I am highly sceptical that BilledMammal is doing a true WP:BEFORE. He has nominated multiple Danish international football player articles to AfD. There are questions like, why are they international footballers, they are not called up to the national team for no reason. In fact, some of these footballers have won honours in their country of Denmark like Wilhelm Nielsen (Danish footballer) who has won the Danish Championship three times. That's not even noted on the article, this is just stub article like all the others on his AfD nominations, just because something is a stub, doesn't mean it's not a notable topic.

There is a load of articles at: Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Nominations for deletion and page moves which he has nominated.

There are multiple issues at play here, I feel there is an attack on Lugnuts who was trying to bring light to the project of useful information that can be expanded on, for these player biographies. An attack on the wiki-stub culture, it's as if an stub article is not allowed.

Another weird issue with all the AfDs in this series BilledMammal writes: Violates the general criteria of WP:NOTDATABASE due to being an article that replicates a database entry.

I have a big problem with that, as Wikipedia is a database!

Yes there is GNG issues, but this should be addressed by doing the research and not nullifying the ability for other uses to find these articles and expanding them. This delete culture is simply unacceptable. I wouldn't have posted here if BilledMammal didn't template my talk page. There is serious detrimental issues here at play, and we are about to loose a load of articles because of laziness, people not wanting to do the research to expand on them and rather delete? Who's attack who?? pfft, I am getting fed-up of people who want to feud and run policy base arguments instead of actually working and expanding on the content that actually needs work. Someone here really needs to have a word with BilledMammal about his attitude. Govvy (talk) 14:03, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing in the above paragraphs that suggest anything relevant for this board. Your skepticism is not evidence of misconduct. Your dislike of another user nominating stubs for deletion is unacceptable to you, but nothing in any policy suggests it is unacceptable to Wikipedia. That you dislike the idea of somebody making policy base[d] arguments seems to be a personal problem. Your defense for the merits of stubs would be fine for a userspace essay, but not for ANI. nableezy - 14:12, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've got to say I am also frustrated, 1. by the sheer number of AfDs that are coming in which gives editors little time to review them, 2. by questionable nominations.

Today BilledMammal nominated two dozen Danish international footballers with the surname "Nielsen". Many of these players were active before the internet age so a web search probably isn't enough to check for WP:SIGCOV. But just a quick look at some of the players' careers suggest they could very well be notable. For example:

• Allan Nielsen (footballer, born 1953): two international appearances, played abroad in the Netherlands with Roda JC Kerkrade from 1979 to 1981 – Playing abroad wasn't as common in those days as it is today. Even a quick web search turned up a long article: https://politiken.dk/navne/foedselsdage/art5439817/Allan-Nielsen The AfD nomination makes no mention of it.
• Jørgen Nielsen (footballer, born 1923): one international appearance, played abroad in Scotland with Dundee F.C. in the late 1940s – Again, playing abroad wasn't as common in those days as it is today. www.britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk suggest there's coverage of his time in Scotland.
• Erik Nielsen (footballer, born 1938): ten international appearances, played abroad in Germany with VfB Lübeck from 1966 to 1968 – Again, playing abroad… A search of Danish newspapers at statsbiblioteket.dk suggests quite a bit of coverage.
• Benny Nielsen (footballer, born 7 March 1951): one international appearances, played abroad in Belgium with K. Beerschot VAV from 1966 to 1968 – Playing abroad… Coverage in Danish newspapers.

Bottom line: It's very hard to assume that "reasonable steps to search for reliable sources" per WP:BEFORE were taken. Robby.is.on (talk) 14:23, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AGF is not optional. He could well have done all the WP:BEFORE and the nominated the articles. If it's a bigger problem maybe it should be part of the ongoing AE discussion. - LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 15:24, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah. These articles (as far as I can tell) are non-frivolous AfD nominations--which is not to presume that they deserve deletion, simply that they're worthy of discussion. Presenting evidence (as Robby.is.on has done above) would seem to be the way forward to me. That said, I feel like everyone is being a bit overly prickly here. A bit unkind to presume no WP:BEFORE had occurred, but also some unnecesary templating. The NPA business seems a bit much to me, but that's subjective. I think, if possible, everyone should try to reset and return to the evidence. As ever, reasonable minds may differ. Cheers, all. Dumuzid (talk) 15:30, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The politiken article is a good one, and had I have found it I would not have nominated the article. However, I did not; I don't know what search terms you used, but "Allan Nielsen" "Kerkrade" places it on my second page of results, and "Allan Nielsen" "Odense" places it on my third. I normally review beyond the first page for Google News or Google Scholar, depending on the topic, but for mass created articles like these I rarely do so for Google search which I find usually produces little but Wikipedia clones and unreliable sources. BilledMammal (talk) 15:52, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@BilledMammal: I understand. But how do we deal with the problem that for players that were active before the internet came about most sources that would indicate SIGCOV probably can't be found online or at least not with a simple web search? Robby.is.on (talk) 15:59, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A person writing a new article has a responsibility to make sure the article is suitable for Wikipedia. That includes making sure the subject is notable. Why not include the results of your notability search when initially writing it?

WP:BEFORE doesn’t require going to printed sources. It’s impractical otherwise, though it does create a challenge for someone who writes an article about a person who doesn’t have ongoing coverage during the internet era. The answer again is, include documentation of notability when writing the article.

We are in a bit of a bind with the mass-produced stubs. Was notability required when they were produced? If so, why didn’t the producer include evidence of notability?

And that still leaves one more mess. For stubs that met earlier laxer notability standards (primarily sports), no one is to blame, but they are subject to challenge, based on a good?-faith WP:BEFORE. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 16:52, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Notability of footballers is dormant. At one point, when that guideline reflected consensus, it was apparently thought that playing in one full international match showed presumed notability. But currently, there's no sport-specific guideline at WP:NSPORT for footballers.Jahaza (talk) 17:51, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• The way to counter a challenge of NOTDATABASE / GNG / SPORTSCRIT at AFD is by producing two or three high-quality sources with significant coverage of the subject, that’s the way for you to go here; alternatively, the content may be folded into a broader article, if one can be identified. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 15:34, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Wikipedia is not a databse. That is one of the basic principals of Wikipedia. All articles should be made to meet GNG before they are created. There is an article for creation process, which is where people should actually take material that does not meet nclusion criteria, instead of just dumping it into article space. If it has already been dumped into article space in a sub-par condition, as Malcolmx15 says you should go and find tow or three high quality sources that meet our inclusion criteria. Basically in the huge discussion of sports realted articles earlier this year it was decided that we would scrap all participation based inclusion criteria, that we wanted quality sources backing all articles, and that we wanted an end to sports stats table entries masquerading as articles. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a database. It has standard inclusion criteria, and I strongly reccomend you review the current inclusion criteria, and recognized in regards to sports figures especially they have been significantly reworded and tightened in the last year.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:13, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  In computing, a database is an organised collection of data stored and accessed electronically. What is wikipedia but a stored collection of information through it's article structure accessed digitally! Wikipedia is still a database no matter what people want to say. Govvy (talk) 18:19, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a database. Do you infer from that statement that it's better to have no article about a notable subject at all than having a stub article? Is that Wikipedia policy? Because that's what happens when dozens of stub articles are sent to AfD daily and articles get deleted because there is too little time to check for SIGCOV. Robby.is.on (talk) 18:30, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If no SIGCOV can be found during an AfD it can be included in a list instead; if it's indeed notable then eventually someone with access to sources will come along and recreate it as an actual comprehensive biography. Standalone articles are not the only way information can exist on Wikipedia. JoelleJay (talk) 18:58, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

IMO BilledMammal actions referred to here are not only proper but doubly not a behavioral issue for this board. Both the notability guidelines overall and also what happens at AFD call for the same thing.....to provide 1 or 2 GNG suitable references to establish GNG notability, and producing or being unable to produce that will resolve the question every time. Trying to ignore all of that and instead just look at wp:before and imagining that somebody didn't do it is not right. Similarly, is the poster saying that the search is too burdensome to do for the person wishing to retain the article? North8000 (talk) 18:15, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Oh for pity's sake. Govvy, do you recognize that the reason critical masses of editors agreed to remove participation criteria from NSPORTS -- and, incidentally, to sanction Lugnuts for his egregious and longstanding sub-stub creation -- was outrage at the laziness of many editors in creating so many unsourced sub-stubs for athletes, which those editors then proved completely disinterested in sourcing or improving? What I am fed-up over are editors who always feel that someone else should do that work, but oh no, not them, not ever. North8000 takes the words out of my mouth -- the extremist inclusionists are ever ready to protest attempted deletions, but generally curiously reluctant to do what's guaranteed to save the articles ... source the damn things. I'm militantly disinterested in hearing them call other editors lazy or negligent where they don't want to do the work themselves. In any event, it is no more egregious for BilledMammal to nominate a dozen soccer sub-stubs for deletion a week than it was for the likes of Lugnuts to create a hundred soccer sub-stubs a week ... something I doubt you opposed, then or now. Ravenswing 18:35, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Ravenswing: curiously reluctant to do what's guaranteed to save the articles As I outlined in my examples above that can be very hard to do when the article subject was active in pre-internet times. When I saw 18 Danish internationals called Nielsen sent to AfD today I went looking for a way to find old Danish newspaper articles and found statsbiblioteket.dk. Example: https://www2.statsbiblioteket.dk/mediestream/avis/search/Erik%20nielsen%20lübeck/page/2 The search results show the title of the newspaper, the date, the page but no article content. Now what? Robby.is.on (talk) 18:49, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Now either Danish editors get into the act, or one can resort to the text from the Danish Wikipedia ... or else an otherwise obscure footballer from a century ago gets merged into a portmanteau article until such time as someone does pull it off. WP:V requires sourcing, and there is not and never has been a waiver from its provisions just because there's some excuse for why sourcing is hard to obtain. Ravenswing 18:59, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

But no one is disputing the verifiability of these articles. The databases that they're based on are generally thought to be reliable. What's being disputed is notability.Jahaza (talk) 19:14, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And in like fashion, WP:N/GNG requires sourcing. This ought not be difficult for people around which to wrap their heads. Once again, the oft-held canard that if sourcing is hard to obtain for a subject, the provisions of WP:V/N/GNG are somehow waived in its favor is utterly unsupported in any guideline or policy. Ravenswing 06:51, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Amen amen. Write an article once you've got the sources to do so! -Indy beetle (talk) 12:49, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Whether or not BEFORE has been complied with - and I'm willing to AGF here - my biggest concern is nominating 18 (I think?) articles all at once. What is the rush? A handful of AFDs a day allows both 'sides' of a debate to spend the time to find sources and make a wiser decision. 18 in a day is too big a task. GiantSnowman 18:27, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  This is an all-too-common complaint at AfD, and I've never bought it. Decisions are made by those who show up. Neither your input, nor mine, nor anyone else's is essential to any deletion discussion. If you don't have the time to find the sources that the article creator should have included from the start, someone else may. If no one does within a week's time, then no one cared enough about the article to save it anyway.

  But beyond that, FAR too often, my observation is that those who complain loudest about how hard it is to research sources for bundled AfDs (and come on, how many of these searches require much more than a minute?) never get around to researching any of them. And surely -- if their focus was really on improving threadbare articles rather than just disrupting the process by any means to hand -- they could manage a handful? Or three? Or two. Or any. Ravenswing 18:43, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I disagree - once it is at AFD, the burden shifts dramatically to those wanting to keep. If nobody has the time or interest in finding sources, or if interested people are unaware of discussions, then it will invariably end up deleted. GiantSnowman 18:49, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  The best search for sources on mid-twentieth century (post-1921) Danish Footballers would generally require going to a library in Denmark to look at Danish newspapers. Quite a few are digitized, but the collection isn't available remotely post-1921. That's why a presumed notability guideline is sometimes a good thing to have.Jahaza (talk) 18:50, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Then why not make articles (where one has suitable sources) instead? If you don't have sources, you don't have a real article. Also presumed notability is where such is from an SNG, and it appears no SNG was even claimed on these. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 19:01, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  The SNG was WP:NFOOTBALL, which existed when the articles were created but has since been abolished. GiantSnowman 19:07, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  No, the SNG is and was NSPORT, which always required the subjects actually meet GNG and that this be demonstrated with sources in the article eventually. The article creator should still have verified that the subject was notable before making the article. JoelleJay (talk) 19:14, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  NFOOTBALL was part of NSPORT, smartarse. GiantSnowman 20:08, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Treating NFOOTY like it was an SNG unto itself perpetuates the idea that SSGs don't have to meet the wider requirements of NSPORT, which did/does not presume notability solely through meeting an SSG criterion. JoelleJay (talk) 22:52, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I can't answer for the creator of the articles. When I create articles I expect to have better sourcing than a database entry, but their creation has already happened, it's their deletion that is being considered.Jahaza (talk) 19:16, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  But there has been zero effort to demonstrate why we should presume notability for these players. What evidence do we have that they meet GNG 95% of the time? If existence of SIGCOV isn't even falsifiable in general then how can we possibly argue it should be presumed in specific instances? Not to mention the fact that we do have evidence playing for national teams in other countries in the same time period is not a reliable predictor of GNG: the many, many AfDs on those subjects where no coverage is found despite access to digitized media. That was one of the major factors that led to deprecation of participation-based SSG criteria. JoelleJay (talk) 19:08, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't see the problem with BilledMammal noms. WP:BEFORE isn't a policy so much as a courtesy expectation that can be disruptive if constantly abused, but I digress. We aren't going to sanction someone for "violating" WP:BEFORE because there is no way to prove it anyway. If he is in error, and two or three reliable sources are giving significant coverage, simply add them to the articles and note this at the AFD. If someone is constantly nominating articles that get kept, THAT might be considered disruptive, no one is claiming that. Everything you claim in this report is not actionable. This doesn't belong here, and I expect someone will close this shortly. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 18:37, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• @Govvy and Robby.is.on, databases are not a creative aggregation of facts—hard work, they are to build, but thin gruel for even a stub. An article requires creatively gathering significant coverage and using a natural language to summarize and contextualize the data. Because an athlete competed before the internet age is not sufficient reason to stop at building a "database stub". Be aware that before the internet age, orders of magnitude more newspapers, magazines, and other media existed than do now. The Wikipedia Library gives access to millions of archived print articles. Mine these. — Neonorange (talk to Phil) (he, they) 19:17, 18 July 2022 (UTC) —[reply]
• If someone is starting AfDs you think are flawed, oppose those AfDs. If you're right, the AfDs will close as keep. (This is definitional: Assuming everyone proceeds in good faith, "right" in an AfD is whatever gains consensus.) If those AfDs consistently close as keep and the person continues to start AfDs that they ought to know will close as keep, then it's a user conduct issue. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 19:23, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• My issue is not deletionists vs. inclusionists but the pace of nominating articles at AFD. I've seen editors nominate a dozen, two dozen or more similar articles within a minute of each other. I'm with GiantSnowman, this pace is unrelenting and also completely unnecessary. It falls harder on those who want to Keep articles who have to track down reliable sources within a week or two, only to see those who wish to Delete the articles shoot them down as not supplying enough evidence for notability. I follow the rules and I close AFDs with delete decisions as much as the next admin but I wish those who are seeking to sweep clean Wikipedia of certain types of articles would accept the burden they are placing on other editors when they nominate 10 or 20 or 30 articles on the same day. No editor, at least no editor who has a job and a family, can spend all of their time tracking down sources for that many articles which will be accepted by those advocating deletion. And I don't know that those advocating "Delete" should be given sole veto power on which sources are acceptable and which are not which seems to be the norm in AFD discussions these days.

This is not a comment on whether individual articles should be kept or deleted, that is for consensus that emerges from a discussion to determine, I'm just talking about the manner of which some editors go about nominating or PRODding articles and to have some consideration for the other editors who want to participate in the process. Slow down, there is no deadline, those 20 articles can be proposed over the course of a week or two, not all on the same day. Now I'll get off my soapbox. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:44, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

These articles (and one more, which I declined to nominate) were created between 18:45 and 19:38 on December 21 of last year. They also weren't the only articles the creator made that day; a total of 36 were made, excluding those already deleted. In this context I don't think there is a problem with the number of nominations. BilledMammal (talk) 23:24, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

+1 to BilledMammal. The day when article creators are limited to making a handful of new articles per day, that's when a limitation on how many AfDs/PRODs per day can be filed is appropriate. Ravenswing 06:54, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I wouldn't have posted here if BilledMammal didn't template my talk page. I considered it necessary; at the AfD on Kai Nielsen every post you made was discussing behaviour and casting aspersions, rather than discussing whether the player was actually notable. These aspersions, where you accuse editors of behavioural issues without presenting any evidence, are relatively minor, but they aren't isolated incidents; a look at your recent AfD's shows that this is a common pattern of behaviour for you; for example, Rintaro Yajima, Monaem Khan Raju, and Carlo Ansermino.

In addition, the civility issues at AfD aren't limited to these accusations related to WP:BEFORE; you were warned about personal attacks at the AfD on Thomas Green, and since then I see you have issued other attacks such as suggesting articles are being deleted because everyone is too afraid to do the actual work at the AfD on Tobias Linse, and for saying that JPL's vote can be thrown out the window, it's meaningless as he doesn't care for the footy project at the AfD on Simon Gibson. BilledMammal (talk) 23:47, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not impressed by Govvy's edit summary when removing the warning and subsequent comment; Rv, pathetic comments. Concerns about Govvy's civility at AfD are valid, but that edit summary suggests they don't intend to alter their behaviour going forward. BilledMammal (talk) 21:52, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I commend BilledMammal for working to clean up these mass-created stubs and see no evidence of misconduct on their part.

I think that Govvy may have an unrealistic view of what an adequate Before search looks like: They've insisted that it requires an offline search [1][2][3][4], which would presumably require the AfD nom to travel to Denmark if they are not currently located there. WP:BEFORE actually says that if an editor has searched Google, Google Books, Google News, Google News Archive, Google Scholar and The Wikipedia Library and found a lack of sources, than they have completed their basic due diligence.

A lot of the comments here show a lack of AGF toward noms and Delete !voters, with an assumption that people who claim a lack of sources simply haven't looked hard enough while ignoring the possibility that they may have done an exhaustive search and come up with nothing. Often the folks making this argument don't appear to have done such a search themselves, as they often don't have any sources to present as evidence.

