For this reason, we should indefinitely block Skippo10 via community consensus, as a preventative action to inhibit future disruption. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 21:37, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

I'll save you the time, I have retired on Wikipedia, I'll delete the app and move on to different pastures, I don't need this shit. Skippo10 (talk) 21:48, 22 August 2022 (UTC) (now retired)

I'm afraid retiring in the middle of an ANI thread is often seen as an attempt to avoid scrutiny. How do we know you won't quietly un-retire later on when the heat is off? Pawnkingthree (talk) 23:06, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Support - This is extreme levels of IDHT and CIR. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:01, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Support A scroll through the talk indicates 15 years of editors trying to collaborate, notify, and improve, and there has been none. Probably should have been blocked after this, TBH FrederalBacon (talk) 07:29, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

Support Per link above and users comments here. Although- points for the irony of them calling users trying to warn them keyboard warriors when they are infact warrioring from their keyboard.... Points lost for them failing to realize the irony on their own. Nightenbelle (talk) 17:05, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

Support Years upon years of disruption without improvement despite other editors trying to help, yea at some point you have had enough chances. --TylerBurden (talk) 13:43, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

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

the following user did many disruptive editings to National Resistance Front of Afghanistan's page without engaging with other editors such as removing the official website of NRF [14] with no sourced information just a WP:POV editing and instead the official website of NRF replacing a fraud fundraising scamming website that even not mention at any sources[15]. I did leave a warning on his talk page to stop vandalism and edit war but looks like he doesn't care about Wikipedia community guidelines and the kept reverting and removing or replacing the official website, and ignoring all reliable sources and three-revert rule, I request to block this user from editing to learn something about policies - — Preceding unsigned comment added by IranicaEditor (talk • contribs) 07:02, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

As a note to admins, the reporter is doing the exact same edits as a previously banned account ([16]), and even is making “I will block you” threats to the exact same user (Dan Wang). Generic CoI that learns a few terms in adminspace. Juxlos (talk) 07:23, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

• without engaging with other editors - I see exactly one of you two on the article's talk page & asking the other (by edit summary) to discuss there, and it ain't you. (The only editor to express any disagreement there with the edits in question is the indef'd account Juxlos mentions in the comment above mine) So if there's anyone here failing to engage, it's you. You also failed to notify Dan Wang, as you're required to. Did it for you. AddWittyNameHere 07:30, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

  @Juxlos is a proxy or supporter of this violated user Dan Wang[17] here I explained the whole subject of the official website with sources, but after ignoring all @Juxlos threated me to blocking, the user is his abusing power on me, instead of see the truth into the reliable sources and explaination. Is that WP:POV of powerful editors have priority rather than reliable sources? @AddWittyNameHere IranicaEditor (talk) 07:38, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

  For what it’s worth, I had let the edit you wanted to put in pass, and then you acted sufficiently like a sockpuppet for me to become unconfident that you (or for that matter the organization you obviously are affiliated with) are doing it in good faith at all. Congratulations. Juxlos (talk) 07:41, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

  moving topic to another discussing won't hide your power abusing, adding an official website to related article is what wrong?, in on your fact, adding https://www.nrfafg.org (fraud fundraising scamming website) is right and the official website NRF https://www.nationalresistance.org (no fundraising but a latest updates about NRF) is wrong, correct?

  so easily everyone can understand your main purposes IranicaEditor (talk) 07:55, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

  As amusing as watching someone clearly without actual understanding of Wikipedia try to bureaucrat their way into COI, this is getting old. For the admins, I don’t think this user has a sufficient command of English (or good faith) to actually engage in talk page discussion beyond name-calling. Juxlos (talk) 08:01, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

  Let the admins investigate on this matter, I have no further talks with you and with your sockpuppet users. The main subject is about abusing power, sockpuppet and violating guideline just for replacing the official website of NRF[18] into a fraud fundraising website[19] IranicaEditor (talk) 08:10, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

• WP:BOOMERANG... IranicaEditor appears to be a sockpuppet, or a meatpuppet. --Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 09:03, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

  maybe I appear as an amateur user but it won’t be sockpuppet, you check and see my all contributions, let’s come up to the point and see the truth — Preceding unsigned comment added by IranicaEditor (talk • contribs) 09:11, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

I checked your contributions, and found this. Brunton (talk) 09:41, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

all I want to say on this issue is about the scam and legit website of NRF article, wikipedia should be a better place on internet for legitimate information, do you consider wrong information within an article of wikipedia? on that email I received [20] I will provide the copy if you required, the whole email explained about the legit website of NRF that all sources mentioned and confirmed. after I manually reviewed sources tuen I compromised to contribute the right or real website of the following article. so what is wrong if consider the real website of NRF on article? IranicaEditor (talk) 11:18, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

• IranicaEditor indef blocked for a history of disruptive editing, meatpuppetry, possible IP socking, and NPOV issues. Generally, WP:NOTHERE. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:27, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

• China Global Television Network (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• CGTN (TV channel) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Sunderland Renaissance (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Antonian Sapphire (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (acknowledged secondary account of Sunderland Renaissance)

I cannot show publicly because WP:OUT but I have strong suspicions that this user is a contributor to China Global Television Network (CGTN). The user has been editing CGTN articles in a more positive manner for some time, trying to remove negative information about them. Pinging @Amigao since they have experience dealing with this user. The Account 2 (talk) 17:37, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

I share your concern. If the non-public evidence is what I think it is its pretty darn ironclad. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:00, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I should also note that if this account really belongs to that person, they (through their blog) have attempted to dox a fellow Wikipedia user (won't name names here), which is a very serious violation of WP:PRIVACY The Account 2 (talk) 18:29, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

If thats the case I think this needs to go to WP:ANI. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:31, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

How should I do that? (haven't been editing for three years so forgot a lot of procedures :D) By this I mean what kind of report should I write. I fear I may make a mistake so... Thanks in advance! The Account 2 (talk) 18:33, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

@The Account 2: I have moved it. Sunderland Renaissance has a long history of bashing their wikipedia "opponents" (myself included) under their IRL identity in opinion pieces published by fringe tankie outlets. That they're going beyond that to doxxing is inexcusable, I extended them the benefit of the doubt again and again and I'm tired of the bullshit to coin a phrase. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:45, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

If there is off-wiki evidence of doxxing, it might be best to contact ArbCom regarding this. RickinBaltimore (talk) 18:50, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

I found the tweet. I can confirm The Account 2's assertion that doxxing has occurred, not going on the person's personal blog for obvious security reasons. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:22, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

I would definitely send to ArbCom then to let them investigate further. RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:34, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

How does one go about doing that? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:44, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

Here. Black Kite (talk) 19:48, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

Thank you Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:27, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

For the record, I categorically deny all of the associations above and the user who have posted this is a throwaway account (created 7th August) who is someone with an extensive history of pushing a long-term grudge/harassment against this respective person who I am accused of being. It is also ludicrous to assume this "person" is in the interests of defending CGTN when he was in fact famously dismissed by them nearly one year ago after publicly criticizing them for their perceived incompetence. Also, not all edits I have made to the article are positive, here are edits from this account adding critical content [22]- Sunderland Renaissance (talk) 00:44, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

