Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems. Before posting: Read these tips for dealing with incivility If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page Try dispute resolution Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly. Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight. When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough. You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so. Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)
Start a new discussion

WP:RUSUKR sanctions violation

Unfam (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - non-EC edits of 25 May 2024 Kharkiv missile strikes page [1], [2] despite warnings [3] , [4] , [5] . Non constructive comments with personal attacks in talk [6] [before the warning]. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 10:40, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

• All I want is for a single video that proves russian claims about hypermarket used as an ammo storage being either linked or uploaded, in any way you like. It is as constructive as it can be. Also, I don't understand how it is a personal attack. Unfam (talk) 10:48, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

  Two (arguably three if you include a typo fix) clear bright-line breaches of RUSUKR, as well as a brand new editor wading in calling another editor a "hypocrite" in a CT area talk page. I think we have generally viewed this pretty dimly? Daniel (talk) 12:39, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

  I might be wrong, but deleting evidence in favour of one side or another due to, in my opinion, personal bias, is much worse than anything I ever did. Unfam (talk) 13:55, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

• Have indefinitely ECP-ed the article per sanctions. No comments on the content, removed or otherwise, have yet to evaluate those. – robertsky (talk) 13:35, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
• Yet another weaponization of ANI. This is a recurring pattern from ManyAreasExpert. He has already weaponized it against me some 2 or 3 times, as Cinderella157 will probably remember. MAE seems to use all his knowledge, including Wikipedia policies knowledge, to corner and tilt people into making mistakes and rash decisions/comments. Almost as if he laid a trap. I think this is a much bigger problem than a new editor's attempt to edit and balance a contentious page section in good faith. Look, Unfam was very constructive in that talk page discussion and clearly tried to make careful and balanced suggestions of edits, which I thought were reasonable and implemented them myself to represent the Russian POV. It all changed when MAE stepped in.

Why do people seem to loose their minds when interacting with MAE, me included sometimes? Probably because he recurrently uses the theme/narrative of Russian propaganda, Russian unreliable sources, Russian misinformation, Russian war crimes, Western MSM is more reliable, there is no Western propaganda, there is no Ukrainian propaganda, Ukrainian officials can say whatever they want in Western sources and that is always considered superior to whatever the Russians say in Telegram, etc. This kind of argument is infuriating since it's already very difficult to show/represent the Russian POV in anything without the typical Western negative labels. Many Russian sources are already blacklisted and, often, one must translate the allowed sources to find the relevant info. Covering the other (Ukrainian/Western) POV, on the other hand, is so much easier and less stressful. Just Google anything and you'll be almost ensured to be flooded with English anti-Russian articles with varying degree of Russophobia. Why am I saying all this? To show how tense and one-sided this whole RUSUKR debate is, and to show how frustrating it is when we're spat with the "Russian propaganda" argument whenever we try to voice their POV.

But this would be the first step of the trap. As the other editor is getting triggered, MAE counteracts with edits using notoriously pro-Ukrainian/pro-Western sources, injects unfavorable background only to one side, injects wikilinks that are flooded with unfavorable content towards one side, etc. Then, in the heat of the argument, he warns about sanctions and civility as he goes all soft, complaining that being called a "hypocrite" is a PA (which it kinda is, but give me a break, look at what you do. does it actually hurt because you know it's true? or was is legitimately offensive?). By the way, Unfam's retraction and response was quite concerted afterwards; good! However, within those hot minutes Unfam made a technical mistake of directly editing a sanctioned page while I was away. And now the "witch hunt" is on...

And just a few days ago, MAE potentially tried to bait me in a related article talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2024_Kharkiv_offensive#Losses_claims_in_the_infobox. He contested one of my recent edits here; I then boldly reverted it mostly based on the POV argument he used (that you can't put Ukrainian and Russian claims side by side because Ukrainian claims are much more 'accurate' in his mind), despite me knowing better arguments in favor of MAE's edit (i.e. that the claims span different time intervals, thus kinda apples to oranges); he then warns me of a policy; I then read it and understood he was right and his tone was fine, then I basically retracted my revert here and pretty much conceded in the talk page here with the OK emoji, dispute should be mostly solved; however, he then poked/baited me with this sarcastic comment, trying to act all tough and superior as if he was in a position to demand submission. I didn't fall for it, fortunately. Or, alternatively, he simply didn't understand my comment and saw the talk page before the article and consequently wouldn't see the retraction edit. Anyways, more and more tension which never occurred, for example, with Super Dromaeosaurus in Talk:2024 Kharkiv offensive#War crimes and misconduct (look at the difference in tone of the dispute resolution).

Concluding, I wanted to formally request that MAE be prevented from opening new ANI tickets against editors when attempting to solve contentious content disputes, especially when only MAE is showing concern in the talk page and especially during the early stages of discussion (it was literally a discussion of a few minutes and MAE was already potentially asking for sanctions/restrictions on this editor). This request also accounts that MAE has systematically made content edits that, afaik, exclusively favor the Ukrainian POV in the past. And also considering that MAE seemingly abuses the enforcement of Wikipedia policies without good intent, i.e. in a mission to corner and intimidate whoever attempts to represent/voice the actual Russian POV in articles.

As for Unfam, he has already been plenty warned and has shown understanding and restraint. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 13:40, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

This is contentious topic. Asked to adhere to Wikipedia rules, you gave no affirmative response [7] and continued [8] adding anonymous tg channels as sources. Removing reliable sources at the same time [9] . You did the same before - User talk:Alexiscoutinho#May 2024 - propaganda telegram in contentious topics . Stop using tg channels and Russian state media as sources, stop equating POVs reported by reliable sources with propaganda reported by Russian state sources, stop attacking the opponent when asked to adhere to Wikipedia rules, and everything will be fine. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 13:53, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

But meduza isn't a reliable source. Unfam (talk) 14:03, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

So you are adding anon tg channels to the article [10] , and are saying that Meduza is not reliable. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 14:09, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Meduza is a reliable source. Ymblanter (talk) 16:42, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

It is funded by american government. Then any russian news website should also be reliable sources. Unfam (talk) 12:38, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

First, it is not funded by the American government. Second, there are many reliable sources funded by the American government. Third, Russian government sources are not reliable because they consistently publish disinformation, not because they are funded by the Russian government. Fourth, the fact that you write this shows very clearly that you need an indefinite topic ban from any Russian and European topics. Ymblanter (talk) 16:09, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

you gave no affirmative response what?! how is "OK" and an effective retraction edit in the article not an affirmative response? Your sarcastic question was provocative. Did you really want me to "lick your boots"? and continued adding why the "and" connection here? I contributed by adding a missing POV, and was even thanked for it. Even though the execution wasn't ideal, the intention was fine. Removing reliable sources at the same time Don't distort this, I removed blatant POV pushing, like you did in that mini Aftermath section of the battle of Bakhmut, and I would remove it again if I could go back in time. Even pro-Ukrainian Super Dro acknowledged that those wikilinks were a stretch. You did the same before the situations were completely different, and as I explained above, the intent of the latest episode was fine. Russian state media as sources I'm still not sold on the reasoning behind a blanket rejection. stop equating POVs reported by reliable sources with both POVs were reported by reliable sources as you showed. with propaganda reported by Russian state sources this is just your POV leaking through; doesn't even try to hide the lack of acknowledgement of Western and Ukrainian propaganda. stop attacking the opponent when asked to adhere to Wikipedia rules, and everything will be fine. well, one gets what one sows. Whenever you base your concerns/disputes on one-sided propaganda claims, you'll get unconstructive discussions. Give neutral comments/requests, like you sometimes do, and we'll actually get somewhere without wasting arguments. The same applies to other editors: don't expect them to be all cooperative when you start calling the shots, deleting stuff, substituting it with oppositely biased sources, calling the other's info propaganda and then threatening through ANI. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 15:57, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

he recurrently uses the theme/narrative of ... there is no Western propaganda, there is no Ukrainian propaganda, ...
This is plain wrong. Please limit the user from making such false accusations. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 14:05, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Don't worry, ManyaAreasExpert, I won't do this any more. I've made you stop vandalasing the article with your edits, and stopped you from hiding the evidence. Now the page is locked, so nothing can be changed. Even though there is still no video linked or uploaded, as I asked, but at least it is mentioned. This is the best anyone could do, with people like you around. Now you can continue crying about personall

attacks or what not, I won't bother you any more. Unfam (talk) 14:16, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Do you want me to retract that? Because I never saw you acknowledging those. Therefore, it appeared like so. Did I get carried away? Alexis Coutinho (talk) 16:01, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