In terms of volume, this year BilledMammal has generally been nominating a batch of 10-20 articles once a month, which comes down to 2-3 articles per day if a single editor wanted to check all of them and none were relisted. The Football deletion category currently has about 125 articles. This sounds like a lot but comes down to about 4-5 per editor per day if it was split between 4 editors. This isn't excessive when you consider the number of searches that folks are presumably able to do to confirm notablity before creating these articles. –dlthewave ☎ 00:12, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Dlthewave: Umm, I do do online searches, maybe if you review a few histories on some of the nominations you will also see the updates I done to a few in the past. I've been over the Danish international player articles before. And I strongly believe this topic needs to be given to a Danish editor who can perform such tasks. It's not a great help when an article goes to AfD to get the importance it needs, very few if little, people don't seem to communicate that this article needs improvement or not. More often or not people post, this article fails GNG. And that's not helping anyone. Govvy (talk) 11:48, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Dlthewave: WP:NPOSSIBLE: "If it is likely that significant coverage in independent sources can be found for a topic, deletion due to lack of notability is inappropriate." Reasons have been given why many of these footballers are likely notable – they played internationally, they played abroad at a time when this wasn't commonplace – but I see very little acknowledgement of these sound arguments. If the database of Danish newspapers only allows access from Danish universities and libraries, how are non-Danish editors supposed to deal with that? Robby.is.on (talk) 15:19, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reasons have been given why many of these footballers are likely notable – they played internationally, they played abroad at a time when this wasn't commonplace

Except that these reasons were explicitly rejected as presumptive of even SIGCOV, let alone straight notability, with the deprecation of NFOOTY. No one has demonstrated that Danish international footballers at this time generally do have SIGCOV in these offline sources, so assertions that it exists for specific footballers have zero justification. JoelleJay (talk) 16:28, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose any administrative action against Billed Mammal based upon this complaint. One can argue about whether a bulk nomination is proper or not, but I don't see anything in the present case that suggests bad faith. Cbl62 (talk) 17:22, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm sympathetic to the argument that lots of AfDs are a lot to keep up with. But, at the same time, so are all the microstubs that have been vomited onto Wikipedia without a second thought. Do note, if an article has been deleted at AfD for failing GNG. It's very easy to simply recreate the article, providing you have found sources which you are confident would make it pass GNG if nominated again. But I'm with Ravenswing, I've come increasingly under the impression that none of the inclusion extremists would want to do that because that would require a minimum of effort. AfD isn't cleanup, but don't expect articles that aren't obvious GNG passes to never be challenged. I'll put Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rachelle Bukuru as the sports AfD that exhausted me. I nominated a current Burundian woman footballer, as there was no SIGCOV about her. Keepers cry BIAS and make baseless claims about it being impossible for us to check Burundian media sources since they must all be in print and hiding within the country, so we should give the subject the benefit of the doubt. Me being familiar with Burundian media and having done an extensive BEFORE, then demonstrate that Burundi's sole private national newspaper, the government newspaper, and a national women's magazine (all of which do regular football reporting and have online presence) show no meaningful hits for the subject's name. This wasn't enough to change people's minds - the claim that we are furthering systemic bias by deleting footballers from third world countries has everything to do with the fact that they're a footballer and nothing to with actually caring about coverage of African topics ("silly Burundian media must be racist against Burundians, us enlightened American/European Wikipedia editors know better about Africa than those dumb Africans" is the only other logical explanation aside from rabid football fanboying for such an attitude in light of the evidence). In this case it's Danish footballers, but allow me to place a bet that the keepers who are not actually looking for sources (like Robby has done, the proper way) but demanding that we prove a negative and go sift through the Danish national archives have zero intention of ever doing such a thing themselves, and will be totally content for the stub to be abandoned and stagnant for eternity, as long as it exists for whatever reason. -Indy beetle (talk) 13:32, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

State of play at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Football

I don't want to address any specific editor, but I do want to address the situation at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Football. I used to vote in many Football AfDs. Since the football notability rules changes, the flood gates have been released at this deletion sorting list. I fell inundated, to the point I choose not to participate in most them.

Part of the problem is the sheer mass of nominations. The other problem is that placing an informed voted and doing a detailed WP:BEFORE on the articles nominated is difficult. For English footballers it is easy to locate sources. But English footballers aren't the one's being nominated. There are many nominations from Pacific islands and far away places, where the native tongue is not English and I have no idea what amounts to a reliable source or not. The nomination above of the Danish footballers illustrates this. Just from looking at their record, it is apparent it is likely most of them are notable as they played in top clubs and appeared internationally. However locating sources in Danish from the 50s or 20s is not not easy. This is compounded by Nielsen (surname) being the most popular surname in Denmark, held by 5% of the population, and some of the given names being popular as well. Denmark had press, books, radio, and television in this period so offline sources are probable fro some of them.

With the current rules, I can vote keep if I see others presenting sources supporting notability. In some cases I find sources myself. But in many cases I'm left with a feeling the footballer is probably notable, but no obvious sources available as they are difficult to locate, so I don't vote either way. I don't think I'm the only one with this feeling, as many AfDs stay there with very few voters.

Would it be possible to close the floodgates some? Or at least create some yardstick that is more restrictive than the former football notability rule but at least saves us time on the more obvious cases? Maybe apply this rule only to "old articles", and not newly created articles to prevent new sub-standardly sourced stubs? As it is, the football deletion list is facing a couple of decades of stub creation thrown at it now.--Mvqr (talk) 10:16, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's exactly one of the points I wanted to make, how can you do a detailed WP:BEFORE when you're nominating that many articles. I also work during the day, right now I am on my lunch break and just popped on for a look here. I don't have enough time to do all the checks, I am not time rich like I use to be. There are a lot more people time rich around here who aren't doing the checks and that's what bothers me. Govvy (talk) 11:43, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• locating sources in Danish from the 50s or 20s is not not easy shouldn't this have been thought about before the article was created? Anyway, just recreate any of the deleted articles if sources are found; it's not like they'd ever be improved without going to AfD first. Avilich (talk) 14:59, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

shouldn't this have been thought about before the article was created? Maybe, but the articles were created at a time when there was an SNG for footballers. Anyway, just recreate any of the deleted articles if sources are found; That is possible, obviously. But having to create an article from scratch is a much higher barrier to contributing for editors. It takes more time and knowledge than editing an existing one. it's not like they'd ever be improved without going to AfD first. Huh? Robby.is.on (talk) 15:08, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is a bad argument. This entire nonstop back and forth around AFDs is because WP:BEFORE is placed incorrectly in the process. No articles should be created without multiple sources, preventing this drama. Making an article is easy, most of these were auto-generated from a database. Do the work on these articles if they are notable. I suspect many are hoaxes 2601:2C3:57F:3F8E:6874:3AEA:F7B8:F1D5 (talk) 15:32, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• having to create an article from scratch is a much higher barrier I don't see how; the AfD is on record for everyone to see, and the only difficulty is WP:G4, which shouldn't be a problem if sources actually are available. Avilich (talk) 16:54, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Most IP editors won't know what G4 is and neither did I until just now. Robby.is.on (talk) 17:00, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Would it be possible to close the floodgates some? We've been asking this question for years... about article creations. Sorry, but the community let a few editors mass-create these pages by the tens of thousands for years and years, and the result is too many non-notable, under-sourced articles. This "deletion spree", this is closing the floodgates some... closing the floodgates of mass creation. Levivich (talk) 15:50, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Then hold current creations up to a higher standard, if a new creation is subpar then sure, if the creator doesn't pony up proper sources then delete it with haste. But allow some kind of grandfather clause for older articles. Doesn't have to be one pro match, could be something more restrictive. Maybe phase back the grandfather clause slowly The reality is that the Football deletion list is flooded. Over a 100 discussions listed now, and it's been over 200 as well. For many of these discussions it is very possible there are some sources available, but the ability of editors to cope with this flood is lacking. Look at my record at deletion, I'm not shy at deleting substandard stuff, not at all. But I can't keep up with this flood and from what I see in the discussions other editors are letting these pass by as well. There were a couple of Manchester United players that were put up, for Christ's sake, which were stopped, but those are easier to catch. So sure, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jack Doughty, was obvious even within all those cookie cutter nominations, but this isn't true for other countries. The amount of editors who have experience with Danish or Micronesia footballers is miniscule.--Mvqr (talk) 16:33, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The reason I dont find this argument about its too many AFDs at all convincing is that these articles are not being deleted and salted. If at some point somebody actually finds some sources that support some player being notable they can always create the article anew. People are acting like deletion means that now and forever there will be this giant void. But that is just not true. I never understood why people are so adamant that terrible articles remain because someday some person may want to improve it. Well if that day ever comes they can create the article anew or request it be created. nableezy - 16:38, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Let me get this straight: for years, many editors have been saying that some editors are mass-creating non-notable articles. Now, what you want to do is to stop editors from doing this in the future, but grandfather the past creations? Why the heck would we want to do that? What the heck are you trying to preserve here? Non-notable articles? Why?

Look, there are tens of thousands of these. If we keep going through them one-by-one in batches of 10 or 20, it'll take us years. Years. Buckle up, the deletion is going to take longer than the creation. The fact that we don't have time to do so many BEFOREs is the proof that we never should have made so many in the first place.

Mass deletion is the consequence of WP:HIGHSCORE editing, and it always has been, as it always must be. Shoot, at least they're being taken to AFD; if it were up to me, I'd be looking for some criteria for a mass CSD. Levivich (talk) 16:53, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If the less significant small stubs with just a name, team, some stats, and no meaningful sources were just redirected to the team article or a list related to the team, then that would be much more manageable than what is going on right now in the football deletion.--Mvqr (talk) 17:06, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The manageability of the deletion is directly proportional to the manageability of the creation. There are tens of thousands of less significant small stubs with just a name, team, some stats, and no meaningful sources. Redirection won't work because players often played for multiple teams, so there isn't a single clear target, and anyway we don't need to turn entire rosters into redirects. We don't need tens of thousand of redirects any more than we need tens of thousands of non-notable sub-stubs. Again: what is it you're trying to preserve here? A redirect with a person's name? Why? Levivich (talk) 17:18, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not to mention that many of these supposedly perfect redirect targets would in no logical instance actually mention the name of the person which serves as the redirect. E.g. The parent team article which is supposed to broadly cover the whole history of the team as a well as some of the recent performance is probably not going to mention by name that one left defender who played a half season in 1923, as that would be WP:UNDUE. Not to mention the "MUST BE REDIRECTED NEVER DELETE" privileges these trivial footballers over other possibly notable subjects which might have the same name. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Harry Oppenheim, for example, whereas a result a footballer who played one match in 1909 has a redirect to a list of Austrian footballers, so if you're searching for Harry Oppenheim the newspaper publisher, or the art collector, or the South African businessman, or the Scottish politician, fuck you I guess, only football matters. -Indy beetle (talk) 14:07, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And then if it is pointed out that a redirect isn't suitable, the proposal then becomes to move the article to a disambiguated title and redirect that, before creating an unmaintainable dab page at the primary title for non-notable people in contradiction of WP:NOTDIRECTORY. BilledMammal (talk) 21:59, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

+1. With a similar case in hockey, where an editor outright defied the SNG (and it took a couple YEARS to finally community sanction him) to mass-create articles, we are still untangling his messes, several years down the road. And he created a tenth the articles Lugnuts did alone, and with more content.

If I thought that the footy project genuinely cared about turning these sub-stubs into actual articles, you guys wouldn't be waiting for AfDs, but working through the backlogs to source and improve the articles you could. But that's not happening, is it? So you will have to forgive some of us from coming to the conclusion that the sentiment is in fact just that bundled AfDs make it harder to delay and obstruct the process. Ravenswing 18:07, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Too much bad faith here for my taste. Stubs get fleshed out all the time. Robby.is.on (talk) 18:16, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To much bad faith in AFD discussions as a whole. - LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 19:39, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sure thing, I'll bite, Robby. Can you link to some of the recent footy sub-stubs you fleshed out? Ravenswing 02:56, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I won't bite. :-) Like yours mine was a general observation which cannot be proven or disproven by anecdotal evidence. Stubs or not, I generally don't write a lot of prose. Robby.is.on (talk) 08:11, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Then maybe you're not the right person to comment on the issue, hmmm? Ravenswing 03:53, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? My observation is just as valid as yours, perhaps even more so considering I actually edit footballer articles all the time so I get to see what happens in this topic area. I haven't seen you edit there. Robby.is.on (talk) 09:52, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, fair point Ravenswing, it's true that evert article arrives here fully formed. GiantSnowman 18:37, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So what if some non-notable articles hang around in mainspace longer than you'd like? I'd say the deletion of potentially notable subjects is a far greater risk than non-notable subjects not being deleted. It's much easier for a new editor to expand an article that is already there than to create a new one. NemesisAT (talk) 23:59, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

^^^^ Can we please all learn that the best way to handle off-topic comments is to ignore them, not to revert them, restore them, reply to them, or hat them. Ignoring is actually less distracting than engaging. Levivich (talk) 16:57, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, this is an unsolved and unsolvable collective action problem -- as long as you are in an open forum, there is no way to establish the necessary strong norms. Hatting, by contrast, is very effective because it can be implemented by a smaller group and helps communicate what the norms are. 66.44.49.56 (talk) 12:16, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• This is part eleventy billion of User_talk:Star_Mississippi/Archive_6#Poul_Nielson_AFD and the underlying AfD, which suggests it needs discussion to eventually reach a conclusion rather than being re-litigated quarterly across the project. Star Mississippi 20:46, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• As far as WP:BEFORE, we actually don't have to assume anything about how exhaustive a search is being performed, because at least one editor here has provided an answer outright: they generally only look at one page of Google results because "the rest are just Wikipedia clones" (except when they're not, as in the case mentioned here). That is not an exhaustive search. It's barely even a cursory search. Gnomingstuff (talk) 00:37, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • One full page of search is an entire page more than was used to create these articles. It's unreasonable to ask for more effort at afd than create time. Didn't spend ten minutes sourcing it, why should anyone else? If these aren't hoax articles, someone can write them properly. If they are hoaxes, we will forever be waiting on nonexistent "but likely to exist" sources. 2601:2C3:57F:3F8E:6874:3AEA:F7B8:F1D5 (talk) 00:43, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    There is no exception clause to WP:BEFORE for "well, they didn't do it, so I don't have to either." Nor is there anything in it that says "if you think there probably aren't sources, you don't actually have to prove it." 00:50, 21 July 2022 (UTC) Gnomingstuff (talk) 00:50, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    I believe you have misunderstood that comment, and misquoted me. I only looked at one page of normal Google search results for each of the search terms I tried, but I also looked at Google News results, Google News archive results, Google Books results, and Google Scholar results, and often multiple pages of those; I believe this is fully compliant with the expectations of WP:BEFORE.

    I would also disagree with your claim about an exception clause; considering it in the context of WP:ONUS and WP:FAIT, I believe it is permissible for editors to claim an exception when nominating mass created articles. In addition, BEFORE is only required when the main concern is notability; when the main concern is related to WP:NOT, such as WP:NOTDATABASE, such a search is not required although editors may chose to do it anyway. BilledMammal (talk) 01:11, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Here's an idea, move these stubs to draft space. Now you get six months to establish they belong and not seven days. Problem solved? nableezy - 00:44, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

until WP:DRAFTOBJECT, when literally anyone can move it back and force you to use the seven day option. Happy Editing--IAmChaos 01:59, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I feel like people in favor of deleting it wont be moving it back to the mainspace just to start the 7 day clock on them. If somebody were to move a draft to the mainspace and nominate/vote for deletion that move would have been done in bad faith and I would think worthy of sanctions. If somebody who feels that it is notable and wants to move it back, well guess anybody is welcome to start the seven day clock at that point if they feel otherwise. nableezy - 02:33, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, I haven't really seen people moving drafts to mainspace just to nominate them for deletion. The more common scenario is that an article is draftified by someone who thinks that it doesn't demonstrate notability, and then an editor who wants to keep it moves it back to mainspace which forces an AfD.

On that topic, I think it's interesting that drafts submitted through AfC are quite often rejected due to lack of SIGCOV sourcing even when the topic is likely notable. It would be helpful if we held experienced editors to the same standard as newbies rather than giving free reign to move them back to mainspace. –dlthewave ☎ 03:18, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The current policy permitting draftification refusal causes these problems. Generally, people who draftify articles are doing it for good reason, and if they’re not, the usual warning and enforcement pathways would manage abuse of draftification. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 10:13, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've constructed a list of mass created articles on Olympians by Sander.v.Ginkel (an editor who engaged in unauthorized semi-automated mass creation) and I am considering making such a proposal at the Village Pump; that all those that are not listed as having a non-statistical source are moved out of article space.

I've also constructed a similar list of mass created articles on Cricketers by BlackJack, but I'm giving Wikiproject Cricket time to work out what they want to do with those articles before I consider further action.

Draft space would be an option, but if editors want to avoid the 6 month cut off I wouldn't have any objection to a different location. BilledMammal (talk) 03:34, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I personally would prefer it if BilledMammal slowed down a bit.—S Marshall T/C 08:47, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Not just BilledMammal - we also have @HeinzMaster: who, as highlighted by @NemesisAT:, has nominated c. 25 articles for deletion in c. 20 minutes. Based on the AFD discussions so far, BEFORE was not performed because a large number of sources showing notability have been found by other users. GiantSnowman 16:08, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

I'm new to Wikipedia and not overly familiar with all the procedures. I have been working to update the page HERE as it contains some mistakes. My latest edit added sources from FCC, Ericsson, Samsung, but was removed. I've tried to discuss my reasoning in advance in the "Talk" page, and there doesn't seem to be valid counter arguments. I don't understand why my edit was removed, and also don't understand why less reliable sources are being given more weight. For example, another user referenced a few blogs like Android Authority, and that reference remains, although it is less reliable than FCC, Ericsson and Samsung. This kind of selective editing seems to be against Reliable sources and undue weight policy.

Could a neutral third-party please review?

Thanks! Sheytoon — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sheytoon123 (talk • contribs) 00:47, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Dnywlsh is relevant. MrOllie (talk) 00:50, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How exactly is it relevant? Patachonica (talk) 01:42, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sheytoon123 is one of the suspected socks in the case. Nil Einne (talk) 01:54, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I must admit I'm getting a bit confused here. If someone could help me understand what's going on, I would really appreciate it. My question is regarding my references for 5G NR being removed, and now it seems like I was investigated for being a sock puppet? How did that happen?

Do I need to do anything to prove that I'm one person?

More importantly, would anyone be able to review my references on that page and comment on whether they are valid and should remain?

Thanks! Sheytoon123 (talk) 23:12, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

When a new account shows up to advance the same arguments on the same talk pages as someone who has already been caught using multiple accounts to evade blocks, it is common for a sockpuppet investigation to be triggered to make sure that it isn't happening again. MrOllie (talk) 02:02, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've tried to ask him about possible sockpuppetry but he didn't answer. Patachonica (talk) 02:03, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Patachonicaapologies, I didn't see that question before, seems it got deleted after it was made. I've replied now. I'm not a sock puppet.

@MrOllieHow is a new user supposed to know the history of banned users? I have no idea who Dnywish is, and when I click on their account, I can't see what they had posted in the past. That account seems to be totally blocked. If you can help me understand what the "same arguments" is referring to, I can get a better idea. I've posted valid references from RAN vendors and regulatory bodies. I don't understand why those sources are removed, yet less reliable sources from blogs are ok?