I also have behind the scenes evidence (which also I cannot post) which demonstrates that the original poster "The Account 1" is a throwaway single purpose account belonging to someone who has a long term grudge against the specific person he is targeting, including a long term and extensive history of harassment which involves the creation of scores of parody accounts (both on and off Wiki) as well as single-purpose harassment accounts. "The Account 1"- created his account on August 7th having seen a twitter post about a dispute related to a specific user that day (who also cannot be named) wherein accusations of Doxing are being lodged. The report has been made entirely in bad faith, and Horse Eyed Jack has also been looking for respective excuses (through political differences) to get me banned for a long time. I do not know who he is and I do not have an off wiki agenda against him to declare- Sunderland Renaissance (talk) 01:03, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Just to clarify, your position is that you cannot be this person, who was dismissed by CGTN (apparently being rehired some months later) because around the same time that he was dismissed you added critical content about CGTN to Wikipedia? MrOllie (talk) 01:15, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Just because the same high profile (Peng Shuai) was ongoing does not equate to such being an implication of guilt, but I am not aware this person was rehired. But either way, there is no COI and no doxxing on my behalf, and the original poster of this thread is doing this is absolute bad faith, which can be verified privately- Sunderland Renaissance (talk) 01:19, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Are you referring to the email you sent me? No I am not "Alek" (whoever that is). I edited "Juche" and North Korea articles because I have an interest in East Asia in general (and the ideology section of DPRK needed serious updates). I didn't "claim ignorance" but was genuinely confused on how to take this to WP:ANI and no, I did not start Wikipedia just to attack you (I did it because many of the China articles were pretty outdated and missed editing Wiki after 3 years). I have not ever collaborated with ASPI member Fergus Ryan. Are you preparing an "article" about "me" (or the person you think I am) on your blog? Also I happened to edit Wikipedia some time ago, since 2019 (but took a break for 3 years). The Account 2 (talk) 10:47, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

EDIT:here are the emails if anyone's wondering [23] The Account 2 (talk) 11:03, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Who said anything about writing an article about anyone? For a supposed random account you do seem to have a lot of background knowledge on something you otherwise claim to know nothing about. It is your choice to publish such emails but as they contain nothing inapropriate it only serves to consolidate this particular case that the original poster is acting in blatant bad faith and clearly trolling. I am otherwise happy to cooperate in private and provide any information necessary admins are seeking in their investigation regarding this. This will be my last post on the matter and will otherwise avoid topics of respective sensitivity in future in the bid to preventing any further accusations- Sunderland Renaissance (talk) 12:14, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

FYI I didn't claim to know nothing about anything. I have some knowledge about these things since I happen to follow China-related accounts on Twitter because I happen to be interested in China. The Account 2 (talk) 12:18, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

UPDATE:The article that included the doxxing was removed, but the article is archived on WebArchive The Account 2 (talk) 13:07, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Are you seriously threatening another outing? Those emails are highly inappropriate, also please note that repeatedly and aggressively emailing someone who has not responded back is generally perceived as harassment. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:15, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Also they seem to know A LOT about the person they're being accused of... and an additional note, their blogs Twitter account became private the same day he responded... very interesting... The Account 2 (talk) 16:41, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

White Beard 1 (talk · contribs) is persistently POV-pushing and using using a Youtube Video as source at Moab Man. They have not replied to comments other than accusing editors of "silencing the truth." [28] I would suggest that this user is WP:NOTHERE. TornadoLGS (talk) 20:40, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

• Good grief. Indeffed as NOTHERE, though I may have to answer to a higher power, it seems. Black Kite (talk) 20:47, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
  • @Black Kite: Jimbo Wales? TornadoLGS (talk) 20:49, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

2A00:1370:8172:2AA3:49BB:C027:26F7:EE7F has posted a legal threat - acknowledged as such in their own text - on their user talk page. The /64 for this IP is already blocked, may need to pull TPA as well. PohranicniStraze (talk) 02:30, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Done, Special:Contributions/2A00:1370:8172:2AA3:0:0:0:0/64 blocked without talk page access. I also removed the rant. Johnuniq (talk) 03:03, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Makes a change from the accusations of extreme liberalism that we normally get accused of. Nthep (talk) 07:37, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

This user called me racist three times, [29], [30], (two times in Mongolian, you can use google translate), and one time on my talk page. Claiming I am "anti-mongol", which I am not. I was reverting unsourced edits of his on Borjigin and Qarachar Noyan articles. Also here he calls me "tyrant", also claims to be even block me for years, suspecting being IP sock of Iam.i.20 (talk · contribs), having similar edits. Beshogur (talk) 15:57, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Blocked for a week for personal attacks. The IP seems kinda static (for the last few days anyway) so we'll see what happens. No comment on the sock issue. Canterbury Tail talk 16:52, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

@Beshogur: Looking through your contributions, I'm also seeing reversion of sourced material (eg [31]) with no justification beyond the fact it was contributed by an IP. It might not be that surprising that they got a bit cross with you. If you dispute sourced material, the talk page is your next step, not reverting. GoldenRing (talk) 17:01, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

There is public information about rob schneider that is inaccurate and when I tried to correct it, I was told the editing function is locked to prevent misuse. The standing of knowingly incorrect information for public print is actually misuse. It's actually illegal, and I actually recommend you knock it off before I actually find out who you are and Sue you until you can't actually feed your kids. Stop ruining our country and God Bless America. 🇺🇸

• Specifically rob Schneider is a republican that you have listed as an independent. He went on a talkshow and clarified that he is a republican and would care to be recognized as such, in light of the current debacle in the Democratic party.

• • Why a Comic Legend Chose His Country over Career/Rob Schneider/the Glenn Beck Podcast Episode 152/ YouTube/ August 27, 2022 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:80A0:500:2CD:F0B7:C07C:BDE0:73F1 (talk) 10:48, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

ANI does not adjudicate content disputes. If someone has reverted an edit of yours (which by the way, your contrib history has no history of), you must take it to the article talk page, not here. You have not provided any diffs or other evidence to help us help you. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). 10:55, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

• I have blocked the OP for a week for making legal threats. Black Kite (talk) 10:58, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Pnngnn (talk · contribs · count)

New user is reverting multiple times, not communicating, blanking warnings without replies. Needs to calm down and open discussions and not just be a bull in a glass shop. - FlightTime (open channel) 16:40, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

I made a very simple, uncontroversial edit. I stated what I did in the edit summary. This user FlightTime accused me of making a test edit (it was perfectly obviously no such thing), then accused me of not having a consensus for this simple uncontroversial edit, then simply reverted without explanation. If they had any actual reason to object to my edit, doubtless they would have said what it was. Pnngnn (talk) 16:46, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

User:SpacemanSpiff edited many astrology sign articles, such as this edit, which eliminated the parameter varna from the inclusion. I don't understand what varna is, but I see that it has been in Infobox zodiac since 2012. I asked about this on SpacemanSpiff's talk page and he/she blew me off. He/she said he/she would stop editing Wikipedia but this turns out to be untrue. Jc3s5h (talk) 18:51, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

User:Jc3s5h - User:SpacemanSpiff never said that they would stop editing Wikipedia. They said you reminded them why maybe they shouldn't be editing Wikipedia, but that was sarcasm, and, on the Internet, no one recognizes sarcasm. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:08, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