You are making false accusations because I haven't acknowledged something you think I should? Please stop discussing editors, this is not constructive and is a WP:PA: Comment on content, not on the contributor. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 16:34, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Comment on content, not on the contributor Well, this whole thread started with a "comment on contributor" when it was actually mostly based on a content dispute... And yeah, this discussion has been pretty milked already. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 16:43, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

this whole thread started with a "comment on contributor"
This is not true. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 16:45, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Indeed they misrepresented a particular source to push a particular POV.[11] I am not sure if this is due to a poor understanding of English but this is not the first time. Mellk (talk) 15:46, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Where is the misrepresentation? ManyAreasExpert (talk) 15:49, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Moser does not say that it should be called Old Ukrainian. The alt name is already well established, therefore calling it anachronistic in wikivoice based on one person's opinion is the very definition of POV pushing. Mellk (talk) 15:53, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Moser does not say that it should be called Old Ukrainian
... and Moser did said what?
is the very definition of POV pushing
... but your initial claim was about misinterpretation. Should we abandon it, and discuss the new claim instead? ManyAreasExpert (talk) 15:59, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

In the quote you provided (shown in the diff), he refers to Old East Slavic and mentions the term Old Ukrainian if Old East Slavic "can deliberately be given an anachronistic name". If you cannot understand what the source says, then this raises concerns. Mellk (talk) 16:07, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

That's the correct representation of Moser. Note how the quote was added with my edit to avoid any misinterpretation.

Now, where is the misinterpretation? ManyAreasExpert (talk) 16:11, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

He did not say that Old Ukrainian is how the language should be called (i.e. this should be included as an alt name), and other editors said the same thing on the article talk page. So, this is just you who misunderstood what he said. Again, for such edits, WP:CIR applies, and it is clear from your other edits that you do not have a good enough command of the English language. Mellk (talk) 16:14, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

... but Moser did said that "Old Russian" is anachronistic, and that's what my edit was. Moser did also said that compared to anachronistic Old Russian, Old Ukrainian is more appropriate, and that's what my edit was. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 16:21, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

I have just told you that Old Russian is a well established name and this is supported in the rest of the article, you changed this to "anachronistic" based on one person's opinion, while you included the term "Old Ukrainian" as an alt name as the "more appropriate" name for Old East Slavic. We are just going in circles here so I will leave it at that. Mellk (talk) 16:24, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Not "more appropriate" then Old East Slavic. More appropriate then Old Russian, supported by Moser. Provided with quote to avoid misinterpretation. Where is the misinterpretation here. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 16:29, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

This is off-topic deflection by Mellk. Getting back to the actual serious issue - no, anonymous posts on Telegram are no RS, never will be, and anyone who tries to use them repeatedly despite warnings has no business editing this topic area. Volunteer Marek 05:13, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

No, I just added my experience to the response to claims of POV pushing. Of course, as Manyareasexpert started this discussion, his own conduct in the topic area can be reviewed as well. Since you claim that I am deflecting, doesn't your topic ban include not commenting on editors? Mellk (talk) 05:23, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

I do not have a topic ban here nor any restriction on commenting on editors, especially at AN/I where the *whole point* is to discuss editor behavior. Please stop trying to derail the discussion by trying to shift the focus to others. You were doing it with Manyareasexpert before - this discussion was about the Kharkiv Missle Strike article and you tried to muddy up the waters by bringing up some completely irrelevant edits at… “Old East Slavic” - now youre trying to do it with me. Volunteer Marek 05:27, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

I see, the restriction is personal comments on articles and article talk pages only. I also responded to Alexis Coutinho's reply which is about Manyareasexpert's conduct. As you said, this is about editor behavior, so I am not sure why you replied to me to complain about this. I added my input, if you do not have anything to add to this, reply to someone else instead. Mellk (talk) 05:39, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

I’m not under any such restriction either. You should probably drop these attempts at derailing the discussion now, since that too can be seen as disruptive. Volunteer Marek 05:46, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Next time do not reply to my comment about a particular issue if all you are going to do is make nonsensical accusations of derailing. Mellk (talk) 05:49, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Specifically, this right here is textbook example of using clearly non-RS sources for POV. Last time this happened Alexiscouthino pleaded ignorance of rules. Obviously one can’t use that excuse twice for same offense. Volunteer Marek 05:25, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

No. That was only a first attempt to represent an official POV in good faith, without ever trying to distort or suppress the other (Ukrainian) POV, in an article that was clearly one-sided and was even pushing untrue statements with wikivoice. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 10:00, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

This is real POV pushing, and this... Alexis Coutinho (talk) 10:28, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

I mean, adding academic sources is POV pushing. And replacing TASS and tg links with Meduza and RFEL is POV pushing. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 10:37, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

I mean, adding academic sources is POV pushing. You circumvented two entire RfC discussions by selectively writing in the first sentence of the Aftermath, which was directly linked by the infobox result, the result you preferred, while completely ignoring the other analyses, thus bypassing the spirit the "Russian victory - See Aftermath" link and mischaracterizing the result in your favor.

And replacing TASS and tg links with Meduza and RFEL is POV pushing. I wasn't clear. The TASS replacement was ok and I even thanked you for it. The injected background from RFEL was POV pushing. I could have similarly thrown in mentions of previous war crimes by Ukrainians and instances where they used civilian infrastructure to store military hardware to push the Russian point across. But I didn't, as selectively adding background that is not connected to the incident by current sources is POV pushing. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 10:49, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

while completely ignoring the other analyses
Six academic sources were provided with my edit. Which academic source was ignored?

The injected background from RFEL was POV pushing. I could have similarly thrown in mentions of previous war crimes by Ukrainians and instances where they used civilian infrastructure to store military hardware to push the Russian point across. But I didn't, as selectively adding background that is not connected to the incident by current sources is POV pushing.
Let's say it again. The RFEL article Russian Forces Hit Hypermarket In Deadly Assault On Kharkiv, Surrounding Villages (rferl.org) is not connected to the 25 May 2024 Kharkiv missile strikes. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 11:00, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Which academic source was ignored? Don't play dumb. You know exactly what you omitted. RFEL article propaganda outlet whitewashed as RS. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 11:31, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Another personal attack due to lack of argument. No academic sources were omitted.

propaganda outlet whitewashed as RS.
... but your initial claim was selectively adding background that is not connected to the incident, should we abandon it now? ManyAreasExpert (talk) 11:37, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Another personal attack due to lack of argument. No academic sources were omitted. I stand by it, you're being disingenuous. The situation was obvious. There was an RfC which overwhelmingly sides with "Russian victory" not "Russian pyrrhic victory". There was already a big paragraph discussing both interpretations of the result of the battle in the analysis section which you and I helped to construct. Yet you thought that wasn't enough. You wanted to put "pyrrhic victory" with ALL the spotlight. Since you couldn't write "pyrrhic victory" directly in the infobox you decided to say it in the first sentence linked by the infobox result. You infatuated the citation by adding the most qualifiers you could and flooded it with refs. You even put that "pyrrhic victory" statement before the true aftermath paragraph to make sure the reader was convinced it was "pyrrhic victory". And of course you didn't bother covering the other analysts which considered the battle a "Russian victory" as was done in that larger paragraph of the Attrition section.

your initial claim was selectively adding background What background? If you are talking about the secondary explosions, that's literally part of the incident itself. abandon it now? Well, in the article it was already abandoned... so maybe... Alexis Coutinho (talk) 12:02, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Since we have determined that no academic sources were ignored, we can conclude there is a consensus among them regarding "pyrrhic victory" or such. And yes, this academic consensus POV can be preferred against what's written in news media. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 12:07, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