I have many years of telecom / RAN experience and this is an area I have been writing about on other websites. I'm happy to share those posts if it helps my credibility. I have extensive knowledge of 4G and 5G network deployments, both from a standards/architectural level and specifically as it pertains to the Canadian market. Sheytoon123 (talk) 16:20, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not interested in rehashing what other people have been telling you on the article talk pages again here. I suggest you read their comments over again. MrOllie (talk) 16:22, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We have been trying to explain why we reverted his edits but he continues to say that User:Nightwalker-87, User:ebahapo and my contributions 'Don't have any valid counter arguments.' We have constantly refuted his edits on the talk page but he refuses to listen just like Dnywlsh. The account Sheytoon123 conveniently showed up right after Dnywlsh supposedly resumed his sockpuppetry using the IP "73.128.151.200" and Sheytoon123 has not edited any other articles beside 5G NR frequency bands which makes his account very suspicious. Joshua Shah (talk) 19:30, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alright this will be my last comment since it's clearly not going anywhere.

I don't know who Dnywlsh is, I have no idea what their previous involvement was, and I also don't know who 73.128.151.200 is. I don't know why 73.128.151.200 showed up at the same time as me, you'd have to ask him. I came here because of a Rogers reddit post where someone thought Wikipedia references were always accurate and came from standards bodies like 3GPP, so I signed up and saw some mistakes that I tried to fix. Telecom/RAN is my actual job, I have lots of experience in this field and was willing to contribute.

Apart from a few generic comments at the beginning, ebahapo wasn't really involved in the discussions in the Talk page. For the most part it's Joshuarshah and Nightwalker-87 engaging with myself and 73.128.151.200. Looks like 73.128.151.200 is banned now.

My main source of frustration is the quality of references, I wanted a neutral third-party to review them. Looks like there is no interest in doing that.

This environment is really unfriendly towards newcomers. So much conspiracy theories and baseless allegations going around. I haven't vandalized or participated in any edit wars, haven't made random accusations again anyone, but I feel like I'm on the receiving end of backlash. Somehow it's suspicious for a RAN expert with years of internet presence under the same account to make edits to a 5G NR page? I'm quite surprised this is how Wikipedia operates. If you don't value newcomers who may disagree with you, just say so. No reason to accuse a new member of being a sock puppet without talking to them first and gathering facts.

Thanks for reading my message. Good luck and take care! Sheytoon123 (talk) 20:59, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Sheytoon. There's no good reason to assume that he's a sockpuppet of Dnywlsh. Patachonica (talk) 21:12, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hence the reason why I filed the SPI. They will be able to confirm or deny if you're a sock or not. No hard feeling bro but this is just a sanity check for us because Dnywlsh abused a lot of accounts to vandalise articles so we just need to be sure. Joshua Shah (talk) 00:39, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Patachonica: if you dispute the SPI, you should mention it in the SPI. It's unlikely anyone investigating the case is going to pay much attention to this thread. Nil Einne (talk) 16:49, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Nil EinneForgive me, but I didn't see your name in the Talk discussions of the 5G topics. Is there a reason you are suspecting I am a sock puppet, or someone else made that claim and you just noticed it? I'm just trying to understand how I got caught up in the middle of all of this. Thanks. Sheytoon123 (talk) 16:22, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Read what I said again. I said you were one of the suspected sockpuppets in the case. I didn't comment on my personal view in any way. Nil Einne (talk) 16:41, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Sheytoon123:, @Patachonica: since the SPI was closed with the admin finding no real reason to suspect socking, I suggest Sheytoon123 reason WP:CONTENTDISPUTE which this seems to clearly be. Content disputes aren't handled at ANI. As the page outlines, the way to resolve a content dispute would be to continue discussion and if you reach an impasse then try and get more editors involved. It doesn't matter whether you think the other editor's arguments are invalid or whatever, if they are acting in good faith then you're not the one to judge. I'd note that reliable secondary sources are generally greatly preferred over primary sources like the FCC, and probably nearly everything produced by Samsung or Ericson (either they're primary or they're biased or both) although news blogs aren't generally the best sources either. It may also be helpful for Sheytoon123 to read Help:Wikipedia editing for researchers, scholars, and academics. While we are very welcoming of editors editing content they're an expert on (provided they declare any COIs), we don't allow anyone to write articles based just on their personal knowledge. All editors need to cite reliable sources. Further as an encyclopaedia, our standards for reliable sources are different from more general purpose works. In particular, as I already said we generally greatly prefer secondary sources over primary sources which is often not the case in some other areas. As I also indicated, editors also need to great take care when citing their own work. Often they simply shouldn't do it, but if they do, they should make sure they declare their COI. Also I'd strongly advice against citing your own work if it's self published. While we do allow self-published works when written by experts, citing your own self-published work is IMO too problematic to ever be a good idea. Nil Einne (talk) 05:53, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Aqşin Abbaslı (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Aqşin Abbaslı has multiple times tried to remove (censor) the word "Azeri" (a well established word in English academia, often being used by WP:RS, but abhorred by the regime of Azerbaijan) with no explanation whatsoever. In fact, I don't think I have ever seen him use the edit summary thing, let alone a talk page. Saying that their talk page is filled with warnings would be putting it mild. They have warnings stretching all the way back to November 2019... the same month they started editing. Mind you, they have been reverted for ALL these diffs and warned for it, yet still continue.

1. 22 November 2019
2. 26 November 2019
3. 29 January 2020
4. 4 March 2020
5. 5 March 2020
6. 29 April 2020
7. 28 August 2021
8. 8 November 2021
9. 24 November 2021
10. 31 December 2021
11. 31 December 2021
12. 31 December 2021
13. 15 February 2022
14. 20 July 2022

And mind you, this is just disruption in one field. They have made other sort of disruptions as well, just a few examples;

1. 28 December 2021 Removed the Armenian romanization of the city name
2. 22 October 2021 Replaced "Iranian" with "Iranian Azerbaijani" under "nationality"
3. 2 June 2021 Removed the Armenian tranlisteration

--HistoryofIran (talk) 21:42, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Another mobile user. The only thing this editor has ever done on a talk page is remove someone else's thirteen-year-old comment. Probably got there by mistake and didn't even know what they were seeing. 100% nonuse of edit summaries, probably hasn't discovered them yet. This is so incredibly frustrating. The encyclopedia anyone can edit turns into the mobile app no one can use to communicate. valereee (talk) 11:29, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's an incredible amount of WP:AGF with all due respect (I know you mean well), but it unfortunately doesn't address any part of the actual conduct (i.e. context) which is marked by WP:TENDENTIOUS when one take's a close look at the diffs above. I checked Aqşin Abbaslı's talk page, which is littered with warnings left by various veteran editors. They have never responded to any of these warnings. To be honest, I doubt this is due to them being a mobile user. They have demonstrated that despite editing for quite some time, they are unable to produce any sort of editorial pattern that would be a net worth to this project. - LouisAragon (talk) 14:04, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@LouisAragon, oh, sorry, I wasn't trying to argue we should leave them to their misguided editing simply because they can't/haven't/are refusing to hear us. Just expressing frustration that we can't be sure we're communicating with them. I was thinking maybe wait to act until they'd started editing again, which they haven't. If they do start editing again without coming in here, I think at minimum a p-block from article space with an edit summary pointing them here. valereee (talk) 14:59, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

They started editing again [5]. --HistoryofIran (talk) 18:13, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

P-block from article space to see if it's possible to get this editor's attention here. valereee (talk) 18:21, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tancredileone (talk · contribs) is a brand new user who might be able to morph into a good editor if some bad behavior can be nipped in the bud, but he needs a course correction fast and I'm not sure of the best way to do this. He has managed to cause quite a little kerfuffle in only ten career edits (as of 20 July 2022, 23:20 (UTC)). BusterD summed it up best at the Teahouse:

Your disparaging tone in talk page discussions is unwelcome, and insulting other longtime and trusted contributors gets new editors like yourself off to poor start. Gaining the negative attention of three administrators with only one mainspace edit is quite impressive, but not for any good reason. —17:15, 20 July

The situation started with T's addition of a commercial catering service as a reference at the article clambake, reverted by Julietdeltalima, followed by addition of a {{uw-advert4im}} template by jdl on Tancredileone's UTP (5:42, 19 July; as page creation). The situation degraded from there. Since then, most activity has been on his UTP, including additional explanations about Refspam, and attempts to explain and point out WP:INCIVILITY. There's also some refusal to hear explanations on T's part, but the major issue is over-the-top aggressiveness in interactions with other users.

Refspam pointed out or explained to him on his UTP:

• by Julietdeltalima (15:42, 19 July) via {{uw-advert4im}}
• by Julietdeltalima (16:53, 19 July}) (own words)
• by Maproom (07:35, 20 July) (own words; at Tea house)
• by David notMD (10:44, 20 July) (own words; at Tea house)
• by Mathglot (10:58, 20 July) (own words)
• by Cullen328 (16:15, 20 July) (own words)

Civility explained at his TP:

• by Ad orientem: (15:31, 20 July)
• by Cullen328 (15:36, 20 July)
• by Ad Orientem (16:11, 20 July) (with formal warning)
• by BusterD (17:15, 20 July) (at the Tea house)

Aggressive responses by Tancredileone:

• by T (to jdl): "I really don't know who you are since you haven't mentioned it yet. Maybe you own wikipedia? Maybe you own those other websites in the references?" (06:43, 20 July)
• by T (to Mathglot) (12:53, 20 July): "[I]f I were you I would start being a little less hypocritical, aggressive and rude, and have less conflict of interests on this 'encyclopedia'. ... It seems that those 'lot of rules' apply exclusively to people that aren't in your circle of trolls so far."
• by T (to Cullen328) (16:28, 20 July): "Ok, so she can insult me and be downright offensive left alone defaming and I cannot even defend myself, good stuff, keep on shining great defenders of the peace of Wikiplanet! ... Good luck you seem to be all on the same page when it comes to harassing and attacking people,"
• Additional prickly responses at the Tea house; opener: "Hi everyone, I've recently added a reference on this page Clambake, someone attacked me rather harshly, threatening of blocking me from editing." —07:06, 20 July) (referring to the {{uw-advert4im}} placed on his UTP)

There are other minor issues, such as persistently requesting pseudonymous users to out themselves (16:29, 19 July, 06:43, 20 July, 12:53, 20 July), insisting on setting the terms of discussion himself and demands that others answer his questions ("still waiting for an answer to my question"-(06:43, 20 July), "You still haven't answered my first question"-((12:53, 20 July), "however did you even take a look at it?"-(15:50, 20 July); "now you need to sign up for a New York Times subscription in order to read that reference!"-(16:28, 20 July), which can be chalked up to growing pains, but there is a real problem in the unnecessarily aggressive attitude towards any editor who either disagrees with him, or doesn't even necessarily disagree but merely points out basic policy and guidelines that might apply to some previous edit of his. If Tancredileone can drop the battleground mentality and adopt a civil tone with others, they could become a productive editor, but I feel like the time window for a change is short and needs to be rapidly addressed.

A word for Tancredileone: if you take this as an attack on you, it isn't. I wouldn't have bothered spending all this time writing this, if I didn't think there was a possibility things could be turned around. You are still very new here; I hope you take this in the spirit in which it is intended, which is waving the yellow flag so you are aware of the seriousness of the situation, and can make a course correction before it's too late and things get even worse. This is a page on which a lot of administrators hang out. What you want to do here, is think about what's been said by multiple editors, own the behavior that's being pointed out to you, show that you understand what they are saying (even if you don't agree), and make a commitment to interact better with other editors going forward. Feel free to ask questions or make comments on my Talk page any time; I wish you good luck. Mathglot (talk) 23:42, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with all of the above. My response has been to work all day to expand and improve the referencing of Clambake, an article that was in poor condition when I started. Cullen328 (talk) 23:52, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fixing missing ping: Ad Orientem. Mathglot (talk) 00:09, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the props as a possible editor, I feel like I'm the only one who stands accused not sure why, I get it some of the comments were sharp, and so was the first remark I've received, I've only replied to that tit for tat. I'm not the kind of person that gets accused or insulted in real life and says nothing. Only in real life nobody usually dares to insult me, mainly because of respect.

I've only attempted to edit a reference link on a page that as everyone agreed was in bad standing. I saw other references which were completely irrelevant (and commercial) and acted on them. Only to be greeted by this language: "This is your only warning; if you use Wikipedia for soapboxing, promotion or advertising again, as you did at Clambake, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. This is an encyclopedia, not an advertising vehicle. Do not ever do this again."

Now I found that a bit much. Nobody ever took into account my good intentions and purpose. When I tried to explain what I did and why they kept going at it like I was some kind of criminal. So it seems that the "good faith" other admins invoked so much was kind of a one-way street thing. At the end of the day, just wondering is it all this publicly defaming me?

(Reason, why I asked other users to share who they actually are, is that in case you haven't noticed you have my real name while I only see pseudonymous and that felt a little creepy besides the obvious privacy issues that it entails on my end) Hope this clear things out, I understand that other users might have intervened out of good intentions, so was I in the first place. Tancredileone (talk) 07:51, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• This seems to me to be an example of why we have escalating warnings. I think a 4im spam warning for that initial edit is over-the-top - I would certainly have reverted their edit, but would have given them a level 1 'adding inappropriate links' warning, which is a lot less in your face. Their behaviour since receiving that warning has undoubtedly been over-the-top too, and way too aggressive, but this might have been avoided had they not been nibbled in the first place. Tancredileone: many editors, probably most of us, edit pseudonymously, to protect our privacy - you'll have to get used to that if you want to edit here, it's not creepy, it's the norm. As a beginner, you are going to make mistakes; people are going to point those out, and you are going to have to respond better. I agree that the initial warning was excessive, but none of the other comments on your talk page, from Mathglot or Cullen328 or Ad Orientem, were aggressive or insulting. You need to put yourself in learner mode: if you don't understand something someone has said, don't get angry, ask for guidance. Girth Summit _(blether) 08:24, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Thank you for chiming in @Girth Summit, ok I put myself in a learner mode. However I still have a public reputation online and all these pages are publicly defaming me. Therefore these are the options I can envision moving forward:

  1 - We forget this all happened *lesson learned and we leave it behind us, deleting all the defaming accusations with my REAL NAME on it (all of the pages containing my name as well as URLs User talk:Tancredileone Starting off on the wrong foot: User:Tancredileone).

  2 - You allow me to edit my name out and use a pseudonymous just like you all are doing.

  3 - If none of the above options work, we would have to ask what the competent authorities think of this and possibly if left no recourse take legal action.

  I'm looking forward to a detailed reply ASAP possibly from an admin @Mathglot, or someone who can address this officially. Thank you. Tancredileone (talk) 08:47, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Legal threat. Block needed!! This one needs to get a WP:CLUE. - Roxy the mindfulness dog 08:52, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I have blocked Tancredileone for making the above legal threat. Any admin may unblock them without consulting me if they make an unblock request in which they withdraw the threat. Girth Summit _(blether) 09:43, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Tancredileone, I've responded at your talk page. (P.S., I'm not an admin.) Mathglot (talk) 13:07, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I understand Girth Summit's concerns. I don't usually go to 4im, except when a new user's only edit is to add a link to the website of a small business to an article related to the purpose of that business, in a manner suggesting no attention to detail or familiarity with the encyclopedia's style and content (this seems to happen most often, at least on my watchlist, with household maintenance and repair businesses, followed closely by niche food/beverage providers/makers), as was the case here. - Julietdeltalima (talk) 19:22, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

On closer examination of the circumstances, including some off-wiki stuff which I won't mention here, I actually think the 4im warning was justified, along with a similar warning for UPE. Happy days... Girth Summit _(blether) 23:02, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Tancredileone is open about his real name, and he himself added the link that exposes the off-wiki connection - so I don't think it's any outing violation to point out that he was promoting one of his own clients. And having seen the connection, I lost all sympathy. He might be regretting any possible damage to his online reputation, but *he* did the damage, not Wikipedia - and his aggressive threatening behaviour should absolutely not be tolerated. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:31, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. - Julietdeltalima (talk) 17:10, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

One more thing: I have no clue who this person is and would never have recognized his username as a real name if he hadn’t jumped around and shrieked about it. I was perfectly satisfied with my assumption that “Tancredile One” was a vehicle or base or strike force from some “Star Wars”-universe entertainment I’ve never seen. Dude Streisanded his own self. Julietdeltalima (talk) 02:55, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Pindrice (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 2a01:cb14:cee:c600:a434:28d2:bd18:29b7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I placed a warning on Pindrice's talk page regarding uncivil statements against S.A. Julio in edit summaries at 2022 CONCACAF W Championship and 2022 Women's Africa Cup of Nations. I reverted Pindrice's edits in the two articles to maintain formatting consistency with other high-level football tournaments listing own goals with the edit summary for consistency with other articles. Also, be mindful of what you say in your edit summaries. See your talk page. I then observed identical edit summaries at 2022 Copa América Femenina and 2022 AFC Women's Asian Cup and was about to amend my warning when I discovered that Pindrice had blanked their talk page. I proceeded to revert the edits at the third and fourth articles and considered the matter settled as Pindrice was obviously aware of the warning I had placed.

I have since discovered that Pindrice has continued their uncivil language in edit summaries toward not only S.A. Julio but also myself at 2022 EAFF E-1 Football Championship, 2022 EAFF E-1 Football Championship (women), and 2022 AFF Women's Championship, so the matter is not settled. I take Pindrice's blanking of their talk page as an indication they do not wish to engage directly, so I am bringing this here in the hopes that Pindrice learns to be more civil in their edit summaries and to exhibit less ownership of article content and formatting. — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 02:04, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Pindrice notified / S.A. Julio notified — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 02:50, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This also seems to apply to the following IP : User:2a01:cb14:cee:c600:a434:28d2:bd18:29b7. Matilda Maniac (talk) 03:05, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What is uncivi in my comments for the edits ? There is nothing uncivil ! This is so subjective. You only want me to be quite and to disappear because you want nobody to argue with you. If I'm ban, shame on you, really ! Pindrice (talk) 02:15, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In my edits I said this was your ideas to do this kind of edits, not mine. I'm in my right to not agree with you ! Pindrice (talk) 02:16, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pindrice one of your favorite edit summaries recently is JUST BECAUSE YOU WANT TO BE THE ONE WHO IS RIGHT, YOU'RE RIDICULOUS. All in bold is considered shouting. Why are you shouting? Please explain to all of us here at this noticeboard how this edit summary does not violate the clear-cut policy, Wikipedia:No personal attacks? Do you think that you are exempt from this policy? Cullen328 (talk) 05:01, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Pindrice: I'm not saying you have to agree with me, but to argue about formatting and content in edit summaries is highly inappropriate, and pointed statements like the ones you made border on personal attacks. Article talk pages and user talk pages exist for those types of discussions. The fact you continually blank your talk page is, in my opinion, evidence that you are aware of that fact and choose to ignore it. I also wonder whether this edit to your talk page was you editing while logged out or if there is an IP vandal involved. — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 05:29, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Claiming that your posts were civil when a cursory glance at your contribs would very clearly prove otherwise is not a good look. Also, while you are permitted to remove talk page notices, the fact that you do so without any acknowledgement of any WP:NPA breach at all is not acceptable. Communication is required on this project. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). 09:47, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at their edit history they almost never actually use the edit summaries to let others know what they changed. Gusfriend (talk) 10:39, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• This is bordering on WP:CIR. While not the most extreme case, the fact remains, you have to be able to collaborate with other and cope with disagreements without instantly shouting and getting aggressive. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 11:05, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The overlap in areas of editing between Pindrice and 2a01:cb14:cee:c600:a434:28d2:bd18:29b7 is too great for me to ignore. It may be a case of Pindrice not checking "Keep me logged in" on the login page, but the regular switching between logged-in and logged-out editing seems almost WP:DUCKish. I've added userlinks for the IP at the top of this section as well. — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 04:55, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I support a ban here. Clearly this account/IP are not here to build an encyclopedia. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 14:48, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Costatifrons (talk · contribs) has been making numerous disruptive edits primarily of two specific types: changing links to avoid redirects ^[1][2][3][4] (contrary to WP:NOTBROKEN), and capitalizing the first letter of piped links / changing links to piped links and capitalizing the first letter thereof (unnecessary per MOS:PIPE, resulting in a zero-difference edit that only exists to spam watchlists and irritate people).^[5] There are also a variety of assorted minor edits with no, or slight negative, effects on the article (notably this edit removing a language wrapper which has been made and reverted repeatedly, also found at [6]- see Line 88 in the History of France sidebar in the diff). These habits have been addressed on their talk page on two occasions by three users including an admin, to no effect. Thepsyborg (talk) 03:12, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is not the only types of edits I make. I have many times updated international goals. Costatifrons (talk) 09:10, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Since it has been reported here and Costatifrons replied they made this edit contrary to WP:NOTBROKEN as well as introducing an error in use of he/him. I would also note that changes like this are a really bad idea as the page that is no longer being linked may at some stage be expanded especially if the redirect used the template {{R with possibilities}}. Gusfriend (talk) 12:20, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that you English speakers have lost the ability to distinguish between object and subject. It must not be object only because it is last in the sentence. It is actually a shortening of "as drunk as he was" and it proves subject is right. Costatifrons (talk) 13:07, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. See https://www.antidote.info/en/blog/reports/i-or-me. “Than” can act as a preposition. English is a slippery language: lots of things that look ill-formed are not.

