User:VNHRISHIKESH already has a rather problematic editing history, with in a month one so far successful article creation, and 10 or so failed ones (mostly deleted, some draftified). This includes things like moving Paracelsus to Philips Paracelsus, a name not used anywhere else. They received warnings for the use of their user page for promotion, copyright violations, and general disruption.

On 13 July, they asked for protection of their user page and talk page[1] to preserve it from vandalism. Neither page had ever been vandalized, and the request was swiftly rejected[2].

Today, an IP appears[3], makes two vandal edits to All, and then makes the most gentle of vandal edits ever to VNHRISHIKESH's user talk page[4][5]. The IP then stops editing, and 3 minutes later our editor reappears and again asks for protection[6] (the last edited three minutes before the very short-lived vandal IP appeared). To put the icing on the cake, both the editor and the IP turn out to be from south Kerala.

Vandalizing Wikipedia to get your user page and talk page protected must be among the more stupid things I have seen here, but coupled with the waste of time this editor has turned out to be otherwise for most of their edits, I don't think they should stay around for much longer. (Oh, as an aside, with IP masking in place this would have been a lot harder to check of course). Fram (talk) 07:59, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Though I generally agree that this user may not be ready yet to constructively contribute to Wikipedia, from their personal website they link to at their user page it appears that they are a young editor, and I don't feel that the tone of the report above reflects that very well. Thanks for taking this into consideration, ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 14:22, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, can we please block VNHRISHIKESH until they have some more competence and maturity? Since the above, they have given a rather confusing reply[7] with some clarification afterwards[8]: so apparently they claim that they got logged out, vandalized All[9] and again after being reverted[10], then immediately vandalized and undid this at their own talk page[11]: and then not only did they again log in 3 minutes later, but they saw those last two edits and didn't realise they had made those edits and called for protection[12].

And then they started moving their poor articles, which were draftified by a range of editors (including me), back to the mainspace, creating stuff like Factors affecting Temperature distribution (again draftified by me now). You can look at this article at the time of redrafticiation[13] for yourself, note how this article on temperature distribution on Earth starts with a graph of the average body temperature of humans throughout the day, as if that graph has anything to do with the subject.

An editor who one the one hand vandalizes articles to get their user page protected, and on the other hand produces such rubbish articles, is an editor we can do without. If age is a factor, then they can come back once they have matured a lot. Fram (talk) 08:53, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Once more, I agree that VNHRISHIKESH has a serious competence issue (they're already extended confirmed and I'm not sure if they even made one edit that is genuinely helpful), but from all that I can see it is in extremely good faith, and it should be dealt with accordingly. I'm not sure if mentorship really is a thing here (I know that I don't have the time for that), but if no mentor is willing to step up we may indeed need an indefinite block. I just wish we had some kind of procedure to kindly tell off young users who if they would come back in five or ten years time would very likely make great editors. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 17:12, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, everyone Here is VNHRISHIKESH. I understood that you're going to block me from editing. I think you did't notice my whole edits in this encyclopaedia. I think that my edits were perfect and I can say that I have a competitive mind and maturity. So please don't block me from editing.— Preceding unsigned comment added by VNHRISHIKESH (talk • contribs) 03:21, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Indef. The combination of "I think that my edits were perfect" with a clear state of imperfection does not show any possible scope for improvement.--Eostrix  (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 09:28, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Block Indefinitely - Whilst it appears highly likely that this user is fairly young, and we have all suffered from the foolishness of youth at some point in our lives, that does not alter the fact that an increasing amount of time and effort has been spent in tidying up after them; especially so when they are (almost certainly) deliberately wasting people's time by vandalising their own talkpage in order to get it protected for some reason. To be frank, competence is required; block until they can return and contribute positively (which is likely to be in several years time...). --Jack Frost (talk) 13:51, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment This user created a stub called "Pigments in Leaves", which was quickly draftified. They expanded it (with homework-assignment-like prose), and it was declined, twice. They then unilaterally moved it into mainspace without modifications. Oh, and Factors affecting Temperature distribution is somehow live in mainspace again. I lack the inclination to sort out the edit history there. XOR'easter (talk) 21:10, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• And then today, they created this, which was soon after draftified of course. It now looks like this. Fram (talk) 07:58, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Just in case it wasn't clear from my comments above, we need an indefinite block for this editor (though not a community ban!); we just need someone or somehow to do it gently. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 00:55, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Block, regretfully. This seems like a textbook case of Competence is required. They're obviously trying to edit in good faith, but the complete lack of understanding of core policies like notability and verifiability, combined with issues relating to content forking, unencyclopaedic writing and being unwilling to listen to advice from much more experienced editors means that their contributions are simply becoming a massive time sink. 192.76.8.91 (talk) 15:57, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support block per WP:CIR; too much ongoing work in cleaning up their messes and handling frivolous requests. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 16:06, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support indefinite block Obviously lacks the competence and maturity to constructively contribute long-term. I mean look at Draft:Famous scientists, just created today.--🌀Locomotive207-talk🌀 23:25, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Block Their article creations are poorly sourced and often have spelling, grammar, or tone issues. For example, their latest creation Draft:Encounter Marine Park has lots of puffery and mis-conjugated verbs, and no secondary sources. Not to mention that their very first talk page message concerned Atom:some basic facts, a duplicate of the super-basic Atom article. It is apparent from their article creations and lack of response that they have poor command of English. It reminds me of Risean 12345 (talk · contribs), another user I encountered recently who was indeffed for similar reasons. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 05:58, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I have filed a WP:CR request for this thread. They are now editing rapid-fire at Draft:List of famous scientists, a draft they created that is redundant to the various Lists of scientists. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 09:36, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Don't block It appears from [latest reply at the talk page] that they are actually learning. They appear to have taken up advice against their Draft:List of famous scientists, owing to its subjective and redundant scope. Thus, I retrach my previous !vote. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 01:24, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't know. I think that what you seem to be referring to, i.e., this (I realised it. I found your notification. Then I wasted my time......) and this (Thanks for your valuable advice.....), shows once again that they are here in incredibly good faith, but not necessarily that they are competent enough to do more work than they create. If there is no one willing to mentor them (David notMD, Haploidavey?), it may take a long time before they become a net positive. Clearly, it's a difficult call though. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 01:49, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support siteban a textbook case of WP:CIR.Ratnahastin ^tålk 02:07, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment; he's undoubtedly well-intentioned but seems completely in a world of his own, and when it comes down to it, way too pleased with himself to receive advice or criticism and learn from both (QED time and again). Like others here, I think that's at least partly to do with age, and therefore he might grow out of it but I'm not at all sure this is the place to do it. I'm not sure that his litany of apologies means anything much, or that the User has determination to overcome (or even recognise) basic competence issues, or that I've the patience to help someone who's so determined to go their own way. I mean, you've seen the sheer length of his talk-page? And barely an acceptable edit elsewhere. A net negative. That said, if he was open to mentoring, I might be up for it. But it needs to be at his initiative, and I'd be pretty merciless. Haploidavey (talk) 02:28, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support block If errors were in one area, mentoring might be plausible, but it is creating and abandoning drafts, reverting draftifications, inadequate referencing, grammar problems, and no evidence of being on the steep part of any learning curve. At > 100 edits a week, a massive time sink. David notMD (talk) 02:50, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support siteban Per WP:CIR. I-Bin-A-Bibi (talk) 05:10, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support indef, unfortunately. WP:CIR. DoubleCross (‡) 09:56, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Can whoever delivers the bad news PLEASE draft it while keeping in mind that this editor appears to be a young person? EEng 04:22, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yesterday, I noticed Siwema_Nikini (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was adding images to the very top of articles (i.e, the first line of the articles) with the nonsensical edit summary "#WPWP #WPWPARK". Someone asked the user what they were doing but did not receive a response. The most recent edit under that account was roughly three hours ago.

I just noticed the account Mary calist mlay (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) making the exact same types of edits on my watchlist at a particularly high rate of speed. In the last seven hours, they've added images to more than 250 articles, all with the same nonsensical edit summary (except now they've added "#WPWPTZ" to the list of hash tags). I did a spot check of the edits and while most of the recent image additions have been to the top of articles, many have been to the bodies of articles too. I left a message on the user's talk page[14] but they have so far ignored it and continued adding images to articles. I also noticed that the editing of both accounts have overlapped -- the switching of accounts was apparently not account abandonment.

The images being added aren't wrong, at least from what I can tell (I'm not familiar with most of the features being referenced). In fact, some of the edits probably improved some of the articles. However, a lot of the edits seem unnecessary and they're being done at such a high rate of speed (with a misleading edit summary too under at least two accounts). Given their unresponsiveness to talk page messages, the use of multiple accounts, etc., and because I'm getting tired, I think this might merit another set of eyes. Thank you. Aoi (青い) (talk) 11:21, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There's a prize at stake. WPWP = m:Wikipedia Pages Wanting Photos 2021. WPWPARK and WPWPTZ are community identifiers listed on those pages. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 11:29, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, that explains it, please disregard. (It would be nice if the edit summaries were a bit more descriptive so others who weren't familiar with this knew what was going on.) Aoi (青い) (talk) 11:36, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(non-admin comment) m:Guide on how to use WPWP Campaign Hashtags#How to use the #WPWP Campaign hashtag - 'The hashtag is not a substitute for a "a descriptive edit summary". The hashtag, #WPWP or the community-specific hashtag must be added to the edit summary box of pages edited alongside a descriptive edit summary.' A friendly word of advice might be in order. Narky Blert (talk) 12:09, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed Hormorkunmy doing the same thing. They have re-introduced an incorrect image to the Matthew Cream article, which was removed earlier this year. I have a COI so I am not interested in editing the article, and had actually forgotten that I saw it happen, until this thread popped up. (Will notify Hormorkunmy of this thread.) Daniel (talk) 12:52, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note I removed the Matthew Cream image, and also put in a rename request at Commons, to hopefully prevent this from happening again. I notice that multiple editors have raised the issue in the past that the image does not depict the subject. (And my own research suggests the same.) Levivich 17:34, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Levivich! Daniel (talk) 18:47, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Purely for info - we have edit filter 1073 (recent hits) tracking all edits using the WPWP tags. firefly ( t · c ) 13:31, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Which includes some of my undos, as I've added the tags and "photobombing" in the edit summaries. —C.Fred (talk) 20:42, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

More editors are joining in. Many of their contributions are helpful; some are not. At the risk of promoting a leaderboard, this list summarises the edits. It would have been nice to have some input into or at least notice of this initiative. Certes (talk) 21:07, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Quite frankly, I think we need to start giving out blocks if editors are noncommunicative and add images in a disruptive manner. A contest taking place is not a free pass for behavior that we would not tolerate otherwise. --Rschen7754 17:36, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the same redundant image from Mogadishu University no less than four times - each time it had been added by a different user. Apart from that, I have reverted a number of other image additions, and warned several users about disruption.

Some weeks ago, I started a thread at m:Talk:Wikipedia Pages Wanting Photos 2021#Cryptic edit summaries, and the replies there by T Cells (talk · contribs) are not entirely to my satisfaction - for example, there is no assurance that the contest organisers will check the participating edits, let alone revert the bad ones. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 18:37, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

T Cells did ask all part taking organizers of the different languages and communities to do so, but they might not check this on a daily basis. One global organizer (= T Cells) cannot be held responsible for all edits done in the total campaign, and individual users are always responsible for their own edits. If a user cannot or will not converse (even on a basic level) with the rest of the language community even though they keep on doing disruptive edits, I think a block is indeed appropriate. It is against the competition rules to add images to Wikipedia's without a decent description in the language of that Wikipedia, or for instance to add pictures in bulk, like adding complete galleries. The goal of the competition is to add unused images to articles without any images, and on a secondary level to maybe create a more cultural diversity in images used in an article if appropriate - but always keeping in mind proportionality of the amount of images in relation to the article text. Ciell (talk) 20:47, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Some of these edits just don't seem right. Like look at this. Article is about HMS Havock (H43), but the picture is of HMS Hasty (H24) with the caption of "sister ship HMS Hunter"? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 21:48, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

More edits by same user that I'm unsure about (ie, they could be fine, but just unsure of appropriateness myself): [15], [16] (adding a picture of apparently a U.S. Navy ship to an article about an Imperial Japanese one), [17], etc. Most seem fine though. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 21:55, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Similar issues at HMS Exmoor (L61) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), where two of the editors involved in this stupidity have added a completely incorrect image in the last 24 hours, despite the image including a very specific note about which ship it refers to. I don't see why the time of other editors should be wasted cleaning up the mess this is creating. FDW777 (talk) 22:01, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The issue with this contest is it values quantity over quality. TBH I don't think it's reasonable to expect the contest organisers to check 51,000 edits, but our volunteer corps can't either, so this is a conundrum. I think overall more edits are helpful than not, but the bad edits can be quite a problem. Apparently the comment by the organisers suggests local blocks for issues disqualify from the contest, so that should be an incentive to ensure accuracy. If the community wants, we could also do a local edit filter throttle reminding users of local policy requirements if they're adding images too quickly. Or we can just tough it out and deal with individual users if there are problems. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 22:10, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Should we be allowing someone who is banned from English Wikipedia to organise a contest that includes edits to English Wikipedia articles? Doesn't that violate the spirit of WP:PROXYING? Phil Bridger (talk) 07:41, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I think next year the English Wikipedia must opt-out of the contest, and we must make it very clear. Yesterday the #WPWP edits which were on my watchlist showed an error rate of about 50% (bad quality, bad captions, sometimes the image did not show the subject of the article). I understand that some people need money and hope to earn some in this way, but for me 50% error rate is close to the point when I would just blank-revert everything without looking at individual edits.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:10, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Indeed, couldn't we just set that filter mentioned above to disallow? --Rschen7754 18:06, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Rschen7754, we could, and to be honest given the amount of disruption this event seems to cause I wouldn’t be against it. We could alternatively start by throttling such edits via filter and displaying a warning to users that images have to be relevant/useful, and to use edit summaries. firefly ( t · c ) 21:41, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed this is a mess—blindlynx (talk) 20:35, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I came here to post about this, It seems like a huge chunk of the things flagged 'likely to have problems' at recent changes are these edits. The sheer volume makes it difficult to go through and check for quality and correct formatting without having a dedicated proj doing this and that seems like a waste of time—blindlynx (talk) 20:34, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• See also Aminwa_21 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Mohamed mfuu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)—blindlynx (talk) 20:42, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• And Emmanuel Obiajulu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who has made just shy of 2000 edits according to that quarry link above. I've already had to harp on him twice for adding captions to stuff that's popped up on my watchlist. The rest is far too much for me to check. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:06, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• In checking his last 15-20 edits I've already had to revert 3 additions as being completely the wrong species. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:41, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would add to the above list of problems that some images are being added with text captions that just repeat the filename of the image, which may be unintelligible. BD2412 T 21:49, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Yup, that's one of the things I had to ask Emmanuel to stop doing. Some of the captions he was jamming in were German. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:22, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Or sometimes without a caption or a caption identical to the name of the article.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:02, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This has been an issue for a good 2-3 years now. I said it before and I'll say it again IMHO this "competition" should be banned entirely here. I'm sure a minority of those who participate in this probably do so constructively however the vast majority don't. All's this stupid competition does is incite disruption for the sake of a prize and it also creates mess for others to clear up. Ban it. –Davey2010^Talk 22:01, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:Davey2010, problems "for ...2-3 [elsewhere, "many"] years" can't be attributed to the WPWP campaign earlier than its first run: July 2020 (last year). -- Deborahjay (talk) 07:23, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deborahjay, That's really really weird - I swear this has been going on for longer than 2020 I swear by it .... but both the meta page and edit filter were created in 2020 so it would seem I'm wrong here, Certainly seems a lot longer than a year, Thanks,