You can't dare say there's any consensus given your edit pattern. Until you show how you sampled those academic sources for a representative array, I won't rule out that you simply cherry-picked those sources. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 12:12, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Asked "which academic source was ignored", received none. What are we talking about here? ManyAreasExpert (talk) 12:15, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

You have been plenty explained. If you still can't understand, that's your problem. Unsubscribing from this thread right now as it's becoming unhealthy and toxic for both of us. Ping me if someone requests an important reply. I really don't want to argue with you again in ANI. I repeat my original request that I don't think MAE is qualified to use ANI against other editors in RUSUKR war topics due to being too involved. I won't complain if you argue the same to me, that I'm not qualified to raise ANI tickets in this area. Let cool heads prevail. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 12:38, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

The situation is getting a bit out of control as now we have editors arguing straight up that it’s ok to use non-reliable sources as long as these “represent the Russian viewpoint” [12]. I know I’ve been away from this topic for awhile but no one alerted me to the fact that apparently WP:RS got revoked for this topic area in my absence. Volunteer Marek 05:37, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

MAE's conduct hasn't been flawless, but I definitely think Alexiscoutinho is far closer to a community sanction given the continued, disruptive use of Telegram sources after being told, repeatedly and explicitly, that the community does not consider Telegram to be reliable source. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 07:51, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

disruptive use of Telegram mind elaborating?

At least I don't weaponize ANI, admit mistakes when I make them, and am not a professional entitled POV pusher. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 09:36, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

am not a professional entitled POV pusher
I'm sorry, yes, another ANI request Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1149#Academic sources removal in favor of trickster POV pushing, WP:BATTLEGROUND regarding your removal of academic POV in favor of Russian Prigozhin POV. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 10:04, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

I'm sorry, yes, another... Are you apologizing or attacking? You already lost that case due to distortions. Why are you bringing it up again? I already indirectly mentioned it in my first text wall. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 10:33, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Let's have a look at one of the latest edits [13] . So the source Summary for 24–27 May 2024 (until 8:00 UTC+3) — Teletype (citeam.org) says
on the basis of video, yet in your text it becomes based on videos - where's plural in the source?

video with pops similar in sound to a secondary detonation - note they use similar to, yet in your text it becomes - recording background sounds of smaller secondary explosions - a fact.

When an ammunition depot detonates, as a rule, some shells fly in different directions, hitting neighboring buildings, but in this case nothing of the kind is observed, yet your text says which was purportedly not observed - where's purportedly in the source? ManyAreasExpert (talk) 10:55, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

where's plural in the source? the fact that there isn't just one eye witness video about the aftermath of the strike. video with pops similar in sound to a secondary detonation - note they use similar to, yet in your text it becomes - recording background sounds of smaller secondary explosions don't see much problem with that. Would need to rewatch the videos. But I guess the text could me amended/improved if someone thought is was important. nothing of the kind is observed, yet your text says which was purportedly not observed just because the limited evidence there is doesn't show such collateral damage, doesn't mean there wasn't any such damage. The affected area was big and who knows what happened, say, in the back of the hypermarket? "Purportedly" seems adequate here when absolute certainty can't be achieved. If we were to report what such sources say at face value, then there would be no need for investigations. Because CIT is God and know everything, knows the absolute truth.

Complaining about these now feels like nit-picking. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 11:46, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

So you misinterpret the source based on your own thoughts. Are we allowed to do this in Wikipedia?

Meanwhile, another telegram link returned [14] after reading on how they are inappropriate. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 11:52, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Are we allowed to do this in Wikipedia? Are we allowed to POV push in Wikipedia like you did? Meanwhile, another telegram link returned stand by it with the caveat in the edit summary. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 12:05, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Are we allowed to do this in Wikipedia? Are we allowed to POV push in Wikipedia like you did?
An unproven accusation is a personal attack and is a good argument to justify your misinterpretation of sources. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 12:10, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Go on softy boy. You're lucky I don't fixate so much on the unproven accusations you did to me. At this point I'm just getting baited over and over by MAE. And fucking up my real life. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 12:16, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Calling someone "softy boy" is a pretty blatant insult, ie personal attack. Bad move. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:01, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

That was an absolutely atrocious revert. Using an unreliable source "because it's needed" is absurd. Luckily, it was quickly reverted. Does the community have to stop you from using Telegram against clear consensus? It seems you won't stop on your own. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 14:21, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

MAE's conduct hasn't been flawless
I'm sorry you feel so, and I want my edits to be improved, please do tell how can I do so, thanks! ManyAreasExpert (talk) 09:44, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

I don't think pressuring Alexiscoutinho to give a yes/no question about their reliable source use was really productive, since ultimatums like that rarely are. Nothing I would think is sanctionable, especially in a heated argument. Remember, being correct doesn't mean one has to raise the temperature. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 10:19, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

I appreciate that. Will think about that. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 10:34, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

• Unfam has made two (technically three) edits to an article falling within WP:GSRUSUKR while not a WP:ECP user. While they were made GS aware contemporaneous with the events. this edit by MAE warns them not to edit the page but also asks them to edit the page to revert their edit, which renders their warning somewhat ambiguous.

Unfam, you may not presently edit any article dealing with the Russo-Ukrainian War (broadly construed) - even if the article is not specifically protected. There are also higher expectations of conduct on talk pages in this area. Once you are confirmed as an ECP user (500 edits and one month registered) you may edit articles in this area. Please ask if you have any questions regarding this.

The article has now been protected by robertsky. In the circumstances, I think it would be sufficient to formally log a warning that any subsequent infractions will be dealt with much more harshly.

On the matter of the alleged PA, AN is very fickle in how it deals with such matters. Don't be a hypocrite [and add the other material] is quite different from saying, "You are a hypocrite" - though we really should avoid personalising discussions. I have seen much more egregious instances bought here (sometimes made by Wiki untouchables) that have hardly raised an eyebrow - which really is hypocritical. I believe that a warning is also sufficient in this case.

On the matter of social media as a source, this video, appearing in the article is sourced/attributed to a tg account, an fb account and a news source (of unknown quality) that has fairly clearly used the fb source. The question of sourcing is not so cut and dried in a POV charged current event dominated by WP:NEWSORG sources used by many without discrimination between fact and opinion and a view that WP is a news streaming platform. Cinderella157 (talk) 11:55, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

I only created wikipedia account to ask someone in the talk page to include the video of the secondary explosions. I didn't even want to edit the article at first, untill MAE came and completely deleted any mention of that video, called TASS "russian propaganda", whilr i

incingded unnecessary background info, sourcing websites completely or piaalrtly funded by american government (meduza aradio free europe) which is definition of american propaganda. This is the only reason for why I told him to not act like a hypocrite and why I edited the article myself, despite the lack of experience. I haven't called him a hypocrite then, but I will now, because his actions are the definition of this term. In my opinion, he shouldn't be allowed to edit any articles about ukraine/russsian war, because he is clearly biased. I even asked him to include the video in any way, shape or form he likes instead of completely deleting any mention of it, yet he completely ignored my requests. Instead he started crying about me bullying him and about how "anonymous tg channel isn't a source". Yes, MAE, it isn't a source, but it doesn't make the video itself fake. In my opinion, that video should be uploaded on wikipedia and included in the article, like the CCTV video. But at least it is mentioned in the article now, which is already better than nothing. Now it is better than the russian version of the article, which uses the mass murder template, lol. Unfam (talk) 12:30, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, and so this [15] follows. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 12:55, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Am I wrong? Unfam (talk) 13:14, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Yes, you're pretty much wrong. What is allowed to be used as a reliable source is not a question of who funds, but one which the community decided by consensus of editorial freedom, historical reliability, reputation for fact-checking, and the like. There are many sources that are funded by some government for which a consensus has been achieved that they are reliable and can be used and many non-government sources which there is no consensus that they are reliable. The community consensus is largely the opposite of your opinion is what is reliable, but Wikipedia policies are made by consensus.WP:RSPSS CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 14:05, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

True, after all millions of flies can't be wrong, right? After having a brief interaction with some of the users here, I understand why no-one sane uses wikipedia as a source. It's nothing more than just a giant reddit-like cesspool. At least it is populated with similar people. Oh, you can also cry about personal attacks, I don't care If I'm going to be banned any more. Unfam (talk) 14:59, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Nobody should be using Wikipedia as a source within Wikipedia per WP:CIRCULAR, and nobody should be using Wikipedia as a source outside of Wikipedia, given that it is a tertiary source. If you question the reliability of Wikipedia, you're in good company. See Reliability of Wikipedia. In general, Wikipedia is considered as reliable as any other encyclopedia. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:08, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Translation: you liked Wikipedia just fine until you discovered that it had policies, guidelines and practices that could constrain you from doing or saying anything you wanted. As may be. You are, of course, the best judge of how and where you spend your time. Ravenswing 16:09, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

So, what do you suggest then? Reliability of sources not by consensus, but simply by whatever the most recent person to edit something thinks? How exactly do you think this would work?