Anyway, that’s getting away from the main point: changing links to avoid redirects is a bad idea. See WP:NOTBROKEN. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 16:16, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Can you tell us why you made the change to COVID-19 pandemic in Canada since your last update here? Specifically this edit where you replaced [[Emergency Operations Centre]] with [[Emergency operations center]]? Whilst the change was contrary to WP:NOTBROKEN it also changes centre to center contrary to the {{Use Canadian English|date=December 2020}} notice at the top of the page and the fact that it is referred to as the Emergency Watch and Response Centre (according to the page linked from the existing reference).^[1] It should also be capitalised as it refers to the official name of the organisation. Your [[Roche Diagnostics|Roche Molecular Systems]] to [[Roche]] Molecular Systems also meant that rather than being sent via a redirect to the "Diagnostics" section of the Roche page. In this particular case you actually skipped a page that has a history, was merged into the Roche page and may be split there in the future so linking to the redirect is a good thing. Gusfriend (talk) 01:26, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gusfriend (talk) 01:28, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I can not understand why the article name is Emergency operations center if Emergency Operations Centre is the right name. Costatifrons (talk) 09:39, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The article is named Emergency operations center, because it's a generic article about the topic and is written in U.S. English since the idea originated in the US. But the article COVID-19 pandemic in Canada uses Canadian English, because it's an article about Canada. So in referring to the concept in the article COVID-19 pandemic in Canada the name Emergency Operations Centre is correct, but the link goes via redirect to the article about the general concept. Each name is correct in the context in which it is used. Jahaza (talk) 10:17, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We have a guideline about the version of English to use, which you can review at WP:ENGVAR. Jahaza (talk) 10:21, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I am not sure where to go from here as there seems to be a serious level of WP:IDHT as after their most recent edit at ANI they went and did the same thing here. Some of their changes also raise concerns about WP:CIR. Gusfriend (talk) 03:44, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mquintana28 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has - seven times! - made the same change to Big Brother 24 (American season), changing the name of the city of one contestant, despite repeated notices both in edit summaries and warnings on their talk page that we go by the information provided on the CBS website. Their only communication was tonight in this edit summary - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Big_Brother_24_(American_season)&diff=1099692399&oldid=1099681213 - "Siesta Key is part of Sarasota... It does't matter what CBS says, I'm from Sarasota as well and Siesta Key is just an Island." Not a serious problem, but still frustrating to have to clean up every few days. Bgsu98 (talk) 04:08, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What? If you watch the feeds, She contestant Herself said She lives in Sarasota. I am also from Sarasota and Siesta Key is part of Sarasota...

https://www.heraldtribune.com/story/entertainment/television/2022/07/06/big-brother-cast-2022-the-challenge-usa-florida-women-competing/7819105001/

https://theancestory.com/alyssa-snider-2/ Mquintana28 (talk) 05:15, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This user has now made this reversion four times this evening. Again, we go by the original source on the CBS website. Bgsu98 (talk) 05:22, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just a heads up, this is starting to approach edit warring from Mquintana28's side. They've been reverted by myself and Bgsu98, and continue to revert, despite us mentioning the source cited in the article. Here's the diffs, all from within the last 24 hours: [7], [8], [9], and [10]. They're also no longer using edit summaries and have, to my knowledge, made to attempt to begin a discussion. TheDoctorWho (talk) 05:26, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

They've also been warned on their page (here) of proper discussion etiquette by me, and continues to revert. TheDoctorWho (talk) 05:30, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In the shown itself clearly shows the contestant is from Sarasota.

https://i.imgur.com/dTwZFCr.png Mquintana28 (talk) 05:28, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It would be better if you brought these points up on the article talk page, either way the WP:STATUSQUO should remain in place while discussion takes place and a consensus is reached. You should NOT continue to revert to your preferred version. TheDoctorWho (talk) 05:31, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We are up to five reversions tonight. 🙄 Bgsu98 (talk) 05:31, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm gonna suggest you also stop reverting for now. We don't want to clog/disrupt the article history by edit warring. Now that it's brought here, an admin should respond soon and once they do, we can probably revert until proper discussion takes place, if the editor is willing to participate. TheDoctorWho (talk) 05:34, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I’m not touching it anymore. Not worth the hassle. Bgsu98 (talk) 05:37, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The fifth revert in question for any reviewing admins. TheDoctorWho (talk) 05:36, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

P-blocked 31 hours from the article for edit-warring. valereee (talk) 16:36, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Valereee, as soon as the block was lifted, they were right back to Big Brother 24 (American season) making the same change again. Bgsu98 (talk) 00:40, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Indef p-block from the article. No objection to anyone lifting this if you can get through to this editor. valereee (talk) 12:54, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jingiby (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) persists in adding dubious and irrelevant content to articles on topics related to Macedonia (see this and this) and engages in spiteful discussions with other users who warn him on the previously established consensus (see this). The user has been blocked for similar engagements multiple times in the past, with the last indefinite block being lifted after three years. I don't think that blocking a user is the right sanction for disruptive editing on a single topic, so imposing a ban from the topic "Macedonia" would be more efficient in my opinion. Thanks.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 08:56, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello everyone. A while ago I have got a message on my talk page about opening this discussion from the editor who started it. I find that I have been accused of some disruptive editing on 2 articles. However I don't understand why this happened without ending the discussion on the Macedonian language article talk page where is one. Also, there was no discussion at all on the second article's talk page about Hristian Mickoski. Regarding my edit on the page for the Macedonian language when requested a source with a citation, I have added one and there there are not any changes in the main text. I was treated rudely on the talk page there, and I was accused of being a paid editor supported by a government official for my work on Wikipedia. I do not accept this as a normal behaviour. As for the article about Mickoski, the text that is the subject of dispute concerns the contradictions with him, related to his attitude towards Bulgaria and the paradox that his wife has Bulgarian citizenship. Sources have been presented for the veracity of these circumstances and I don't see what the problem is. If I have to be completely honest, the political relations between Bulgaria and North Macedonia are very tense at this moment. At the moment in North Macedonia is one of the peaks of Bulgarophobia in recent years and the Bulgarians feel somewhat affected. Probably this also affects the editors from these two countries who write here. In this regard, I would like to point out that I am one of the best experts on the Macedonian issue here, and for years this has not pleased some of the editors from North Macedonia, who periodically try to report me here with some proposals like today's. I do not accept that there are real grounds for imposing on me any specific restrictions on the subject of topics related to Macedonia, due to an alleged but unproven destructive redactions. However, if someone is personally affected by my edits, I would apologize for that. Thank you everyone. Jingiby (talk) 10:09, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is a collaborative project where community discussions lead up to consensus, so making changes that violate its policies and previous discussions is uncollaborative and disruptive. In this particular case, your behaviour in the articles on the Macedonian language and on Hristijan Mickoski is out of the spirit of Wikipedia.

• Macedonian language is an article which attracted a lot of tense discussions in the past and was even subject to arbitration with a clear outcome. Therefore, it's highly recommended to check the archived discussions (in some of which you were a participant) to get familiar with the community's stance on the matter. Furthermore, your disputed edit can't be allowed in the article until the issue is resolved on the talk page, so this revert can be properly considered an act of edit warring.
• Hristijan Mickoski is an article to which WP:BLP applies and adding libelous opinions by individuals, such as this one, is totally out of the spirit of an encyclopedia.

I really don't know how a user, who has been editing Wikipedia for so many years and has been instructed zillion times about its policies, can add the sentence "According to the MEP Andrey Kovachev, Mickoski is an extreme Bulgarophobe" in an article on a living person. That's definitely not a good-faith contribution.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 11:02, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think that in the case with Mickoski, it is about political bias. The man in question is considered in Bulgaria to be a person who often takes extreme anti-Bulgarian positions. If this is indeed the case, and there are reliable sources for such claims, I see no reason why this should not be reflected in the article about this person. However, it is about information in the "controversies" section. It does not highlight the positive qualities of people, even if they are alive. As for the article about the Macedonian language, I will repeat that adding an academic source, even if this was requested by another editor, is not a violation.Jingiby (talk) 11:58, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment These are content issues, read WP:RfC and seek input from the wider community to solve them. You are wasting time here. Ktrimi991 (talk) 12:35, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment As currently am interested in editing something related to Macedonia and Bulgaria, and in the past had constructive instances with Jingiby, am a bit stunned by the report and probably reluctant to engage any articles related to those countries. It is taking things way out of proportions. The edits by Jingiby were done using reliable sources, attributed and in appropriate sections (as per NPOV). I didn't saw any problem with Jingiby's editing in the last 5 years, at least on articles I worked on. I would advise everyone to continue or start discussing at article talk pages considering WP:BRD instead of immediately reporting an editor for bold edits.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 12:53, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• @Ktrimi991: We can't open an RfC and waste someone's time for every single edit a user insists on in an article. That's a perfect example of disruptive editing that should be prevented. @Miki Filigranski: I don't see how adding the opinion of an individual Bulgarian politician that someone is a "Bulgarophobe", which was published in the headline of a Bulgarian news website, justifies WP:BRD. This is not about who's right on what. It's about Wikipedia and its policies. If Wikipedia were a place where everyone could add personal opinions exchanged between celebrities and published in tabloids, then who knows where the end would be.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 13:22, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well I see editors insisting on their own almost every day - I do not report them. I have insisted in some cases on my edits for weeks - nobody reported me for that. Ktrimi991 (talk) 13:27, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The difference is that this user was blocked for similar things multiple times and still doesn't show to have learnt anything from it. Therefore, imposing a ban from the topic "Macedonia" would solve the problem for good even without a block.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 13:34, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Kiril Simeonovski: the editor literally done only two same edits at Macedonian language with one revert (small discussion at talk page started only two days ago), while at Hristijan Mickoski both of you are edit warring since 9 July and both of you didn't start discussing at talk page. Wikipedia is a (team)work in progress, don't rush the edits, but also don't postone discussing and dispute resolutions. Reports to ban or block someone are rarely a solution. This is starting to look like a witchhunt.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 13:45, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Discussing with the wider community whether the sentence According to the MEP Andrey Kovachev, Mickoski is an extreme Bulgarophobe belongs in an article on a living person and whether the text "The obviously plagiarized historical argument of the Macedonian nationalists for a separate Macedonian ethnicity could be supported only by linguistic reality, and that worked against them until the 1940s. Until a modern Macedonian literary language was mandated by the communist-led partisan movement from Macedonia in 1944, most outside observers and linguists agreed with the Bulgarians in considering the vernacular spoken by the Macedonian Slavs as a western dialect of Bulgarian". should appear in an article that has been subject to arbitration is totally absurd. And it's completely irrelevant if such claims appear in sources or not. There is an academic community supporting the flat earth theory, but it doesn't mean that we need a community consensus that the Earth is not flat. There always has to be a red line for what's worth discussing and what's not.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 14:08, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Again, you're taking things out of proportion and yes, it should be discussed. There's nothing absurd about discussing things especially not these which are part of NPOV/WEIGHT, sometimes simply is nedeed to have again a discussion. The scientific debate & viewpoint of Macedonian language identity and relation to Bulgarian language is totally not on the level of flat Earth theory. Actually, it is the only solution to not have (war-)edits with such, for you worthless and controversial, information or viewpoint in the future.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 14:20, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. You've clearly stated your opinion, so let's see what do others, especially administrators, think on the matter.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 14:35, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

•  Comment: Not again. This is the 3rd (or 4th time?) that User:Jingiby is being reported on Macedonia topic area-related content disagreements. This is plainly unacceptable to see happening. I gotta agree with editors Miki Filigranski and Ktrimi991 and I would advice Kiril Simeonovski that they try to discuss with Jingiby at the Talk page instead of reporting them and asking for a topic ban. A topic ban is a serious measure and is meant to act more as a preventative step aiming at protecting a topic area and preventing wide-range POV disruption from occuring to it. A topic ban is not an appropriate punishment for a disagreement between two editors. I don't think the admins even have to hear our opinions here at all. It is recommended that this case is closed and the filler is encouraged into using dispute resolution procedures instead. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 15:44, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
•  Comment: Since I have joined Wikipedia, I have encountered Jingiby across numerous articles relating to the Macedonia topic area. Despite the fact that we tend to sit on opposite sides of the fence (for example, 1), I find Jingiby to be a user focused on making quality edits with valid sources that meet WP:RS. In fact, he helps to undo vandalism and check/evaluate many edits across articles in the Macedonia topic area and it would be wrong to topic ban him on something he contributes to in a positive way. Especially for something that seems to be a content-related disagreement, hence why we have the whole idea of TP's. Botushali (talk) 16:00, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@SilentResident and Botushali: Do you think that expressions such as “extreme Bulgarophobe”, “obviously plagiarized historical argument of the Macedonian nationalists” and “mandated by the communist-led partisan movement” are acceptable and in line with Wikipedia’s neutral point of view? The main problem here is the abrasive language used in the edits. This is an encyclopedia, not a flea market.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 16:18, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Kiril Simeonovski: regarding the edited words on Macedonian language article, are you really accusing the editor for words he didn't even write nor edit into main text yet a reference quote stated by Dennis P. Hupchick? The quote itself isn't even controversial and outside of what can be found at Macedonian language#Political views on the language and articles Political views on the Macedonian language.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 16:50, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is an encyclopedia with well-established policies on the language and style used across articles. If something appears in reliable sources, it doesn’t mean that it can be readily quoted. There are zillions of academic publications in which authors use such language on different topics, but that doesn’t make an argument that Wikipedia has to adjust its policies to accept it.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 17:59, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I'd argue there's at least a behavioral element here. Jingiby has inserted Bulgaria into barely-related articles to the point that Cincinnati chili ended up under DS sanctions for the Balkans and EE because they insisted the exact ethnicity of the inventors of this midwestern-US spiced meat sauce was important in understanding the article subject and wanted to support the insertion with OR, synth, an interview with one of the inventors' nephews, etc. Which is silliness. This takes up almost the entire content of an archive there, which is ridiculous for a US food item. Jingiby isn't unwilling to discuss and compromise, but certainly a lot of my own time went into trying to prevent insertion of nationalistic content w/re Bulgaria. I think warning them that this is taking up other editors' time without improving the encyclopedia for readers is not a ridiculous idea. valereee (talk) 16:26, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello valereee. We had some disagreements a while ago, but I think a compromise was always reached. People are different though. Jingiby (talk) 17:16, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jingiby, yes, and I said above that you weren't unwilling to discuss/compromise. valereee (talk) 17:21, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t want to look like a witch-hunter because I generally don’t support blocking users at all (I even unblocked this same user on the Macedonian Wikipedia after he had been blocked for three years.), but imposing a (temporal) ban from a topic to a user who hasn’t learnt much from the mistakes made in the past seems to be a very reasonable solution to me. Wikipedia is a learning environment. Users who have been blocked for something in the past should come back and revisit their behaviour so that it’s not repeated again. I understand that some participants in this discussion seek the solution in a discussion with the user, which is a textbook recommendation, but that’s something which was done many time before and apparently to no avail. So, starting a new discussion with the user in order to explain that the behaviour is unacceptable is like talking to a brick wall. That’s why we shouldn’t invest someone’s time in discussions on minor things that didn’t have success in the past.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 17:59, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment This proposal is not serious. In the recent years, Jingiby has established himself as (1) competent in the topics he is contributing to; (2) a participant of positive attitude, respectful of those who do not share his views; and (3) always willing to listen different opinions, discuss and compromise. Users like Jingiby are valuable assets of English Wikipedia who help improve the quality of Wikipedia project, and whose effort deserves tribute. Best, Apcbg (talk) 18:40, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @Apcbg, when an editor requires other editors to make lengthy arguments about whether Bulgaria belongs in Cincinnati chili, it becomes they become less of a valuable asset and more of a net negative. There comes a point at which civil disagreement becomes sealioning. I am not saying Jingiby is there. I am saying that claiming "This proposal is not serious" is disingenuous. valereee (talk) 20:43, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User:Valereee, my thesis was that this culinary product (Cincinnati chili) was invented by Macedonian Bulgarians, i.e. Kiradjieff brothers, which is an indisputable fact. However, this circumstance is taboo and does not appear in the article about it till today. Jingiby (talk) 05:22, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's not about Cincinnati chili, it's about the ethnic identity and self-identification of the American (same for Canadian, Australian etc.) immigrants from Aegean Macedonia, Vardar Macedonia and Pirin Macedonia, an issue that, besides chili, proves relevant to quite a few Wiki articles and probably warrants a unified approach. Best, Apcbg (talk) 07:21, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And his ethnic identity is in the article about him, where it absolutely belongs, although I'd still argue there's an awful lot of OR going on at that article in service of proving he was Bulgarian. I decided it wasn't worth arguing about. Which is absolutely the crux of the problem with this kind of behavior: other editors just throw up their hands and decide it's not worth arguing about. valereee (talk) 13:25, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Crux of the problem indeed, expecting for Jingiby to just throw up his hands and decide it's not worth arguing about. Best, Apcbg (talk) 14:50, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm finding that to be a mischaracterization of the situation given how patient people were at Cincinnati chili with someone who argued for nearly a week in favor of using OR, synth, interviews with nephews to shoehorn Bulgaria into an article about a midwestern meat sauce in the face of clear consensus against their preferred version. I also feel it's an example of deflection; you're accusing the other editors at that argument of being the ones engaging in WP:Civil POV pushing because we were willing to continue to try to discuss with the person who hadn't gained consensus. Any of multiple experienced editors at that discussion could have declared consensus literally days earlier and simply told Jingiby their arguments were becoming disruptive. valereee (talk) 16:19, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User:Valereee, my view of the situation you described is quite different. However, I don't think it's appropriate to bother the audience with our former arguments. We remain on different positions on the matter, but I respect your opinion. That is why we have reached a compromise. I hope you also respect my views because I am entitled to them. Greetings! Jingiby (talk) 16:47, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jingiby, I believe that in your mind you are arguing for what you see as improvements. The problem is that when someone has a very strong opinion on a subject, it's often difficult for that person to edit neutrally on that subject. And I don't think you'd argue that Bulgaria and the representation of Bulgarians is not a passionate interest of yours. I believe that for you, it rises to the level of a conflict of interest, and that you need to take that COI into account when others are arguing with you. And if you can't take that into account and adjust your behavior accordingly, you're eventually going to be t-banned from the Balkans/EE. valereee (talk) 17:05, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Valerie, I don't think it's right for you threatening me. I do not agree with your statements above about my Bulgarian representations. if you want I will go into details to present my thesis. The article in question repeatedly mentions Greece and the Macedonian Greeks, as well as Macedonian immigrants, but not once Bulgaria/Bulgarians, despite the inventors of the chilli immigrated to the US from Bulgaria and felt themselves Bulgarians. Despite this, I don't think the place discussing this is here. Also, I have a bitter experience of arguing with admins who start hating me and block me repeatedly after that. I don't want to mention names. Full stop. Jingiby (talk) 17:29, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not threatening. Under no circumstances would I act as an admin w/re you and Bulgaria, as I've interacted with you as an editor on that, which makes me involved. Here, I am simply an experienced editor, just like you. FWIW, I'm completely open to further edits at CC w/re mentioning Greeks/Macedonians. It just needs RS and consensus. valereee (talk) 17:34, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I've worked with Jingiby in the past couple of years on many subjects. Everyone in the Balkan topic area has a POV, just as everyone has a POV in general. It's part of human nature. The point is to be self-reflective towards our own POVs and be more inclusive towards aspects of other POVs. Jingiby is one of the Balkan editors who have managed to do that and the accusations by the filing editor don't match my experience of working with Jingiby. In the Macedonian topic area some issues cannot be fixed because the narratives which editors from North Macedonia consider to be the "correct version" of history usually don't match international bibliography. It's not their fault because this is what they're familiar with but the radical difference between what Macedonian historiography discusses about figures like Gotse Delchev and what all other sources discuss cannot be reconciled by looking for a "middle ground" because there can be no middle ground between historical accuracy and these narratives.--Maleschreiber (talk) 21:00, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Can't agree more with Maleschreiber. Best, Apcbg (talk) 09:00, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jingiby is often a problematic editor on Macedonia-related articles. It takes a special type of editor to turn articles about American hot dogs and Chili into opportunities to satisfy Bulgarian POV cravings. Jingiby has been banned in the past and was allowed back through a gracious unbanning (check out that lengthy block log). He’s been more disciplined in his second era, however he still regularly falsifies sources, adds content not backed by sources, adds irrelevant information to articles, etc. Macedonia-related articles tend to be a mess so most editors “throw their hands up” as User:valereee states above. However, when a non-Macedonian/Bulgarian editor delves in just a bit, the issues become apparent as for example I think User:Ashmedai 119 has shed light on this recently. --Local hero ^talk 18:48, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am admittedly more of a lurker than a committed editor of this encyclopedia and when I have time to kill I sometimes checks recent edits made in articles related to the history of Balkan peoples. In my very limited -- both in time and in number of edits -- participation in enwiki during the last year, however, I have encountered enough editors active in this topic area to understand that it is not uncommon to try to edit articles so that they present contested issues from the national(ist) point of view with which they identify. What I have found out in almost each encounter with Jingiby, in addition to a constant effort to advocate the theses of Bulgarian nationalism with regards to Macedonian issues, is something that I hope is not common among Wikipedia editors, and in fact my limited experience does suggest that it is only Jingiby that exhibits these traits. For, it was not once, not twice, but thrice that I found Jingiby had either misleadingly used a source to uphold the very position that the author was refuting, or had outright falsified the source he referred to the readers or had altered the quote he cited. I can't and don't follow all of Jingiby's edits, but I would not be surprised to discover more such cases in his recent contributions. In any case, I cannot consider it something else but self-imposed blindness to disregard the fact that in all three cases Jingiby's falsification was promoting the Bulgarian national(ist) point of view. Ashmedai 119 (talk) 20:19, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