When I was skimming over the edit filter logs, the vast majority of edits being made were constructive, correct and helpful. I would guesstimate that the good rate is over 90%, based on the samples I quickly checked. So really, I'm worried whether banning it might be a bit knee-jerky. Not a single user has been locally blocked for this yet. What's the rate of error? Is the rate of error limited to certain users only? Can we throttle contributions to X per day? Questions like these should probably be asked before considering banning the contest. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 22:09, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, Unfortunately every edit I've seen with the WP hashtag I've had to revert (as it's not been an improvement) and unfortunately this issue has been a reoccurring problem here for many years so it's easy to assume all have been bad. If it's true that the majority (say 70-90%) of edits have actually been good then I would certainly support some sort of limit over banning. –Davey2010^Talk 22:28, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, I know there were issues with this competition last year as well - Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive322#Image_competition? - so it does seem to be an ongoing problem. For some anecdata on my part, I scanned about 15-20 edits by Emmanuel Obiajulu and found no less than 3 that were incorrect species for the article they were placed on (Placing an image of Genera thisspecies on Genera thatspecies mostly). These were images that were clearly labelled with Genera thisspecies on the Commons page, so it's not an issue with Commons data, it's carelessness. I also noticed Adorvisa adding images today; they have now been blocked as a sock of RogerNiceEyes, who was blocked in March for high-speed inaccurate image additions to articles. Not sure if it's a coincidence, as Adorvisa wasn't using the WPWP hashtags, but if it isn't, it's indicative of the kind of editing behavior this sort of competition attracts. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:22, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Yeah, I tried to leave a note at AN at the start of the month (link) so we could get ahead of it this time around, but it didn't grab much attention heh. It may well attract unconstructive behaviour, but so does Wikipedia in general. It also attracts a lot of positive behaviour. I just don't think we should judge whether to ban the contest entirely without good evidence it's untenable and no other solution to reasonably accommodate it is possible. Given that we haven't even tried warn or throttle filters, and are mostly relying on anecdotes, I'm not convinced either has been done yet. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 22:27, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@ProcrastinatingReader: I did block a user related to this, see 2 threads below. --Rschen7754 00:04, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I see. Well, then personally I think we should do this:

1. Passive warnings. When users are participating in this contest, use an edit filter to show them messages to welcome them to English Wikipedia, remind them of the applicable policies, remind them to take it slow and focus on quality, and the consequences of disruption.
2. If that fails, throttle contributions. If we limit users without extra userrights to 25/day or something, I strongly suspect any disruption will be eliminated while we'll still be keeping the productiveness of this campaign. The users cited above are adding literally 500 images per day each, so some errors are unsurprising. I prefer #1 because even at the higher rate most peoples' contribs are usually good, we just need occasional reminders to make the mistakes less.
3. If both fail, then consider banning the contest.

Personally I think any of the first two ideas will have desirable effects in better articles and less disruption, but we didn't try to actually do anything last year or this - discussion just faded out - so I dunno why we'd expect the situation to change this time around. Whatever we do, there is still over one month of this contest left (it ends 31 Aug), so we should probably figure something out rather than shelving it for yet another year. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 09:26, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Wait a minute, the person leading this campaign is banned on here?! That already splits the communication here. – The Grid (talk) 22:54, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• The Grid Yes, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Wikicology. In addition to a site ban they were given a specific topic-ban from images. 192.76.8.91 (talk) 23:05, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Could there be automation involved with image selection here? I've found multiple accounts adding the same erroneous images to the same articles. Siwema Nikini just turned up to add some of the same bad images that Unofficiallummy had done only hours earlier (albeit with thumbnails in infoboxes and sometimes duplicating the ones that are already there, thereby being especially disruptive). Siwema Nikini is continuing despite a level-4 warning - should these be reported to AIV, reported here, or let be for the time being? --Sable232 (talk) 02:28, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• The fact that this competition has been a problem for many years and that the main organizer is banned from English Wikipedia makes it pretty clear that the English Wikipedia should opt-out of this campaign starting next year. InfiniteNexus (talk) 04:07, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• I have noticed that Emmanuel Obiajulu is also doing this. Hemiauchenia (talk) 07:59, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• If the competition (with the "#WPWP"* tags) leads to such sloppy low quality work, why don't we community ban the competition and its participants (self declared via tags) from the English Wikipedia?--Eostrix  (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 09:47, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't know why people keep repeating this. It's factually untrue. Has anybody actually looked at the filter log, 1073 (hist · log)?

  I've reviewed over half the last 50 contribs, again, and found zero cases of mistaken identity and two technical errors (ie duplicate image). There are a couple more that aren't perfect but are far from disruptive and unlikely to be higher than non-contest newbie error rates. The impression of the contest participants in this section is not representative of most participants or most contributions. That's a simple fact anyone can verify by browsing the public filter log themselves. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 10:04, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  I did prefix my sentence with an if, however you do make a strong point that the users discussed here suffer from a selection bias for disruption and are therefore not representative of the contestant cohort overall.--Eostrix  (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 10:50, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  I jinxed it maybe. Avg error rates shot up the past 2 days. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 04:01, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This topic was also briefly raised on 11 July at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive334#Added image #WPWP #WPWPKWR. CMD (talk) 09:19, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I sincerely and rationally think that we should ban the contest. IMO rapid addition of images is just a horrible thing waiting to happen. Adding an image should involve an accuracy check, a rationale check, a licensing check, and a layout check. We're just going to get a bunch of images with bad licensing added to articles from this. With the whole focus being rate of speed, contestant's aren't going to check the image licensing. And we can't assume everything on Commons is okay (I nominate stuff for deletion on commons that I run into in articles here several times a month, because there's tons of bad licensing there). And we shouldn't be encouraging people to cram as many images into articles as possible - it causes layout and sometimes accessibility issues (see MOS:SANDWICH, among other things). We're just going to wind up with a bunch of articles crammed to the gills with images with often-shitty licensing because of this, and that's frankly disruptive. At a minimum, we need to make it clear that this contest should not be adding images to FAs - the FA criteria include image layout, licensing, and relevance checks, and a contest about speed editing images to articles is going to cause issues with the FA criteria. Hog Farm _Talk 19:40, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose any unnecessarily harsh knee-jerk reactions. I get that some on enwp are automatically skeptical (or even cynical) of events/contests that lead to lots of new users editing, especially if organized outside of enwp. But apart from warning/blocking specifically problematic users (as we would in any other context), we should not be talking about banning the event or similarly harsh actions without (a) decent data on the quality of these edits beyond a handful of anecdotes and assumptions, and (b) more information about what will happen afterwards. T Cells/Wikicology is one of dozens of people involved here; it's not "his" contest. Let's ping a few of them at least somewhat active on enwp: @Deborahjay, Anthere, Jamie Tubers, and Astinson (WMF): are you aware of any plans to check the quality of contributions on the English Wikipedia? Are there any plans for evaluating the quality of contest contributions afterwards? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:34, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Since I was pinged above by @Rhododendrites:, I thought I might make a couple observations. First some context: I am part of a team working on improving the quality of support for campaign activities in the Wikimedia movement (see meta:Campaigns). We work on designing systems of support so that we can advance movement-wide work to fill topic/content/quality gaps on wikis in general. In that role I have been serving as a advisor on this campaign.

I want to make several observations in my capacity as a strategist:

• From all of the documented problems that I am reading so far in this discussion, and some spotchecking I did on the edit filter, campaign participants are not making any more bad edits than if they were normal enthusiastic newcomers in other contexts (and I suspect if we did analysis of the edits, the revert rate would be much lower than average, especially from newish contributors). The reason we are discussing this is that the community can see all of these edits together in one simple way (the hashtags) which makes it really transparent where the problems are coming from. Transparency should help us have better discussions to find constructive solutions, not punish participants.
• Many of the errors that I am finding in my own spotcheck of content and pointed to above appear to be originating from Commons or other Wikipedias. Even as a very experienced Wikipedia/Wikidata/Commons contributor in my volunteer capacity (User:Sadads): when I work on media files, I too end up accidently trusting other editors work in ways that creates the occasional error. Rooting out these problems on other wikis is complex, and hard for experienced editors in general; helping a newcomer figure out that kind of workflow would be even harder and would be an unusually high standard for participation on our wikis.
• As several folks have said already: if we are serious about the "anyone can edit" ethos of the project, enthusiasm for our mission and the potential for helping Wikipedia by adding images should be honed by improving the strategies for reception (see proposals below by one of the coordinators below @Deborahjay:). Remember that by introducing a minor quality error in good faith, by, for example, adding a less than helpful caption on a page it creates another low-hanging opportunity for new editors to fix content. Almost everyone in this discussion probably started fixing these kinds of errors on the Wiki in their first 500 edits or so -- its important to remember that we were all newcomers at one point, and learning from mistakes and fixing small errors is core to how people start in our community.
• There are a lot of signals that participants from last year's campaign were retained or reactivated well in both English and other language communities. Again, in spot checking other events and campaigns, a number of participate in other campaigns had #WPWP edits in their contributions (in both events with and without prizes). We see similar patterns with simple-edit oriented campaigns like #1lib1ref. Unfortunately we don't yet have a transparent, easy to leverage system for exploring these kinds of patterns in campaigns at a analytical/statistical level without a lot of very skilled technical work (part of what we hope to begin working on this year at WMF). I can advise the organizers or interested editors on how to do this kind of analysis after we get past the heat of the moment -- but I think it would be a shame to shut down a campaign that is successful at helping new editors feel like they can contribute to the community.
• This year the organizers significantly reduced prizes and restructured the instructions for the campaign to emphasize edit summaries and quality image checking (see the main campaign page on Meta). If contributors are not following the instructions, its on them and the community should feel confident warning and blocking folks who don't respond.

I hope the observations are helpful -- and I, personally, as a long-time Wikipedian, hope that English Wikipedia doesn't lose this pipeline of potentially fruitful newcomers and productive edits. Astinson (WMF) (talk) 13:33, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Alex for those comments. I second.

I am mostly involved in the Wiki Loves Africa specific prize (using WLA images to illustrate articles). I will note that I do intend to do some review of the insertions mid-August. I am currently not much online so it is complicated for me to do it right now. This being said, I must clarify that, similar to last year, I put some requirements with regards to the Wiki Loves Africa specific prize, so as to limit the risks of disruption and motivate editors to improve smaller languages. The rules for the prize this year may be read here m:Wiki Loves Africa 2021/WPWP. Specifically

• 1st prize - US $100 gift card
• 1st to 3rd prizes – WLA souvenirs (if the post office is more efficient than it has been in the recent 18 months...)

All WLA years are eligible ... BUT the first prize will consider edits made to ANY language EXCEPT English and French. Which suggests there should be limited disruption HERE on the English Wikipedia. Besides, to be eligible, the participant must have registered an account before January 2021 and must have made at least 300 mainspace edits to any language Wikipedia before 1st June 2021, so there is no incentive to complete newbies to participate. Last, they must abide with the general rules of the contest (descriptions and such).

Side note, per hashtag tool, 92 pages concerned on en.wp so far [18]. Last... any abuse --> block is perfectly fine by me... Anthere (talk) 14:20, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• In addition to what has already been stated by other pinged users, I believe the appropriate step to take here is to sanction individual users accordingly (including a ban if necessary), not to cancel the entire contest altogether. I have reached out to the lead organizer of the contest and the plans being set in place to mitigate future occurrences seem solid enough. So I'd advise to sanction the vandals to put a stop to the disruptive edits.--Jamie Tubers (talk) 23:36, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

100% agree with everything Astinson noted here... the burden/expectation put onto new editors of immediate perfection in particular is such antithetical to what Wikipedia should be about... —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 09:18, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Luckily this is not the first time that the contest has been run, so the organisers should be able to link to the evaluation of last year's event against the targets that were set before it took place. Or is this just another case of "every experiment has to be adjudged a success because of sunken costs"? Phil Bridger (talk) 21:08, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• ANI is for addressing specific users' conduct; may I suggest moving the broader discussion of the contest and enwiki to the pump, where it will get more attention from our community (and not turn this ANI report into a megathread). Levivich 20:59, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • See discussion of proposed remedies at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Remedies_(poll). -- Deborahjay (talk) 14:06, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

From a Commons perspective, we have seen an uptick in copyvios uploaded for the purpose of adding them to articles for WPWP. Not sure what the best solution for the problem is, though. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:38, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree we need to scrap it. Me and other editors have had to repeatedly remove an incorrect image added to the Lewis O'Brien (footballer) article by multiple editors as part of this nonsense. GiantSnowman 07:43, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• I stumbled across a parallel problem -- the additions not of images, but of the words "image of" in captions, so that "Joe Shmoe" now reads "Image of Joe Shmoe" (or "Portrait of Joe Shmoe"), which is not an improvement. --Nat Gertler (talk) 10:42, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from WPWP communities liaison organizer

Hello everyone, I am User:Deborahjay, the communities liaison lead for the Wikipedia Pages Wanting Photos Campaign and a longtime contributor to the English Wikipedia. The WPWP international organizing team has been following this discussion closely and noting the concerns raised here. We agree that the level of disruption (mostly by new editors) is enormous and that we must moderate their participation or contributions, especially in high-traffic Wikipedias such as the EN WP.

We are genuinely sorry for these disruptions and we take responsibility for the problem. We are immediately asking organizers at the participating community level to patrol the edit-filter log and help with cleanup. They do not need to wait till the end of the campaign; we are now at its midpoint.

In other to stop or significantly reduce the disruption, we are proposing the following remedies:

Proposal 1

1. Passive warnings. When users are participating in this campaign, use an edit filter to show them messages to welcome them to English Wikipedia, repeat the applicable WPWP policies, remind them to take it slow and focus on quality, and the consequences of disruption.
2. Throttle contributions of new users. Limit users without extra userrights to 25 edits/day or less.

Proposal 2

Limit participation on the English WP to only users with 1 year old account and at least 500 edits to mainspace on the English Wikipedia.

We strongly believe that if any of the proposed steps are accepted and implemented, this would take care of the disruption and any erring editors should be blocked per the community blocking policy. Thank you. -- Deborahjay (talk) 07:43, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be nice if the contest organisers required participants (who are not already experienced editors) to go through a 'training course' before being able to edit. This would include them talking 1–1 with an experienced volunteer or the organisers to learn more about selecting relevant and high quality images, adding appropriate captions, technical details like how to actually add the image properly and where in the article to put it, etc.

Anyway, it's clear a consensus is forming and actions need to be taken, and a push towards a consensus is needed here so we can do something, so I have proposed remedies at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Remedies_(poll). Both of your proposals (or well, technically the first was mine ;)) would be part of "option 2" there. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 09:54, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Close and consolidate

Unless there are outstanding concerns with specific users that need deliberation here, can I propose closing this section? There are lots of useful comments here, and thanks to the organizers/advisors who have shared their observations and intentions, but since this thread has become more about the event than specific users, we're having parallel conversations. The thread at AN has progressed to the point of a more concrete proposal and it would be useful to have further discussion of this event in a single place. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:59, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Bhaskarbhagawati (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Bhauma dynasty (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Varman dynasty (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Bhaskarbhagawati (talk · contribs) has recently started some POV edits on Bhauma dynasty and Varman dynasty, e.g [19] and [20], [21] where he is removing reliable sources and replacing them by older sources that are contradicted by the newer sources. He has been reverted a number of times, but Bhaskarbhagawati would edit war ([22], [23], [24]) and stop just short of violating 3RR. Nevertheless, Bhaskarbhagawati would make minimal effort to engage in any discussion or to come to a consensus. I left a notice on this talk page to engage his opposing editors in discussion[25], but to no avail[26],[27] etc.