• There has never been a parameter called varna in that template until five days ago. It was also added to the documentation here by the same now-blocked editor that SS was - quite correctly - reverting. IIRC, varna is fringey nonsense. Black Kite (talk) 19:21, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
• By "blew you off" you mean "responded completely appropriately to your officious demands"? JBL (talk) 19:47, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
• Just for context, the "varna" parameter was added by a now-blocked editor who was intent on making a connection between Varna (Hinduism) and Zodiac/birth charts, wanting to change the meaning on Wikipedia to the idea that people born certain times of the year fell into certain castes, which is not how that works, to put it mildly. The parameter doesn't belong in the infobox because it's a single editor's fringe idea. - Aoidh (talk) 19:53, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

  Thanks for that context, Aoidh. I know little about Hindu astrology but do know of the concept of varna in Hinduism, and was trying to work out what the connection was between it and the signs of the zodiac. You have expained very clearly that there is none, so SpacemanSpiff was correct in his actions. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:03, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

• The 2012 diff doesn't show varna at all, not sure why you think it does. I frankly don't understand why you approached this the way you did. Mackensen (talk) 22:29, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

  I think the 2012 diff was pulling in the current documentation, because it did display "varna" in the infobox earlier when the OP posted. I think the OP (like me) isn't too familiar with how certain technical aspects of how templates work. Schazjmd (talk) 22:40, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

• First, the OP came running to my talk page in an accusatory tone without doing a basic check of the history and I did not take kindly to that (although I did point to them that they should check the history and also that they were wrong on the template history), that the OP isn't happy that I haven't quit yet isn't something I'll do anything about! If the OP had just asked what was going on instead of coming in with the accusatory tone, I'd have given some explanation on the lines that Aoidh has given above, albeit not as eloquently! —SpacemanSpiff 01:08, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

We've been having constant disruptions by TheWikiholic, TruthGuardians and Salvabl at the Talk:List of best-selling music artists for quite some time now. I'd like to mention first that all three editors are always involved in promoting Michael Jackson.

• Their initial joint involvement began at Talk:List of best-selling music artists to promote Michael Jackson at this discussion. In that discussion, all three clandestinely begin to discuss the general system of the list, and gradually switch to discrediting Elvis Presley and The Beatles, claiming that neither deserves to be listed at the top of the list.
• The second main discussion I'd like to point out is this, wherein all three initiate the discussion pretending their concern is within another area of the list, but again they quickly turn to discrediting The Beatles and Presley in hopes that they could replace at least Presley’s spot on the list with Michael Jackson.
• TruthGuardians' Michael Jackson promotions continue in ways like this.

Since they haven't been successful in achieving their goal, they come up with comments like "The list has a systematic bias against black artists". "Currently there is far give too much consideration given to the Beatles and Elvis on the basis of the lack certification system in a time when the consumer market worldwide was a lot less diverse and a lot smaller in markets like today", "I will also initiate a new discussion to use lower claimed sales for many artists, including the Beatles and Elvis Presley, as the gap between their claimed sales and certifications is the most egregious of all". "This benefits the most US-oriented artists such as Elvis Presley", "and that at the same time that is the reason why Presley keeps his 500M figure and is above Jackson".

I'd like to mention that not long ago, I reported TruthGuardians here at ANI for Off-wiki Canvassing, which was a discussion at the Talk:List of best-selling albums where both TheWikiholic and TruthGuardians were involved in promoting Michael Jackson's Thriller for having sold 100 million units. The discussion was closed to their disadvantage by an admin. Ever since then, both have been either engaged in wikihounding me at Talk:List of best-selling albums or targeting my work at Talk:List of best-selling music artists.

Topic ban proposals [edit]

I would like to ask our community to ban TheWikiholic, TruthGuardians and Salvabl from editing and/or commenting at the Talk:List of best-selling music artists and its main article as their only goal is to promote Michael Jackson and demote Elvis Presley and The Beatles. Thank you.--Harout72 (talk) 03:27, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

• Strong support For topic bans.

Akhiljaxxn aka TheWikiholic was given final warning after a community discussion earlier on ANI.[32]

TruthsGuardians's conduct was discussed extensively in the earlier ANI thread.[33]

It is now time to topic ban all three of these since Salvabl is also acting disruptive and frequently violating WP:POINT[34]. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 04:52, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

First of all, I've had to go username change for the reason of privacy and protection. I was subjected to legal and violent threats on and off of Wikipedia from the ruling party of India because of my edits on Wikipedia. I had explained all of this before undergoing a name change. You need to remove the name of my old account here as you are putting me at risk. I would also like you to show me these so-called disruptive editing or edit warring because these examples by Harout72 are examples of said behavior. TheWikiholic (talk) 15:54, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

@Abhishek0831996:@TheresNoTime: WP:OUTING. Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 10:00, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

@Mako001: I have no dog in this fight but that was no violation of OUTING. Read WP:REFACTOR and don't modify others post. Editorkamran (talk) 11:30, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

@Editorkamran: Cheers, I am aware of WP:REFACTOR, however it struck me as potentially a case of outing, so I removed it out of an abundance of caution. If you do not consider that other editors privacy or safety is compromised by the material I removed, by all means reinstate it, I do not object. Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 11:50, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

That's fine. Thanks for the response. Editorkamran (talk) 11:54, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Strong oppose I was not able to independently verify Harout72's allegations that he was being hounded or that the other users engaged in canvassing. If someone is able to verify that, please notify me. Madame Necker (talk) 14:50, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Oppose topic bans based on the analysis presented below. Gusfriend (talk) 22:29, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Statement by TruthGaurdians[edit]

Here you go again… more false accusations and another failed attempt to weaponize the ANI board against editors who constructively disagree with you as to not have to work towards a resolution with editors who point out the fundamental issues with the articles that you are in clear violation of WP:OWNERSHIP for. The RFC you mention was not closed to anyone’s disadvantage. It was closed because “without prejudice as it was considered a clusterfest that was going nowhere.” So of it was to my disadvantage, it was also to yours as well. Furthermore, I would like to add that you falsely accused me of off-wiki canvassing as is evident by the results and non-action. I told you then you were making false accusations and I’m asking you now to stop making that same false accusation. What you claim to be disruptive editing is not the case. Agreeing with other editors who have voiced the same concerns as I have is how Wikipedia works. Talk:List of best-selling albums#Methodology shows multiple editors bringing up some of these unresolved issues that I have had for years and that is that you are also in violation of WP:NOR. Also, I did not start this discussion. I only constructively added to the discussion started by Rhododendrites. Finally, other issues that have been reported by other editors is what they deem as racial bias found here: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1102#Racial bias at Talk:List of best-selling albums reported by Levivich.