1. Tried to remove 10k of WP:RS sourced content on the Pan-Turkism article. Edit summary: "extremely biased and full of unreliable sources"[11]
2. Idem on the Pan-Turkism article. Edit summary: "Extremely biased and presents debated scientific arguments as facts."[12]
3. Tried to remove content from the lede that is very well sourced and explained in the body of the article, and also passes WP:LEDE. Edit summary: "no source"[13]
4. Tried to tagbomb the Pan-Turkism article. No edit summary/explanation, nor any talk page section created by Aloisnebegn.[14]
5. Tried to add the tags again (attempt number 2).[15]
6. Tried to add the tags again (attempt number 3)[16]
7. Tried to add the tags again (attempt number 4). Edit summary: "If you disagree with the explanation in talk page, please open a section there. Instead of getting into an edit war and using vague phrases like 'you are creating noise'.)"[17]
8. Tried to add the tags again (attempt number 5). No edit summary/explanation[18]
9. Tries to question the legitimacy of the Armenian genocide. Comment: "In whole article I almost only see Taner Akçam and other Armenian historians' citations, while there are differing views about this genocide."[19]
10. Tried to have the Sèvres Syndrome article deleted, a well sourced article explaining one of the many paramount conspiracy theories in Turkey.[20]
11. Tried to tagbomb the Sèvres Syndrome article after realizing they are unable to delete it from Wikipedia.[21]
12. Tried to remove WP:RS content from the Greeks article.[22]
13. Tried to insert tags in the Armenian genocide article at all cost in order to undermine content that in their view could somehow defame Turkey (attempt number 1[23], attempt number 2[24], attempt number 3)[25]
14. Warned on many occassions on their talk page.

Looking at the compelling evidence, its safe to say that user:Aloisnebegn is not here to build this encyclopaedia, and are solely here on a single purpose mission in order to remove anything that doesn't suit their irredentist pro-Turkish POV. Pinging involved editors Buidhe, ZaniGiovanni and Ohnoitsjamie. - LouisAragon (talk) 23:20, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I noticed Aloisnebegn editing a couple of pages I have watchlisted; The continued content removal and edit-wars in Sèvres Syndrome, later launching an AfD with subpar reasoning [26] that is unanimously voted to Keep, same edit-wars in Pan-Turkism with subpar edit-summaries and no explanation on talk even after being repeatedly asked to gain consensus and warned on talk by various editors, and the last straw was edit-warring (again) and putting cn tags in Armenian genocide lead when they were repeatedly told that sources were in the article body, all of this is just extremely bad faith and I agree that this user is WP:NOTHERE. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 23:48, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My only comments are that Aloisnebegan made at least 3 reverts on the 1rr article Armenian genocide continuing after being warned. Additionally, Taner Akcam is not Armenian and it could be considered a BLP violation to call him that in order to discredit his scholarship . (t · c) buidhe 01:57, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I would support some sort of block for this behavior. I think it should be finite at this point; see if that straightens up their behavior. Maybe like a week or so and explain what they'v done wrong with some advice. Any disruption after that, I think and indef would be appropriate. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 05:05, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support - The user is very new to the Wikipedia. He has like 100 edits. Sort of block(or TBAN?) would be appropriate here, that way they will get a chance to learn basics of the Wikipedia and good faith editing. If they show similar behavior after that - ifdef would be appropriate. Abrvagl (talk) 05:51, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Another concerning item is this comment on their user talk: I do not take your accusations seriously. I did not do anything with nationalist motivations. Instead tried to fix the articles written with nationalist motivations. I had started to suggest having an experienced editor discuss their edits with them more, but that first sentence makes me wonder if they would discount the advice. It might be a good idea to have a administrator they have not interacted with yet tell them that their behaviour has them on the road to either a block or a topic ban. Further, in my experience, when a new editor says they do not have nationalist motivations but are here to address the nationalist motivations of others, it's really the new editor with the nationalist motivations. I think the edit history here backs that assessment up. —C.Fred (talk) 13:00, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Update: They're still edit-warring at the Sèvres Syndrome article as we speak.[27] - LouisAragon (talk) 21:57, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@LouisAragon: They just violated 3RR, so they're now siteblocked for 31 hours. —C.Fred (talk) 22:00, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My concerns were first prompted by an interaction yesterday with Chip3004 (talk · contribs), over editing at Chickenpox: [28]; [29]. I'd reverted unsourced content by a disruptive account a few days ago, and the user was subsequently blocked. Chip sent me the standard vandalism warning, and I objected and removed it. What followed was this [30], and more oddly, this [31]. After the apology, I would have left this as a tempest in a teapot, but there are other edits that call their competence, and temper, into question. Treating this as vandalism [32], and this talk page comment that ToBeFree (talk · contribs) found [33] suggest occasional difficulty in discerning substantive edits from disruptive ones, and a short-ish fuse. More eyes requested, especially if further edits and comments like these are part of their history. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:F5BD (talk) 23:29, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I made mistake and won't do that again and will make sure i keep my tempure in check. Chip3004 (talk) 23:47, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The concern here, I think, is mainly that yet another strange "vandalism" claim happened soon after an apology for the same issue. The easiest way to avoid this specific kind of mistake is to learn and understand that "vandalism" means "causing intentional damage to the encyclopedia" and that people are rarely clearly doing so.

If content is selectively removed in a way that doesn't break a sentence, that content may well have been unnecessary, unsourced, non-neutral or otherwise problematic. You may disagree about the removal, but you shouldn't quickly treat it as "vandalism". This applies even if people remove large amounts of text from articles, especially from biographies of living people. Re-instating the text makes you legally responsible for it, so it can't hurt to spend ten seconds on evaluating whether there may be a good reason for the removal. When in doubt, just leave it be, or at least do not treat it as vandalism.

Could you take a moment to explain what led to Special:Diff/1099769959? The time difference between the edit and the revert, and the manual description of the edit as "Vandalism" are not obvious to me. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:19, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User:ToBeFree it was a duplicate, the edit summary Should’ve said duplicate instead of vandalism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chip3004 (talk • contribs) 17:56, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(fixed the indentation and added a signature for you) Chip3004, this is still incorrect. It's neither vandalism nor a "duplicate". Perhaps you'll find a correct description on the third attempt? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:15, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User:ToBeFree I now see the difference, It wasn't Spaced correctly and it was too long, I admit that i used the wrong words in the edit summary, I think that fixed spacing would be correct description. Does that sound right? Chip3004 (talk) 21:39, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, perfect, yes. Overly long paragraphs should be split up, and that's what 2600:8800:1600:2a40::a694 did in the reverted edit. Thanks. Okay, so if I understand correctly, you had misread the diff. You thought the editor had duplicated existing text. I can understand this; it's not an absurd mistake. It probably rarely happens to experienced patrollers, but it happens.

There's one aspect left I don't understand. I had indirectly asked about this above, so I think I need to ask more precisely. You have reverted an edit that was almost a day old. My first thought was: "Well, Chip3004 was in a hurry. Chip3004 wanted to be faster than other patrollers." But for this revert, you had a lot of time. 19 hours! Whatever. I'm wondering: Where did you find that edit? Was it on your Watchlist, was it in the Recent Changes?

I'm asking because if I understand correctly, you have filtered your Recent Changes list for "very likely bad" contributions and more-or-less blindly reverted them. As this had led to issues twice in a row, and after you had already apologized for the same mistake, could you please stop doing this?

There's a huge list of things one can do, at the Task Center and the community portal. Reverting vandalism is one of them, but if it persistently causes problems, perhaps you should choose something else for a while.

There also seem to be language problems in our communication, and I'm afraid that's not because of me. If English is not your native language, please consider using a Wikipedia in a language you are more familiar with. If English is your native language, please stop judging others' contributions until this has changed. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:12, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sure Not a problem Chip3004 (talk) 22:28, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Chip3004: 45 minutes after this non-answer, you reverted a 4-hour-old edit as "Unsourced" even though, as far as I can tell, it added no new information to the article. I see that the edit had been flagged as "possible unreferenced addition to BLP". Do you understand that these filter tags are possible violations, and that you are still expected to review whether the tag is correct? Until this thread is resolved, please stop recent-change patrolling or anything along those lines. Otherwise I will have to block you from mainspace at a minimum, because every one of these bad reverts and warnings antagonizes a constructive contributor. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 23:56, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Tamzin I am okay with that, can please you make an exception while this thread is open ?, I will only revert if i find actual Vandalism like here [34] which is actually Vandalism since Carton Network is owned by Warner Bros. Discovery Networks. I will stop recent-change patrolling or anything along those lines unless it is really vandalism. Chip3004 (talk) 00:37, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Chip3004: You need to stop and listen to what people are saying about your reverts, and fully process that feedback. So no, please do not do any recent-change patrolling. The whole reason you're here is that you seem to be having trouble assessing what "actual vandalism" is. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 00:44, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User:Tamzin would you like me to read up on what is vandalism on Wikipedia? So this issue never happens again. Chip3004 (talk) 16:49, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well yes. You should not be reverting vandalism without understanding what vandalism is. But you should also be reading what people, particularly ToBeFree, have said in this thread about your techniques. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 16:59, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Slight quirk here in that, about an hour after this thread was started with the goal of allowing a fresh start, the user requested a regular unblock on their main account. (And it seems at least some of the support !votes above were assuming this would be an unblock, not a fresh start under a new account.) @Daniel Case: You've marked the request as awaiting comment from Materialscientist; is that still needed, or can Jfgoofy be unblocked? -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 23:21, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @Tamzin: Materialscientist says he's OK with this unblock, although he believes now that JfGoofy was misstating their age then. I'm OK with it, too. Daniel Case (talk) 03:58, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  So done, then. I hope no one will mind me flipping the switch despite commenting above. My reasoning, to the extent that it matters, is that I'm not assessing a consensus I was involved in; this was a regular block, not a CBAN, and any admin can overturn it provided that any WP:RAAA issues have been addressed, which they have been here. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 04:24, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Another quirk is a non-admin closed this without the ability to unblock. Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 23:26, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Yeah, probably best to let an admin close when the close requires admin action, snow or not. valereee (talk) 16:32, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

90tillinfinitydue, registered on 30 March 2022, is WP:NOTHERE. His main purpose appears to be to whitewash crimes committed by Pakistanis. This has been seen on articles such as British Pakistanis, Rape in Pakistan.

He was blocked in March 2022 for "edit-warring (4 reverts), accusing others of sockpuppetry",[37] and he is still doing the same thing.

He is making personal attacks while being beyond sensitive when someone comments on his edits. An example of this disruption is right here where he removed my comment because "Remove personal attack by hounding account most likely a sleeper account". I made no personal attack and I am no sleeper account. Here he calls reliably sourced content a "vandalism", and here he says he is "not entertaining random accounts".

All of this confirms that he is being totally uncollaborative and WP:NOTHERE. Editorkamran (talk) 10:11, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Admins this user above which randomly appeared and his hounding all my edits in collaboration with another editor I have cleaned up the misleading information on both articles the article in question has a host of problems based on inaccurate statistics and sources not related to the topic. This user has refused to engage and has been reverting and edit warring himself so this allegation placed on me is false. 90tillinfinitydue (talk) 10:42, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"hounding all my edits in collaboration with another editor" is another baseless bad faith claim by you. "This user has refused to engage"? You are clearly talking about yourself since you are the one who removed my talk page message by making personal attack. Editorkamran (talk) 10:47, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

1)You did not discuss anything on the British Pakistani article which has a long talk page discussion and just belligerently edited without consensus 2) I have fully explained my edits on Rape in Pakistan the stats were deliberately skewed and over exaggerated I added more recent stats you didn't bother to read or analyse anything 3) A 4 year old account with barely 200 edits randomly finding themselves in a dispute seems like your only here to cause disruption and disputes. 90tillinfinitydue (talk) 10:54, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am in a far better standing than you who got 1 block for disruptive editing, 100 edits and was registered just some months ago. Consensus was against you on British Pakistani and I contributed to the discussion which ensured that the consensus is clearly against you.[38] You are not adding anything constructive but only removing the content that you WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT. Indeed you are "only here to cause disruption" as your history shows. Editorkamran (talk) 10:59, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Bad faith assumption and WP:NOTHERE attitude from 90tillinfinitydue is continuing even after this report. He is now accusing another editor to have "come with a particular agenda",[39] and while censoring content on Rape in Pakistan he is attacking another editor by speculating nationality with edit summary that "its time now for my Indian friends to focus on Rape in India".[40] Editorkamran (talk) 11:07, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  It's important to censor such content. Patachonica (talk) 20:09, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have tried my best to engage this disruptive editor and all my edits have clear logical basis I have removed redundant and misleading edits and replaced with up to date figures. 90tillinfinitydue (talk) 11:11, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am Indian myself so im not sure why this editor is picking and choosing my statements....I have engaged on talk pages while they have done nothing but edit war with the the aid of another editor. 90tillinfinitydue (talk) 11:25, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've taken a quick look at the complaints raised by the filer, and it's not exactly looking good - deleting article talk page comments, removing reliably sourced data (allegedly because it was "skewed" - based on what sources?), and personal attacks on other editors. MiasmaEternal☎ 11:29, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Blocked. The reason 90tillinfinitydue provides for this removal is just nonsense. The post removed wasn't a personal attack; 90tillinfinitydue's edit summary, on the other hand, is. 90tillinfinitydue's editing of Rape in Pakistan is seriously disruptive, removing various sourced content as "vandalism", apparently for the purpose of nationalist whitewashing. For the removal of doubt, in this edit summary, they out themselves as a nationalist warrior. Blocked indefinitely as WP:NOTHERE. Bishonen | tålk 11:40, 23 July 2022 (UTC).[reply]

While the block of 90tillinfinitydue seems entirely appropriate, I'd have to suggest that neither side in the dispute over content on the British Pakistani article was behaving appropriately, and that the block shouldn't be taken as evidence that the disputed content has any consensus - from a quick look at it, there are obvious issues which need to be resolved, through proper discussion. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:21, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I have put a CU block in place over and above Bishonen's block - CU confirms that 90tillinfinitydue has been abusing multiple accounts, and for several reasons I am fairly confident that they are a sock of Nangparbat. I echo AndyTheGrump's comment however - the fact that an LTA has been involved in the dispute should not be taken as an indication that the article is fine as it stands. Girth Summit _(blether) 13:33, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kpbastola44 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is WP:NOTHERE as their entire edit history (deleted and otherwise) shows. Kpbastola44 has been warned about using their user page as a stream-of-consciousness blog but the behavior continues. I think a block is needed. Chris Troutman (talk) 01:15, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I had blocked the user per WP:NOTHERE before I noticed this entry here. ~Anachronist (talk) 07:35, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Albanian editor Βατο is not here to build an encyclopedia without Balkan nationalistic battleground mentality. They have anti-Slavic and pro-Paleo-Balkan i.e. pro-Illyrian-Thracian-Albanian worldview. At article Perëndi talk page immediately jumped into discussion after my edit (reliably citing, but most probably for now a fringe viewpoint of a possible Slavic influence or origin of the Albanian deity Perëndi, but rightly mentioning connection between Peperona song and deity Perun), saying that the article is based on "several reliable sources". However, they also countered it by making exceptional claims that "according many scholars ... the custom of Dodola/Perperuna is most likely Paleo-Balkan/Thracian, not Slavic. Btw, what is the evidence that Perun was Slavic and not borrowing from Baltic, or even Paleo-Balkan (cf. the attested Thracian Perkos/Perkon)?", that "we don't know the original area from which it [deity Perun] spread" (edit).