Bhaskarbhagawati is topic banned from the languages of Assam ([28]) and recently he was recently temporarily blocked for violating the ban ([29]). I request the administrators to take some action because he is displaying the same behavior that he did when he was banned and blocked.

Pinging El_C and EdJohnston.

Chaipau (talk) 19:31, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Two back-to-back ANI threads, two pings in a row! Do I win a prize? I want a prize! El_C 19:39, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Chaipau for your effort, i will reply point wise.भास्कर् Bhagawati संवाद 19:49, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: Here is another instance of Bhaskarbhagawati removing cited texts: [30]. This is a persistent problem with this editor who has not relented on his point of view despite many attempts to come to a consensus. Pinging Richard Keatinge who facilitated a discussion on this topic. Chaipau (talk) 23:06, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging unrelated editors to current dispute (WP:CANVASSING ?).भास्कर् Bhagawati संवाद 08:24, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:APPNOTE. Chaipau (talk) 10:07, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:Bhaskarbhagawati, can you explain why you removed references here from the Bhauma dynasty article? At first sight, these appear to be reliable sources. If you think you received consensus for this removal of sources, can you link to wherever that occurred? EdJohnston (talk) 14:50, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, will reply soon.भास्कर् Bhagawati संवाद 16:18, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

All right, i am responding to points raised by Chaipau. In backdrop, Chaipau is a known editor with political overtones. His nationalistic zeal overtakes academics. His recent conduct, such as diff is not sustainable in real world diffdiffdiff.

(i) Bhaskarbhagawati (talk · contribs) has recently started some POV edits on Bhauma dynasty and Varman dynasty These are uniform with multiple well grounded sources (1)^{[1][2][3][4][5][6][7]} (2)^{[8][9][10][11][12][13]}, all removed by them with brute force (see point vi).

(ii) e.g [31] and [32], [33] This should atleast not brought up, it was long resolved diff and he is well informed about it diff (bluntly rejected by him).

(iii) [34] This carrying on from last point, plus infobox, capital and reliable sources are reinstated.

(iv) [[35]] The kingdom has long standing capital diff but they removed capital along-with citations without discourse (see point vi).

(v) where he is removing reliable sources and replacing them by older sources that are contradicted by the newer sources. As continuing from point ii, so called reliable sources are isolated (WP:WEIGHT), replaced by several better known authors and books.

(vi) He has been reverted a number of times Yes, they are in reverting spree diffdiff diff diff diff diffdiffdiffdiff[diffdiffdiffdiffdiff,diffdiffdiffdiffdiff diffdiffdiffdiff, by "one of the many" suspected sock-puppets of Qwertywander (their homogeneous comments about Chutia kingdom, Varman dynasty etc.) diff(Requesting a checkuser test).

(vii) but Bhaskarbhagawati would edit war Unfounded accusation.

(viii) ([36], [37], [38]) All content are as routine, WP:WEIGHT issues are addressed. They are not able to provide at minimum two sources for unacademic claims.

(ix) and stop just short of violating 3RR Never engaged in reverting like this.

(x) Nevertheless, Bhaskarbhagawati would make minimal effort to engage in any discussion or to come to a consensus. They are informed several times about it beforehand.

(xi) I left a notice on this talk page to engage his opposing editors in discussion[39] Chaipau post such custom threatening messages on talkpages of other editors diff diff who don't bow to his wishes, its not unprecedented, he threaten to report me here if i don't follow his commands, it is his way of achieving consensus real quick.

(xii) but to no avail[40],[41] As mentioned above his restated his commitment to use isolated sources over academic consensus.

(xiii) They are removing sections, contents, reliable citations forcefully ad infinitum (see point vi), without consensus.

(xiv) In past, he has relentlessly taken content disputes here, explicitly for those editors he distaste, for which he was commanded against diff.

(xv) Chaipau is a old edit warriror diffdiffdiffdiffdiff, who either war vigorously or encourage others to force unilateral consensus. He was blocked for fierce edit-warring in recent past diff, though he promised to behave, it seems that is not happening anytime soon diff.

Thanks ! भास्कर् Bhagawati संवाद 18:30, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Bhaskarbhagawati. The fact that you disagree with User:Chaipau is noted. Can you please answer my earlier question, whether you received consensus anywhere for your removal of references from the Bhauma dynasty article? EdJohnston (talk) 18:59, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Link is above (point ii), thanks.भास्कर् Bhagawati संवाद 21:17, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bhaskarbhagawati. I was requesting a link to a talk page discussion where other editors agreed with you that certain references you disapprove of ought to be removed from the Bhauma dynasty article. You did provide two links to discussions. In the first of these, the only two other participants are now blocked. The only other link to a discussion was a thread at Talk:Bhauma dynasty where you and Chaipau discuss the matter and don't come to any agreement. This doesn't amount to a consensus in your favor. Both you and Chaipau have been blocked in the past; you are the only one still under a topic ban. My conclusion is that your removal of sources from the Bhauma dynasty article was not justified by any talk page consensus. We don't usually like to see people removing references from articles without a good reason. (Makes it appear that you are cherry-picking sources to keep only the ones that agree with you). If this thread is closed without action, you should at a minimum promise not to continue warring at Bhauma dynasty until consensus is found. EdJohnston (talk) 22:41, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am OK with any action/inaction on this report as long as the edits the conditions set down are met. Nevertheless, I would like to point out the following for the records:

• I was not involved in the recent edit warring of Bhauma dynasty.
• The [42] is an example of WP:OTHERPARENT. The language is not at all neutral and it contained lies. For example: "Paromita Das (2005) andis faculty in Gauhati University, India; has hardly written any academic works before." is not at all supported, since Paromita Das is published ([43], forgive the terrible formatting)
• The WP:RS response was for Das (2005) alone, but Bhaskarbhagawati had removed Shin (2018) and Sen (1984) as well [44].
• And the edit summary is also not truthful. It is not only Das and Shin who see the Naraka story as a myth, but Sircar as well [45].

Chaipau (talk) 23:18, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The discourse was concerning reliability of sources, same was meticulously talk over in talk page diff. The agreement was reached to pull to WP:RSN diff, resolved, they pronounced it as matter of policy not consensus "Wikipedia should not present a dispute as if a view held by a small minority is as significant as the majority view. Views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views (such as flat Earth). To give undue weight to the view of a significant minority, or to include that of a tiny minority, might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute.". He was effectively informed.

The consensus (WP:RSN) retract to 12 October 2017 while they are blocked not long ago (June 23, 2020). Yes, i agree talk-page dialogues are not binding, hence taken to pertinent noticeboard for binding consensus. The unrelated minuscule block decision was taken in my absence (i haven't violate the ban), based on misapprehension topic ban (you). I will appeal in Arbitration Enforcement. As divulged it is matter of policy, we don't use isolated sources (i have no concern if aided by secondary).

Chaipau raised some new points. He do facilitated warring. Policy matters are not WP:OTHERPARENT. They are faculty of Gauhati University but her ideas are not supported in academic circles. Different views of Sen and Shin isolated as well, not buttressed by academicians. The legendary status is not in question diff. She is pointing towards origins, ethnicity etc, and calling him as historical figure. Chaippau pinged you not without reason, he is aware of lengthy tussle between us (you and me) over topic ban. Before i make any promises, I insist redressal of conduct issues (prelude) brought in fifteen points above. Thanks.भास्कर् Bhagawati संवाद 07:29, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Without adding to the walls of text, I find that Ed Johnston's comments above are valid as are Chaipau's. I don't find significant merit in Bhaskarbhagawati's remarks. Richard Keatinge (talk) 09:02, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am anticipating Richard Keatinge sooner than later, will reply soon, thanks.भास्कर् Bhagawati संवाद 10:58, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is amusing. Bhaskarbhagawati is citing some meta comments from 2017 from a user who has since been banned to remove references published in 2018—after the remarks were made in WP:RS! This is a rather perverted use of WP:RS, I think. Chaipau (talk) 21:48, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Without adding to the walls of text, I find that Ed Johnston's comments above are valid as are Chaipau's. I don't find significant merit in Bhaskarbhagawati's remarks", Richard Keatinge wrote. Videlicet, they imply they don't understand current state of affair, notwithstanding X (Chaipau) is right anyway. Not unprecedented diff diff diff diff diff diff diff diff diff, the ideal illustration of deep-rooted WP:TAGTEAM, thanks.भास्कर् Bhagawati संवाद 16:01, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bhaskarbhagawati removed referenced texts not only in Bhauma dynasty, but also in Indo-Aryan migration to Assam [46]. Here too, he removed Taher (2001), actually without any edit summary. This is the same pattern of edit he has made in Bhauma dynasty. I added this incident in addendum. So, could you, Bhaskarbhagawati, please explain why you removed the reference to Taher (2001)? This kind of disruptive behavior is not a one-off for you, but a sustained pattern that has been going on for a decade now, for which you were topic banned. I tagged Richard Keatinge because he has seen your behavior and edit patterns up close in Indo-Aryan migration to Assam page. Tag team? No! Chaipau (talk) 17:13, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Iteration, replying soon, thanks.भास्कर् Bhagawati संवाद 07:49, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reiteration, Mohd. Taher has WP:WEIGHT (minority viewpoint) concern diff, edit summary removed isolated source, as discussed in WP:RSN, Chaipau is utterly cognizant of it, being participant, thanks.भास्कर् Bhagawati संवाद 17:52, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Again, another misrepresentation. The [RSN discussion] was about the presence of Dravidian in Assam. What Bhaskarbhagawati removed here] was the claim that the Indo-Aryans were the third linguistic group to arrive. Chaipau (talk) 11:08, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Chaipau is at odds with consensus, in addition to policy (notwithstanding of multi-fold apprisal) (WP:DISRUPTIVE EDITING) for extensive stretch (decade), furthermore, engage in long term WP:CANVASSING diffdiffdiffdiffdiffdiff diffdiffdiffdiffdiff. He is facilitating WP:EDITWARRING, through suspected long blocked editor (taking out enduring infobox, citations, sections) diffdiff diff diff diff diffdiffdiffdiff[diffdiffdiffdiffdiff,diffdiffdiffdiffdiff diffdiffdiffdiff, take over set of articles, manifesting WP:OWN.भास्कर् Bhagawati संवाद 17:09, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fodbold-fan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

A very good user (at times), but with a sizeable block log and a history of adding unsourced content to BLPs, which based on this discussion from June is seemingly due to laziness/forgetfulness. And yet, he persists. I therefore propose a topic ban, broadly construed, from any edits related to BLPs. GiantSnowman 18:58, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Topic ban: Regretfully, likely necessary. A quick review turned up another such edit [47] which I reverted for lack of sourcing. I attempted to verify the claims in the diff, but despite looking at the websites of the respective clubs I could not find any information which confirmed what Fodbold-fan was saying. There are a lot...and I do mean a lot...of editors who routinely change information on football and football-bio articles without any care in the world for accuracy. Sadly, Fodbold-fan seems to be one of them. User talk response such as [48] and [49] do not inspire confidence. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:39, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support BLP topic ban This editor's dismissive attitude toward Verifiability and BLP policy is simply not acceptable. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:33, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Hammersoft and Cullen328: given my comment below, and the way in which the rest of the discussion has gone (which you might not have noticed since originally commenting), I don't think we can say this editor has no desire for accuracy or that edits are unverifiable as such. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:08, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Switching to oppose for now. Although I haven't waited for Fodbold-fan to respond to Valereee's direct question, I will go out on a limb here. Support for an indefinite duration. The blocks were of an escalating duration a couple of years ago, and now we are back with the same issue. In the absence of demonstrating consistent compliance with core policies when editing Wikipedia articles, this topic ban is unfortunately necessary. Ncmvocalist (talk) 23:18, 28 July 2021 (UTC) There are a number of reasons (which have been brought to my attention since my original comment) as to why I think we can provide Fodbold-fan with another chance. Firstly, Fodbold-fan has promised below on 29 and 30 July 2021 to include a citation for every edit and I think we should offer that user a chance to fulfil that promise. Secondly, I think we should formally review each of the blocks shown in the block log, as a matter of fairness. Thirdly, the edit which led to this proposal was correct, even though it was unsourced, as Fram has outlined below on 30 July 2021. Lastly, Fodbold-fan seems to be make valuable contributions and has in my view demonstrated he is capable of improving his style of editing. Although we know that that not all edits need to be sourced per se, and reversion is a great remedy, I think it is fair to expect Fodbold-fan to fulfil the promise made in any case. Since 2015, multiple users provided Fodbold-fan with feedback on their content not being reliably sourced, content being incorrect, content being improperly sourced, (lack of) use of edit summaries and use of the preview functions. I anticipate concerns will persist unless Fodbold-fan makes more of a consistent effort (which I believe the user is capable of, but as a result of habit, chooses not to). Rather than evaluating every single previous concern, it would be more productive if he proactively takes more care with his edits. This will resolve the risk of contentions arising. I would also reinforce Otr500's comment below dated 30 July 2021, as well as Robby.is.on's comment of the same date. Ncmvocalist (talk) 21:51, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Okay please last chance, from now on I will add source to every little edit I do. I promise. You will see. Please Fodbold-fan (talk) 16:19, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How many last chances have you had? GiantSnowman 17:57, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I promise this time will be the last. You will see. Fodbold-fan (talk) 12:39, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. The two edits given as justification for the topic ban were unsourced but correct. The edit that Hammersoft couldn't verify was easily verified from e.g. here or here. We should thank them for their edits, not topic ban them. Football project editors mostly do a wonderful job, but have had similar issues in the past with a very heavy-handed approach towards editors who add correct information but don't source it to their liking. While it of course is better if editors add good sources while dding information, it still is better that they improve articles and add correct but unsourced information, than that they don't improve these articles at all. Fram (talk) 07:32, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Fodbold-fan is a very productive editor and has been for a long time. I would find it sad for them to be topic-banned. That said, they need to adhere to Wikipedia's sourcing requirements and their dismissive statements towards sourcing were very disappointing. I'd be willing to give them one "last chance". Robby.is.on (talk) 09:54, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If people want to block people for adding unsourced but correct information to BLPs, then perhaps they first need to change the policy? There is no requirement to only add sourced material to BLPs, unsourced additions or changes are welcome if they are uncontroversial (and correct of course). If they are regularly incorrect in what they add, then we should have a discussion about that: but topic banning an editor (and worse, blocking them 3 times already) over what is perfectly acceptable policy-wise is the wrong approach. Instead, GiantSnowman (and others) should stop blocking people for making correct and policy-acceptable edits. Fram (talk) 10:20, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is no excuse to ever add unsourced material to any article, and certainly no such thing as policy-acceptable unsourced edits so long as Verifiability remains a policy. Unsourced edits are worse than vandalism. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:39, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are confusing policy-encouraged and policy-acceptable. Unsourced edits are perfectly acceptable. That's why it is verifiability, not verified. Obviously it is much better to add the source directly, instead of waiting for it to be challenged and only then to add one, but that's just best practice, not some absolute requirement which is blockable or which is somewhere policy. And your addition "unsourced edits are worse than vandalism" is just silly. Fram (talk) 10:47, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unsourced edits are unacceptable. We tolerate vandalism, but it is easily corrected. Unsourced edits often require expert attention. Usually, unless we can identify the original source, they have to be removed, because without the source we cannot verify that they are not a copyvio. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:15, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Support per "Comments on change of !vote below": Per Fram and GiantSnowman's "A very good user (at times)". Words of wisdom or consideration: This editor is apparently a subject SPA (certainly not a bad thing), with what seems to be 255 articles created (only a few deleted) and also what seems to be working on 64,000 edits. While I am 100% for sourcing BLP content, if the content was in fact (not seemingly argued against) sourced, then this should count as a warning that getting too close to the last chance line could be dangerous. @Fodbold-fan: You seem to indicate you are through playing with fire. I notice you revert but apparently, add content on some edits ( here). I haven't looked at how it is customarily done but I consider a reversion to be just that. I would think adding content and reference(s) should be noted as such in the edit summary for clarity. In the scheme of Wikipedia creating articles is normally considered a great thing and in that regard, you seem to be doing "great things", however, and especially concerning BLP's, it is dangerous to add content without sourcing when you have been warned. At present, you stand a chance of being topic-banned. Unless you have some alternative area I would think you would want to protect this. I cannot give a good defending argument concerning your block log. I can just add that this "slip up" was the first in over two years and maybe that will be considered. Maybe because there was a source in this instance there could be some saving grace but I hope you do realize the gravity of the situation. Being a prolific editor does not give a pass for disregarding policies and guidelines. Good luck, -- Otr500 (talk) 10:49, 30 July 2021 (UTC) — Preceding change of !vote made by Otr500 (talk · contribs)) 13:42, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose because there is no rule requiring edits to be sourced. I would support such a rule, but it very pointedly doesn't exist. That's why there's a BLP rule requiring it for controversial edits; because other kinds of edits don't have to be sourced. No sanctions without evidence of actually violating policy. Also, the one diff in the OP was not unsourced; almost all of that edit was sourced by Soccerway, which was already in the article; the only part that wasn't was the "the deal was never made official" language. I actually agree with requiring edits to be sourced but the remedy is reversion not sanctions. If we want to sanction editors for persistently adding unsourced material we first need to add the requirement to policy. Levivich 12:39, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Levivich and Fram: WP:BLP requires All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by an inline citation to a reliable, published source. It does not matter if the edits are "controversial". If the material Fodbold-fan is adding is regularly being challenged then it is unacceptable for them to simply supply sources once it is challenged. They need to be adding the sources when they are adding the material since clearly whatever they are adding is "likely to be challenged". BLP further requires that "contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately and without discussion" but that doesn't seem to be the issue here since the problem is Fodbold-fan violating BLP by failing to add sources for material likely to be challenged rather than contentious material. Nil Einne (talk) 14:08, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't think "likely to be challenged" means "we have a project where a few of the most active editors will challenge any BLP material if unsourced", but "if the unsourced material you add is unlikely, or negative, or otherwise likely to be challenged for any reason apart from simply being unsourced, then you should source it. Otherwise it is circular reasoning / self-fulfilling prophecy. For me, the issue is not (or less) with someone adding correct but unsourced material (and the editors wanting the topic ban have not indicated that this is about incorrect material at all), but with editors routinely challenging this (and blocking editors!) to uphold their standards which are higher than what enwiki policy requires. Policy should not be misused in this way, the lines you quote are not intended to be a catch-all which can be used to wikilawyer. Otherwise we could better replace them with "all BLP material must be sourced and will be removed if not, and editors failing to do this will be blocked". Fram (talk) 14:18, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • These edits are not likely to be challenged and I'm not sure why you think otherwise. No one has challenged the accuracy of the two edits diffed here. I am hard pressed to think of an edit that is less likely to be contentious or challenged than what team a pro athlete or coach plays for. This is very easy to verify, "vanilla" stuff. It'd be a whole different story if these were controversial or inaccurate edits. ("Controversial" is shorthand for "contentious or challenged or likely to be challenged.") Levivich 14:21, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• • • Our rule is that all material is likely to be challenged. Sports web sites have short half lives. After a short time material becomes unverifiable. Adding a reference may help preserve it. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:43, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