So while once again you are making a false assumption that all of these genuine concerns is about the position of one artist over the other, it’s not. It’s about how one editor gets to control the narrative of these pages while in clear violation of WP:OWNERSHIP, WP:NOR, and WP:SYNTHESIS. Instead of wasting the time of the admins by weaponizing the ANI board, I’m asking you to stop with the false accusations once and for all, and work with the many, many editors (old and new) who have been reporting the same issues for years. There are many great suggestions in the works here right now: Fundamental Article Issues TruthGuardians (talk) 05:19, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure what's going on here, but as someone who just started a conversation on the above talk page, I can confirm that Harout has not been receptive to constructive criticism on the talk page here historically, and the only interactions I've had with the three users mentioned above by him have been respectful and attempting to find a common path forward. I was the one who started the Fundamental Article Issues section on the talk page there, and I've never interacted with these users before now. I think Harout is the one being unreasonable here. Pacack (talk) 05:36, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

• What the pluperfect hell? Being an utterly uninvolved editor who's never participated on those talk pages, I just looked over the first linked discussion Harout cites, and his reaction is little short of hysteria. It is not a sinister act to question the criteria used to make a determination, nor is it a thought crime to deem Michael Jackson to be more popular in his time than the Beatles and Elvis were in theirs. (I disagree, but it's certainly a justifiable stance to take.) Harout absolutely gives the finger to WP:AGF in that year old discussion, with this opening salvo: "Finally, you will be Boldy reverted as many times as required and be reported to ANI for edit-warring and disruptive behavior. In fact, let me remind you that your hateful comments here at this talk are disruptive enough." Ironically enough, such an unprovoked statement -- the alleged "hateful comments" had to do with questioning the methodology involved -- would've been ANI-worthy itself.

  Then we go to the second linked discussion, where far from being the monolithic front Harout is claiming, TruthGuardians supports Harout's stance: "I find myself in agreement with Harout’s argument above, “The higher claimed figures should be looked at and considered on individual bases, it's not all that black and white.” He’s absolutely right, there can be a lot to consider and a lot of gray areas depending on the artist and situation." Once again, it's a long, long, long dry discussion of methodology and numbers. I don't remotely have the interest or expertise necessary to parse them out myself, but gosh: that'd be a content dispute, which has no place at ANI.

  Then we have the sockpuppet investigation involving TruthGuardians [35], which was closed by the checkusers as being unrelated to TruthGuardians. Abhishek0831996 deserves one hell of a trout slap for claiming THAT as the basis for a topic ban on pretty much anything. ANI is not a venue to tear down people who disagree with you on content. Ravenswing 08:00, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

You need to check the talk page archives. This WP:IDHT by these editors is happening for years of years. They don't even understand what is being discussed and keep pursuing their fan-based POV just all the time. Topic ban is necessary now. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 12:57, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

"You need to check the talk page archives." This is adjacent to "'check revision history.' You've essentially made an allegation, then pointed at a mountain of paperwork and told others to prove it for you. Please provide some diffs. GabberFlasted (talk) 13:35, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Abhishek0831996 is correct, others including Bluesatellite have provided explanations to them also in those discussions, but those three are simply not interested in listening to what anybody explains. Their main focus remains demoting Elvis Presley and promoting Michael Jackson. This can still be seen in their comments today Harout72 (talk) 14:22, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

These are confusing diffs to include because from what I've reading, including these two diffs in a vacuum, the users you are reporting are being more civil and respectful than some of the people lambasting them. In particular that diff of Salvabl at least to me seems a very civil and thought-out attempt at collaboration and sharing ideas. GabberFlasted (talk) 15:24, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

See, like GabberFlasted, I see those diffs and come to a different conclusion: that they think the current way of assessing things is biased in favor of some artists and against others, and they are doing so in a civil fashion. IDHT does not mean "Wahhh wahhh, they're not agreeing with me, so they're Wrong!Wrong!Wrong!" Ravenswing 22:18, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

No, what you need to do, Abhishek0831996, is sharply ratchet back your rhetoric and accusations before we start seeking topic/interaction bans against you. Reading that diff from Salvabl, which you characterize as "disruptive" and a POINT violation, is nothing of the sort ... unless you're one of those provocative types for whom "disruption" means "The other guy disagrees with me!!!" By and large, ANI regulars are not stupid. It would be extremely unwise of you to treat us as if we were. Ravenswing 22:45, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

It's one thing to start a topic about methodology or the way list operates as whole and to stay on that issue, but it's completely another thing to start a discussion pretending your aim is to discuss list's methodology, and quickly/clandestinely turn it into yet another Michael Jackson records sales promotion. And this is what these three editors are constantly using the list's talk page for. If these three want to engage in promoting Michael Jackson records sales, they shouldn't be allowed to that on wikipedia. Harout72 (talk) 13:11, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

• The last dispute was closed with the instruction that all involved parties stop bringing these sales disputes up. If we're still talking about this, that means someone is violating that... Sergecross73 msg me 12:42, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
• Pinged, but I don't have much to add. I saw another dispute about this page pop up, and was struck that the inclusion criteria seemed to rely on more OR than I'm used to seeing. It was a bit too involved, with a lot of apparently strong feelings, to really pursue, though. No comment on the behavioral issues. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:23, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
• Another uninvolved observer here and I'm really struggling to see a strong basis for this. A lot of the opening of this report centers around Michael Jackson specifically, and Harout (OP) seems to perceive any talk of Michael Jackson as what amounts to paid promotion. The link in the third bulletpoint listed is nothing more than TruthGuardian (TG) saying that they should expect upcoming news that would alter the article contents, but the bullet words it as if TG is unfairly promoting views in articlespace. OP also brings up an ANI discussion that ended in a 'Knock it off, all of you' but claims it specifically targeted the reportee. OP claims that the reported users are hounding them on a single talk page, instead of the logical conclusion that it is a talk page that all involved users are, well, involved in, and they would naturally contribute. This is a very confusing tangle of talk page archives and ANI threads but what I can be can be certain of is that this thread was written deliberately uncharitably, almost to the point of deception. GabberFlasted (talk) 14:05, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

  Having read TW's statement, and Talk:List_of_best-selling_albums#Methodology? I am inclined to agree with my peers above and below me that this methodology smells of, at the very least, synthesis. This, combined with Harout72's at times confrontational and condescending attitude, do seem to paint a picture of perceived WP:OWNership. The claims of a double standard being upheld by Haruout72 are also of significant concern, as this type of discrimination would border on NOTHERE in my eyes (this is not an accusation). TW has put together a very cohesive argument, and I would commend them on keeping a level head and assembling it. GabberFlasted (talk) 16:57, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

• Uninvolved editor as well here, I also don't see any overt Michael Jackson POV pushing. Questioning methodology isn't POV pushing. TruthGuardians even agreed with the reporting party in one of them. All three users comments above appear to be mostly civil, so I'm not sure where the basis comes from.

From the reporting party, however, I have seen open accusations of off-wiki canvassing, socking, meatpuppetry, and more. I don't believe I've seen any evidence to support those accusations from the accusing party. There is also a slight misrepresentation of the information included in this ANI. I find calling a RfC that was closed as this clusterfest is going nowhere as "To their disadvantage" to be disingenuous as best, misleading at worst. There's no way any editor can look at the way that RfC and go "Yup, it was these three editors that were wrong". If it was closed to their disadvantage, it was closed to your disadvantage as well. Also, I would point out, that if you've had an admin come into several threads about this topic and essentially go "Nope" (User:EvergreenFir did it with both the ANI, and the RfC) due to civility issues, there is a severe issue with the way this conversation is going. FrederalBacon (talk) 15:34, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Also, in follow up to all of this, this seems like a topic and methodology ripe for controversy. It appears, according to the page itself, to be leaving off some significant artists, because it doesn't meet their criteria and methodology. I feel like including "Claimed numbers" at all flies in the face of WP:V. The verifiable numbers are directly from the organizations certifying sales. Any artist, label, or news organization can claim an artist has sold a certain amount....but that's not the amount they are verified to have sold, which are provided, and listed, on the page. To have a formula to allow for claims outside of reliable, verifiable, sources is....weird to me. FrederalBacon (talk) 15:56, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

• Uninvolved contributor here also. I want whoever is reading this to know that Harout72's first edit to the page List of best-selling music artists is this one, in 2007. Since then (15 years) he almost owns the page, making possibly hundreds of edits; see the edit history for yourself. So now he arrives at AN/I requesting three users be banned from editing this article. Why? A content dispute, apparently, accusing the three other editors of attempting to "promote Michael Jackson", along with several potentially misleading and/or exaggerated diffs. Reporting three users with whom you are possibly engaged in content disputes with to AN/I, and requesting bans for them, is potentially disruptive; you could have simply walked over to Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard. Harout72, I think it's about time you take a break from that article, and give others a chance to contribute to it, because it's unfair for one user to control the contents of a page to their liking, and it violates WP:OWN. Nythar^T.C 01:46, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Statement by TheWikiholic[edit]

It's been more than a decade now since Harout has been single-handedly maintaining the page List of best-selling music artists. On the list, he includes artists that began charting before 1973 who are required to have a minimum of 30% of required certifications.