I didn't continue to discuss the part about possible Slavic influence or origin of Perëndi (for which we don't have any evidence in historical sources in comparison to Perun). However, they continued to talk about the Slavic supreme and thunder deity - Perun. The editor dares to claim such things in such a fashion, on a scale of claiming that there's lack of knowledge about the Greek origin of Zeus, that Zeus is possibly a borrowing from Iranian or Armenian, and we don't know the original area from which it spread. It wouldn't be such a big issue if it wasn't for their claim that it is supported by "many scholars". It is supported only by three non-expert Balkan scholars (plus fourth Katica Kulavkova, 2020 who cites the same fringe viewpoint making WP:FALSEBALANCE with Slavic origin in own source), Dimitǔr Dechev (1957), Sorin Paliga (2003, linguist), Mihai Dragnea (2014, historian) who cite each other and argue a controversial and fringe theory that both Slavic deity Perun and Perperuna/Dodola pagan custom are of Thracian origin (by the way, it was edited in 2006 by English Wikipedia banned account). This theory is completely unmentioned and ignored in international literature and one could argue that probably shouldn't be even mentioned in the article (per WP:WEIGHT and FALSEBALANCE). In both international literature and those three-four sources advancing fringe Thracian theory there was no mention of any connection between Perperuna/Dodola i.e. Peperona custom & song and Albanian deity Perëndi. The inclusion of the song in a section dealing with rainmaking customs invocating Perëndi makes it look like the Peperona custom is related to the same Albanian deity and tradition, but that is WP:OR and WP:SYNTH not to mention out of WP:SCOPE for the article. I asked them (link) to find and cite at least one of those "many" scholars and sources. They maybe, as couldn't verify nor received full quote, found one (link), but 100 years old which has issue with WP:AGEMATTERS among others (link). They replied to that the inclusion is according "WP:DUEWEIGHT" and it has "balanced wording" (link) which doesn't make any sense and only shows that the editor isn't accustomed to Wikipedia editing policies (link). I decided to make a third opinion request (link), informed the editor (link) and they didn't even wait for third opinion to come as immediately removed the custom & song from the article (link).

Previously in the same day I majorly rewrote the article Dodola ("Perperuna and Dodola" must be the new title because these are separate but scholarly related pagan customs, even had separate articles until 2015 when were merged but on wrong reasoning, and the former is more discussed in the sources especially regarding mythological relation to Perun). Several days I read many reliable sources and accordingly started working in my sandbox, being careful on NPOV, WEIGHT, FALSEBALANCE, VERIFY etc. expertise and viewpoint of the cited scholars. One of the major issues of the many years poorly edited old revision is that it gave false weight to the same fringe Thracian theory although it was easy to find and cite many reliable sources which argue and conclude to be of Slavic origin related to Perun - that is the majority and mainstream viewpoint. As the editor described Perëndi's article, using their words, the article was finally based on "several reliable sources".

However, they claimed that "Slavic-POV editors are so interested in pushing for Slavic origin of Albanian cultural aspects in Wiki articles, while Albanian editors don't do it", but then hypocritically went to the article of the "Perperuna and Dodola" pagan custom, which is per majority viewpoint of Slavic origin related to Perun, and start reverting the article title ignoring that Perperuna and Dodola are two separate customs among other said issues ([41]), making false balance using the same controversial source by Kulavkova ignoring other already cited sources in the article (Wachtel's source, rightly cited but he isn't an expert neither wrote anything more than the quote, doesn't help much considering the article cites more than 12 RS arguing Slavic origin and that others borrowed the custom from Slavs), removing in the lead emphasis on the Slavic origin and relation to Perun ([42]), removed part about Perun's origin from Thracians claiming it to be "original research" although it can be easily verified in the sources including Kulavkova's whose the editor insists on using ([43]), changing and removing reliably sourced Slavic viewpoint ([44]), removing reliably sourced information ([45]), making only a bigger mess ([46]) and so on. Miki Filigranski (talk) 02:12, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I suggest not to WP:cast aspersions. Also I've never said this: The editor dares to claim such things in such a fashion, on a scale of claiming that there's lack of knowledge about the Greek origin of Zeus, that Zeus is possibly a borrowing from Iranian or Armenian, and we don't know the original area from which it spread. don't put words in my mouth. The content dispute in the article Perëndi has already been settlet. The views I added in the article Dodola are from scholars like Andrew Wachtel, in academic sources published by Oxford University Press. As for the origins of the names of the custom, the article now includes the views in a balanced way, giving more importance to the more widespread view; but no source says that a specific hypotheses is "fringe", it's you own personal opinion added in WP:wikivoice, while the most updated publication (Ḱulavkova 2020) reports all those possibilites. Also claiming in wikivoice that a widespread custom in a region has origins only from one of the population groups that practiced it, without historical evidence, is not neutral. Anyway, this is not the right place to discuss content disputes and disagreements you have with other editors, take them to the relevant article talk pages. – Βατο (talk) 08:22, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Now it makes sense, you don't understand well English language. I didn't put anything into your mouth, of course you never said it - that was just an example how absurd is your insistence on non-Slavic origin of Perun. The views you added are from scholars, but you completely ignore all other already cited scientific literature and majority viewpoint. You made false balance ignoring the actually more widespread viewpoint. You don't need a source to say it is a "fringe theory" to be "fringe", you obviously never read and understood WP:FRINGE/WP:FRINGE/ALT/WP:FRIND/WP:PARITY ("To maintain a neutral point of view, an idea that is not broadly supported by scholarship in its field must not be given undue weight in an article about a mainstream idea... In Wikipedia parlance, the term fringe theory is used in a very broad sense to describe an idea that departs significantly from the prevailing views or mainstream views in its particular field. Because Wikipedia aims to summarize significant opinions with representation in proportion to their prominence, a Wikipedia article should not make a fringe theory appear more notable or more widely accepted than it is."). Kulavkova's source cannot be described anyhow as the "most updated publication", that's at best only one independent source which mentioned both theories, but all other independent sources from 20th and 21st century completely ignore the Thracian theory ("The prominence of fringe views needs to be put in perspective relative to the views of the entire encompassing field; limiting that relative perspective to a restricted subset of specialists or only among the proponents of that view is, necessarily, biased and unrepresentative."). Several secondary reliable sources by prominent scholars claim the custom was spread by the South Slavs among non-Slavic speaking Balkan populations. This is not a mere content dispute, this is an example what it looks like to deal with WP:NATIONALIST editor's nonsense. It is simply incredible that you're an administrator at Albanian Wikipedia as don't have basic understanding of common Wikipedia editing principles and guidelines. No wonder why and how Balkan languages Wikipedia versions are so bad. --Miki Filigranski (talk) 10:58, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Miki Filigranski avoid personal attacks, please. Different scholars' views recently published by highly respected publishing houses can be dismissed only by other reliable sources, not by wiki editors who don't like them. To the admins who read this discussion: User:Miki Filigranski's false allegiations and personal attacks are not a constructive behavior, it has to stop as per WP:CIVIL. – Βατο (talk) 11:23, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me, it's not my problem you don't understand English language and confuse this general comment with a personal attack and reply falsely accusing me of being a "Slavic-POV editor interested in pushing for Slavic origin of Albanian cultural aspects in Wiki articles". Do you have any evidence for that accusation? No. You're the one who has unconstructive behavior and annoyed me to the point to make this report. Seems you still don't understand NPOV and FRINGE, somebody please explain them. --Miki Filigranski (talk) 12:42, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Pushing for Slavic origin of Albanian cultural aspects" is the first of your edits from which started the whole content dispute and all your personal attacks. Unlike you, I never added content in the article Perun claiming a different origin from Slavic, and unlike you I did not add in wikivoice in the lead of an article that a widespread Balkan tradition exclusively belongs to one of the population groups that practiced it. But you accused me of being a "Disruptive anti-Slavic" editor, which I consider a WP:PERSONAL ATTACK. Now stop and take the remaining content dispute to Talk:Dodola, and in WP:CIVIL behavior because there you are keeping diminishing the comments of other editors besides mines. – Βατο (talk) 13:03, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I made a bold and reliably cited edit. I immediately stopped "pushing", in your words, at the talk page that part of the edit although could have went searching for source mentioning the same POV. It is incredible how much you dare to ignore and reject majority viewpoint in scientific literature regarding the Slavic origin of a widespread tradition in the Balkans. The tradition was literally spread in places which were inhabited by the Slavs since the Middle Ages. You don't need to edit now Perun's article to show your bias. Are you aware that literally three editors on the talk page called out balancing issues and two of them are pointing out Slavic origin and majority/popular viewpoint? I agree, my last comment on this report. --Miki Filigranski (talk) 13:44, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• This thread is such a big waste of time. I did not expect the simple content dispute go this way. An admin can do nothing in this case, apart from maybe warning Miki to not rush to take content disputes to ANI/I. Ktrimi991 (talk) 08:53, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This goes beyond a simple content dispute and your comment is WP:TAGTEAM.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 11:06, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I will not keep responding to your non-sense - I am not even involved in your content dispute with Bato over Dodola/Peperunda. But, frankly, maybe the day @BDD: unblocked you did not do any service to the Balkan area topic. Feel free to call me whatever you want, I could not care less. You transformed a simple content dispute into a battleground of accusations. Ktrimi991 (talk) 11:19, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you're not involved then why are you even heatedly commenting here? I didn't report them to get blocked or banned neither I want that. We are more-or-less constructively discussing the content dispute at the talk pages. I want an admin to explain them editing policies and guidelines so that can reconsider their biased approach. I am not wasting my time tirelessly explaining the basics to a supposedly experienced editor. They were first to personally attack me. Look, what do you want me to say, Βατο's first reply at the talk page was around 30 minutes from your comments at Perëndi, your comment here was exactly 30 minutes after Βατο's. I don't care if you're talking behind the scenes, but I am not the one who transformed it into a battleground, exactly the opposite, seek neutrality where it is due outside Balkan warlike mentality. We have a similar report this days above, "Disruptive editing by Jingiby", and fellow editor Maleschreiber wrote a good comment which directly relates also to this report. --Miki Filigranski (talk) 12:42, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• So based on how this complaint begins and [47], I think both Mili and Βατο may need logged WP:ARBEE warnings for casting aspersions on the basis of others' ethnicity or nationality. Open to other perspectives. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 15:42, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for intervening @Tamzin: IMO, since Bato has a clear log and, at least as far as I know, he has never made such comments in the past, if he apologizes a formal warning is not needed. On the other hand, tbh Miki has a very rich block log, among the richest in the Balkans topic area. So IMO a formal warning for them could be good. When I reverted Miki yeasterday he thanked me, and I thought it would be an ordinary dispute. Sad it became such a mess. Both Bato and Miki should be more careful in the future. Ktrimi991 (talk) 17:02, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Tamzin: thanks for your intervention. I have never made such comments in the past. It was not my intention to cast aspersions. I apologize for that comment and I realize I should have used more moderade tones. @Ktrimi991: thanks for your advice, of course I'll be more cautious. – Βατο (talk) 18:23, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I dropped the report (link), noted Βατο (link). Content dispute constructively continued and changed for the better. I formally apologize to Βατο, and others, for my comments, but also making this report in a hothead moment. In the end it was unnecessary, maybe necessary we both acknowledged our momentary wrong doing and won't repeat it. I formal warning on my talk page is welcomed. --Miki Filigranski (talk) 18:51, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is good both of you apologized. Miki, I still support a formal warning to you, since you have in your log several blocks for personal attacks/aspersions. In any case, I like many of your edits, and I am sure you have the potential to keep making interesting edits. @Tamzin: I think that, whatever you as an uninvolved admin decide to do, it is better to close this thread now. Cheers to all, Ktrimi991 (talk) 19:04, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Having already been leaning toward a logged warning, I'm hesitant to just give a "regular" warning... But what's better than a warning is an agreement. @Miki Filigranski and Βατο: Can you both agree to not make any comments that negatively highlight other editors' ethnicity or nationality? This includes inferring ethnic/natioanlistic bias on others' part without clear evidence. If you can both agree to this, I will leave a note in the ARBEE log memorializing this discussion, but will not issue any warnings. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 21:16, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Is not an AE note harsh for someone with a clear log and no previous civility issues? I think that Bato took the lesson. I have seen many cases of editors making one or two unconstructive comments without being marked with AE notes. The fact that Bato apologized should be enough this time. Durraz0 (talk) 22:02, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @Tamzin, I agree. I don't know how logs function, but if there's a strong wish that Βατο remains with a clear log etc., I am fine with that too and you can leave a note only for me in the ARBEE log, but would like to see an admin explain FRINGE to Βατο. --Miki Filigranski (talk) 23:34, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, as already stated, I have never made such comments in the past, and I will be more careful in the future. Thanks. – Βατο (talk) 11:31, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

 – Account indeffed; IP blocked 1 month. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 02:51, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Block requested. User has persisted in removing AfD templates after their fourth warning, following a multiple warnings. They are also now edit warring their changes back in. [48][49][50][51] See this diff for why their talkpage seems fairly clean, this was the second time they did this, with different warnings.[52].

Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 02:18, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Now AfDs are being removed by 47.17.236.200 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) Adakiko (talk) 02:28, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any constructive edits since their block in September, and a whole lot of warnings in that time, so account indeffed for DE/CIR. IP is a duck, and a static residential duck at that, so hardblocked 1 month. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 02:51, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I present Inoxent AR (talk · contribs), and these current threads at their talk page: [53] and [54]. It's pretty clear that language barrier is an issue here. Also, apparently they don't understand what 'gender' means, so any person of perceived authority is 'sir' by default. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:F5BD (talk) 03:49, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Changed to more neutral heading from original Really, users who aren't well versed in English ought not be doing vandalism patrol -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 04:06, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Tamzin. My exasperation was showing. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:F5BD (talk) 04:09, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Inoxent AR, do you understand what please don't assume the gender of an anonymous editor means? This is relevant both for user conduct reasons and for reading-comprehension ones. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 04:06, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  They also reverted a change of image from this to this and posted an unconstructive editing notice and edit summary when an explanation of the reason would have been sufficient. As an aside the replacement image was clearer, 10 years newer and a better perspective. Gusfriend (talk) 04:18, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  It's relevant to add that they have twice requested rollback privileges, most recently a few days ago [55], when the responding administrator listed a number of reversions of edits that were not vandalism. Additionally, it's not a good sign that rather than responding here, they're continuing on vandalism patrol. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:F5BD (talk) 04:44, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I have left a note at their talk page in Urdu (in which I am fluent) here. M Imtiaz (talk · contribs) 04:47, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  As an aside, if someone could fix that post so that the text is aligned to the right, I would appreciate it; reading it is a bit difficult at the moment. M Imtiaz (talk · contribs) 04:47, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @M Imtiaz I've aligned the text to the right. PhantomTech[talk] 04:58, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• They have continued, making similar problematic reverts again (see their talk page); I have now blocked them for two weeks. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 11:26, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

FrankensteinsDad is putting the arrest information of the son of Greg Rucka into the article over an over again. They were blocked for edit warring. Then, when discussing they thought it proper to post on my talk and on Sariel Xilo's talk copies of the discussion. Ok, Weird. But in this copy pastes and in their talk page post they wrote "this person whose editing name is לילך5 is not a real wikipedia account. It is a fake name she made up to harass me. Check it out, it's a fake wiki-name!!! Unbelievable....so now Sariel Xilo's using fake editing names to make it look like other editors are supporting her??". This is wrong, and makes discussion impossible.---Lilach5 (לילך5) discuss 04:46, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: When I reported FrankensteinsDad for edit warring (see 3RR noticeboard & FD's talk), they also accused me of being connected with Rucka. Before their block, FrankensteinsDad spammed my talk page by copying over discussions from other talk pages (see removal of talk spam). With this latest round of spam, I've asked them to stop. I'm not entirely sure if their behavior has crossed into WP:NOPA with the sockpuppet accusations but I would like them to stop spamming my talk page. Sariel Xilo (talk) 05:17, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• FrankensteinsDad's accusation towards Samuel Xilo's amounts to a personal attack in my opinion, and they have engaged in disruptive editing and edit warring, as shown in the diffs above. However, it should be noted this user has a history of making constructive edits. This user has been around since 2019, but has not made many edits. I think at this point a temporary block somewhere between a week and one month should be a good first start, and, of course, explain what they did wrong to them for potential improvements.Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 05:31, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have indefinitely pageblocked FrankensteinsDad from Greg Rucka and that article's talk page. Their comments about the subject of this article were utterly unacceptable. Cullen328 (talk) 05:38, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am a new user to Wikipedia with the username "Sjms111." Over the past week, I made several edits to the articles of various professional wrestlers by adding the phrase "widely regarded as one of the greatest professional wrestlers of all time" to the articles of wrestlers who have had great success in the industry. At first my edits were taken down by another user, and the explanation that I was given was that I did not cite reliable sources. I then re edited the articles and this time I added references just like I was told I had to do. However, my edits were taken down again by a different user and this time I was given the same explanation as before. I would like to point out that the references that I gave were actual testimonials from wrestlers and industry workers who have worked with these wrestlers. For example, when I edited the article for Ricky Steamboat, I included links of youtube videos from interviews with Ric Flair, a wrestler who worked with Ricky Steamboat, and Jim Cornette, a prominent wrestling promoter from the 80s and 90s. These were two credible sources who can testify to the claim of Steamboat being "one of the greatest of all time" yet my edits were still taken down. I would like to point out that articles for both John Cena and Triple H also describe them as "one of the greatest professional wrestlers of all time" and the references used to support those claims were just articles from various websites. I actually provided video testimonials from people who have worked with the subjects of the articles I edited. Video testimonials are stronger than articles because they come straight from the mouth of the source, so if that phrase can stand on the articles for John Cena and Triple H, then it should be able to stand on the article for Ricky Steamboat too. I also made similar edits to the articles for AJ Styles and those were removed too. I Understand that sometimes the Wikipedia community is not welcoming of the viewpoints of new users, but they cannot just remove a credibly backed up edit posted by someone just because they personally don't agree with it. These users also threatened to report me for "disruptive editing" when I think I proved my case pretty well. I have included the logs of the conversations I had with those users below. I am writing this report in the event that they decide to file a report against me, because I want the administrators to know what really happened in case the other users try to twist the story to make me look bad.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Sjms111 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sjms111 (talk • contribs) 06:05, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Sjms111: When you add content to an article, it's paramount that you cite a reliable source with it. For example, the reference to YouTube you used at AJ Styles was not appropriate because YouTube is not considered to be reliable on Wikipedia. Firstly, you need to know none of the users who warned you on your talk page are trying to silence or intimidate you because you are new here, but they are trying to help you be a successful editor. I know you are trying to make constructive edits here, and I understand it's likely frustrating to see your edits reverted, but your editing will not be successful until you use reliable sources and understand other Wikipeida policies and guidelines. I wish you the best, Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 06:17, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Note: @Sjms111: I have refactored your post to remove a wikitext error that was causing the post to render in monospace. Please do not insert any extraenous whitespace between the header and content of the post. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). 07:24, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