      • "Rules" made up by a local project (or by one member of the project?) are not a reason to sanction or block editors, and the above "infractions" to that ignorable rule are not from such typical sports websites but can be found in news sites as well. Fram (talk) 09:01, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose per Fram and Levivich. Unsourced material is only bad if 1) it is unsourceable and not merely for being unsourced. Which is to say, if it can be easily shown that a source exists and could be added, that is not a violation of BLP or any other policy. And 2) it is contentious or likely to be challenged. The lack of a source itself is not sufficient grounds for challenging. It must also, in some other way, have a problem, such as being unlikely to be true, harmful or negative in someway, etc. etc. Wikipedia policies are not couched in mandatory "if this, then that" statements, they require nuance and prudence when applying them, and to ban and/or block the OP for this seems heavy handed. I would encourage them to source their edits better (as they should have learned, it makes some people get unnecessarily confrontational when they don't), but unless such information is legitimately contentious, we shouldn't sanction them for not doing so. --Jayron32 15:56, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  You're forgetting copyvio. Without the source, we can't verify that it was not copied. I've had to remove or rewrite whole articles because they were unsourced. And I'm not forgetting how Fram challenged material that was both properly sourced and that they knew to be true. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:43, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Copyvio is a complete red herring here. And if you for some reason would like to use this discussion to attack me, then at least have the decency to include some diffs of what you mean. Otherwise please remove the statement per WP:NPA. Fram (talk) 09:05, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• @Fram: @Levivich: Rather than just focusing on whether policy permits unsourced edits per se, we probably should also consider the background of issues raised with this editor in particular. My understanding of the history here is that part of the reason this editor was blocked was due to the content being inaccurate and/or (as Jayron32 puts it) unsourceable. While it is clear to me that Fram is saying the diff example at the top of the thread is not one of those occasions (that the content was merely unsourced), and therefore all of you are saying it was permitted under policy, it is unclear to me whether you are all saying this of the previous edits and blocks which you are calling heavy-handed. I mean, there is little point in us saying we shouldn't have sanctioned an editor like this for unsourced content unless we have examined the background of those previous sanctions and the extent of the feedback that the user was provided, as we are not ones for discouraging best practice either. If it turns out that the block log is prejudicial, we can then at least reach a consensus on that and why. If it isn't, then perhaps something else needs to be said for completeness, along the lines of what Otr500 has said. Ncmvocalist (talk) 19:41, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ncmvocalist GS's blocks of Fodbold-fan were among the blocks discussed at GS's arbcom case, in which both Fram and I participated. Levivich 19:54, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Fodbold-fan, can you explain why after nearly 64K edits, you're still adding unsourced info to Wikipedia? I find that a bit astonishing. Why in the world don't you just source your edits? You clearly must know how. —valereee (talk) 20:33, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural close of some kind See comments on on change of !vote. I do not see a blockable offense here. I did not look into the past block record just that it exists. An arbcom case was mentioned but no links were provided. I do not know if any blocks were appealed which is an editor's right. I opposed this because sources were found which means in this case there was NOT "unsourcable" content involved. What I do know is there were three blocks for adding "Persistent addition of unsourced content" (by the same Admin) and now this one. I hope this does not evolve into the questioning of these blocks. If ONE was because of adding content that could not be sourced this is potential harm. Future edits can be considered "contentious or challenged" as they have been. Wikipedia:Verifiability is a policy. Part of that policy is WP:CHALLENGE: All content must be verifiable. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and it is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution. and Attribute all quotations, and any material whose verifiability is challenged or likely to be challenged, to a reliable, published source using an inline citation.

In this case, with this editor, it does not seem to be a stretch for any to acknowledge that any unsourced contributions are "likely to be challenged" and need to be sourced especially on a BLP. I believe the editor is aware of this. This means that failure to do so could be inching towards possible claims of tendentious editing. This is evidenced by the This page in a nutshell and the lead of Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. This policy applies to any living person mentioned in a BLP, whether or not that person is the subject of the article, and to material about living persons in other articles and on other pages, including talk pages.

Considering these things it is not unreasonable to require that sources be provided by this editor without trying to knit-pick if this may be applicable to all editors. This editor has agreed to this. If this editor", Fodbold-fan (pinging for notification), wishes to contest any of this (is there any undue duress?) I will support such contesting. However, none of us are "court-appointed" so I would like to suggest this be closed as resolved with the editor agreeing to provide sourcing for material, specifically in this topic area. I would like to add a note of caution moving forward with regards to concerns of "heavy-handed" (editor versus editor/Admin involvement) in this area. If "anyone" has deeper concerns that can be addressed separately -- Otr500 (talk) 09:05, 31 July 2021 (UTC) [reply]

@Otr500: Just on your comment about the block log, the relevant arbcom case finding is here, where the administrator was found to have wrongly blocked other editors for "persistent addition of unsourced content" (in the same period as his last couple of blocks of Fodbod-fan). The evidence in the case included reference to the blocks of Fodbod-fan but the finding did not explicitly name this editor, instead naming two other editors.

To the extent that I have referred to reviewing blocks, they wouldn't be about administrator, as the case already finalised remedies which were relevant to incorrectly blocking editors; rather, the block review would be for the limited purpose of deciding how it would affect our views on editing restrictions for Fodbod-fan specifically (because unlike other discussions, I think it would be wrong for us to take the block log at face value in light of that case).

In the meantime, I agree that this thread can be closed on the basis of the agreement provided by Fodbod-fan. Ncmvocalist (talk) 19:25, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Unsure why editors are justifying the repeated addition of unsourced content to BLPs and the (and being generous here) frankly blasé attitude to sourcing requirements, just because I am involved and have blocked the editor in the past (the last time being 3 years ago), despite other editors also raising concerns about edits and other editors having blocked the editor as well over a period of the last 6 years (although admittedly clean for 2). Do you really think so little of me? Cool. GiantSnowman 09:57, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• GiantSnowman, I certainly do not "think so little of you". In fact, I think it commendable that you "aggressively enforce the policy on biographies of living people". Two years is a long time. The benefit of the doubt suggests that a warning should be sufficient and this was acknowledged. I believe there is a long-standing consensus that BLP content needs to be sourced. Some may choose to argue, but unless since somehow nullified, a 2010 Arbitration Committee motion passed that included: That unsourced biographies of living people may contain seemingly innocuous statements which are actually damaging, but there is no way to determine whether they do without providing sources. WP:BLPREMOVE (#1) includes "unsourced or poorly sourced" and gives latitude for an involved Admin to block: Administrators may enforce the removal of clear BLP violations with page protection or by blocking the violator(s), even if they have been editing the article themselves or are in some other way involved. This is for "clear cases" and includes provisions for "less clear cases". I think the evidence suggests that if the subject does violate the BLP content sourcing policy requirement again that more than a topic ban be considered. What can be considered tendentious editing? "Expecting others to find sources for your own statements" and "This applies most especially to biographies of living individuals". -- Otr500 (talk) 07:32, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would add that it appears that Fodbod-fan is complying with the promise made in this thread, but if issues persist, any proposal for editing restrictions can promptly be revisited at that point. Ncmvocalist (talk) 19:25, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Otr500 and Ncmvocalist: except of course edits like this yesterday - no source provided for the changes, no edit summary to explain the changes, no indication as to why the changes are correct etc. GiantSnowman 10:40, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments on change of !vote: I reverted the content as unsupported and left talk page comments. I am flabbergasted, to say the least. Part of my defense of this editor, as well as some others commenting above, is the two-year lapse and the promises. That was rendered null and void with the addition of unsupported content while this ANI was ongoing. My assumption of good faith has been tainted. The editor in question may have set fire to the "rope" offered. This seems to cross flagrant disregard in leaps and bounds. The editor has commented "Dude, please stop your harassment. I don't have time to put sources in every single article, but if you look it up, you see that my edits is legit. You know me by now too. Otherwise, I will quit editing." This is clearly a stance of "I will not add sources" (even though I promised) because it is other people's job to verify my added content.

There may be two camps on a necessity to add sources because some feel it is alright if the source is out there somewhere. I do believe there is evidence that expecting sourcing, backed by policy, can be required. The above assumption of good faith would be that the content was verifiable. This goes deeper towards tendentious editing by disruption: "Examples of disruptive editing" #1, #2 (fails to cite sources), #4, and #5, along with "Point-illustrating" and Failure or refusal to "get the point".

I now Support (rationale per above !vote) a "topic ban" but also suggest this be considered Wikipedia:Disruptive editing. If the editor does not quit as indicated that editor can simply bring these editing habits elsewhere. -- Otr500 (talk) 13:42, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted your revert. I don't know why you (and GS) think this edit was unsourced. It's sourced to Soccerway, which is already cited in the article. Levivich 13:57, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why did FF not simply add an edit summary saying 'as per Soccerway' in that case? wP:CIR. GiantSnowman 14:29, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Or look at this edit, which uses this website as a source (in the edit summary only, not the article, but whatever). The changes to the article are to update the Waitakere United stats, add playing for Forrest Hill Milford United (no stats), and add playing for Northern Rovers (with stats added). The only thing the 'reference' supports is this player playing one game in May 2021 for Northern Rovers, and that's it - nothing about Waitakere United stats, nothing about Forrest Hill Milford United, and nothing about Northern Rovers stats. Is that acceptable? GiantSnowman 14:33, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As to your first question, I could have sworn we had this conversation two years ago and it went like this: yes, edit summaries are useful; no, we don't revert or sanction editors for lack of edit summaries; plus it's bloody obvious that the edit was updating stats that were already referenced to Soccerway, plus plus you in particular of all people know this. Your view that lack of edit summaries = CIR does not have consensus. Or to put it another way, while ideally all edits would have descriptive edit summaries, if I have to choose between the two, I'd rather have an editor update articles (accurately, per sources already cited) without an edit summary than not have the editor update the article at all. You really have to accept that this is the consensus, even if you disagree with it. I would support a rule requiring edit summaries, but first we get consensus for that requirement, before we sanction anyone for violating it.

As to your second question/edit, everything in this edit was sourced to a source already cited in the article, National Football Teams. The only thing that wasn't sourced by NFT (Northern Rovers) is sourced to the Northern Rovers website source. So it's all sourced as far as I can tell (and accurate). Levivich 14:44, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• GiantSnowman, this is indeed the root cause of the Arbcom case of two years ago revisited: you (and a few others) owning football articles way too aggressively, and imposing your rules on other editors (but, apparently, both then and now, a lot less strictly on yourself). Would it have been better if Fotbold-fan had used the edit summary "quick clean" to make their edits? Or is this fundamentally the same as what you are trying to get then topic banned for, now that you are no longer allowed to block them over it (but still use those bad blocks as justification of the topic ban now)? Or this? Fram (talk) 15:08, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Again - a huge difference between content sourced to an in-line reference and an editor using one of many external links and asking us to try and work out which one. GiantSnowman 17:11, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@GiantSnowman: Firstly, you might want to consider how the use of the word "us" in your sentence sounds in the context of Wikipedia's policy on ownership of content, which Fram referenced immediately before your comment. Secondly, higher doses of assuming good faith can be helpful in understanding that the content change is more constructive than not. If the content was actually inaccurate or actually unverifiable, then that is when you have something to be concerned about. Just my 2 cents. Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:26, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Man, GS, Fram's comment prompted me to take a look at your recent contribs. Look at these reverts, each of which you wrote in the edit summary "no source," but each of which was sourced by a source already in the article, Soccerway: [50] [51] [52] [53] [54] [55] [56] [57] (all of these have since been reinstated). The worst part is, these are all the winners of major championships. You know this is sourced to Soccerway! You're just being WP:POINTy by reverting this as "unsourced" when you damn well know that they are in fact sourced. You know because this is one of the things that was brought up at the arbcom case. You've got to stop doing this.

  Here are some edits you made with the edit summary "stats per Soccerway": [58] [59] [60] [61] [62] [63]. These are exactly the same as the edit you complain about, except that you use an edit summary "stats per Soccerway." Well, the omission of that edit summary doesn't make it "unsourced" and isn't grounds for reverting an edit. That why I say you know that these stats-updates are sourced by Soccerway and that Soccerway is already in these articles, because you do the same type of work, updating statistics.

  Here are some edits you made with the edit summary "clean up": [64] [65] [66]. These, again, are the same types of edits as what you're complaining about: they are sourced to a source already in the article, but you don't say that in your edit summary. There is no functional difference between an edit summary "clean up" and a blank edit summary. You have zero grounds for complaint here.