• Between 1973–1990 artists are required to have their available claimed figures supported by 30-70% in certified units. (That is 2.35% for each additional year after 1973)
• Between 1990–2000 artists are required to have their available claimed figures supported by 70-77% in certified units. (That is 0.7% for each additional year after 1990).
• Between 2000–the present artists are required to have their available claimed figures supported by 77-80% in certified units. (That is 0.14% for each additional year after 2000).

Throughout the years a large number of editors have expressed their concerns over this calculation method with the last instances being here. If we research the archives of the talk page we can easily discover that Harout72 has completely made up these definitions and the minimum required percentage for artists to be on these respective lists. Even if we follow the above method, we can see that Harout has been showing bias against black artists. For example, according to the edit history, talk page archive, and Harout’s own method artists who began charting in the 1980s might have at least 60% certification to support their claimed sales. Both Madonna and Whitney Houston began charting in 1984 and 1985 respectively. It was in 2010 that an article was being used to support the 300M claimed sales of Madonna. During that time she only had 153.3M certifications, which was only around 51% of her 300M claimed sales. Keep in mind, according to the page’s own rules she should have been at 60%. Last February when Whitney Huston reached 153m certification one user requested to update her claimed sales to 200m instead of 170m per the page’s own rules. Harout was not willing to do so. He told the editor to wait until Whitney adds another 7 to 8 Million certified sales and thus brings her total certified sales to 160m. Last June there was a similar instance of raising the claimed sales of Ariana Grande by 5 million. Interestingly, he had no issue by then as you can see here Similarly, on Feb 8, 2019, the article began using the 200m figure for Taylor Swift. Back then, Taylor's total available certifications were only 201.1M. Currently, Artists like Kanye West and Beyonce have 251.4M ad 222.7M Certified sales respectively, but they are still in the 160 M claimed sales title, whereas Taylor Swift with only 238.9 still has 200m claimed sales. I'm astonished to see that some artists enjoy such privilege, while other artists do not. Every time editors raise their concerns over the calculation method of Harout 72, he falsely accuses the editors of being disruptive, which is why we are here now. He also once called me by my old user name, even though I had a name change on the grounds of privacy and legality. You can also see from this discussion from last June 2021 that Harout has been stating to different users under this thread that the discussion is futile and you guys are wasting your time like he is the owner of this page. Here is another instance where Harout72 was changing the rules to the article’s definition that supports his arguments and then asked me to refer to the definition in a vain attempt to prove me wrong. I've been editing Wikipedia for a while now and I'm also an admin on a local Wikipedia. I have never seen a single editor have so much control over the policy-making of a page by his WP:OR and WP: SYNTHESIS. By allowing Harout72 to continue to do this, the community is allowing him full control of all the Wikipedia pages related to the List of best-selling music artists and albums and every single pages of both albums and artists listed in these two lists. The problems will continue to exist and, editors will continue to discover the same fundamental issues with these pages and, he will continue to claim that they are disrupting simply by them pointing out the obvious on a talk page. This is not what Wikipedia is supposed to be, but Harout has turned it into such a toxic situation. TheWikiholic (talk) 15:48, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Alright, hang on. Question here. There are obviously a number of editors interested in the topic; I see numerous names listed in the various discussions. What is stopping you -- or any other interested editor -- from opening a RfC to establish a fresh methodology? Set forth the options, have people comment on the options, see if a consensus can be built around one option or another. I realize (having written some notability criteria myself) that one editor can set forth criteria which are taken as a given from there on forward, but no such criteria is immune from changing consensus, and no editor-author gets a veto over the process. Despite Harout's assertions, those so-called "rules" are not set in granite. Ravenswing 22:27, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

This situation is similar to one at List of Nobel laureates by university affiliation where there were issues with ownership of the inclusion criteria in a way that many saw as WP:OR. Once these issues were publicised to the wider community (in that case through a failed AfD) a consensus on the article talk page emerged and issues were fixed. In this case there was no need to sanction any individual editors and more eyeballs on the issue made consensus forming easier. In other words, an RfC might be the way to go. Vladimir.copic (talk) 22:58, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

I think it may be beyond that. Read this thread on the talk. I have significant concerns about an editor who tells other editors to disregard the RIAA and instead download a mediafire link. I will not download that link, nor should anyone else, but like...come on, he's using a .doc, with no author listed on the file, for sourcing. FrederalBacon (talk) 00:32, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

It is also worth pointing out that the link attached to Rihanna for certified sales is a link to a database to search. If you search by artist, she is no where near the claimed amount on the page. Is "Converting certifications into sales and then converting those into a number we display on the page" a "routine calculation" allowed in OR? Because if the number that the editor comes up with is different than what the RIAA comes up with for official total sales, that appears to fall pretty cleanly into SYNTH, correct? FrederalBacon (talk) 00:38, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

I agree there are significant WP:OR, WP:SYNTH and WP:OWN issues here and maybe admins should look at these. My example really was about how a critical mass of editors turning their attention to a topic can overturn these issues without resorting to bans etc. Vladimir.copic (talk) 00:49, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

I think the proposed topic bans have a snowballs chance, and considering the fact that more editors are gonna have eyes on this, you're absolutely right. The issues with the article appear to be a content dispute, backed with some pretty strong feelings and desires. If an RfC produces a consensus that moves away from the current methodology, then that is what will happen. But, my concern with being beyond that point is that, given the above examples, I don't believe an RfC on this issue would remain civil enough for other editors to engage in. The fact that, when Evergreen closed both the RfC and ANI linked in the report, they called them a "clusterfest" and "timesink" respectively, doesn't exactly encourage the idea of holding another RfC where all of the editors involved can do their apparently normal thing, even if other editors would be involved. FrederalBacon (talk) 03:23, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

I thought we were heading to an RFC for a resolution, per Apoxy’s suggestion and the last comment under Fundamental issues section, but here we are instead. TruthGuardians (talk) 02:26, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

I’ve now put forward a draft of an RfC for discussion on the talk page. Vladimir.copic (talk) 12:58, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Nuclear option: Fully protect the article[edit]

Let every change be run past an admin first. It's fairly obvious that a number of the regular editors on the article, many of whom have ulterior motives for inflating or deflating the figures of various artists, can't be trusted to maintain it accurately themselves. Short of partially blocking everyone (which in some cases may be unfair) I can't see any other way of making sure we won't be here yet again in a few months. Black Kite (talk) 23:05, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