When you added "Widely regarded as one of the greatest professional wrestlers of all time" to the WP:LEAD, did you notice it already said "Jones has been a pillar of the wrestling industry for over two decades and is well respected by fans and co-workers. Long considered one of the world's greatest professional wrestlers"? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:22, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits are problematic and those reverts and warning messages are fine. Just look at your edits[56][57][58] on Charlotte Flair. And the reasons[59][60][61] why other users reverted your edits. You need to become familiar with basic rules of Wikipedia. Since you edit professional wrestling articles, reading WP:PW/MOS and WP:PW/Sources would be helpful. Also Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Professional wrestling is good for asking your questions and discussing PW stuff. --Mann Mann (talk) 09:42, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And this comment they made this morning on their talk page "O I think you guys just don't like it when people post edits you don't personally agree with and you are forming cliques to try and exclude people who post things you don't like. If my posts keep getting taken down I am going to file a complaint against you guys for exluding and intimidating new members to the site" Doug Weller talk 10:05, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Sjms111: Listening to editors' concerns is not optional on this project. Claming that accusations are false without evidence, and counter-accusing editors against you of simply being in a conspiracy to shut you out, is doing much the opposite and is not okay on Wikipedia. Also, WP:ANI is a last resort after all other resorts for dispute resolution have been exhausted; you have not even attempted a single one, with not a single talk page edit regarding the dispute other than to your own, and only to respond to warnings. When your edits are reverted, you should discuss the edit in question on the talk page, and allow the users who have reverted you to explain why exactly the revert was done in detail; this is a significant portion of the bold, revert, discuss cycle, which underpin much of our collaboration on this site. Finally, you have failed to notify any of the users you are discussing in this report of this discussion, as the red box on the top of this page and the editing window clearly require. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). 11:32, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the notification, despite this ANI clearly going nowhere, I still would like a chance to make myself heard. FrederalBacon (talk) 05:33, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think I need to explain in an ANI why I reverted an edit to a lede exclaiming that the subject was the greatest wrestler ever when a sentence in the lede is literally "Long considered one of the world's greatest professional wrestlers," Properly Cited.

Read the article before you insert information. You clearly didn't look three paragraphs down, and I do not appreciate being dragged into an ANI (that I was not aware of OF due to lack of notification) claiming I am trying to silence you. FrederalBacon (talk) 05:30, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I thought we decided to eliminate all coverage of "professional" wrestling so that Wikipedia doesn't have to embarrass itself with phrases like "pillar of the wrestling industry", whatever that could possibly mean. EEng 02:45, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that SoulSurvivor97 had copied my reference from Meena Jutla to Toxic (song) here and left them a talk page message asking them to give attribution. They ignored the message and pasted another of my references here, so I left another message asking them not to do that. After that, they did it here and here. I left a "final message" asking them to not do it again otherwise I would file a report here. They ignored that and continued to copy and paste my referencing; here, here, here, here and here. It did make me wonder if I was right to be annoyed over this due to it being referencing rather than "real content" - but after reading WP:COPYWITHIN, that affirmed my belief since it states that the only referencing that does not need attribution is a bare URL reference. I'm not necessarily coming here to get them blocked as I can see that they are trying to add to the site but after ignoring four warnings, it is disruptive and I need for them to know they cannot continue to do this. – Meena • 09:42, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that the "bare reference" in WP:NOATT means a reference with no accompanying text, rather than a bare URL. If SoulSurvivor97 has simply copied a reference that you added, without copying any additional text, then no attribution is required. Copying references is not unusual, and I've never seen anyone attribute a reference to another article. Meters (talk) 10:08, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I've found with searching, "Bare references" means WP:Bare URLs only, but I agree with ActivelyDisinterested's interpretation immediately below. I started a discussion at WT:Copying within Wikipedia#Where attribution is not needed: "Bare references". Flatscan (talk) 04:54, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think the pertinent part of the guideline would be the phrase "sufficiently creative". Using a template such as {{cite news}} seems to me to be more akin to filling in a pregenerated form, and so would not be considered a creative work. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 10:41, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

IMO, best practice is to always attribute to articles (in both the edit summary and on the talk pages of the involved articles) when copying within Wikipedia. Attribution is the right thing to do. That is the way I always do it. It would be a good thing to notify the editor of that. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 13:41, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've notified the editor of that. ==Attribution== Text and references copied from [[Source Article]] to [[Recipient article]]. See former article's history for a list of contributors. If you put it on the talk pages, this whole problem goes away. See for example "Text and references copied from André Tintant to 1900 Summer Olympics. See history of former article for a list of contributors." 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:15, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As someone who spends there time correcting no target errors attribution is always very helpful, but that doesn't make it a requirement. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 20:00, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(in this case) -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 20:01, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Has the world gone mad? Of course references are not the property of any one editor, and it would completely go against Wikipedia's spirit of collaboration to claim that they are. I think Meena needs to find another hobby if they are going to claim that copying references is anything other than a good thing. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:37, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think you need to find another hobby other than coming to reply on an administrator noticeboard considering you are not, in fact, an administrator. – Meena • 19:11, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments on this board are not restricted to complainants and administrators. In fact, nobody who has commented in this conversation is an administrator. And Phil is correct about references. Schazjmd (talk) 19:28, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

SoulSurvivor97 has been given a series of warnings, up to a level 4, and then has been dragged to ANI for copying references without attribution, something that WP:NOATT (in my reading) explicitly allows. It's fine to give attribution for copied sources, it may be best practice, but it is not required. The warnings and the ANI action are not appropriate. If SoulSurvivor97 copied more than just the references, then that is a different matter, but no diffs have been provided of the original addition of the claims and references, so we can't tell. This is not something that requires administrative action. Meters (talk) 20:36, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is WP:Assume bad faith at its finest. If you successfully make all newcomers to have to attribute references to the original author (or else get copyvio-banned), then Wikipedia would be essentially dead in a matter of weeks. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 00:43, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Amen. This is a complaint I've never heard, and downright bizarre. Of course attribution is not required for copying references. Surreal and such a waste of time. Carlstak (talk) 01:19, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No violation of real requirements. But best practice exceeds the requirements for attribution.

I am into fixing the problem (alleged); not fixing the blame.

This kind of WP:ANI is a good way to drive away prospective Wikipedia editors.

It is better to elucidate and educate than it is to punish and intimidate. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 13:42, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Seconded. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 13:44, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Nice to have" is not a reason to repeatedly template a user with warnings. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 16:42, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm really dumbfounded by the complaint here. I think the description of "downright bizarre" used earlier is quite accurate. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 14:22, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In fairness to the OP: we've got a lot of instruction creep in this project we love so much, and if you wander onto the wrong help page you can easily get the impression that certain things (in this case, attribution) is way more rigidly rule-bound than is actually the case. I think that's what's happened here. EEng 17:08, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What SoulSurvivor97 was doing -- copying references -- wasn't wrong and doesn't require attribution. Meena's approach was terrible ("to steal the entire reference and give no attribution credit is cheap" is not a great way to start a conversation with another editor. Nobody is stealing anything here.

That said, SoulSurvivor97 has never communicated on this platform. No discussion-space edits, no edit summaries, and most of the edits aren't on mobile (none on an app AFAICS). Though I think Meena is wrong on the merits and their approach was terrible, I can understand it's frustrating when an editor doesn't respond, and so I sympathize with why Meena opened this ANI. Had SoulSurvivor engaged with Meena in discussion, further escalation might have been avoided.

But the bottom line is that SoulSurvivor can continue copying references without attribution, that's not a problem. The lack of communication is a problem, but it's not causing any harm (yet). Levivich (talk) 17:18, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Could someone please have a word with LakshayYadav007 (talk · contribs), as their editing is problematic in several ways:

• They have made personal attacks [62][63][64]
• They have uploaded images of dubious copyright status to Commons and forced them back into articles when they have been removed despite them being deletion tagged on commons[65][66]
• They have made and reinstated numerous unhelpful edits to articles (e.g. changing image sizes so they no longer match[67][68])
• They have tried to claim I shouldn't revert their edits because they are Indian and apparently know more about Indian politics than me[69][70]

I also suspect they may be a sock of Atharv Bakshi given the article overlap and behaviour (most recent identified sock was blocked around 10 days before this user appeared). Cheers, Number 57 12:10, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

They've been given a week to reconsider their approach to the project. Something tells me if they return afterwards it'll next be an indef. Canterbury Tail talk 12:31, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ping @DaxServer since they filed last SPI Venkat TL (talk) 13:30, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've just blocked Zvfibkoj (talk · contribs) for 24 hours for edit warring, personal attacks and grossly inappropriate edit summaries at 2022 monkeypox outbreak, despite multiple warnings. They immediately responded by sending me the following two emails:

I am gonna have you for that you little rat I will wait 24 hours and I will be back on the second!

I am God and you are going to burn like hell when you die and see me in the spirit world do I make that clear you will never recover from this ever again!

Sickening homophobe +1000 gay lives you to Ra and Oshir can not wait to judge and condemn you

and

I will trash all your other edits to GO ON BRING IT

So I reblocked with email disabled, but I'm wondering if there is any reason not to just indef them, given their edit summaries and emails clearly indicate that they have no intent to learn how to edit collaboratively. Thryduulf (talk) 13:09, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bumped to indef. valereee (talk) 13:20, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like we have a sock. -- Malcolmxl5 (talk) 13:21, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sock blocked by Bbb23. -- Malcolmxl5 (talk) 13:27, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Semi'd the article. valereee (talk) 13:41, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

While I agree with the decisions and the outcome, I must say it struck me as really bad form for User:Thryduulf to quote private email communications in a public discussion page, in spite of its amusement value. It would have been enough simply to describe the emails as full of emotional invective and threats. ~Anachronist (talk) 20:23, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I get that. In general I disapprove of sharing private emails. If these had been part of an exchange that turned into a disagreement or became heated, absolutely not okay to share. For me, something unsolicited that is completely just an attack out of the blue...I'm a little unsure whether that is privacy that needs to be protected. valereee (talk) 21:38, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever the rights and wrongs of my sharing the emails, I absolutely did not do so for "amusement value" (until your comment it hadn't occurred to me that anyone might find them amusing, I certainly don't) but rather as evidence to explain my actions and thinking. Thryduulf (talk) 21:58, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing whatsoever wrong with publishing those emails - anyone who uses email to send abuse and/or threats has no right to privacy. 17:07, 25 July 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Boing! said Zebedee (talk • contribs)

Person definitely needed to be indeffed Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 21:44, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I am a Hindu so I am not worried about eternal damnation, or words like ever/never. But just in case they are god, wont they be able unblock themselves, and suppress/oversight entire mainspace? —usernamekiran (talk) 19:53, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  If they are god, presumably they wont even need to unblock themselves or require suppression/oversight to remove content from the encyclopaedia. If they are just a god then maybe, maybe not but that wasn't their claim. Thryduulf (talk) 13:54, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

A new user Maffty who has been reverted many times on the alkaline diet article has moved all their deleted content to a new fork article Dietary acid load. The user has restored removed material on both alkaline diet and dietary acid load quite a few times. The problem is that this user is confusing the potential renal acid load (PRAL) with the alkaline diet and now with the acid-ash hypothesis. Multiple users have engaged this user on the alkaline talk-page for days and their own talk-page but they are not listening to any advice and are continuing to add original research and unreliable content. A previous concern was raised at the fringe theories noticeboard [71] Psychologist Guy (talk) 14:20, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A quick perusal of Maffty's contribution history suggest to me that despite assertions to the contrary, [72] this is not a new user. Take for example, their 6th edit (made only 6 hours after creating the account), which cites MOS:PUFFERY in the edit summary: hardly typical of a newcomer. [73] The combination of poor English and a stubborn insistence on imposing WP:OR into articles to support a fringe perspective seems familiar to me, though I'm not entirely sure where I came across it previously. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:34, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Indeffed for disruptive editing. I'm not familiar enough with the article subjects and do not have time to research at the moment, so am taking no action on the speedy. This should not be taken as disagreeing with it. Star Mississippi 17:34, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lima16 (talk · contribs) has commandeered Bridgeport [74] and to a lesser extent, Greater Bridgeport this month, receiving numerous warnings and much advice re: WP:OR, WP:NPOV, WP:UNSOURCED, formatting and addition of images. Initially they appeared willing to engage and accept suggestions, but they're now choosing to plow ahead, as at the infobox at Bridgeport. Imzadi1979 has worked hard on the image front, to little avail [75]; this is what the infobox looks like now: [76]. In short, when a small team of editors needs to ride herd like this over the course of a few weeks, [77]; [78]; [79]; [80]; [81], we have a problem. I haven't included diffs from Bridgeport because there are so many reversions. The page edit history says it all. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:F5BD (talk) 14:36, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Good god, what a mess. I'll wait to see what Lima16 has to say, but everyone here needs to slow down; the history is such a garbled disaster I can't even tell what's what. Use the talkpage, it exists for a reason, and I see it's gone entirely unused on both articles; I'd happily watch over to assist with any discussions. And all this over possibly the least interesting place on earth to fight about, I can vouch for Seth McFarlane (a CT native like myself) summing it up well. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 19:37, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A disruptive editor who doesn't communicate should probably be blocked temporarily, because it seems that's the only thing that will get their attention. This user apparently isn't aware of talk pages or their function, based on the contribution history. Wikipedia is a collaborative project, and Lima16 certainly isn't collaborating. ~Anachronist (talk) 20:19, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Given that Lima16 has edited since the start of this thread, and it was more of the same, I would agree. I'm pblocking from the two pages at issue here. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 21:21, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, The Blade of the Northern Lights. Though I, too, am a longtime CT resident, I have no interest in the articles. Periodically I'd drop by and try to undo some of the damage via targeted surgery, rather than perform a mass reversion, in hopes that Lima would experience a learning curve. Mass reversion is always an option should you decide the overall disruption outweighs the positives. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:F5BD (talk) 22:50, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to do a mass revert because the history is so jumbled, and I don't want to break anything in the process (not the most technically minded person, to put it mildly), but I have no objection to anyone who wants to. I'll certainly help out with any talkpage discussions, which I hope are forthcoming, I have no great feelings towards the individual articles. And to the extent there's an issue over images, I'd happily split the baby and just upload a few pictures myself; I'm more familiar with the place than sometimes I wish I was, wouldn't be a big deal to do some guerilla-style photography where needed. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 03:04, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A quick look at Bridgeport prior to Lima's edits suggests--to me, at least--that much of what they've added is largely constructive (notwithstanding promotional and junk edits I removed a week or so ago). Mass reversion probably isn't a solution. I'll start a thread on the talk page today or tomorrow, with a link to this discussion. The offer to add your own photos is much appreciated; though during much of the year I travel through the city by train, I don't have occasion to stop there. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:F5BD (talk) 14:13, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is definitely a sort-of WP:THEYCANTHEARYOU situation, so a PBLOCK was 100% the right call. Lima seems to sometimes edit from a desktop/laptop, so hopefully they'll be able to take this time to communicate better and listen to feedback. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 17:11, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User:Mehedihasan34726 is putting misinformation in List of highest-grossing Bangladeshi films article. I warned him but he is doing it again and again. Please take necessary steps or block him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mehediabedin (talk • contribs) 17:21, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Metrolink123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been reverted several times at Manchester when trying to add the claim that it is the UK's second city, has failed to engage in discussion on the article's talk page, and is now resorting to a misleading edit summary to try to sneak the claim in. I think it's time for a temporary block to try to incentivise discussion. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:23, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've p-blocked them from editing the article - that deceptive edit summary was unacceptable. If they demonstrate the capacity to edit collaboratively, they can request unblock. Girth Summit _(blether) 10:51, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(non-admin comment) Mancunians argue that the second city of the UK is London. Narky Blert (talk) 10:58, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. That's probably a better solution. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:31, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This user https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/35.143.190.63 User:35.143.190.63 continuous and excessive vandalism. User adds biological name "summer Gwen" to every edit. Please BLOCK NOW!!!.Uricdivine (talk) 23:34, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

IP blocked for general vandalism. Just an aside, these edits were not really worthy of "Block before it's too late", it's your run of the mill vandalism. RickinBaltimore (talk) 23:47, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ricki Baltimore user has created a sock user:patrickmstumph

Whatever this is, it's not even fresh and clever. See

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

DMacks (talk) 23:50, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A vandal? Being unfresh and not clever? Who would have thought. ^[sarcasm] casualdejekyll 18:43, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Could use some eyes on Entuziazm (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Some problem edits a week ago, then some unhelpful blanking today on Ukranian-related pages (here and here) and then numerous disruptive edits to Susan Wojcicki (and other family members) changing their ethnicity from Polish to Jewish. When warned and reverted, Entuziazm persisted, with increasingly problematic edit summaries suggesting a POV. Then persistent attacks and vandalism to my user and talk page. I've tried to avoid fragrant edit warring but viewed most of this as pure vandalism. AVI seems backlogged as this was reported a few hours ago. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 02:22, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just flagging since they've suggested creating a sock. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 02:28, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked, and belligerent. Shouldn't be hard to spot. Acroterion (talk) 02:36, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This user, Special:Contributions/172.93.165.103, has reverted the edits on both Paramount Vantage and A Christmas Story 2. Could you please do something about this so that he doesn’t do it again? AdamDeanHall (talk) 14:55, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Where's the urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems? – ².O.^Boxing 15:58, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Particularly as the other editor was right to remove your unsourced original research, which I see you have re-added to both articles. Fish+Karate 16:19, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed unsourced material from both pages. AdamDeanHall (talk) 18:21, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You have additionally failed to notify 172.93.165.103 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) of this discussion, as the red box on top of this page and the editing window clearly require. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). 21:28, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I notified the user of what I did yesterday. AdamDeanHall (talk) 12:10, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You notified them of reverting their edits, you did not notify them that you were opening a section on the ANI board as required. I will also note that you then reverted your reversions of their reversions (since you were adding unsourced info and the IP's edits seemed okay there.) It seems the IP has since been blocked for disruptive editing, however I don't think there was anything wrong with the user's edits, they seem fine to me and a block not needed. Canterbury Tail talk 12:30, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Drmies: as I think the IP user was actually incorrectly blocked, there's nothing in their edits that warrants a block, they were removing unsourced material and correcting some headers. Canterbury Tail talk 12:46, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree. Too many unexplained reverts/edits, but I actually blocked them because they started doing it from another IP as well. Drmies (talk) 15:19, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• The entire /17 is webhosting, so I blocked it for that. --Blablubbs (talk) 17:41, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An editor Volgabolgari with less than 30 edits and with an apparent fixation concerning the authority on the topic he derives from being a descendant of one of the cultures mentioned, has come to the Khazar page and repeatedly (despite my remonstrations on his talk page) persisted in writing into the text his personal idea about one of the languages spoken by Khazars. As I have repeatedly noted, the text as it stood cites directly a world expert on the topic, Marcel Erdal, but he disagrees. It's not a content dispute. It is tampering with a major secondary source out of personal dislike. See for example

• here
• here
• here
• here
• here
• here repeating a sentence that already existed (it is copied and pasted actually from a text by Dan Shapira, but with the flurry of VB’s edits all requiring correction, I’ve no time yet to fix it)
• here
• here etc.etc.