  What really drives me nuts about this, from one content editor to another, is that you're totally losing sight of the point of what we're doing here: building an encyclopedia. I mean I'm a bit besides myself that you took out correct, relevant, up-to-date, sourced information (that an athlete won a championship) because you've had this years-long fued with some editors over edit summaries. Talk about putting your own needs above the needs of our readers! Come on, man. See the light here. Don't corrupt our articles because you're mad an editor for not using edit summaries. Levivich 15:46, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Funny that you use one Jonathan Lewis diff, but not the one where I managed to find a source for the content. Funny that you say "these edits have been reinstated", but not "they have been reinstated after sources were found and added".

For the avoidance of doubt, I would have no issue if the edit summary made it clear exactly where the information was coming from. Contrary to what you say there is a huge difference between that and not using any edit summary and it's a pity you can't see that.

You clearly haven't been reviewing my contribs properly, because in this one I clearlyy add a reference, and in the other clean up ones I am merely updating/cleaning the article that has already been sourced in-line - not using an EL and making other editors guess where the info is from.

Oh there's no feud or anything like this, please don't ABF. Just a desire from me to improve Wikipedia - including sourcing content about BLPs!!! It's s shame that yours and Fram's hatred views towards me colour your vision. Would you be as defensive if any other editor had raised concerns about unsourced content being added to to BLPs? Absolutely not. GiantSnowman 17:11, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It was never unsourced. It was always sourced to Soccerway or National Football Teams, two of the standard sourced used in footy articles for stats. You keep saying "unsourced" but that's just not true. You say "I would have no issue if the edit summary made it clear exactly where the information was coming from," but above I linked to several diffs where you, yourself, updated stats with the edit summary "clean up," which does not indicate exactly where the information was coming from. I don't hate you but I am concerned about how you've been treating some editors, like Fobold Fan, for years. I'm also concerned that you refuse to grapple with certain truths, like: the sources for the edits were in the article when the edits were made; you were previously sanctioned by arbcom in part for this; you made articles worse (removing that an athlete won a championship) over this. To me, these are serious issues and I'd like you to pay attention to them. Like, agree to WP:Drop the stick. Levivich 17:22, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Last thing on this because I have better things to do with my time (like, I don't know, improve and add references to BLPs!!!) than argue with Fram and Levivich. But - it is possible, and it wouldn't kill you - to say both "hey, GS, why not AGF a bit more" and "hey, FF, why not use edit summaries or try to make it clearer why you are making changes and where your information has come from". The two are not mutually exclusive. See ya. GiantSnowman 17:20, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I said edit summaries are useful and ideally all edits would have descriptive edit summaries and I would support a rule requiring edit summaries. Of course I think FF and everyone else should use edit summaries. But that wasn't what this thread was about when you opened it: you only mentioned unsourced info in BLPs. Would it kill you to admit the info was in fact sourced? Would it kill you to admit you do the same thing (update stats without saying what the source is in an edit summary)? It doesn't matter to me if you admit it or not, but it does matter to me that you stop reverting people for adding information without a source when the source is already in the article. Levivich 18:19, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thinking about it, where is the evidence that the transfer was present in the external link (Soccerway etc.) at the time FF's edit was made? i.e. where is the evidence that the external link had already updated to reflect the transfer and that therefore is the source used? Sometimes they take a day or two. Interesting. That is all. GiantSnowman 18:28, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Concur with GiantSnowman. It's clear there's no consensus here, and there's reason not to enact a topic ban. But, neither should we simply declare there is no problem and move on. A clear message needs to be given to FF that their behavior is not what we expect. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:43, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• @GiantSnowman: Ok, let's put your differences aside and consider this in a different light. We now know this is an instance of content arising from an existing source; the bizarre fact that it was cited under "external links" prior to Fodbold-fan editing the article doesn't mean the article was better prior to Fodbold-fan's edit. Sometimes articles will have a handful (or more) of sources cited in the entire article - with all of those sources seemingly attributed to one particular line in an article, when in fact they form the basis of other information in an article. That doesn't mean an update should be reverted automatically or is somehow less beneficial.
• From experience, we all know for a fact that many unregistered accounts (fans of football or otherwise) will take the liberty of updating information without providing an in-line citation, whether within the text or in an edit summary. However, if the information is accurate, verifiable, compliant with NPOV etc, it is implicitly accepted that update is undoubtedly an improvement to the project even if policy might allow a revert. While we might like the content to be further updated so that external links are specifically listed under references, or for each update to be attributed to a separate in-line text citation, that is not always necessary at that point by the editor who made an update (noting the article was originally sitting like that for who knows how long). Given that it is an encyclopedia that anyone can edit, the standard you are expecting seems to be higher than what the project requires sometimes. That higher standard you would like in articles can be a good thing if it is used constructively, but forcing it on others can be offensive, disruptive or harmful.
• Another way to think about it is that not all editors are good at (or enjoy) copyediting, referencing and so forth. Fodbold-fan is an editor who clearly enjoys updating the accuracy of Wikipedia articles on football(ers) based on verifiable information; that is the earlier step of improvement specifically. The next level of improvement might be increasing in-line citations to the source or moving the sources to a references section or copyediting or building more content just as Fodbold-fan did. That next level of improvement can be boldly completed by you or any other editor too.
• If you are saying Fodbold-fan is not abiding by an agreement and the content is inaccurate and/or unverifiable (or something along those lines), restrictions might need to be considered. But the idea of sanctioning an editor for not completing the next level of improvement doesn't sit right with me; does it really sit right with you? Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:16, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Coming back just because I have been pinged - FF has admitted they messed up, asked for a final chance, and made a concerted effort to improve (even if it is still, in my eyes, not good enough). However, based on everything, a topic ban is probably not suitable at this time. But, as Hammersoft says, other editors pretending there is nothing at all amiss with FF's edits is extremely damaging. GiantSnowman 18:20, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Or alternatively, a good editor (who could improve some of their editing habits) was threatened with a topic ban by the admin who already blocked them incorrectly three times, panicked (understandably) and promised whatever was wanted to avoid the fate that surely seemed to await them. They perhaps have since learned that the demands made by that admin were unreasonable and not supported by everyone, and that said admin already got into trouble for similar actions in the past (including with this very editor), and finally that said admin shows a "do as I say, not as I do" mentality in this regard. And no, this is not "hatred" for Giantsnowman, but serious disappointment that an otherwise good admin and editor has such a large blind spot when it comes to this, and that the Arbcom case, while being followed to the letter, has not changed anything in their view on the underlying issues, which are not seen as sanctionable by many editors (nor by policy). They believe that the football project has some (presumably unwritten) rules beyond policy ("everything is likely to be challenged", "young players are kept even when they have no GNG notability, just in case they later become notable") which overrule general Wikipedia-wide consensus, and that mistaken belief needs to be discarded. Fram (talk) 07:59, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

GiantSnowman prefering style over content?

Having just seen an edit by GiantSnowman on my watchlist, I get really concerned about their preference of style over content. Here they cite the MOS as a reason to remove the birth and death place from the first line of the article. Fine, I suppose (I haven't checked the MOS), but the result is that the information is completely removed from the article. How this improves the article or enwiki is not clear. Similarly and also today, at a soccer article, they reverted[67] correct, more recent information because the older version had their preferred style. And when they are not reverting to impose style over content, they are reverting because their searching skills fail: this from today ("nothing listed at https://www.ascolicalcio1898.it/index.php/news or on Google?") is baffling, the news is all over GNews[68] and was posted at the club website a few days ago: [69] (search for Botteghin, or directly at [70]). I don't know what the reason is for all these errors, but as all these are from today only, it is becoming a real problem. Protecting the integrity and correctness of enwiki is one thing, actively making it worse again and again is quite another. Fram (talk) 11:04, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Sigh. right, here we go.
• This was using MOS - in cases where the POB is clearly referenced I re-locate, if not I remove.
• this I acknowledge that the stats update was valid (I have now restored) and I did intend to correct that, but simply forgot, and hold my hands up; the rest is all stylistic.
• Regarding Bottenghin - as per my edit summary, I searched the club's official news page (no entry listed) and on Google (no entry listed), and so reverted the information about a BLP on the basis that I could not verify the information. In situations where I can verify the unsourced information added by other users, I do - see this also from today, which Fram conveniently overlooks.
• Overall, I am unsure what sanction Fram wants or what they hope to achieve by posting this/following me around? If an editor I respect thinks I've done anything wrong, or could do anything better, I am all ears, otherwise I'm going away again. GiantSnowman 11:25, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"In cases where the POB is clearly referenced I re-locate, if not I remove." No, you don't. There was a reference directly after the birth-date brackets (not even at the end of the sentence), to an RS[71], which clearly states "Born Tilburg 1755-05-19" and "Deceased Amsterdam 1820-11-30". I have no idea what more you could possibly want. So you somehow "missed" that reference, even though it was clearly there? Just like you "forgot" in the second case, and found "no entry" in the third case, even though they are trivially easy to find? As for "following you around", I noticed this because you out of the blue edited Adriaan de Lelie, an article I created and where the latest edit before yours was also by me. I don't really care that you don't respect me, though it is hardly civil to state so (if we all would start posting our opinions of others, things would deteriorate quite rapidly): but what I hope to achieve is that you rethink your approach to editing and to reverting, and that you get your priorities right and realise that MOS and style are less important than content, and the your own rules or the football project rules are a far second to general policies and guidelines. Fram (talk) 11:56, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, I didn't see the info in the ref on Adriaan de Lelie, but I see it's there so re-added. Perhaps if the article was properly written and referenced in the first place it wouldn't be an issue? I fully accept I'm not perfect (I'm probably one of the few editors who is well aware of that) and I'm always looking to improve my editing, so thank you for raising it. It's a shame you could not do so on my talk page and instead came straight to ANI. GiantSnowman 12:16, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yes, the problem is the article, that's why you couldn't find the info when it was raised here, and that's probably why you claim that the Botteghin info was not available on the club website and on Google even when I gave the direct link to it here. I brought it here instead of on your talk page because it is a continuation of what started this very thread, your insistence on imposing some rules without caring for the more important issue of whether the facts were actually right and up-to-date. Heck, one of the three articles I gave above was one where you previously "improved" the article by reverting Fotbold-fan[72], thereby removing the country of birth from the infobox, and changing the correct "2019" for the U-19 team to the incorrect "2019-", even though as a 21-year old he obviously no longer qualifies for the U19 team. The more I look at your edits, the more cases I see where you make the article worse. You probably have excuses for all of them, but we already had an ArbCom case for your heavy-handed and incorrect "rule" over football articles (and others), and the same issues were raised in this discussion already, so the "you should have first come to my talk page" rings hollow. Fram (talk) 12:29, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, 21 year olds are eligible for the under-19 team. I am not sure of the exact regulations, but I know for under-21 level players born after 1 January 1998 are eligible for the 2021 UEFA European Under-21 Championship (so players up to age 23). See all the 21+ at 2021 UEFA European Under-21 Championship squads. GiantSnowman 13:25, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

PS either take me back to ArbCom or leave me alone, thanks. GiantSnowman 13:27, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So, you are trying to prove that 21 year olds can play for the U19 teamby pointing at the U23 rules? Perhaps you could just have checked the 2021 UEFA European Under-19 Championship instead? "players born on or after 1 January 2002 eligible to participate." For the new competitions, see [73], where the year has been changed to 2003. So no, he wasn't eligible recently, and won't be eligible in the future. As for your PS: ArbCom is started when the community can't resolve an issue, and isn't intended as some "I don't respond to anything beneath that level" get-out-of-jail card. You know full well that an Arb case would be speedy declined as other attempts at dispute resolution haven't been exhausted. Fram (talk) 13:50, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What's the excuse for [74]? The club website[75] just happened to change between your edit and my revert[76] 32 minutes later? Do we really need to check every edit you make now? Fram (talk) 13:03, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, my God, the website was updated in between me checking it and you then stalking my edits (which you claim you are not doing, though you clearly are). The last Wayback entry from February 2021 confirms #13. Do you want me to email the club to ask them to confirm?! Can somebody please tell Fram to leave me alone and start AGF? GiantSnowman 13:25, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This from '1 hour ago' confirms the new squad numbers. It is therefore clear that somebody at the club has been updating the web profiles this afternoon, and Benda's happened to be updated in between my review of his profile and yours. Or are you going to still claim that I, for some unknown reason, am lying? GiantSnowman 13:31, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What Fram is proving is that you make just as many mistakes as anyone else, yet you hold others to a different standard. Levivich 13:35, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't stalking your edits, you made an article I created worse. I am now, during an ANI discussion about your edits, actually checking your edits. It is the onl way to find patterns of problematic aditing and to see whether things improve or not (hint: they don't). Your latest defense seems to be "the website was changed when the IP edited, was changed back when I reverted, and was changed again when Fram reverted". Which looks comparable to your defenses for the other three problems from today I listed, i.e. "not clearly sourced" (er, it was), "I forgot", and "not on Google or the team website" (again, er, it was, very clearly). Fram (talk) 13:50, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, my explanation is that the IP has read (somewhere) the squad number had changed (likely on Twitter); I checked the profile and it had not been updated; you then checked the profile slightly later and it had. No more or no less than that. AGF

And no, there is no problematic editing. The issue at the heart of the matter here is, actually, "GS is trying to reference the unsourced content added by other editors, and not always getting it quite right". Fine. Like I've said, I'm always looking to improve editing, and tbh would have received concerns much better if they had been raised at my talk page rather than you running straight to ANI. You saying "oh well this was at ArbCom a few years ago so that's why I didn't bother talking to you directly" is pathetic; the real reason you are posting at ANI is in the hope that I get in bother again.