Wikipedia is based on consensus and reliable sources. And if that's a serious issue, then this simply isn't a project for you. Which is OK; there are lots of many great projects out there in the world. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 17:48, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Given the above tantrum, I'd say an indef is appopriate, since Unfam is WP:NOTHERE. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:04, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

HandThatFeeds, I had the exact same thought when reading the above. This is also a personal attack as it comments on the contributor, not contributions ("Biased user") - plus is just a bit of an obnoxious thing to write to someone. I have indefinitely blocked Unfam. Daniel (talk) 18:10, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

We have gone from the ambiguous to the unmistakable. Cinderella157 (talk) 22:16, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Proposal: Warning

Proposal: Alexis Coutinho warned not to use Telegram as a source

The rest of the thread appears to be sorting itself out, but Alexiscoutinho's continued use of consensus-unreliable Telegram as a reliable source, despite being repeatedly told not to [16] [17] with the excuse that it's OK because it's representing the Russian POV is disruptive in an already extremely sensitive topic. The latest, removal of an image with an edit summary implying revenge "eye for an eye," rather than arguing the source is unreliable, is another edit beyond the pale. The editor is clearly aware of this consensus from a December thread at WP:RSN which exists because of their use of Telegram [18]. I think an explicit warning from the community that Telegram sources are inappropriate is the minimum that needs to be done. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 18:12, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, left out the "eye for an eye" diff. [19] CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 18:14, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Well their use of tg sources comes not of love for tg, but of their belief that Russian POV, regardless of the quality of the source, should be represented equally to the RS's POV. I. e. WP:FALSEBALANCE .

Addition: I would even correct the "Russian POV" above to Russian propaganda POV, as there are Russian press like Meduza, Insider, Zona, and such, as well as Russian scholars like Igor Danilevsky and others, which are the representation of Russian POV, but the editor is not willing to appreciate these. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 19:28, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Just shut up to say the least. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 20:51, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

A bit of "beating the dead horse", but this: but the editor is not willing to appreciate these. is easily disproved by [20] where I thank you for the alternative meduza source. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 18:24, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

The following is the reply I was writing before my short block. It was previously posted in my talk page but was apparently not seen:

[207] [208] with the excuse that it's OK because it's representing the Russian POV plain untrue. In those two instances you linked, Telegram was being linked solely for the video. I would have uploaded the video myself if I had wanted to spend the extra time. I readded it because the "three explosions" statement become orphan without it (i.e. {{cn}}). No other source clarified that, they just repeated the dubious Ukrainian claim that there were two bombs. In fact that citation is orphan right now.

revenge "eye for an eye," rather than arguing the source is unreliable Cinderella already hinted how fragile that video's sourcing is. And I had to right to use WP:ONUS anyways to question its usefulness to the article. I thought it was better o be frank than to be deceitful like someone. Furthermore, if the Wikipedia hitmen are seemingly ok with letting that video pass despite using Telegram as a source, but go out of their minds when a video directly sourced via Telegram is used to elaborate a Russian claim, then there's something wrong with the Wikipedia system, which seems to prefer to superficially adhere to some policies while ignoring the underlying issues causing such breaking of policy.

December thread Let me once again remind that that context was completely different.

Alexis Coutinho (talk) 16:54, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

• Support. Super Ψ Dro 18:53, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
• If it was just repeated re-adding of Telegram posts (despite being told not to) that’d be one thing. But we also have super WP:POINTy edits [21] with combative and WP:BATTLEGROUNDy edit summaries (“an eye for an eye”) AND referring to other editors as “professional entitled POV pusher”s AND telling them to “just shut up” (both in this thread above, along with a whole slew of other personal attacks). I think this is well past the point of “warning” (which they’ve had had plenty already) and well into topic ban from Eastern Europe territory. Volunteer Marek 22:16, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
• Support warning about telegram channels.Boynamedsue (talk) 15:36, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
• Support logged CT warning, EE topic ban if this is not an isolated incident, utterly bizarre behaviour, the exact kind that is not needed in these topics. --TylerBurden (talk) 16:48, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose This specific warning, but I have no issue with a formal warning about battleground behavior and civility. I do not agree with the citation block for a single user. To be blunt, that seems silly. Buffs (talk) 04:25, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

TBAN for Alexis Coutinho

Hi, uninvolved editor here. I'd lean towards a TBAN on from Eastern Europe and the War in Ukraine as a whole, given the suggestion from Volunteer Marek. It's clear this user is doing a lot of WP:BATTLEGROUND editing on this topic and has a poor understanding of WP:NPOV. Allan Nonymous (talk) 14:50, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

• I think there is battleground behaviour happening on both sides here (though not from every participant). I would also say that this is going to be somewhat inevitable when the topic is a literal battleground. However, I would suggest a warning might be more in order at the moment, something regarding respecting WP:CIVIL at all times as well as a giving a commitment to respect WP:RS? It is clear that MAE is quite committed to escalating things with AC, and some of their editing does seem to have the goal of winding him up.Boynamedsue (talk) 15:42, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

  Thank you. suggest a warning might be more in order that's fine, though I guess the temp block I received already served such purpose, idk. WP:CIVIL at all times Yeah, not saying flashy words even when the other gets you mad is ideal, though unfortunately I have difficulty adhering to that with MAE. respect WP:RS this is contentious though given that RUSUKR is flooded with information warfare from MSM which is generally considered RS despite WP:NEWSORG, which is what I think Cinderella157 was talking about previously. There's also the matter of how to use them. Even though they are considered reliable for statements of fact, they are not exempt from bias. Therefore one should not cite things that mostly reflect bias or bias against a POV.

  It is clear that MAE is quite committed to escalating things with AC, and some of their editing does seem to have the goal of winding him up. Concur. Although he often says correct things, some comments mixed in feel unnecessary and seem to have the aim of provoking and WP:STICK. I think the most applicable case of the latter is this sequence [22] [23]. In the first link, I make a strong attempt to deescalate the whole discussion by acknowledging the arguing was becoming unhealthy and toxic for both of us and by breaking the reply chain by Unsubscribing from this thread right now. I also say I really don't want to argue with you again in ANI pleading to not have to interact with MAE again in this toxic discussion. And end with Let cool heads prevail.. However, I was again dragged back to this discussion with a ping and was immediately presented with a superficial and false/provocative accusation from MAE, Well their use of tg sources comes not of love for tg, but of their belief that Russian POV, regardless of the quality of the source, should be represented equally to the RS's POV. I. e. WP:FALSEBALANCE. I'm sorry, but when someone lowers his guard and humbles that much (my parting reply), but then is seemingly ignored and then viciously attacked again by the other (MAE comment), that's evil. Therefore, although my rude "shut up" reply was obviously wrong in the context of Wikipedia, I still think it was somewhat just considering a RL mentality. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 18:19, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

  As said above. If you agree to stop pushing Russian propaganda POV using non-RS and equating Russian propaganda POV presented in non-RS with POV presented in RS then all should be fine. Also please stop blaming the victim, as you did in your unblock request [24] . ManyAreasExpert (talk) 19:12, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

  Don't know what you think you gain with that comment (needless to say I disagree with it) as you're obviously at the bottom of my list of people I would listen advice from, especially here where there are multiple alternative voices in the discussion. Our relationship may be irreparable. The best I think we can do is to avoid discussing directly with each other and being as objective/dry/concise as possible when we inevitably have to talk. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 19:29, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

  I also find it concerning that you repeated basically the exact Russian propaganda argument from before, which prompted me to tell you to shut up some days ago. At this point in time, you shouldn't even be directing a word to me, unless you want more drama. Please let the others handle this. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 21:45, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

  It is clear that MAE is quite committed to escalating things with AC
  I'm sorry but even this very request was not about Alexis. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 19:00, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

• This is becoming a witch hunt at this point. TBANing me for incorrectly sourcing two citations ("and resulted in three large explosions" and "Some Russian journalists and milbloggers similarly accused Ukraine of using the mall as an ammunition depot, citing the multiple smaller secondary explosions a while after the strike") in one particularly contentious article, both of which are generally hard facts given attribution, in an ocean of constructive and important edits in several other articles is beyond exaggeration. Yeah, I was stubborn to keep those sources instead of adding a {{cn}} tag, which wasn't smart, but I still haven't been given a more profound explanation as to why it's unacceptable to use Telegram in those specific two citations besides the overall "because no" and "because policy" explanations.