• WP:SUPERPROTECT. Something this important should be left to the Foundation Office to handle. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:15, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

• Not really. We regularly fully protect articles when they're the subject of serious disruption, and that's certainly the case here. Black Kite (talk) 23:22, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

the foundation definitely shouldn't be getting involved in content disputes like that. PRAXIDICAE🌈 23:26, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

It was an attempt at humor. See my user page. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:33, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

With all due respect, I still have yet to see any evidence that any regular editors with the alleged ulterior motives. There needs to be an RFC (or consensus) to handle Harout’s WP:Synthesis and WP:NOR issues as other uninvolved editors pointed out above. Furthermore, there are no disruptions. There is only one editor that keeps coming to the ANI board. Since the last time we were here 4 or 5 other editors have pointed out the same issues that has been getting brought up for years. These fundamental issues must first be corrected. Once corrected, future editors that discover the page won’t have the same concerns. TruthGuardians (talk) 02:20, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

So START a RfC. (I'd do it myself, but I don't have the expertise to phrase the various options adequately or accurately.) Nothing prevents you from doing so. Ravenswing 03:41, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Honestly, I'm not seeing "many of whom have ulterior motives." I'm seeing that Harout routinely claims that his self-declared opponents have ulterior motives, but that's not the same thing, and he could really stand a strong warning to AGF. Ravenswing 03:39, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

That's what I see, too, but not just lack of AGF, also WP:OWN issues; maybe an WP:ABAN is in order. Levivich 05:46, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

It's not just Harout (indeed, they are almost certainly not the worst offender). You may both want to search the archives for the multiple previous threads about this article. Though, to be fair, it's partly the problem of the article. There are multiple different sources for "facts" regarding the subject, so it is easy for multiple editors to cherry pick the ones that suit their POV, and they can then say "We must say X, it's sourced". Well, it is, but there may be many sources that say Y. Black Kite (talk) 08:44, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

You want me to see things beyond the archives and discussions I've already read, come up with some links. Having read the links supplied by Harout and Abhishek as Proof! of their foes' dastardly intent and behavior, and seen nothing that causes me to so much as blink, I'm going to need something considerably stronger. Ravenswing 14:12, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Abhishek is not even an involved editor. His disdain for me comes because of a non-music related edit, and the fact I ignored him on my talk page. This is the level of harassment that I have been subjected to by some editors. It’s exhausting. By the way, I have no issues if they protect the page for admission only. Also, as far as an RFC is concerned, please refer to the ongoing discussion found Talk:List of best-selling music artists#Fundamental Article Issues TruthGuardians (talk) 18:49, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm going to very much second Ravenswing on this one: if this is really just the tip of the iceberg, then there must be a gargantuan amount of disruption that probably should have been addressed a long time ago and should be brought to the community's attention now, whether some of it is stale for purposes of sanctions now or not--if only for context and deciding what needs to be done here. Because my inclination after a non-trivial quasi-deep dive into the record here over the last couple of days (as a community member with no previous experience with the relevant articles and parties), is that I have seen a great deal of concerning behaviour from one editor in particular, and very little in systemic problems that do not in some way involve that user. Not that I'm dismissing Black Kite's observations, but I'm just not seeing live issues from other parties that even remotely rise to the same level. Here, for the record, are my thoughts on the matter (again, as yet another non-involved editor looking at this issue fresh):

We have an editor here who has devised an idiosyncratic methodology for inclusion criteria that is either "merely" 100% synthesis, at best, or probably just better described as pure OR. It certainly isn't consistent with any policy or guideline promulgated by this community, nor am I even seeing the support of a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS to apply it as an ad-hoc rule on those articles--even if such a decision could have been used to support diversion of an article's content towards an inclusion criteria separate from WP:WEIGHT and WP:V, which is a dubious proposition it itself.

And from all appearances, that editor thereafter used this made-up standard to bully-boy their way into complete ownership of the article for a truly discouraging amount of time. And then that same editor (and here I'm about to join a veritable chorus of editors above with similar concerns) spun the content of their arguments arising out of this approach to stitch together an ANI complaint that highly spins (if not outright misrepresents) the course of the interrelated disputes to seek sanctions against their rhetorical opposition and remove them from said editor's sphere of influence on the related articles. What's truly telling about this course of conduct though, is how Harout seems to be genuinely oblivious to the fact that their perspectives would not be endorsed. Seeking sanctions against three separate editors at once was always going to put the dispute under a microscope, and you'd expect any experienced community member attempting such a proposal to present an airtight case, instead of a tightly wound boomerang in a box. Yet Harout seems to have genuinely thought this would come off well. That suggests to me that this is not just a case of a badly calculated effort at misdirection, but someone who fundamentally does not understand the deep flaws with their approach to the content, to the consensus process, and their interactions, at least in this subject space.

Are the actions of the other three editors to blame for some of the mess here? Possibly they were suboptimal in places I have not seen. I think they made at least a tactical error in accepting the inclusion framework forced by Harout and then getting in the mud to argue in those terms, and possibly letting their arguments also get tainted by subjective standards--the very thing our sourcing-based verification and weight processes are meant to avoid, and why this ad-hoc, idiosyncratic replacement standard is so problematic. But at the end of the day, I am seeing one major problem editor here, and thus one very simple fix that will begin to sort the situation on these articles faster than anything else. Is an RfC warranted to officially rollback this bizarre franken-monster of ginned-up inclusion criteria that has been foisted on these lists for years? I guess it couldn't hurt, but then it also shouldn't be necessary, since these rules were substantially the passion project of one editor and never passed anything remotely like local consensus, let alone a WP:PROPOSAL threshold. More to the point, I don't see any such RfC going over well if Harout is a party to that process--if my review of the talk pages in question here is any guide.

In short, I am very much in support of a TBAN of Harout72 from all lists and articles concerned with music as a commercial product, broadly construed, as the simplest first step here. I do not see much cause for hope that the substantial and overlapping issues with WP:OR, WP:OWN, or WP:AGF are likely to be alleviated by anything short of this with regard to this editor and that content area. If I am blunt, I'm not sure Harout has sufficiently internalized a number of Wikipedia's most crucial policies regarding consensus and collaboration for productive editing anywhere. But this is a place to start. Apologies for the jumbo post on this one. Regardless, I do broadly support an active community response here, whether focused mostly on Harout or not. Clearly a blind eye was turned to this situation for far too long, whoever is ultimately responsible for the disruption. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 22:38, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Am I the only one noticing that comments on the talkpage clearly show ownership? Editors are addressing new sections directly to Harout, they seem to have the sole voice of what gets added to some of these people, so many unreliable sources listed on the page, and then, there's this comment.

@TJ What's your poin? I think, Harout's explanation already good enough to show the reason why we let Taylor Swift hang out with Mariah, Whitney, and Celine in the table. She deserve it. As for Beyonce. The new claim of 160m is good enough for her at this moment.