PS I'm not going to reply here again, if anybody else has concerns then feel free to raise them with me on my talk page. Funny that (to date at least) nobody else has. GiantSnowman 13:59, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

None of the 5 issues mentioned in this section was about "GS is trying to reference the unsourced content": apart from perhaps the last case, the other four were perfectly sourced bits of content that you removed (directly or as a revert) because you fucked up. Trying to still frame this as "trying to reference" stuff and at the same time asking that people AGF with you doesn't work. That you would have reacted better when contacted at your talk page seems dubious as well, as you made these poor edits after the problems with your editing were again highlighted in the above discussion, and you have declared that you don't respect me anyway. Neither the location nor the identity of who reports issues should make any difference in how truthful you respond (it may change how patiently and civil you reply, but those are wholly separate from the facts). Again and again here, you have tried and failed to put the responsability for your errors elsewhere ("not on Google", "not sourced", "but the U23 regulations say"...). I hope that, when you can sleep and reflect on this, you will actually change your approach (both towards editing/reverting, and towards replying to concerns). Fram (talk) 14:18, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

On the lines of civility and errors, I raised these polite concerns with this user only a few days ago, to be met with these terse replies. Basically creating a biography of recently deceased people, and citing their year of birth directly from another language WP. Probably been going on for quite some time before I raised it. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 17:59, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oh hello Lugnuts, I wondered when you would pop by. To clarify - I didn't say they were referenced to other Wikipedias, I said they were referenced at other WPs - big difference. Sources present (usually, but not always - some was my own Google searches) on the other WPs that I simply forgot to include on the one-line stubs here. Was the information correct? Absolutely - the only issue was that there was no source present to verify the correct information, which according to Fram et al is actually acceptable anyway??? (I disagree, and now make sure that all relevant sources are present in the stubs). Regarding civility, you're the one who used edit summaries like this, entirely inappropriate. Regarding errors, here you say that the issue has "probably been going on for quite some time" (my emphasis); but here you say it is a certainty? Which is it? Either way has the issue arisen again since you raised it with me nearly 2 weeks ago? Anyway, kudos, you dangled and I bit and responded, so I'm going away again. PS still waiting for editors I haven't had run-ins with to raise valid concerns... GiantSnowman 18:59, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Off the back of one conversation into another about some disagreement. Really, this is a storm in a tiny little tea-cup. Seems pointless to say anything else. Feels like a complete over-reaction to me. Govvy (talk) 19:16, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I share Fram's concerns about GS favoring the MOS over content. With this edit he used the summary "birth/death place not in opening brackets - MOS:BIRTHPLACE" but instead of moving the information to the correct place he deleted it altogether. Presumably he would say it was unsourced, but the birthplace of Veliko Tărnovo Province, Bulgaria was sourced in the article [77]. The village of Dzhulyunitsa wasn't, but that specific detail could have been removed instead of throwing it all out. I only noticed this because it was on my watchlist; given GS's edit count I'm sure there will be more examples. Pawnkingthree (talk) 20:53, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, where is the direct reference saying he was born in Dzhulyunitsa/Veliko Tarnovo? The source you have provided is not cited next to (or even near) the birth place, it's cited only to the 'career record'. Are you saying that I, or any other editor, needs to check every single source on an article before challenging/removing any otherwise seemingly unsourced content about a BLP? And if you had concerns about that edit 2 weeks ago, why not raise it with me at the time? GiantSnowman 22:01, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If by direct reference you mean inline citation, there was not one. If you feel it necessary to remove the fact that a Bulgarian sumo wrestler was born in Bulgaria, then cite BLP, not MOS:BIRTHPLACE - that was a misleading edit summary. Pawnkingthree (talk) 23:13, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to own up here - I did not check the 35 references or 2 external links before making this edit, I trust I will be informed why I have done wrong. GiantSnowman 22:04, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I changed the short description in COVID-19 pandemic in Israel (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) so that it does not repeat the title of the article. User Debresser (talk · contribs · block user) started reverting me over and over again, demanding that I first establish a consensus, which is ridiculous because the change I made is minor and non-controversial. Also, with his latest edits there, he reverted not only me but another editor as well, without explanation: link. I asked for help at WT:SHORTDESC and the feedback there basically confirmed my point. It is unacceptable to allow this user to waste so much of other peoples' time and effort to make edits as obvious as mine was. He is banned in the Palestine–Israel topic-area, and is constantly being blocked for his edit-warring. Debresser is polluting other users' editing with his lack of judgement and WP:OWN, and should be blocked for good. --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 02:27, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If your edit is reverted, the WP:ONUS is on you to gain consensus for inclusion. Did you start a talk page discussion?I don’t see any relevance in this complaint to the IP topic. You’ve reverted it at least 4 times now. You should start a discussion before you get blocked for edit warring. Mr Ernie (talk) 03:01, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's an abuse of guidelines to require discussion before every edit. There were no good reason to revert it or demand consensus, and that's why his history of sanctions is relevant – he shouldn't be the one to dictate whether a consensus exists or not. --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 03:51, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The reason to revert it, it would seem to me, was that the version was stable before you arrived. If your edit is so obviously superior, then gaining consensus should be a breeze. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 04:03, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

he shouldn't be the one to dictate whether a consensus exists or not If only two editors have weighed in, and they disagree...then there is no consensus for the change, and the existing text is understood to represent consensus. Why haven't you followed WP:ONUS and WP:BRD by initiating a talkpage discussion to gain consensus for your disputed edit? It is not an abuse of guidelines to follow guidelines. Bringing this to ANI when you are the one edit warring in your preferred change, primarily complaining about unrelated events in the other editor's past, is a bad idea. Grandpallama (talk) 05:34, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Triggerhippie4, this page falls under WP:COVIDDS. Please exercise greater caution and do not edit war. Further, I take a dim view of you trying to browbeat Debresser with their sanctions history to win over a content dispute — and, as it happens, I'm actually the admin who sanctioned Debresser, for whatever that's worth (something, I'd reckon). El_C 05:30, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  And he even blocked me once, for whatever that's worth. :P EEng 06:23, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In fairness, blocking EEng is a right of passage for admins... El_C 06:46, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gah, Right of passage →Rite of passage, I can't spell. Though EEng probably self-identifies as a ship now (no Poop deck jokes, please!). El_C 14:34, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I gotta say something else. Triggerhippie4, I'm a bit shocked that an editor of your experience would revert a contending version over a longstanding one with an edit summary that reads: There is no consensus for your revision. It's your version that's new, Debresser's version already enjoyed consensus, at the very least loosely, via WP:SILENCE. You can't tell him that his version has no consensus when yours has even less! El_C 05:41, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And I gotta say something else too. This is an ANI thread over a short desc? REALY??? EEng 06:23, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

While it would've been better for Triggerhippie4 to open a talk discussion, I agree that such minor non controversial changes don't always require for editors to talk. Moreover, they already asked about the change in the shortdesc, and the responders pretty much agreed with them. With that being said Triggerhippie4, if you get reverted multiple times, at that point it's probably better to open a discussion as clearly the user disagrees with you and they'll be right to point out WP:ONUS (even if you think it wastes everyones time and the change is minor). Regards, ZaniGiovanni (talk) 07:10, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Triggerhippie4, browbeating Debresser over their sanctions history to win a content dispute is WP:BLACKSHEEP. We have seen this kind of thing before. Please don’t. Tinybubi (talk) 08:46, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Sorry, not interesting. El_C 11:35, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Is my reply at all necessary here? I agree with everything that has been said, but will happily repeat those points, and would like to add a few things:

1. Triggerhippie4 does not understand or refuses to accept that he is the one who has to gain consensus for his edits (as I pointed out to him multiple times), and this has been so for as long as I have known him here;
2. it takes two to edit war, and since Triggerhippie4's first reaction to a revert is, and has always been, to simply repeat his edit, he will regularly be in conflict with other editors;
3. trying to make another editor look bad is not nice (but please rest assured that I hold a very dim view of Triggerhippie4 as well, based on precisely the things that are being held against him here);
4. this is not really the kind of subject to take to WP:ANI;
5. there is a discussion on the talkpage, which seems to be going his way, and I have not reverted since, so opening this thread at that stage was being vindictive and I do not appreciate it at all;

Debresser (talk) 17:23, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Debresser, that is not an ideal reply – it seems to focus entirely on the actions of another editor without any recognition of your own distinctly sub-optimal behaviour. What exactly do we have to do at this point to stop you edit-warring, once and for all? You've been warned, you've been blocked, but you just . won't . stop. Do you not understand that edit-warring is a waste of everybody's time, and actively harms the encyclopaedia by eroding editor goodwill? Edit-warring over such trivial detail as this is particularly pointless and toxic.

Here's a proposal: you agree to a one-revert-per-month restriction on any page anywhere in the project (with the usual exceptions for pure vandalism, serious WP:BLP violations, blatant copyright violation etc); if after – say – a year you have not broken that restriction it can be lightened to, say, one revert per week. Could you do that, do you think? The only alternative I can think of is to seek consensus here for a community-imposed 0RR restriction. El_C, other editors: could this work, if Debresser agrees?

Triggerhippie4, you've taken a good deal of flak above, and I'm not going to add to that. But please read my comments about edit-warring, they apply to you too. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:31, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Justlettersandnumbers Not going to happen. I am allowed to revert to a consensus version. I am allowed to behave sub-optimal. I broke no rules. I hold the higher moral ground here, as the one protecting the page from aggressive non-consensus edits, and I don't believe you are seriously proposing to punish me for that. Debresser (talk) 22:35, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Debresser: First rationale you reverted me with was "Why would we do this?", despite that I explained why in my initial edit. Then, you reverted saying your version is "Not redundant" (just false) and "Keep in line with other country articles" although your version is not the rule (see COVID-19 pandemic in the United Kingdom). It's not "higher moral ground", but disruptive editing. --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 19:52, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Boomerang indeff Triggerhippie4

Since Triggerhippie4 suggested a permanent block for Debresser for purposes of browbeating, he should face his own proposed sanctions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.246.151.38 (talk) 03:51, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I also agree that he needs a stern warning that automatically undoing reverts of his edits is not going to be tolerated any longer. This was by far not the first time. Debresser (talk) 22:35, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think this should be compared to calling the police with a fraudulent report. There are serious consequences for trying to falsely accuse someone of a crime, besides for wasting the police's time. I believe this is a similar situation in which Triggerhippie4 fraudulently reported Debresser on ANI, as noted by many users above, therefore this should have serious consequences besides letting him go with just a warning which is effectively a slap on the wrist.155.246.151.38 (talk) 17:12, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

This editor has a history of disruptive and clearly bias edits pertaining to the Nicki Minaj article, available for all to see from the user's talk page. This editor somehow is convinced that copying an article word for word from a different online encyclopedia (Britannica) is a reliable source. Persistently disputing and edit warring with several users on various subjects of the article, and refusing to accept the fact (in this instance) that actress is not notable to the career fame of the article subject enough to lead.

1. [78]
2. [79]
3. [80]

ChicagoWikiEditor (talk) 11:33, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How did I copy the article word for word? I said that the Britannica encyclopedia stated that she was an actress, and we as another online encyclopedia should do the same. You seem to make no coherent sense of anything whatsoever. Blessings and peace. "Pop pills now we Shanghai!"^{(talk to me!~)} 11:40, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also at AN3, I guess: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:RogueShanghai_reported_by_User:ChicagoWikiEditor_(Result:_). ^{!ɘM γɿɘυϘ}⅃ϘƧ 11:50, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@RogueShanghai: If what I wrote does not make coherent sense to you, then there is clearly a problem with your reading comprehension because it is there in plain grammatically correct English to be understood. You are proposing a 1:1 of another encyclopedias lead and called that a "source", even attempting to include "television personality" (before you were shut down) because "thats what it says on Britannica". This is all clearly viewable in the edit summaries above. Maybe you should get some sleep? It appears you've been up several hours, maybe even a full day edit warring this page. Quite a way to spend your Saturday. If Nicki Minaj the rapper is an actor then so is Shaquille o'neal, Eminem, and Dr Dre, right? They've had far more significant careers in film yet there is a consensus among editors that these are not article leading titles. Same applies for Nicki Minaj ChicagoWikiEditor (talk) 12:16, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NPA. And actually, also, yes. If they've had careers in film I see no issue with Eminem and Shaq being labeled with careers in acting. Minaj went to a straight up acting high school and said that she originally intended to be an actress instead of a rapper, so for you to completely discredit that on the basis of what you think, that is not encyclopedic. Your edit summaries prove this:

> "Not an actress" [81]

> "There isn’t a source in the world that will justify labeling Nicky Minaj the rapper as an actress" [82]

> "She is not notable for being an actress" [83]

And also, the way I spend my damn weekends is none of your business. I don't see why you needed to bring that up. Minaj is notable for acting, she was straight up in a supporting role in The Other Woman, she went to acting school in high school, etc. You're completely misrepresenting her on the basis of YOUR opinion. "Pop pills now we Shanghai!"^{(talk to me!~)} 19:20, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@RogueShanghai: You ought to take the time to learn how and use the reply feature. And I didn't ask you about your weekends, I just noticed they sucked, and that's related to your activity on here, not a genuine concern for your weekend. Moreover the question about Shaq, Em, and Dr Dre was rhetorical. Did you read the whole thing? Her acting in high school and prior ambitions are irrelevant to her career fame, so that is pointless to mention. If I opened an Rfc on talk page it would likely be almost unanimous. ChicagoWikiEditor (talk) 20:29, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note for any reviewing admins: I don't know anything about this particular case. However, very recently, ChicagoWikiEditor told FMSky in this talk page section that "Clearly being a child is your problem" and "Relax, little boy... Gold star for trying though. Now run along unless you're going to be constructive." He went to tell me in this edit summary: "You clearly have no idea what you are talking about" directed at me. In this talk page section, he said "For benefit of simpletons like yourself", also directed at me, and then threatened with this: "If you or anyone else feels like you can continue to revert the article then that's on you. I'll see you at the admins board afterwards." I was the one trying to discuss, and being civil, but in the face of those attacks I simply started an RfC because I didn't feel like trying to talk to him anymore would be productive. I think all of that is relevant when reading this current issue. JimKaatFan (talk) 21:09, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is exactly what I'm talking about. I would've been fine discussing this on the talk page if it weren't for his openly hostile and rude nature, and continuing to assert that Minaj is not an actress seemingly only because he thinks so despite two linked sources saying she is an actress. "Pop pills now we Shanghai!"^{(talk to me!~)} 03:23, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the user RogueShanghai has a clear problem of ownership with the mentioned article. Cornerstonepicker (talk) 21:43, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment RogueShanghai is clearly a big fan of Minaj and is very clearly trying to peacock the article whilst displaying severe WP:OWN issues; especially given the response above I would suggest a partial block from the article. Black Kite (talk) 23:30, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment RogueShanghai seems to enjoy calling out personal attacks as much as they do making them. Examples include:
  • What does my personal life and the fanbases that I am in have to do with any of my editing work? WP:NPA.[84]
  • He's also seemed to personally attack me [...] when there's no place for personal attacks here, going as far as to misgender me, whether intentionally or unintentionally.[85]
  • Hopefully you'll stop [...] acting quite immature and petty for someone who's supposed to be in their 20s.[86]
  • I don't think someone who is a fan of someone who seems to use multiple cowriters for her bars can speak on Doja Cat.[87]
  • You're being so weird, there is literally no reason to [...] keep reverting the image. Maybe a spambot?[88] KyleJoan^talk 09:44, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Both ChicagoWikiEditor and RogueShanghai are clearly way over the line in their day-to-day communication styles. Sanctions or restrictions are needed because it seems both of them are well aware of NPA/ANI/3RR but see behavioural policies and guidelines only as a way to threaten others rather than as a series of steps we all need to take to make sure that everybody who volunteers their time and effort here feels comfortable. Unless our behavioural PAGs are actually enforced, then these editors are correct that they exist only as weapons to be rude to others with. — Bilorv (talk) 20:38, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • After this past discussion, will this finally have a solution? Cornerstonepicker (talk) 03:48, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Since last year's ANI thread concerning User:Cold Season's behaviour, Cold Season has continued to display strong ownership behaviour, casting aspersions, and POV pushing through deliberate misrepresentation of sources. When confronted, Cold Season dismissed other editors' concerns with an WP:IDHT attitude and continued reverting. The problematic behaviour has been discussed at Talk:Death of Chow Tsz-lok and Talk:Death of Luo Changqing and I don't think I need to repeat the discussion here. I believe this behaviour has become intractable and I propose an indefinite topic ban on Cold Season from editing articles about Hong Kong politics since 1997. @Ohconfucius, Citobun, OceanHok, Horse Eye Jack, Zanhe, and Underbar dk: Pinging editors involved with related disputes. Deryck C. 21:55, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Horse Eye Jack is now editing as User:Horse Eye's Back. Citobun (talk) 07:37, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Support – On Hong Kong topics, Cold Season is narrowly focused on pushing a pro-government POV. As mentioned by Deryck Chan, the two above-mentioned pages are the main evidence of this. At Talk:Death of Luo Changqing (created by Cold Season), I detailed my concerns with that article, which simply regurgitated the news frenzy manufactured by Chinese state media. I echo the sentiments regarding Cold Season's editing behaviour. I have generally avoided this user and "their" articles for the past year due to the ownership attitude and reverting behaviour, which I find completely toxic. Citobun (talk) 02:58, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I haven't really interacted with Cold Season this year since I haven't edited Hong Kong stuff for some time already, so my opinion may not be completely valid. However, this discussion from June last year is the one that came to my mind when I was pinged. He/she certainly has ownership issues, does not show a tendency to engage in discussions, and is rather uncooperative. OceanHok (talk) 13:14, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for the ping Citobun! I wish they had stopped with the problematic behavior but it doesn’t look like they have, kind of impressive that they’re now up to 588 edits on Death of Chow Tsz-lok (second most prolific editor has 138, third has 17) and 222 edits at Death of Luo Changqing (second most prolific editor has 17, third has 6). I would expand the proposed ban to China related broadly construed, I don’t think that politics in HK post 97 really addresses the scope of disruption, for instance Ming treasure voyages seems to have the same ownership issues. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:41, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Support TBAN from post-1997 Hong Kong politics, per nom; or at least from events and topics related to the 2019–2020 Hong Kong protests, which includes all the other articles mentioned above. I don't see any ownership issues evident at Ming treasure voyages — they are involved in a GA nomination at that article — so I wouldn't support a universal China topic ban. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 01:37, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This user has since July 22 taken to editing multiple longevity-related articles including Oldest people, List of the oldest people by country, Supercentenarians by continent and Supercentenarians in the United States. During this time they have:

1. Attempted to introduce flags to an article and when reverted on the basis of WP:MOSFLAG failed to interpret the MOS correctly.
2. Moved multiple articles without discussion renaming them without "List of" even though they are all, specifically, lists. A request to revert these moves is [Talk:Supercentenarians_in_the_United_States#Requested_move_1_August_2021 here] which contains the editor's reasoning.
3. Introduced numerous pointless redlinks and despite these being reverted and User_talk:Guarapiranga#Redlinks explained has gone on to in repeat this in other articles without sufficient justification.
4. Adjusted the rankings on multiple articles so that they are incorrect and when reverted given an inadequate explanation (for want of a better word) at Talk:Supercentenarians_in_the_United_States#Why_are_ties_suddenly_resolved_with_dead_people_ranking_above_living_ones?.