The real problem here is that I and MAE simply can't get along well, and this is not from today nor from this month. And it's not just because of his POV. I've gotten along pretty well with other editors with a similar POV from the other side of the spectrum, most notably Super Dromaeosaurus. I once again raise the concern of how often MAE pokes and provokes me in his replies, even when he's saying something right. However, when we engage in battlegroundly exchanges, one important difference is that he manages to avoid the flashy words through various methods (many of which are legit), but including by alleging ignorance of what I'm talking about ([25] [26]). I, on the other hand, have recently been more transparent and been leaking my emotions more, which got me into trouble, sadly.

poor understanding of WP:NPOV Yeah, I think I still don't fully understand it. For example, why I can't cite "Russian law enforcement agencies said that a "military warehouse and command post" were set up in the shopping center and claimed that the Ukrainian Armed Forces were using "human shield tactics"." using TASS which is considered reliable for reporting statements of Russian officials. Note that inline attribution was used and not wikivoice. Also note that this general citation still survives to this day, albeit with a different source. So what does "reliable sources in a topic" actually means? It's not like the pro-Russian POV is fringe. It's simply not accepted by the Western world and is overwhelmingly suppressed by MSM, which is generally considered RS in this topic area despite being WP:NEWSORG. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 17:43, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

I think a topic ban might be excessive. Indeed Alexiscoutinho has been generally in line with policy and has acted collaboratively and appropriately. I would just advice them to resist showing their emotions and lose their cold.

It is also worthwhile to explain to them what they do not understand. I encourage experienced editors to take a look at the diffs and try to do so. I don't do it myself because I already had tried to in the talk page and apparently I've failed at that. Super Ψ Dro 17:51, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 18:20, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Decline I'm quite troubled by the continued use of Telegram as a source despite repeated, explicit consensus to not do so, and the editor's battling over reliable sources. However, I think they are here to build an encyclopedia, and I'd like to see if an explicit, unambiguous warning from the community is effective first.

I now Support a topic ban from Eastern Europe, broadly construed, and only support a warning if there is no consensus for the topic ban. I had hoped that this editor would be able to move on past using Telegram sources with a logged warning, but from the conversation below, I believe that the editor either does not understand why Telegram sources are unreliable or simply refuses to accept it. As such, I no longer have faith that they would meaningfully comply with any warning about using unreliable Telegram sourcing. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 14:30, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

And Alexis, I'd beg you to alter your approach to WP:RS. If you feel that the community consensus about Russian sources is wrong and shows an unfair pro-Western bias, your only direct recourse is to change minds at WP:RSN. Otherwise, the only options are to either accept them and move on -- there are plenty of consensus things, though not this, that I disagree with -- or to find another project that creates content that is sourced in a way you prefer. Because the approach you're taking, getting into the Ukraine/Russian fight du jour and railing about pro-Western bias in reliable sources, is not constructive. I'm only a Decline here because I'm a believer in sanctions being preventative, not punitive, and think you deserve a chance to change your approach here. I'd certainly be a Support for a topic ban if we're back here or at WP:RSN with the same problem the next time there's a new, high-profile article about the Russia/Ukraine conflict. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 18:43, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 19:17, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with using Telegram as a source if that is the vector the Russians are using to express their assessments. That doesn't mean we need to give them credence, but a neutral statement is sufficient, such as "The Russians claimed via Telegram that their weapons didn't do XYZ damage." That's a statement of fact, not any assessment to its accuracy. In fact it's perfectly appropriate to follow that with "But Western sources indicate that the damage was the result of ..." I think a TBAN is a step too far; Oppose. Buffs (talk) 05:55, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

That's what I thought since the beginning. And why I showed concern that not even mentioning it, alleging WP:FALSEBALANCE or WP:FRINGE (an argument I view as fragile while the RUSUKR war is ongoing), or using wikivoice and wikilinks to directly deny the claim in the following sentence could be WP:POV. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 12:22, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Telegram chats cannot be verified by people browsing the article, so it cannot be used as a source. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:14, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

What do you mean? Afaik, only viewing long videos is exclusive to the app. Paid or limited access articles, on the other hand, are much harder to verify. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 19:18, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Access isn't necessarily the issue, particularly with public channels. I think the problem with Telegram chats is more that they:

• are generally primary sources
• are self published
• are social media
• could easily be deleted and aren't easily archivable
• can be edited
• don't have any editorial oversight and have limited moderation

Aside from that, anything worthy of inclusion will probably be covered by a reliable source. For example, at the beginning of the Russian invasion of Ukraine, I regularly saw BBC News mentioning updates posted on the Ukrainian military's Telegram channels (particularly on BBC Verify). Adam Black ^{talk • contribs} 20:08, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

I see. Regarding the first 3 points, that would probably mean there are exceptions where Telegram sourcing could be acceptable; such as for official routine statistical reports (which may not be consistently covered by reliable secondary sources), and for subject matter experts. Regarding aren't easily archivable, I disagree. I've had no problems in the past to archive Telegram texts through web.archive.org. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 03:12, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

I've had a look, it appears that Telegram is to an extent archivable now. The last time I followed a link to an archive.org archive of a Telegram post, I just saw an error. Video content still does not work, for me at least. If no secondary reliable source exists, and in some other cases, primary, self published and social media sources can sometimes be used. Again, though, if reliable sources aren't covering it is it really worthy of inclusion in a Wikipedia article? Adam Black ^{talk • contribs} 03:49, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

👍. is it really worthy of inclusion in a Wikipedia article? Would be debatable on a case-by-case basis. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 04:04, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

official routine statistical reports

I find it hard to believe that Telegram is the only place these are available. I cannot imagine any official government agency using Telegram as their publication method, making the post inherently suspect. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:37, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

The Russian MoD may be an exception. For example, iirc, the ISW only cites statements by it (at least capture statements as that's what I pay attention to) from its Telegram channel. I think routine statements of the Ukrainian General Staff too, via its Facebook page. Maybe social media is indeed the most consistent or at least convenient place to find such official information. For example, the Russian stats in this section, 2024 Kharkiv offensive#Military casualty claims, benefit from a regular (primary) source of information, which allows for seamless addition ({{#expr:}}) of weekly numbers. The Ukrainian stats, however, are naturally more all over the place as they rely on multiple independent secondaries. In the future, when the offensive ends, totals from both sides will very likely be published by RS. But in the interim, this kind of Telegram sourcing seems acceptable. There's also the matter of RL time spent digging such info in Ukrainian or Russian sites every time, trying to find the most perfect source. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 00:12, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

If this should be an exception that allows Telegram to be used, then there has to be a consensus that this exception is acceptabe; you can't simply decide on it. What steps have you taken to get the community to reach a consensus allowing Telegram to be used in a way that would be unacceptable for any other source? Could you link to any WP:RSN discussions or any WP:RFC that you started that led to this consensus being formed?