That is a heck of a talk page comment. "Why we let" "She deserve it" "Good enough for her". Is this how this methodology is on the page? FrederalBacon (talk) 00:13, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

You are not alone in your observations. Editors will need to be in Harout’s good graces to get what they need and should be done. If an editor question his arguments you will be falsely accused of sock puppetry, disruptive editing, and working for the Michael Jackson estate… and then bring these claims here to the ANI board, or at least threaten to do so. He has about 4 editors that back his every word and allow him veto power in that article along with any article that is about music sales. I don’t want to list those other editors here, but you can check almost every discussion and/or RFC he’s been apart of and see the same editors echo his words, without merit and sources. I’ve even seen sources, like an Academic journal, being dismissed for what it was because he made up an entire POV for the article in order to try to protect is WP:OR. TruthGuardians (talk) 03:15, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Okay, let's not get carried away here. You're conflating issues. You have brought some reasonable suspicion upon yourself by your own actions - you almost exclusively POV-push positive slanting content to and and all things Michael Jackson as your main area of interest outside these disputes. That's what gets people suspecting things, not just because "you dared question Harhout" or whatever you're driving at here. Sergecross73 msg me 18:34, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

What's with this recent trend of admins casting evidence-free aspersions like "ulterior motives" and "POV-push"? "An editor must not accuse another of misbehavior without evidence...". If that applies to anyone, it applies to admins. Levivich 18:43, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

I wouldn't know, as I don't spend much time here, but in regards to my comment, I'm not reporting him or calling for any action to be taken on him, I'm talking to him, saying his recap of events was incomplete, and lack awareness of the full scope of the situation. Sergecross73 msg me 18:56, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

I am astonished that I just read that. An admin claiming POV pushing from an editor, with no diffs for evidence, while pretty much the entire ANI (except for involved editors) is saying that the editor has a good point, and that there are significant problems with the page, ownership being chief amongst them? And TG is POV pushing? How about all the editors in here of the opinion the methodology is synth, at best? Are we all MJ POV pushing? FrederalBacon (talk) 00:02, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

You're ...astonished about that? Are you guys reading into something I didn't intend or something? I said he got suspected of things because he writes exclusively positive content about a subject. It was an observance I saw back when I did some digging at the WP:SPI filed on him. It was a passing observance when I saw what I interpreted. It was not a rationale for an administrative action taken, nor a proposal for administrative action towards him. Your reaction is truly baffling to me. Bizarre interpretations like this are certainly why I usually tend to stay away from ANI though, thank you for that reminder. I'll get out of your way and let you all argue into oblivion without resolution, as is the trajectory of these discussions yet again. Sergecross73 msg me 00:29, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

I've struck the comment since it appears the point is being missed. Sergecross73 msg me 00:37, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Your exact words were You have brought some reasonable suspicion upon yourself by your own actions - you almost exclusively POV-push positive slanting content to and and all things Michael Jackson.

You didn't say he got suspected of things, you flat out said he did the things he was accused of, with absolutely no evidence or proof. You said he did it by his own actions. This isn't reading into anything but your own words, and I absolutely reject the "Bizarre interpretation" line, because it was your words. Thank you for retracting. FrederalBacon (talk) 00:56, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

I said consistently editing positively about a single subject eventually leads to suspicions of other things. If I spent the bulk of my time writing positive content about Tom Petty across Wikipedia, people would be accusing me of being tied to his PR team. Sergecross73 msg me 01:45, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

And if they do, we can all agree they should provide diffs or other evidence backing up those accusations. Thanks for striking. Levivich 01:52, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Especially considering the fact that this ANI is about POV editing regarding MJ. Multiple uninvolved editors have looked at the evidence presented above, and just don't see it. An admin coming in here and going "Actually during my SPI of this editor, I noticed they do POV edit alot" would be extremely relevant to this discussion, should there be proof of the same. FrederalBacon (talk) 02:38, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

I really urge that this line of discussion go no further. First off, this is doing no favours to anyone who wants to demonstrate that the disruption here is entirely (or at least in the majority) caused by Harout and not the parties he has brought to ANI. And this is coming from someone who just lodged the single longest and most vociferous post of any non-involved community member to yet look into the issue, in support of that proposition. Before Serge posted the comment to which such umbrage is being taken, I was about to post one myself with advice that dovetails with that given by Salvabl below: namely, that when someone brings multiple parties to ANI and then those parties are lucky enough to benefit from multiple random community members looking into the issue, dismissing the complaints and calling for possible boomerang action instead...that is not the moment in which the parties should be filling the thread with constant broadsides and defensive responses. Because these kind of WP:INVOLVED responses are just going to muddy the waters precisely at a time when you really want the comments of the uninvolved parties supporting your position to shine through. Especially if the involved comments appear even slightly histrionic or questionable. And note, for the record, that TruthGuardians didn't provide a single diff to support their accusations in that post--and yet the un-involved admin who responded to that highly accusatory post is getting lambasted for the same thing? I'm afraid I don't track the reasoning at work there...

And let's also recognize too that whether Serge took the time properly diff it or not, we are in fact talking about an editor who has two entries in their block log (the only two entries, in fact) for disruptive behaviour associated with articles relating to Michael Jackson. Nor is Serge by any stretch of the imagination the first person to suggest that TG has a POV in this area, as can be easily confirmed in mere minutes merely by looking at their talk page edit history. I also saw it in discussions in the involved article talk pages while looking into Harout's problematic behaviour. So if we're going to be forced to get into those weeds to defend an admin's off-hand comment of caution (which seemed to me to be very much in TG's own best interests to hear), it's really not going to improve the case for Harout being the prime issue on these talk pages (a position I still support, incidentally). Quite the opposite, in fact. The group of editors who has been put into opposition with Harout by virtue of this unnecessary thread should really 1) learn to recognize when they are ahead, and benefiting heavily from the due diligence of uninvolved community members, 2) not over-egg the pudding of counter-complaints, when the course of the discussion is already favouring them, 3) not overreact to a comment from an admin merely suggesting that someone is not perfectly, 100% innocent of any errors in the dispute, and 4) not thereby bloat the discussion with combative exchanges with admins which can only serve to distract from the scrutiny being placed on the other party to the dispute. In short, don't look the gift horse in the mouth... (And yes, I understand that not all of the enumerated behaviours above are attributable to involved parties, but also some un-involved community members, but the advice is nevertheless valid). SnowRise ^{let's rap} 06:17, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

First off, this is doing no favours to anyone who wants to demonstrate that the disruption here is entirely (or at least in the majority) caused by Harout The thing is, I'm not here to demonstrate that. I'm seeing that conclusion based off of what I have seen looking through talk, archives, and other history regarding the page and methodology. I'm objective, I'm just following the evidence, which is why I wanted all evidence to be introduced, if there was any. Part of this discussion that has led me to that conclusion, in fact, is that Harout's evidence is (in my opinion) lackluster, and requests for more specific examples as to his claims haven't been fulfilled.