This editor seems to determined to change the format of these articles according to MOS:DTAB, which would not be an issue except that in doing so they have introduced changes to the articles which are by no means constructive and against the wishes of those editors with ongoing interest in the subject (see the last 5 threads at Talk:Supercentenarians in the United States), and with no apparent desire to edit co-operatively. The editor seems to have no interest in the Longevity themselves otherwise this notice would have been more appropriate at ARBCOM, a notice of which has been posted on the user's talk page to no effect (apologies if this is where this should in fact have been taken). DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 22:51, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment As a long time editor with an interest in this topic area, I have been bewildered by Guarapiranga's edits and conduct. The names of over a dozen articles (ex. Supercentenarians in the United States) have undergone three mass renaming's in recent days, all by the editor in question (and all undiscussed). The obvious nature of the articles, that they are lists, is now obfuscated. Far more troubling is the editor's dramatic unilateral changes to the content and coding of these same and other longevity articles. As DerbyCountyinNZ stated, the editor in question has made list ranking's incorrect, added flags, and much more.

At List of the oldest people by country, they: added a sea of perma-redlinks; bloated the article with an almost 100% redundant birthplace tab instead of just having the longstanding streamlined "place of death or residence" tab with a footnote if borders changed etc; removed information about the oldest of both genders per country while outing themselves of having no idea how the article had worked before they transformed it with no prior discussion. They added the same (1 2) bloated and pointless birthplace tab at List of the oldest living people.

The easy to understand and longstanding coding systems of many of the longevity articles, such as at List of the oldest people by country and many of the country lists, has been dramatically changed with no prior discussion, disrupting the work of the topic's most prolific editor, and mystifying myself. As the discussion in which the above comment took place shows, their is a firm community consensus that the editor in question has dramatically disrupted the aforementioned articles in the topic of longevity, nor do they have any actual understanding of or interest in these articles. In conversations linked above, it is also clear the editor in question has no desire to discus momentous changes with the community to reach consensus before sudden implementation, nor any interest in such discussion going forward. Newshunter12 (talk) 00:09, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - If the editor-in-question is being so disruptive? He/she should be topic banned from said articles. GoodDay (talk) 01:21, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Agreed WordwizardW (talk) 02:03, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• This editor has a habit of making huge unilateral changes to fit their preferred pattern. That is fine and bold by itself, but they do not seem interested in consensus where disagreement emerges. In Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countries#RfC: Dependent territories and subnational areas they opened an RfC and then closed it themseves claiming a particular consensus suiting their view despite receiving no support for this view in the RfC. They then went on to cite this supposed result to justify their edits elsewhere ([89][90][91]). More recently, they have edit-warred in significant changes to List of countries and dependencies, despite not receiving much support in an RfC that they opened. Note also in those RfCs the tendency to bludgeon the discussions with replies to everything. In another instance, I was recently perplexed by this post, where they opened a discussion by asking if we should start an edit war, which is quite the WP:battleground opening. CMD (talk) 02:43, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The participation in Talk:Supercentenarians in the United States#Requested move 1 August 2021 (mentioned in the opening) is typical. Guarapiranga berates others for not AGFing, while saying in another comment "I haven't yet seen here listed any drawbacks...just that some editors are upset by change". Meanwhile, while this is move request is going on with so far unanimous input against their rationale, they move List of countries by number of Internet users to Internet users by country with the exact same rationale. CMD (talk) 10:01, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I moved that page back to its original title, but made a mistake & named it List of countries of Internet users. PS - Got an administrator to fix up my mistake ;) GoodDay (talk) 14:24, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Block until the user seriously engages in discussion—that means reading and listening rather than skipping straight to the writing stage. Page moves and mass changes are incredibly disruptive when misused and this move after this ANI discussion was opened, without so much as a comment here, warrants an immediate block. A topic ban from longevity-related articles, broadly construed, would also be acceptable. — Bilorv (talk) 21:44, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Block until the user seriously engages in discussion
  I have, at:
  • Talk:Supercentenarians from the United Kingdom
  • Talk:Supercentenarians in the United States
  • Talk:Supercentenarians from Japan
  • Talk:List of the oldest people by country
• this move after this ANI discussion was opened, without so much as a comment here, warrants an immediate block.
  Unrelated topic. This here is explicitly about longevity-related articles.^[1]

— Guarapiranga ☎ 02:36, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• On top of the Internet list move mentioned above, Guarapiranga has also decided that this is a good time to reinsert a previous 19 July edit at Continent, which they know does not have consensus and had previously been discussed at both that talkpage and at Talk:Asia. A topic ban as suggested is not a useful remedy; this is a core behavioural issue throughout their editing, and their reply to Bilorv above shows that this is not understood. Agree with block as suggested by Bilorv, especially in light of continued tendentious editing during this AN/I. CMD (talk) 08:59, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Agree with points noted by Newshunter12. I'm on the fence about a Block as I believe everyone has a right to "BE BOLD", but not at the expense of mangling an article. Had a thorough discussion been held prior to the article move, the non-encyclopedic argument could have been made and discussed, as well as the proposed need to make the changes (which I do disagree with). I agree with DerbyCountyinNZ that "this move after this ANI discussion was opened, without so much as a comment here, warrants an immediate block." But as Chipmunkdavis correctly notes, a topic ban is not a useful remedy. If this continues to be a productive discussion, with Guarapiranga agreeing to follow the consensus, style guidelines, and amend their editing behaviors, then I will step off the fence about a block. Spacini (talk) 16:29, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  You already have evidence of that, Spacini; not only I cite wp:policies and guidelines when explaining my edits, (as you can see at Talk:Supercentenarians from the United Kingdom, at Talk:Supercentenarians in the United States, at Talk:Supercentenarians from Japan and at Talk:List of the oldest people by country), but in his very first complaint, DerbyCountyinNZ says that I attempted to introduce flags to an article. Did he say I re-introduced them? Did he say I edit warred on this? No, he said I failed to interpret the MOS correctly. Really? Is that the accusation?? Did I not follow the consensus? I did. — Guarapiranga ☎ 22:18, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  But even though I advised you that longevity is subject to ARBCOM on 23 July and listed the issues with your problematic editing on 27 July and with the extensive threads on Talk:Supercentenarians in the United States starting on 28 July indicating that numerous editors had/have issues with these changes, you continued with the same editing bahaviour (i.e. editing without reaching consensus). This is a pretty clear indication of an editor who is unwilling to edit co-operatively. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 00:18, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  (ec)Linking to those talk page discussions do you no favor; in fact they reiterate your tenditious editing and shine a light on WP:CIR. You seem to be emotionally invested in these articles which may make it hard to swallow other editors' constructive criticisms. Maybe consider taking a breather for a week or so and digest the advice others have provided -- if things do not go your way, accept the consensus and edit in other areas of interest. Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 00:26, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

150.101.157.18 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) has done extensive editing of the article Latin Empire over the last few days. The massive amount of small edits have clogged up the article history and are mostly based either in misunderstanding the information in the article or misunderstanding Wikipedia policy. The article is far from as good as it could be, but 150.101.157.18's first round of edits involved changing "The Latin Empire, also referred to as the Latin Empire of Constantinople, was a feudal Crusader state" to "The Latin Empire, also referred to as the Latin Empire of Constantinople, is a modern concoction, referring to a poorly articulated construct, which even at the height of its power, was of questionable legitimacy and even more questionable specificity", adding numerous comments directly into the article text as if they were correcting an essay, and adding cleanup tags in the actually well-cited etymology section because of "inadequate attribution". Given that this was clearly a POV edit, that violated common practice, I reverted this version.

They've persisted in editing the article. They're now edit-warring to keep their second version of the article, which begins with the POV first sentence "The Latin Empire, also referred to as the Latin Empire of Constantinople, was a briefly held feudal Crusader state founded by the leaders of that magnanimous failure" (note that the bold terms are also linked, which is against policy), adds an "overview of events" section which goes against the standard format and adds even more obnoxious comments directly into the article text (some comments relating to content they themselves added) as if they were a school teacher correcting a student's paper. They persist in wanting to keep this version even after I've explained the issues and I don't think bringing it up on their talk page will do anything given that they've never responded to anything there before. I don't think the term trolling would be inappropriate here - see for instance this edit, adding new content alongside their own comments to that content and calling the article "a piece of ****". Ichthyovenator (talk) 08:20, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, they do like the term "troll": [92][93]. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:35, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just reporting that they are continuing to add unsourced POV edits to the article. I don't know what action can be taken but it is bordering on disruptive since they've been informed and warned several times. They've also been doing the same thing at Baldwin I, Latin Emperor. Ichthyovenator (talk) 12:55, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Some administrator (other than Xezbeth) could review the contributions of the user:Rctgamer3, whose histories of disruptive and highly disturbed editions on articles related to Japanese voice actors1, while correcting the date that the veteran actress debuted in the 30s when she was born, he insists on reversing Masako Nozawa's debut, which according to the summaries of the page's editions that I was eliminating the content, merging occupations and above all 234567, reversed numerous times on Yuki Kaji's article for which someone added his facet as an actor whose career is not notable to have such appearances in series and live-action movies, so take it away, but what happens? Rctgamer3 reverted it several times 8910 without an IP having committed another type of vandalism.

In short, it is not the first time that an editor like this has a disruptive behavior towards IPs violating the WP:3RR and WP:POINT but I am reflecting now that it is not the same that another IP has removed an occupational term (eg actor and voice actor) something that was out of context and the truth is that I realized that these two occupations do not go in the introduction of the paragraph, infoboxes and above all, short descriptions and at the end of this, I do not see the rule that says something about the separate initial sentences, nor was the idea of ​how the hell I enter the data in the same short description outside of Wikipedia so as not to lengthen so many occupations. 148.101.34.204 (talk) 06:02, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The date change referenced was completely unsourced. I'm not sure if you're the same IP user as the previous person who wrote it on Yuki Kaji but given the fact that all of their credits start in the 60's makes a year's active date from her third birth year feel /very/ out of place. I've reverted a handful of edits on Yuki Kaji and Masako Nozawa on date changes solely because no sources/refs for this date were provided, which i have warned the individual IP-users about on their talk pages. As for those voice actor pages; there's WP:BOLD, but changing crucial points about several persons is a no-go. (Example: A person whose profession almost solely entails voice acting, was re-labeled as primarily being another minor profession). Given the amount of edits done (50-100) by various IP's, I expected at least some consensus beforehand. Even during the ongoing revisions by various IP-users, I've asked those users to discuss this, yet nothing of the sort ensued, nor did most of those edit utilize edit summaries. I feel like I've done nothing wrong. By the way, I have no/zero intention of having a large number of biography pages in my watchlist. It's just that one person under various IP addresses has a narrow view of how the pages should be formatted which both me and Xezbeth seem to think that the edits by these anonymous users entail edit warring/vandalism. Highly relevant incident here: 1. I'm all for reaching a good resolution/consensus on the subject Rctgamer3 (talk) 12:50, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter if you have news sources on Masako Nozawa's career, just leave an edit summary by passing you the necessary link through the Japanese Wikipedia1 before Xezbeth reverses two or three times23 to avoid having a conflict as to what she did not comply with the WP:SDDATES, as I said before, someone added Yuki Kaji's facet as an actor in the introduction of the paragraph to pretend that he has a minimum of 6 appearances in series and 1 live action film below his filmography, so that I do not agree with your position if my edition was not to your liking.

Let's go in parts to the five articles that you reversed incorrectly:

• First, when editing Kotono Mitsuishi's page, I had suggested that I was going to leave a little editing summary about the term saying "actor covers her work as a voice actress", but I already saw where I was wrong.1

• Second, Karen Miyama, when separating the same occupations has the largest number of drama series and movies in real life, but also do not leave the summary of editions of it.2

• Third, Iori Nomizu of course, after you and Xezbeth reverted it several times without me leaving a summary and there is one thing for which I also edited in Wikidata which I abide by the rules on short descriptions, but sometimes I make mistakes like that. 34.4

• Fourth, Nene Hieda, repeatedly removed the term singer because it is not remarkable, nor was it added news references about her debut.4

• Fifth, and speaking of Riho Iida I would have already improved the infobox, opening sentences, adding short descriptions and ordering the categories in the section below, but in your case you reversed it several times, if I have not done anything.5

• Sixth, Shun Oguri as he had left a summary before, his filmography has more than 15 notable anime films so his profession as an actor and voice actor are different.6

• Seventh, the idea of ​​removing Momoyo Koyama's second occupation came to my mind when I realized that she has more than 5 appearances in series and live-action movies, in addition to anime and video games, so I also consider that in my opinion, the intention was to separate their profession are different from what it says in summaries of previous editions.7

• Eighth, and to finish, about Takahiro Itō (may he rest in peace) as I left in the edition summary before Xezbeth and you reversed it before blocking me, his filmography has a minimum of 3 series and live action movies, dubbing of four foreign series and films and an anime series, so it was already necessary for them to be translated through the aforementioned Japanese Wikipedia. 8

That was it, I just said this because you and Xezbeth do not comply with what has been applied inside and outside Wikipedia so that they do not extend so many occupations to what I have followed the uses of WP:BLPs and MOS:FIRST, and tell me something, how do you think that my contributions that I have made about Japanese voice actors are non-constructive for you? 179.52.208.177 (talk) 05:50, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WAYLON JENNINGS FAN (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was warned more than enough about adding unsourced genres but simply ignores warnings. I don't think this falls strictly under WP:VD but it is certainly disruptive. Some administrative intervention will be appreciated, even if only by issuing a firm warning. --Muhandes (talk) 10:52, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Huh. I keep forgetting that WP:VD is the top WP shorthand for the Vandalism policy (had to click). That's unfortunate, yet also quite appropriate... [I'm helping!] Anyway, indef p-block from the mainspace applied. El_C 11:59, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