I was against a topic ban, but if you truly intend to continue pushing Telegram sourcing without a clear consensus to do so, then I think a topic ban becomes a much more compelling outcome. There's no reason to issue a warning if we're going to just be back here in a week on the same issue. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 11:22, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

you can't simply decide on it. It isn't just me/a monocratic decision. Even here it doesn't seem like a black-white matter. Though there haven't been formal discussions at RSN, for example. Only a limited local consensus there and apparently acceptance by other editors watching the page. Are you saying that I should always ask at RSN whenever a candidate Telegram exception comes up and should never rely on local consensus?

Furthermore, the way you phrased your second paragraph makes it seem like sourcing through Telegram is a capital crime.. But isn't the spirit more imporant than the text of the guidelines and policies themselves? That's why I'm encouraging this discussion to be on a more fundamental level, beyond the red tape. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 13:10, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Well, that answered my questions succintly. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 14:19, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Answered what specifically? I don't understand the sudden change of heart. I think you misunderstood something. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 14:55, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Are you saying that I should always ask at RSN whenever a candidate Telegram exception comes up and should never rely on local consensus?

Yes. You cannot use Telegram as a source without changing our global consensus. WP:LOCALCON never overrides our standard rules like WP:RS. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 15:58, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. That's a key answer I can work with. Let me not forget about it. It's also one on a fundamental level which doesn't flat out block the spirit of trying to use Telegram refs to improve Wikipedia when it seems like an acceptable usage for a specific case following an initial local talk page discussion. 👍 Alexis Coutinho (talk) 19:54, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

It seems you are still not be grasping the point. HandThatFeeds said WP:LOCALCON never overrides our standard rules like WP:RS. Even if you discuss the matter on the talk page and gain consensus to use a Telegram message as a source in an article, it does not override the global consensus that Telegram is not a reliable source of information. Wikipedia does allow the use of primary sources and social media as references in some circumstances, but it should be avoided as much as possible in favour of reliable, secondary sources.

I was hesitant to agree that a topic ban should be imposed, but more and more it's seeming like this is a WP:CIR issue. Failure to comprehend the very clear advice multiple editors have given you shows a lack of basic competence. Adam Black ^{talk • contribs} 20:10, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Adam is right, my entire point is that you cannot claim "local consensus" in order to violate our site rules & guidelines. If you want to get Telegram accepted as a source, you'd have to get a general consensus somewhere like WP:RSN, but I doubt that would ever work. The problems with Telegram as a source have been outline above, and I cannot see any situation where that will change. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 20:49, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

in order to violate This, specifically, I disagree. I've never followed that bad faith mentality. In fact, I mostly based on the ECREE principle in the very few cases I used more dubious sourcing, i.e. only for not very controversial cases and with very clear INTEXT attribution for transparency, and for cases where there was at least some local discussion hinting that in such an exception it appeared acceptable at first.

But this is all past now. That's why I stressed the importance of that key question. It was that difference between 95% and ~100% understanding. I already knew clearly that RSN should be used when in doubt about the reliability of sources. I hadn't used it in this latest episode in a false sense of security, as explained previously (that it seemed acceptable in the specific case, and if it wasn't, then it could be easily substituted or otherwise fixed with better sources; not thinking nor fearing that I would be TBANned for such good faith, yet still naive, citation attempt if people contested it). And another explanation as to why my understanding wasn't 100% previously was because I had the idea that the previous RSN discussion wasn't fundamental enough, like this current talk.

It would feel like dying at the last mile if I were to be TBANned right when I finally grasp the true scale/degree of this general policy in a more fundamental level. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 02:16, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

It seems you are still not be grasping the point. I grasp it now, after that key answer. Even if you discuss the matter on the talk page and gain consensus to use a Telegram message as a source in an article, it does not override the global consensus that Telegram is not a reliable source of information. I know that, that's why I wrote Only a limited local consensus, to show that I at least talked/asked about it and didn't just force it in on my own. To soften the mistake and show good faith. Wikipedia does allow the use of primary sources and social media as references in some circumstances, but it should be avoided as much as possible in favour of reliable, secondary sources. I knew that aswell, but what's different now is that I know I should always ask at RSN for such exceptions, even if editors locally seem to think it's fine, and not just do it expecting it to be fixed/improved down the line.

Failure to comprehend the very clear advice multiple editors have given you shows a lack of basic competence. I already admitted that I didn't fully understand some policies in the beginning of this discussion: "poor understanding of WP:NPOV Yeah, I think I still don't fully understand it.", but I disagree it's "lack of basic competence". If I'm not misunderstanding Cinderella157, he seemed to suggest that the RS debate in this RUSUKR War topic is more complex than it seems. I myself have seen other editors over generalize what RS means, i.e. consider an article/source unreliable just because the primary claimer is dubious despite the reliable secondary publisher clearly attributing the statement to the primary; NEWSORG sources being generally considered reliable without any caveats; people mixing together lack of reliability with biasness; people forgetting about ONUS and thinking that just because some MSM reliable publisher said something, that it's good to include in an article, etc. And all this on top of the reality of an abundance of RS publishers for one side and a scarcity for the other (at least scarcity of easily available sources in English), often inducing editors to deal with subpar sources.

See also the dying at the last mile comment in the previous reply. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 02:55, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

I don't think there's anything listed here that counters its inclusion. As noted, the problems they have (and the methods of inclusion) are that they

• are generally primary sources (and should be treated as such. Primary sources aren't bad, but they need to be used appropriately. When you can show exactly what was said or happened with the verbatim text in its original context or even a video it can enhance the content dramatically or confirm what third-party sources/analysts are saying)
• are self published/don't have any editorial oversight and have limited moderation (and should be treated as such)
• are social media (and should be treated as such)
• could easily be deleted [or edited] and aren't easily archivable (they indeed can be deleted/edited, but not easily archivable? I think not. The internet has a LONG memory)

The idea that these cannot be used is absurd, but they still must satisfy all the requirements.

Let's do some examples just to be clear:

• Unacceptable The Russians were not found to be liable for the deaths at Location X.<insert Telegram source>
• Acceptable However, the Russian Army stated via its Telegram account that they were not liable for the deaths at Location X and blamed Group A.<insert Telegram source><third party source backing this up and establishing notability><additional third party source>

Such statements are facts, not propaganda. The Nazis claimed they were only relocating the Jews (yeah, Godwin's law strikes again). Wouldn't it be better to show those lies within their actual context? It only makes them more stark. The same would apply to statements that are true. It lends no credence to the accuracy of said claims only noting that such claims were made.

Lastly, I think you are misreading WP:RS, The Hand That Feeds You or applying such guidance in a heavy-handed and inappropriate manner. I suspect your motives to be pure though. As I noted above, appropriate usage is needed and should be stated only to the extent that it was a claim which is an immutable fact. It should not be treated as truth and not in wikivoice. Buffs (talk) 04:13, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 05:09, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

If we had two third party sources available, that'd end the necessity of citing Telegram directly as well. It should be enough with those two. Super Ψ Dro 08:40, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Oppose Ban I think that there is a reasonable discussion to be had. Buffs (talk) 04:19, 6 June 2024 (UTC) ^{strike double vote, already voted oppose above. Cavarrone 09:27, 8 June 2024 (UTC)}

• I would comment on some of the views and discussion herein and what policy actually has to say. This follow the lines of what Buffs has said. WP:RS/SPS, WP:SPS and WP:SOCIALMEDIA are relevant links. SPSs (including social media) are not excluded as RSs across-the-board. They may be used (with care) where the person/organisation has a particular standing and there is specific attribution. Particular social media platforms are mentioned but not TG - given it is relatively new. I am not seeing any specific exclusion of TG (as has been stated) or that there is any substantive reason to exclude TG given the spirit and intent of the P&G. Given two examples: XNews reports Minister Blogs saying on TG "quote" and, Minister Blogs said on TG "quote"; I fail to see a distinction if both are verifiable. In both cases, we can verify the fact of what Minister Blogs said (though what Minister Blogs was saying is not of itself a fact). XNews is not attesting to the veracity of what Minister Blogs said, only the fact of what Minister Blogs said. I do not see how the comments regarding WP:LOCALCONSENSUS are in line with P&G in this case. AC appears to have a better grasp of RSs in this case than those that might sanction his actions on this basis. Cinderella157 (talk) 11:48, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