Worse. Everytime I edit, or make a suggestion to them, I get a personal ‘thank you’ notification as the editor then reverts again. He refuses to use the Khazar talk page. Help please. Nishidani (talk) 16:53, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

notified hereNishidani (talk) 17:02, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what happened but you 1st/4th/5th diffs are all the same, as are your 2nd/3rd diffs. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 17:10, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well Nishidani, I must say that the series of edits you linked above, including your own, is a hilarious comedy of blunders. First, you took care to write an extended edit summary but broke wikilink formatting [82]. Then you moved it to a different section but keeping broken formatting [83]. Then you "fix" the template by closing it with wrong braces [84]. There comes Kansas Bear to fix it, removing a space and an apparently valid sentence along [85]. Volgabulgari actually restores the article to a sane form [86] but you insist on having a broken section title immediately afterwards [87]. Add the above botched report to the list of your sins.
Now, Volgabulgari may be new but his edits were not unreasonable under the circumstances; he explained himself fine in this summary [88]. And I understand why he takes exception at calling the language "Bulgarian"; in fact, our redirect reads Volga Bulgar language. So, can everybody be just nice to each other now, and discuss the concerns on Talk:Khazars? (I mean you, Volgabulgari, in particular; edit summaries are not the best place for that). No such user (talk) 19:24, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oops. Sorry, I did not realize I had removed part of a sentence. I just saw Nishidani trying to fix a sfn reference(I still have issues with those). My intent was to fix the reference, not to remove any information. --Kansas Bear (talk) 20:38, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Restored what I mistakenly removed. Hopefully this does not cause a bigger problem. --Kansas Bear (talk) 20:50, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That was a great explanation. Thank you. I'm new and i'm not sure how to use Wikipedia, yet. Volgabulgari (talk) 22:23, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You’re quite right. No such user I don’t know whether it was the fatigue of controlling for some hours several topics misrepresented on that, already intricate, page, the sizzling heat here or dementia or all three. For the record, the tiff began with the refusal of VG to adhere to the precise language of the source for the text he continually manipulated. We are dealing with historically obsolete languages, about whose interrelation there is a huge amount of scholarship. Chuvash survives, but the rest are known mainly through conjectures from scarce residues. Here’s what happened: For Volgarbulgari Marcel Erdal states that the Khazar language is believed to belong to the Oghuric branch of the Turkic languages,

This is incorrect. the source Marcel Erdal, The Khazar Language writes:

Among the present-day Turkic languages Chuvash, spoken mostly in the Chuvash republic (situated roughly between Tatarstan and Moscow), constitutes a branch in itself. Its closest relative is Volga Bolgarian, . . The most discussed question concerning the language of the Khazars has been whether it belongs to this aberrant Chuvash-Bolgar branch of Turkic or not. Most Turcologists have thought it did, but Golden 1980, for instance, tended towards the opposite view.

VB's using Erdal as a subset of the Oghuric branch (that was the article's context at this particular juncture), when Erdal is raising the possibility of Chuvash being 'a branch of itself arose from a failure to read the source.

Erdal is not writing about Oghuric, but making a case for antecedents for the only surviving exemplar of Oghuric, Chuvash in two varieties, as relevant to the Khazar language. To assert he confirms the obvious, that Khazar is Oghuric, when Erdal is focusing on a far more complex philological subset of Oghuric, completely misses the point, and makes citing Erdal pointless, indeed misleading.

As part of tidying up the article, I corrected this source falsification in this edit where the key adjustment is writing of the Klhazar language as related not only or simply to Oghuric as Volgabulgari insists but also arguably has affinities with ‘Chuvash/Volga-Bulgarian

• VolgarBulgari reverts this out, contradicting the source he retains

I restored it here, telling the editor to read Erdal, ‘downloadable at academia.edu’

• Volgabulgari removes it a second time with the garbled and incomprehensible edit summary:’ Adding Volga Bulgar example in Khazar language is unnecessary, this is not a place of Kangz. Saying this as a descendant of Volga Bulgars (Chuvash)).’

I again revert to the language used in the source even Volgabulgari does not question.

• In the meantime Volgabulgari reinserts a passage that is already alluded to in the text, though it is unsourced

Contemporary sources often used the names “Khazar” and “Turk” interchangeably, reflecting thus the continuation of the Western Turk Khaganate rule among the Khazars. . . . Until the emergence of the Khazar domination in Eastern Europe, which followed the fall of the Western Turkic Qaḡanate in 659, the Khazars cannot be distinguished from their masters, the Western Turk

The problem is that this precise wording is copied fro m two sections (synthesis) and pasted - a copyright violation, -from the first para of Dan Shapira’s Khazars in Encyclopedia iranica online Vol. XVI/5 p.511. The passage was there before VB reedited it in, but in doing so he unwittingly abets what was a piece of wiki plagiarism that required correction by some form of paraphrase.

• ‘there is no such thing as Volga Bulgarian, it should have been Volga Bulgar. 2ndly Volga Bulgar language is already a proven oghuric language.’ This is the one edit by VG that is almost a proper correction, (but Erdal wrote Volga-Bolgarian', I slipped writing Volga-Bulgarian) but it still ignores the language of the source, Erdal.

So I altered it to replicate Erdal’s precise terminology replacing BV’s Volga-Bulgar with Chuvash-Bolgar, supplyingt the precise passage from Erdal in a footnote.

• VB then has second thoughts and changes the Erdal source term Chuvash-Bolgar with Bolgar. I had originally written / and then replaced it with ‘and’ to accommodate VB. He VB corrects this, insisting that ‘so it can be "such as forms of the oghuric branch like chuvash-bolgar". Doing it as "oghuric languages and chuvash-bolgar" seems you want to separate these languages from oghuric branch.’
• VB then changes his mind and reverts his own correction. He can'0t make up his mind, and my attempts to fix things got confused by the noise of his overhasty editing.

I take anything from 1 to several hours over most edits because several sources are usually required to be read before one chooses just one. I dislike facile editing which has an opinion, and no sources, and takes seconds.VG's chopping and changing, backtracking and reverting did stress me. He should have used the talk page.Nishidani (talk) 21:35, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User:030.jtm has made antisemitic comments on Talk:Visarion Puiu. Plinul cel tanar (talk) 18:40, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm nipping this in the bud right now. A brand new account that starts this line of talk? Indef'd for NOTHERE. RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:41, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keeps adding inappropriately sourced genealogy links to the BLP Lucas Kunce. Andrevan@ 19:32, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

CymruFootyFan (talk · contribs) - this editor has been previously blocked for adding unsourced content to BLPs; has received multiple warnings (before and after the block) about adding unsourced content to BLPs (their talk page is littered with it); and yet they continue. They clearly lack the competence to edit here. I suggest an indef. GiantSnowman 21:09, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think there should be a temporary block which should be longer the the original block. Patachonica (talk) 23:04, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An indef seems harsh, considering that the information added is accurate and not remotely contentious. That this particular footballer has signed for Accrington Stanley was unsourced, yes, but it was easily verifiable. Pawnkingthree (talk) 23:50, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A temporary block is better than nothing, but I have no faith that behaviour will improve. I've done a quick random spot check of their recent edits and I cannot find a single one with a) source being added or b) edit summary explaining. GiantSnowman 19:24, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Obviously not a new user, right off the bat they were aware of the WP:WIKIVOICE guideline [89]

Also been randomly hostile towards me for some reason, being angry at an argument I used, as they had already heard it before. The most noticable thing is their random and open hostility:

"I wonder if you regard Napoleon's domain as "Italian" as well. Stop using that stupid argument. French Empire was French nation state after the French Revolution. Afsharid Empire were early modern state and the nation-state structure had not yet emerged at that time. We should use WP:CIR on you with this trashy argumentation. "

Also clearly with my all good faith your compentence isn't good enough to edit wikipedia with this argumantation.

As you can see, they are also aware of the WP:CIR guideline here, not that they used it correctly. Mind you, I never been in contact with this user before then.

[90] [91] Attempted to alter sourced information, changing "myth" to "information" regarding the fictional Turkish rescue of Jews.

And now he has resorted to WP:EDITWARRING in Turkic history [92] [93], completely disregarding WP:POV and WP:ONUS instead of taking part in the discussion at the talk page. --HistoryofIran (talk) 18:56, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense. He try to tarnish my name. But I will continue to contribute to the encyclopedia despite these efforts to provoke. I did restore Berkberk users edit because of his behaviour to build an encyclopedia. They said It's a problematic article and he wrote every single parts of "Turkic history" article. And if there are faults in it, you cannot delete all parts of it. You must say errors and try to restore it. We should be constructive on Wikipedia, not destructive but HistoryofIran is none of it. Belugan (talk) 20:54, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I rest my case ^^. Also, this user also posted this particular nasty comment about me down below; "HistoryofIran is here on a mission to Iranify articles. All of them are sourced informations. Also we reached consensus on that page. But as we can see in Reddit or Twitter HistoryofIran is ruining Turkic related articles and try to ban newcomers here to build encyclopedia users with his policy knowledge." --HistoryofIran (talk) 20:58, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

BerkBerk68 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

In the talk page sections of Talk:Turkic history [94] [95] [96], concerns were made against its neutrality, including the addition of groups of disputed origin (the Xiongnu and Huns), with the only person being an advocate for inclusion of these groups being BerkBerk68. However, 4 users opposed this, and thus mention of those groups were removed. What does he later do? Completely ignores all the discussions there, and proceeds to make the article even less neutral, restoring mention of the Xiongnu and Huns, as well as other stuff [97]. For example, recently at the Talk:Timurid Empire, he showed his dissatisfaction with the word 'Turco-Mongol', only wanting it to say 'Turkic' instead. I responded to him, showing that WP:RS says otherwise, etc. In his addition, he added the very proposal he had made in the talk page, completely disregarding my reply as well as WP:RS. Let me just show some few examples of what the main articles say versus his own additions;

Qajar Iran; "Qajar Iran was an Iranian state[9] ruled by the Qajar dynasty, which was of Turkic origin"

BerkBerk68's addition; "The Qajars were a Persianate Turkic royal dynasty,"

Sultanate of Rum; "The Sultanate of Rum[a] was a Turco-Persian Sunni Muslim state"

BerkBerk68's addition; "Seljuk Sultanate of Rum was a Turkish state founded by Oghuz Turks following Turks’ entrance to Anatolia"

Mughal Empire: "The Mughal Empire was an early-modern empire that controlled much of South Asia between the 16th and 19th centuries."

BerkBerk68's addition; "Mughal Empire was an early-modern Persianate empire with Turkic origins"

Khwarazmian Empire: "The Khwarazmian or Khwarezmian Empire[note 2] (English: /kwəˈræzmiən/)[7] was a Turko-Persian[8] Sunni Muslim empire"

BerkBerk68's addition; "The Khwarazmian Empire was a Sunni Muslim state located in present-day Iran and some parts of Central Asia, ruled by the Khwarazm-Shah dynasty, which was of Turkic origin."

As you can see, he tried to reduce the non-Turkic mentions and/or increase Turkic mentions, i.e. WP:POV and WP:TENDENTIOUS editing.

Other concerning stuff;

[98] Here he proposes to add 'Turco-Iranian' instead of 'Iranian' in the lede... using a source that says 'Persian dynasty'. Right before then, he was shown multiple sources in another thread, that 'Iranian/Persian' was the used term in WP:RS [99], but once again he didn't care.

[100] Wanted to minimize the use of the term 'Turco-Persian' here, completely disregarding the vast WP:RS in the article that supported this very term. He also ignored this and proceeded add a even more POVish version in Turkic history: "The Seljuk Empire was a Turkic[31][32] Sunni Muslim empire"

[101] Tried to portray a political tactic as some sort of "early Pan-Turkism", completely disregarding a vital piece of information in the very WP:RS source he used [102].

Based on all this, it seems that BerkBerk68 is here on a mission to Turkify articles rather than build an encyclopedia. I'm gonna be blunt here; I suggest a topic-ban in all Iranian and Turkic related articles. --HistoryofIran (talk) 19:42, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, I'd like to mention that I have not noticed his comment on the main article of the Timurids and I have told that already at the Turkic history talk page. I even told him that he can fix Timurids and openly imply that I am agreeing with him [103].

About Xiongnu and Hun situation at the lastest version written by me, I utterly reject that I am trying to Turkify them, I have never claimed that Xiongnu or Huns were Turkic, I just added the claims (with underlining that they are claim/theory), genetic researches and the non-primary sources about Chinese historical records, similiar with the Turkic peoples model. I have not also pushed or reverted the calendrical history deletions after the calendrical deletions got the majority on talk page (including a deletion without achieving consensus here [104], I even tried to save the lastest version of calendrical informations (that the disputed subjects are already deleted) by opening a new article [105] and opened a talk page discussion [106] instead of rewriting it.

I thought that "Turco-Iranian" would fit better for Afsharids because the reference itself says Empire's origins are based on a Turkic tribe,[107] and Afsharids used Turkic language as official military language just like many other Turco-Iranian civilizations. I didn't even make an edit, I just expressed my thought on the talk page.

I didn't even understand what exactly is the problem with Nader Shah's Turkmen policy, reference is Iranica there.[108] ("Nāder departed substantially from Safavid precedent by redefining Shiʿism as the Jaʿfari maḏhab of Sunni Islam and promoting the common Turkmen descent of the contemporary Muslim rulers as a basis for international relations." "Nāder’s focus on common Turkmen descent likewise was designed to establish a broad political framework that could tie him, more closely than his Safavid predecessors, to both Ottomans and Mughals." "Nāder recalled how he, Ottomans, Uzbeks, and Mughals shared a common Turkmen heritage. This concept for him resembled, in broad terms, the origin myths of 15th century Anatolian Turkmen dynasties. However, since he also addressed the Mughal emperor as a “Turkmen” ruler, Nāder implicitly extended the word “Turkmen” to refer, not only to progeny of the twenty-four Ḡozz tribes, but to Timur’s descendants as well." )

I also mentioned that I am trying to support the encyclopedia, [109] I am just interested in Turkic topics just like how HistoryofIran is interested on Iranian topics. BerkBerk68^talk 20:43, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

HistoryofIran is here on a mission to Iranify articles. All of them are sourced informations. Also we reached consensus on that page. But as we can see in Reddit or Twitter HistoryofIran is ruining Turkic related articles and try to ban newcomers here to build encyclopedia users with his policy knowledge. Belugan (talk) 20:43, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

HistoryofIran isn't here on a mission to Iranify articles. Patachonica (talk) 21:04, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is about the article Turkic history

Firstly, if one has disputes about certain sections of an article, they are free to talk about it on the talk page. Reverting an ENTIRE edit just because one disagrees with what is written in SOME parts of the edit is not feasible. A consensus must be reached in the talk page if one is going to reverse a 50,000 byte edit just because they disagree with SOME parts of the article. It is uncivil and is bound to lead to edit warring, which will lead to grudges. All of this has been seen in this particular case, as evidenced by the talk page of the article (specifically the thread titled "Calendrical Timeline") and the locking of the article.

Onto the concerns stressed by HistoryofIran . Quotations come directly from the edit. There were two main concerns; the Xiongnu and Huns. It isn't pushed forward by the edit that the Huns and the Xiongnu were Turkic. Instead, BerkBerk68 states that Chinese Han sources *CLAIMED* that the Xiongnu spoke a proto-turkic language ("It was even claimed in Chinese Han records that the Xiongnu spoke a Proto-Turkic language"), and also provides the opinions of other scholars;

"It is also a popular thought among scholars that Xiongnu is most likely to be a confederation of different ethnic and linguistic groups"

The concern here has been addressed. Nothing is definitively pushed forward, and multiple ideas of differing scholars have been presented.

Now onto the Hun section;

"Hunnic armies led by Attila, who had conquered most of Europe, *MAY* have been at least partially of Turkic and Xiongnu origin.

"Huns were *ALSO* considered as Proto-Mongolic and/or Yeniseian by some scholars*"

Again, multiple viewpoints stated, nothing definitively pushed, thus is not contradicting the Hun page. No concerns to be held here.

However, since I am not biased, I sided with HistoryofIran on their concern with multiple parts of the article, and have, for example, amended the Timurids section and stated that the Timurid Empire was a "Persianate Turkic-Mongol" Empire, instead of "Persianate-Turkic" Empire, as it is written in the original article.

• I was about to amend nearly all of their concerns stated in their now archived post in ANI when I had finished reading them, but was unable to because of the article being locked due to edit warring.

• IT IS ALSO TO BE STRESSED THAT THIS IS A NEW EDIT

Thus, the previous concerns are not really valid anymore as the previous article is COMPLETELY different to the new edit, which contains claims of differing scholars which are are sourced with new, reliable, and arguably unbiased sources since they are not Turkish & thus there's no chance of there being pan-Turkist biases. It is also NO LONGER pushed forward in the edit that the Xiongnu and Huns were Turkic, unlike the original version of the article. The previous concerns are months-old, I have read them. The additions are very similar to what is written in the main articles of the Huns and Xiongnu - that the origins of both people's are disputed, and that scholars state they COULD be Turkic. Nowhere in the article is it claimed that they ARE Turkic. And this is further stressed by the inclusion of differing opinions on the origins of both peoples from many different scholars.

The article is no longer as biased like it was before (the previous edit was a carbon copy of the Turkish article. There's bound to be bias, and thus concerns were raised in the talk page about Xiongnu and the Huns. This has been eliminated with the new edit, though).

It is to be acknowledged that there are parts of the edit which are inconsistent with the original articles of some topics, which is why I support and suggest that admins restore the edit made by BerkBerk68 since it is the closest to what we will get of a detailed article on Turkic history, and amending it where necessary. Thanks. zenzyyx_^talk

Nothing has been addressed, you are simply sweeping it under the rug. You are repeating the same old points you made earlier, which has already been replied to [110]. One of the many concerns is that the Xiougnu and Huns origins are still disputed, and thus shouldn't be there no matter how you spin it, hence why it was removed in the first place. BerkBerk ignored that and went on to restore it. As you've already been told various times, we have a rule named WP:ONUS. Also, see WP:TLDR. I'll let the admins take over. --HistoryofIran (talk) 21:04, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]