After all VD is for everybody... Also good block, beat me to it for the indef. RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:18, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rick, I seriously half-expected it to link to some semi-humor PG-13 essay.¯\_(ツ)_/¯ El_C 13:59, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I always thought that shorthand was intentional. Thanks for the quick response. --Muhandes (talk) 15:19, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Likely was, Muhandes. I'm probably just a bit slow (many would rightly agree!). Anyway, glad I was able to help. El_C 15:49, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The small paragraph about the annexation of the west coast was vandalized and wrongly reverted. Despite good sources, including a RAND Corporation’s (RANDnext) paper. Could some please protect that article? Thanks. 2A01:598:A803:E5ED:D0CB:B4A4:B17C:16DF (talk) 16:46, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Protection requests should go to WP:RFPP, but I can tell you now it's not going to happen for a single instance of vandalism. -- Scott Burley (talk) 18:04, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the revert in question was vandalism. And you should discuss such things with the other editor first before making accusations of vandalism here. Also when making such accusation here, you need to inform the other editor on their talk page. Paul August ☎ 19:06, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

OP temporarily sock-blocked. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 13:49, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• 212.85.174.201 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Hi. Please can someone assist with this IP's edits? They keep removing sourced content regarding dates of death across three articles relating to Yugoslav sportspeople (one, two, three). Per their talkpage, they state they are correct and are using the Slovenian versions of the pages as a source. Although, checking those pages, only one of them has a date of death, which is also unsourced. Now they are stating that if they are blocked, that "I will demand Arbcom". Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 17:21, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. It is great that the issue has been brough up here. I deal with yugoslav sports history in my professional life and I was surprised too see that the three local well known pre-war cyclists had wrong basic information about them in the English Wikipedia. I tried to correct it but then this user came with his uncooperative and rude remarks and removed all the correct content and added back the wrong info from some unexisting "sports reference" webpage. I would like to have a normal peacful discussion to correct the information as I believe it is in the best interest of everyone that Wikiepdia has the correct information available to the public. 212.85.174.201 (talk) 17:32, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

IP editor: you do appear to be edit warring to force unsourced information onto the page. Where are you getting your information from? Slovenian Wikipedia is not a reliable source (neither is English Wikipedia - they're both user-generated, and I'm afraid that your personal knowledge and expertise is also not sufficient - we need a reliable, published source. It's OK for it to be in Slovenian (English-language sources are preferred, but not mandatory). Please provide sources for the information, or remove it until you can do so. Thanks Girth Summit _(blether) 17:48, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've blocked 212.85.174.201 from article space until they provide some sources and not another Wiki. If they come up with some please unblock. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 18:23, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you both. I don't speak Slovenian, but I'm happy to help incorporate any WP:RS to any of these articles, if they surface. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 19:43, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I have no sources in English, but there are sources in Slovenian. I am putting them here because I was blocked and cannot edit the articles. Please put them into the articles:

• Josip Šolar:

Obituary and an article: http://dlib.si/details/URN:NBN:SI:DOC-ANI7Q5EW/ Tombstone: https://grobovi.zale.si/sl/Home/GetGravePicture?uId=8cff2826-c246-4b31-ae1a-88f8d5b43efd

• Franc Gartner:

article: http://www.dlib.si/details/URN:NBN:SI:DOC-G7D8KRG4 more articles when he died: dlib.si/details/URN:NBN:SI:DOC-L9QWYMRK/ dlib.si/details/URN:NBN:SI:DOC-HSPTRI7L/

• Ivan Valant:

article and picture in Jesenice museum: http://www.gmj.si/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/kviz-2019-iii-srednja-ola-konna-verzija.pdf obituary: http://dlib.si/details/URN:NBN:SI:DOC-AW59IIJ3/ also mentioned: dlib.si/details/URN:NBN:SI:DOC-6QJ7I2OW/ (his bike company still exists, now run by his grandson, you can contact him if you do not believe me info@valy-ing.si) All information is 100% correct. 212.85.174.201 (talk) 20:30, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lugnuts - just making sure you've seen the links from the IP editor above. I had a look at the first one, it's a newspaper dated 1957, which does indeed carry an obituary for Josip Solar on page 8. I ran the first sentence, which read "Se v zreli dobi je po hudi bolezni umri eden najboljsin slovenskih kolesarjev – Joca Solar" through Google translate, which gave me "One of the best Slovenian cyclists, Joca Solar, dies in adulthood after a serious illness." Seems legit, the database website might have this wrong. Girth Summit _(blether) 08:48, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The pages have still not changed. Less than two minutes were needed to revert my changes and then to block me, but now when I again presented proofs nothing happens. It makes me sad as I get the feeling that there is no genuine will to partiticipate and provide proper encyclopedic information about this topic. 212.85.174.201 (talk) 09:35, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You were blocked from editing those pages because you were edit warring, and because you were repeatedly making changes without providing sources. You are not blocked from editing the articles' talk pages: you could go there now, and make an edit request, citing these sources and indicating what changes should be made based on them. (It would help the other editors if you were able to provide a bit of detail on where to find the information in those sources - the first link above is 8 pages long, and I couldn't find a way to search the text: it took me quite a while to find Solar's obituary, and to put the first sentence through Google translate.) Girth Summit _(blether) 09:47, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Noone excpet the other user in question watches those pages anyway and he already saw the sources heere. So just correct the information, this the oly thing that I am interested in. 212.85.174.201 (talk) 09:55, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers Girthy. I'll work with the IP on their talkpage to find the exact page in each newspaper source they've provided, and update all three pages during the day. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 09:54, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

They provided sources so I've unblocked them. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 00:37, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please see here and here. Ymblanter has blocked Marek and GCB for edit warring, despite the editor in question not being eligible to edit on the topic in question as they are way below the 500/30 threshold. Which is *specifically* exempt from edit warring. If they arnt unblocked with either an apology (I dont care who apologises, I doubt Ymblanter will proffer one themself) the next step will be ARBCOM to request Ymblanter's tools are removed. Only in death does duty end (talk) 20:04, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I got enough baid faith towards myself today, and, in addition, OID was very clear for many years that they want my tools removed does not matter what, but I do not see why some users should be exempt from blocks for four reverts.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:09, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I want your tools removed. You lack sufficient knowledge to use them properly and it results in abuse. The restrictions (and where edit warring doesnt apply) around 500/30 editing requirements are very very clear and an admin should be well aware of when they do and do not apply. You clearly do not. I am willing to let it go once again if you apologise to both Marek and GCB and lift the blocks. Or another admin does, but this blatant incompetence when it comes to basic knowledge of how a topic restriction works should not continue. 'Bad faith' in this context by the way would be assuming that you made a bad block, realised it when someone pointed out the 500/30 requirement, and decided to cover it up by blocking the editor who complained. That would be assuming bad faith. I am granting you the more likely explanation that you acted out of ignorance rather than maliciousness. Only in death does duty end (talk) 20:17, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I support an unblock. PhilKnight (talk) 20:15, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock sooner than later please. but I do not see why some users should be exempt from blocks for four reverts. Any admin who can't be bothered to read WP:3RRNO has got problems. MarnetteD|Talk 20:21, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The 500/30 requirement is not listed at WP:3RRNO. PackMecEng (talk) 20:53, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@PackMecEng: True, although BANEX is which would seem to cover this as well - but you're right the part should be copied over from WP:GS [138]. As I stated on my talk page, I intend to file a request for clarification with ArbCom on the wording of the restriction. Volunteer Marek 21:13, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah looks like it could use an update. I would probably support that! PackMecEng (talk) 22:12, 3 August 2021 (UTC) [reply]

This should go straight to ARBCOM for a de-sysop, period.--WaltCip-(talk) 20:27, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The exemption is for the articles, this is not an article. The arbcom was very clear by writing "articles" rather than "pages", and had a good reason for this, since otherwise revert of discussions from talk pages, for example, would be exempt from 3RR.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:29, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I am too old for this. I completely disagree with the unblock, but I do not want to get to a hospital again. I will unblock. Next time, anybody starts talking about lack of admin, lack of gut, inability to look into difficult cases, remember this case, please. If I am still alive, I will be around to remind you.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:32, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Only in death does duty end, Did you discuss extensively with Ymblanter before bringing this here? ANI's are literally the last option if the plethora of trying to use other venues to settle differences and queries amicably are exhausted. Furthermore I see the mention of ARBCOM?? Come on! Now that’s rather uncalled for and don’t you think that’s rather harsh and comes off as “threatening” ? Celestina007 (talk) 20:52, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, as Ymblanter is never open to reasoned discussion when they make an obviously wrong action, and their histrionics directly above should give you a decent idea of what their concept of appropriate behaviour is. They already had sufficient discussion on the talkpages of both Marek and GCD and had declined to unblock on the request of another admin. So yes, the appropriate place is ANI for an ongoing incident that needs a quick resolution. And yes, the consequences of their actions being unresolved would be Arbcom, because said earlier discussion had already failed to get them to see reason. There are almost zero actions an ordinary editor can take. Laying out the consequences of your actions may come across as threatening, but then when you treat people like shit, do not expect to get the kid gloves in return. Only in death does duty end (talk) 21:02, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Only in death does duty end, so in summary do you believe you both can’t resolve this amicably? I’m pained when genuine and hardworking very productive editors like yourself and Ymblanter have disputes, honestly it is very much saddening. Celestina007 (talk) 00:24, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Celestina007 Just a note that while it is usually best practice to discuss things before taking them here, whatever - if any - issues OID and YMB have, an unjust block should be dealt with ASAP since the real victims here is an editor (editors) who got unjustly blocked. It would be totally unfair for them to wait days for action (if any) while this was limited to a talk page discussion which could be simply ignored for days or stalled or whatever (no bad faith assumed, simply noting admins can block someone and then be afk for some time, for example). As a review of an admin's action that requires possibly urgent action (unblock) it was totally right for OID to bring this here, IMHO. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:28, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Piotrus, Yes, I understand that part, the part that has me worried is Only in death does duty end saying he wants Ymblanter to lose their admin bits (note that this are both very productive editors) and the mention of ARBCOM also is upsetting (to me) It’s saddening when productive editors are at loggerheads. Furthermore I don’t think the mention of ARBCOM was necessary, more often than not I think we both can predict accurately what the verdict would be if a case was to be accepted. @Ymblanter, if you can, please just apologize to the relevant parties and to OID especially. We regular editors all make mistakes, and sysops do too as we are all human in the end. Celestina007 (talk) 17:46, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Celestina007 I think that (referring to "Ymblanter, if you can, please just apologize to the relevant parties") would be the best solution. There is no need for any community actions or sanctions if one acknowledges their mistake and apologizes, to be human is to err. What does worries me, however, is that the comments I've seen from Ymblanter suggests that they don't view their actions as wrong. Not being able to admit one has made a mistake and apologize for it is worrisome in any editor, and doubly so in admin, who has the power to block and delete. With power comes responsibility and the need to be responsible. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:15, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'd argue that Only in death's behavior has been nothing short of appalling itself. They have taken every opportunity to insult Ymblanter and be as uncivil as humanly possible, with their kindest contribution to this report being, "I am granting you the more likely explanation that you acted out of ignorance rather than maliciousness". Ymblanter's blocks were poorly conducted, yet that is no excuse for an editor to be personally vindictive. BOTTO _(T•C) 17:09, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Botto, I haven't had time to review OID's behavior, although there is undeniably a tension between those editors, to say the least. Nonetheless, "two wrongs don't make a right"; if you feel OID's behavior merits review, I'd suggest a new section or thread; here we are talking about Ymblanter's blocking of two editors and aftermath. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:12, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I do not want to get to a hospital again and If I am still alive are extremely alarming. I encourage a break - participating in Wikipedia should never provoke such fearful comments. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 20:49, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, we got most of the way there, but the unblock rationale was really unacceptable ("I want to stay alive"). Does anyone mind if I block each of them for 1 second, making clear they were unblocked because the block was against policy, not because Ymblanter wanted to "stay alive"? Especially, @Volunteer Marek: and @GizzyCatBella:, would you prefer such a notice in your block log? It's trading off clarifying you shouldn't have been blocked for an incrementally longer block log. I won't put such a note in your block logs if you don't want it. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:43, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Floquenbeam: I'm fine with it. Volunteer Marek 20:55, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Floquenbeam: - I’m also fine with it. Thank you. - GizzyCatBella🍁 00:28, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Volunteer Marek: Since you're unblocked, there's no need to immediately provide this note, so I'll wait until tomorrow if that's OK. That will give Ymblanter a chance to do it themselves, or if not, will provide a more complete ANI discussion for me to link to, or will provide a chance for someone to point out I've completely misunderstood the situation and it wouldn't be appropriate. And it gives me time to grill some steaks (and then eat them), which I've been looking forward to all day. Not trying to weasel out of anything; I'm just postponing until tomorrow. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:38, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine too. Bon apetit. Volunteer Marek 22:25, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Floquenbeam I concur that the unblock rationale is unacceptable; in fact I suggest it should be WP:OVERSIGHTed since it can even create a mistaken impression death threats were involved or such. While I honestly haven't interacted with or reviewed other actions by the blocking admin, anyone who makes a bad block and then an unblock with such an edit summary is certainly ripe for having their admin status scrutinized (with a nod to the de-sysop comments above). Anyway, I also support your idea of a re-un-block which a good rationale (ideally a link to this discussion when it is archived, but that may require waiting for this to be closed and archived? It probably would be most informative). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:33, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have blocked and unblocked VM and GCB adding a proper rationale.--Ymblanter (talk) 05:44, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, can we have a diff for the edit(s) that resulted in the block(s) please? GiantSnowman 20:53, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently it is here. CGB was blocked after their only revert, VM was blocked after 4 reverts of a sock. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:58, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. No warnings to either party at all before 3RR was breached? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:01, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Has the account been blocked as a sock? Ncmvocalist (talk) 21:05, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I cant see the point tbh. Its clearly either one of the banned users in relation to Poland/WW2/Jews (which isnt a long list), or a clueless IP who just doesnt know they cant edit on the topic. Marek made it clear in the edit summaries that the editor was prohibited, and given the content, its almost certainly one of the Jewish anti-Polish editors. They will be back somewhere else soon enough. Regardless, the editor fails 500/30 for editing in a restricted area and so can be reverted on sight exempt from edit-warring. Only in death does duty end (talk) 21:09, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see, so warnings are not even appropriate. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:13, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I think a warning was required to at least signal that an administrator felt that the 500/30 exemption didn't apply because it is Wikipedia-space rather than article-space in which the reverts were being made. That would provide an opportunity for one of the editors to cease reverting, seek clarification if required and/or justify the basis of the block. The clear absence of that was what made this review open and shut. Ncmvocalist (talk) 21:23, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the relevant language from Wikipedia:General sanctions that Volunteer Marek was relying on Under the 30/500 rule, all IP editors, and accounts with fewer than 500 edits and with less than 30 days' tenure are prohibited from editing content within a given area of conflict. It can be enforced through the use of extended confirmed protection (ECP) or other methods, including page protection, reverts, blocks, the use of pending changes, and appropriate edit filters. Reverts made solely to enforce the 30/500 rule are not considered edit warring. Editors who are not eligible to be extended-confirmed may use the Talk: namespace to post constructive comments and make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided they are not disruptive. Talk pages where disruption occurs may be managed by any of the methods noted above. This exception does not apply to other internal project discussions such as AfDs, WikiProjects, RfCs, noticeboard discussions, etc. If this information page is accurate, then Ymblanter is incorrect when they wrote The exemption is for the articles, this is not an article. As I read the language, the only place where an editor who does not meet the 30/500 threshold can edit about topics such as this is on article talk pages, and nowhere else on the project. Accordingly, Volunteer Marek was correct to revert these edits which were adding Warsaw concentration camp to Wikipedia:List of hoaxes on Wikipedia since that editor is not permitted to do so according to the information page about General sanctions. If the information page is in error, it should be corrected promptly. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:28, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A summary of this language should probably be added to WP:3RRNO, which currently makes no mention of an exception for the 30/500 rule. Pawnkingthree (talk) 00:29, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]