  In your example, we're relying on the reputation of XNews. Many of the Telegram links were not to sources that were even claimed to be of the same verifiability as Minister Blogs and the use of those cites was largely not to simply report on what was said on Telegram. I feel I'm on quite firm ground given the discussions in which Telegram has come up on WP:RSN. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 14:04, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

  Should I reply/clarify, Cinderella157? Or is it more appropriate if you do? Alexis Coutinho (talk) 15:17, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

  In both cases, we can verify the fact of what Minister Blogs said (though what Minister Blogs was saying is not of itself a fact)
  But wait, here you are advocating to include "what [russian] Minister Blogs said", and here - Talk:2024 Kharkiv offensive#c-Cinderella157-20240604115800-Alexiscoutinho-20240520172400 - you are opposing to include what secondary RSs say Ukrainian officials have said. Because "NOTNEWS". Shouldn't we apply the same approach? ManyAreasExpert (talk) 17:37, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

  The same standard should apply to all. You'll note that I'm not including the primary source without inclusion of other reliable sources. Let's try a different hypothetical case. Country A and Country B are fighting. Country A drops a bomb on Country B with massive secondary explosions that kill hundreds. Accusations fly from both sides like rabid monkeys in the Wizard of Oz. Including the actual context of such accusations AND third-party sources that reference them is vital to understanding the situation and all of its intricacies even if the sources are Twitter/Telegram/etc. They are simply primary sources. No matter how biased, they can be included WITHIN CONTEXT and alongside WP:RS. Buffs (talk) 18:18, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

  My comment was regarding other editor's arguments. But no, we are not providing context [as we see it] using primary sources [we see fit]. This is original research. And there will always be disagreements regarding what context to provide and what not and what primary sources do fit and not. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 18:23, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

  But no, we are not providing context [as we see it] using primary sources [we see fit]. This is original research. That is not what I'm advocating. In every instance, I stated two WP:RS with the primary source. You are conflating multiple things to construe an argument I'm not making. Buffs (talk) 22:34, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

  The situations are different. On the one hand, the Russians are defending their action without solid proof, on the other hand, the Ukrainians are accusing Russia of a war crime without solid proof. The latter has much more propagandistic value, imo. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 19:44, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

  the Ukrainians are accusing Russia of a war crime
  Let's have a look at the source I proposed there: Civilian killed by Russian forces while evacuating border town, Ukrainian prosecutors say | CNN . Everybody can see that what you said is not true. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 20:12, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

  You've only provided that source recently. The original wording that was included in the article was much closer to what I stated. Besides, that is not the only originally dubious claim, there's also the weak accusation of looting. So please be cautious to not pit people against each other. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 20:30, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

  So, you were mistaken saying "The situations are different"? ManyAreasExpert (talk) 20:48, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

  No. They were different and still partially are different. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 21:47, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

  Holdup. It seems there was a small misunderstanding from both of us in this tangent. The most problematic Ukrainian accusations in that article were not about the wheelchair casualty, but actually about the looting and accusation by the Ukr police of Russians using human shields. My The situations are different. comment mostly refers to those, though the spirit also applies to the wheelchair case (notability and encyclopedic value diminish if it was just an unfortunate accident).

  Therefore, Cinderalla is not employing double standards, nor different approaches. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 00:47, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

I would imagine that we would have reliable secondary sources to use for the statement of an important minister, and that if the statement of a person has not been reported on by media, then it's not very important. I only ever see Twitter or other social media being used for statements of presidents, prime ministers and foreign ministers in reactions sections of events that have just happened, and then they get replaced by secondary sources when enough time has passed for them to appear. Super Ψ Dro 08:40, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

In fact, a source which relays official statements without commenting on context or anything is not a secondary source, but just a place of publication of a primary source. And we already have WP:RS which says we should preferably write articles using sources which are secondary. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 08:49, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Commenting on the previous: The issue of TG (as I am reading it) specifically relates to this edit (and similar) at 2024 Kharkiv offensive. Figures for Russian casualties are cited to news sources which specifically attribute these to the Ukrainian army (and are so attributed in article text). Russian figures for Ukrainian casualties are from a Russian MOD TG site and are attributed to the Russians in article text. In reporting the Ukrainian claims, XNews is distancing itself from the claims through attribution. It is not relying on its reputation. In reading the claim, we do not rely on the reputation of XNews for the credibility of the figures - only that XNews has accurately reported what was said. Neither figures are particularly credible. They fall to he said, she said. They are certainly not facts. The use of TG with a comparable origin for comparable information (with attribution) is not at odds with the prevailing P&G. As I read it, this parallels the comments by Buffs. MAE, there is a big difference between the encyclopedic relevance of the ultimate casualty figures and, what are for the present, spurious insinuations of war crimes. Whether we should be reporting these claims of casualties in the interim is another issue. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:02, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Oppose Ban per Buffs. Cinderella157 (talk) 12:10, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. This is pretty simple. There is a distinction between "Group B did X" and "Group A claimed via <social media source> that Group B did X". The former treats the claim as a fact while the latter states the fact that a claim was made. Let's not make it more complicated than it is. Buffs (talk) 15:51, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

It's also important who of Group A is cited. It's not the same to cite their president Alaimir Autin than an online milblogger. I find the latter case pretty underwhelming. If secondary sources have not reported on this milblogger's claims, they might not be considered a reliable source for information. Super Ψ Dro 08:40, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Conduct dispute against Geogene and SMcCandlish in Cat predation on wildlife

I have been unable to reach understanding with Geogene who persists in reverting my contribution to the Cat predation on wildlife article and has received full partisan support from SMcCandlish. I reject their unsubstantiated claim that my contribution has contravened Wikipedia guidelines and suggest that their actions are driven by a partisan point of view regarding the article content. The article is closely related to a scientific (and in part NGO-driven) controversy about the global impact of cat predation on wildlife and biodiversity, and effectively replaces an objective coverage of this debate on Wikipedia. Geogene and SMcCandlish, who profess complete agreement on the matter, deny that such a debate has any scientific merit and seek to foreclose any discussion of it, as they happen to side with one extreme of it. They have produced no direct evidence (to counter that cited by myself) that the debate has either not existed or been resolved. Their claims rely on a selective original interpretation of sources (i.e. they echo the claims of one side to have won and to be the only "scientific" one).

Geogene raised an original research objection against properly sourced content and made bad faith allegations that I am trying to push a fringe viewpoint and that I am effectively "watering down or discrediting the modern viewpoint on cat predation". That is something that ought to be demonstrated through adequate citation of evidence. Equally objectionable is their pattern of dismissing entire sources based on their date (without additional justification as per guidelines), arguments advanced, perceived influence etc. This appears to be a way in which Geogene and SMcCandlish have exercised their effective ownership of the article this far. Such a priori judgments about the reputation of a source constitute a personal viewpoint (POV) and if they were to be included in the article, they would constitute original research (OR).

Geogene and SMcCandlish not only represent an extreme stance in the debate, but also deny that any debate is legitimate. They have sought to outright disqualify my contribution and any sources I have cited based purely on their opinion and by attributing a nefarious agenda to it, and invoked either a local editorial consensus between the two of them or an unproven scientific consensus in support. An eyebrow-raising claim they uphold is that "modern science" only dates from the year 2000. There is a considerable scientific literature omitted from the article due to its one-sidedness. (There would also be no ground on which essays, opinion pieces or journalism can be flatly excluded - not least because such sources are already cited.) Judging from their behaviour so far, Geogene and SMcCandlish will dismiss information based on sources that contravene their viewpoint out of hand.

The discussion history can be found on the article's talk page and on the NORN noticeboard. The talk page section in which SMcCandlish seeks to discredit a source may also be relevant.

As far as I am concerned, the only way to assess various claims is through adding verifiable content, and the way forward is for everyone involved to focus on building the article, rather than edit warring and making unsourced claims. I have not been able to persuade Geogene or SMcCandlish about this, however.