But as for the discussion itself, I had absolutely no intention of continuing. The statement was retracted. FrederalBacon (talk) 19:43, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

This admin is not an uninvolved editor. The admin has voted along side Harout a number of times. I have never POV pushed anything. I literally have only question, with evidence and using Wikipedia rules and standards the fundamental issues with these articles. While I am a bit of an expert in all things music and Michael Jackson, I am not a single purpose editor as proven via my edit history. I am a facts based, no non-sense editor and I just wanted to clarify that. Here are two recent examples of the admin being involved: here they vote in the favor of harout per harouts comments. here too. While I am a bit of a tenured editor now, when I first started editing I in 2019 (I think) I didn’t know anything about edit warring or disruptive editing. So while my history my reflect such behavior on a couple of occasions, that was awhile back on an unrelated topic. The accusations of disruptive behavior now is about wiki articles related to all things sales. There is no evidence of that behavior on the topic at hand, because it does not exist. I learn from my mistakes and I think that is made clear through my edit history.TruthGuardians (talk) 14:42, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I participated in a recent related RFC, and found the proposed change to be logistically unlikely. If I commented elsewhere I don't even recall it. (Edit: checking the 2 difs, they're both from the same discussion.) I have no particular interest in Jackson or the list, I just respond to a lot requests for input at the music Wikiprojects I'm active in. I've already struck my comment and have no interest in any further involvement - I already turned down a request on my talk page to get more involved earlier this week. This is not my interest in the music content area at all. Sergecross73 msg me 15:41, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

If you check the talk page of the Talk:List of best-selling music artists we can see that none of the discussions were related to Michael Jackson. So I am not convinced that the Michael Jackson argument stands here. Before Harout72 took this issue here, there were three different active conversations was going on. One was about one of the editors finding the 600M claimed sales of The Beatles being inflated. I nor TruthGaurdians even participated in this discussion. The second one was about raising the claimed sales of Beyonce from 120M to 200 million because a few days ago RIAA certified almost her entire catalog equal to another 104M. Neither Salvabl nor TruthGaurdians participated in this. The third one was about the fundamental issues of the list. Harout72 never participated in that discussion. So I don’t see any evidence of his accusations of a Michael Jackson POV push. Ever since the issue was taken to the admin's noticeboard some editors have expressed concerns over the calculation method that was invented by Harout72. So I guess he may feel as though he is losing his WP:OWNERSHIP if the third conversation gathers more attention and that is the catalyst for the accusations against us and the reason why we are here now.— TheWikiholic (talk) 17:27, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Those discussions referred to by TheWikiholic are not related to Jackson in any way. I just think that Harout72 makes Jackson's name appears frequently (this ANI report is an example of it) in an attempt to discredit and label as disruptive the behaviors of other users with points of view that he does not support. And this is systematic since long ago. I, for example, the last thing I suggested and that has led me to be here was to decrease the claimed sales figures of several music artists (including Jackson). On the other hand, if we take into account all the discussions in which Harout72 has been involved to date, I think there has been an attitude of preserving Elvis Presley's inflated figures by Harout72, or even of defending inflated sales figures fabricated by him (Harout72 stated "The same goes for Presley, just the UK has 17.3 million certified units, which generates under 10% of the global music sales, and the UK has launched its certification system in 1973, surely it would've been close to 50 million if they had been certifying since 1958, like the US."), resulting from speculation. And it is exactly the same with the current methodology that governs the List. However, this situation is not limited to that, as Harout72's negative attitude towards other users' perspectives can be seen even in discussions that are not related to specific artists, like this one about multi-disc albums sales figures, where users provided references to a Rolling Stone article or even an email from RIAA confirming the double counting. Salvabl (talk) 19:47, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

I Support a TBAN of Harout72 as suggested by user:Snow Rise. I've caught up on reading all this drama, and he seems to be the recurring issue. Pacack (talk) 01:36, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Support topic ban based on the analysis by Snow Rise above. I had skipped over this discussion but noticed it last night and wished to provide my perspective. Gusfriend (talk) 22:32, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Statement by Salvabl[edit]

The user Harout72 has brought this "matter" here again, as he has done in the past, but this time is different from the others. In the List's Talk page there is a discussion about the certified sales percentages requirements that user Harout72 has defended on several occasions, but he has not added a single message to the discussion this time, as can be seen in this section of the Talk page.

He is just doing the same thing he has done in the past: labeling our behavior as disruptive when we express a point of view that he does not support. This is not the first time that user Harout72 has refused discussion and the search for a common consensus, as last February the content of the "Definitions" section of the List (which contains conditions for the management of the List now and in the future) was unilaterally changed by Harout72, even though the matter was being discussed on the List's Talk page at that moment. One of the goals of that change was to prevent any possible future increase in the claimed sales of artists such as Michael Jackson, Madonna or Elton John. And I, despite that attitude, made proposals so that part of the text added by Harout72 could stand, even when direct removal would have been the most appropriate action due to the unilaterality of his action (because of that, and because of statements made by him such as "you guys are wasting your time" directed to other users, it is appropriate to assert that this is a case of WP:OWNERSHIP). I think there has been too much collective patience with user Harout72. And what he did after I objected to that change was to start this discussion at ANI, which was centered on accusations about the possible existence or non-existence of racial bias in the List, which was simply a red herring to divert attention from the unilateral change made by Harout72 in the "Definitions" section.

I have always offered him an open door to dialogue, which he has rejected through accusations about alleged intentions to inflate Jackson's figures. Did I vote in favor of increasing the claimed sales figure of the Thriller album in this recent RfC? No, because I didn't even think it was the right time to discuss it, and to avoid possible conflicts between users. My only involvement in that RfC consisted of short messages providing information that I thought might be useful; to which the user Harout72, if he disagreed, did not even reply. Despite his knowledge about music sales, he simply refuses to get the point, and maybe that is the reason why his impartiality, and therefore the impartiality of the List, has been questioned. I, in my recent messages (see here) supported an eventual removal of The Beatles' 600M figure, stating at the same time that the coherent would be to remove Presley's 500M figure as well, since, I think it is a fact that it would be incorrect for both music acts to have the same highest claimed sales figure (500M) when The Beatles' certified sales are almost 60M higher than Presley's. Considering Harout72's words this idea must seem bad to him, but what he has not remarked is that I also stated in my message this: "and there would have to be a discussion about what to do with Michael Jackson's 400M figure, or change other figures", as I see as a good option to leave only the 350M claimed sales figure for Jackson and the 360M claimed sales figure for Presley; I think it would make the list more accurate. But leaving all that aside now, I think this new accusation made by Harout72 is just another attempt to maintain full control over the List and its claimed sales figures. Salvabl (talk) 02:33, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

While I agree with the three of you (editors named in this complaint) on the merits, just some friendly advice: the length of your comments is hindering resolution of this issue (and it was the same at the last ANI). It's not your fault, but there's three of you, and while individually your comments aren't too long, together it's 3x for the rest of us to read, and the substance of your (collective) message is getting lost amidst the total length. Just my opinion/advice. Levivich 05:51, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

I almost said the same thing myself: These responses are so lengthy and bogged down with music methodology lingo that it scares people potentially offering outside help away. I think it's part of the reason why this still isn't resolved after so many prior discussions. Sergecross73 msg me 13:14, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps there could be a word limit placed on an RfC on the page, for any one reply. FrederalBacon (talk) 20:15, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Sorry for the length of my messages, I'll try to write shorter messages in the future. The problem here has its origin years ago, and retrospective is necessary in order to have context about this situation. Yet, there are many actions by Harout72 that I've had to omit in order not to create an extremely long message, and which are relevant, such as his opinion about a racist message, or his silence after being asked for sources to support the inflated figure of 24M that he added to the certified sales of Presley's Christmas Album. The worst part of all this is that I'm being compelled to not talk about music sales as we should because Harout72 himself has also stopped doing so, choosing ANI reports instead. Salvabl (talk) 02:26, 17 August 2022 (UTC)