Due to their persistent refusal to recognise any evidence that contradicts their viewpoint and to engage in editing the article instead of edit warring, I consider the actions of Geogene to be vandalism, committed in defence of their POV and their effective ownership of the article. I think it is more than stonewalling because the guidelines on OR and OLDSOURCES were twisted to fit a purpose, and because Geogene has resorted to action despite the failure to evidence their claims or offer persuasive arguments in discussion. I am concerned about the two editors' propensity for escalating unfounded accusations and treating them as proven from the start, and about their shared habit of seeking to discredit sources a priori.

I am asking for an investigation of the conduct of the two editors, since it is their attitude and not a dispute over content (i.e. they prefer to focus on reputation and general outlook over the detail of evidence) that stands in the way of resolution.

To be clear, I am far from arguing that my contribution was beyond criticism. It is the resistance with which it met that was unwarranted and gives ground to suspecting that any further attempts to edit the article will be met with the same hostility. I am requesting an intervention to restore the possibility of constructive engagement with the article. VampaVampa (talk) 20:22, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

While your message isn't entirely about a content dispute, a lot of it is and that's not the sort of thing this noticeboard is for. I did my best to read and comprehend that talk page discussion and I just keep coming back to the same question: why hasn't anyone tried an RFC yet? City of Silver 20:49, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

I understood that RFC is not suitable for disputes in which more than two editors are involved.

I grant that it may look like a content dispute. However, what I encountered was a wholesale revert and an attempt to paint me as a conspiracy theorist, therefore I fail to see what specific question in the content of my contribution could be the subject of an RfC here. The question of the existence of the debate has emerged as the underlying point of contention, but please note that this was not covered by my contribution and its sources. The broad framing of the entire conflict is something that was imposed on me by the two disagreeing editors. To address that larger question comprehensively, a whole new edit would need to be proposed - and I would actually happily spend time preparing one, but I want some assurance I am not going to be met with unjustified edit warring again. VampaVampa (talk) 22:43, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

@VampaVampa, that's part of the instructions of things to try before opening an RfC (use WP:DRN if more than two editors). Schazjmd (talk) 22:46, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

I know. I did not think it was a content dispute but if there is a general agreement here that it should be treated as one, then I could try to open either an RfC or a DRN discussion. However, would there be sufficient space to cite the evidence in support of my position in the RfC or DRN summary? I cannot expect all contributing editors to do their own reading. As I tried to explain above, the matter is not covered by my contested contribution. The literature is substantial and not discussed on Wikipedia to my knowledge. I will appreciate your advice. VampaVampa (talk) 22:58, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

@VampaVampa, it is a content dispute. I've read through the discussion on the article's talk page. My personal advice is to drop it. If you choose to pursue DRN or an RfC, I strongly suggest that you learn to summarize your argument succinctly. Schazjmd (talk) 23:12, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

On what grounds please - (1) content dispute, (2) drop it, (3) summarise succinctly? VampaVampa (talk) 23:35, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

@VampaVampa, you asked for my advice; I gave it. I don't know what more you want. Schazjmd (talk) 23:36, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

With all respect, I have asked you for advice with how to tackle the fact that I am expected to defend myself from exaggerated charges that are not really covered by my edit, since RfC or DRN was suggested. I did not ask for advice on whether you think I should accept emotional blackmail and character assassination from other editors.

Since we are a community on Wikipedia your advice has as much value as your insight into the matter. Therefore I asked to know why you think what you think. And if you think my case has no merit, then it is even more necessary for me to learn why that should be the case. VampaVampa (talk) 23:50, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Geogene's actions are not vandalism, and I suggest you refrain from describing them as such. This is a content dispute, not a conduct one, so there is very little that administrators can do here. If you want to add your changes to the article, get consensus for them first, possibly through an RfC. —Ingenuity (t • c) 20:53, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

I understand that you disagree with my description of Geogene's actions as vandalism but could you offer any reasoning for this? As for RfC I considered it but decided it was not appropriate (as explained in my reply above). I will appreciate your advice on how to frame it as an RfC. VampaVampa (talk) 22:46, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

@VampaVampa Edits made in good faith, even if they are disruptive, are not vandalism. Vandalism implies a wilful intent to harm the encyclopedia, and if such intent is not obvious, then continuing to call edits vandalism constitutes a personal attack. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). 00:03, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps I am wrong on this, but for me to assume good faith means that I can add information to the article without being asked to meet the two arbitrary conditions suggested by Geogene in their opening post of the discussion:

(1) use sources more recent than the cut-off date for whatever Geogene considers "modern" in every instance, and

(2) censor myself to avoid "watering down or discrediting the modern viewpoint on cat predation" at any cost (i.e. twisting everything to suit a predefined viewpoint).

If these two arbitrary conditions are not attempted to be enforced through edit warring then indeed I can work together with Geogene. VampaVampa (talk) 00:22, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

I don't want to dispute the vandalism point unnecessarily, but it would seem to follow from a relevant guideline that if "Even factually correct material may not belong on Wikipedia, and removing such content when it is inconsistent with Wikipedia's content policies is not vandalism", then removing content when it is not inconsistent with policies may constitute vandalism. I explained in the discussion on the talk page why I reject the charges of WP:OR and WP:OLDSOURCES and was not persuaded that I was wrong. VampaVampa (talk) 00:31, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Vandalism is like griefing: if someone thinks that their edit is improving the article it's not vandalism. It literally means, like, when somebody replaces the text of an article with "loldongs" et cetera. What you are referring to is "disruptive editing". jp×g🗯️ 05:54, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

@JPxG: Are you saying my edits are disruptive? Any ambiguous statements on that are likely to encourage further problems here. And isn't the I explained in the discussion on the talk page why I reject the charges of WP:OR and WP:OLDSOURCES and was not persuaded that I was wrong. evidence of the real problem here? Geogene (talk) 06:58, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

@Geogene: Yes -- the thing that VampaVampa is accusing you of is "disruptive editing", not "vandalism". I am not VampaVampa and have no idea whether this is true or not. jp×g🗯️ 10:08, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification - I was wrong about the definition of vandalism. Geogene's conduct is much more sophisticated than that. As far as disruptive editing is concerned, I think it is intentional. VampaVampa (talk) 15:57, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

VampaVampa, I'm glad you have accepted (albeit after some significant repetition) the feedback of the community here regarding what does and does not constitute article vandalism--though I do very much suggest you take a look at Formal_fallacy#Denying a conjunct, because with regard to your proposition here, your conclusion does not follow from your premises. However, it is actually your last sentence in said post ("I explained in the discussion on the talk page why I reject the charges of WP:OR and WP:OLDSOURCES and was not persuaded that I was wrong.") that I think still needs addressing. Because it is no way required that you be convinced that you are incorrect before your edits can be reverted--and in suggesting as much, you are actually turning the normal burden of proof and dispute resolution processes on their head. Rather the WP:ONUS is on you to gain clear consensus for a disputed change, and WP:BRD should be followed in resolving the matter.

Now, I haven't investigated the article revision history in great detail, but from what I can tell, the article has somewhat been in a state of flux over recent years, reaching the current "Cats are the greatest menace to biodiversity of the un-wilded world" state relatively recently. Neverthless, your changes were to fairly stable elements of the article that had at least some existing consensus support from the then-active editors of the article. When your edits are reverted in these circumstances, you are required to overcome the presumption of a valid reversion by gaining consensus for your addition/preferred version of the article. It is not always a fun or easy process, but it is the standard for how article development and dispute resolution proceed on this project. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 20:47, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

User:VampaVampa - If you have been editing Wikipedia long enough to know what vandalism is, you have been editing Wikipedia long enough to know what is not vandalism. Yelling Vandalism in order to "win" a content dispute is a personal attack. This is a content dispute, compounded by conduct. I don't know what the merits of the content dispute are. I can see that the conduct includes the personal attack of yelling vandalism. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:10, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, that is clear enough and I stand corrected - there is indeed nothing in the list of vandalism types that corresponds to what I reported Geogene for. I engineered it backwards by proceeding from "removing content when it is inconsistent with policies is not vandalism" to "persisting in removing content when it is not inconsistent with policies (and argued repeatedly not to be so) may be vandalism", but I realise that has no logical purchase and is nowhere close to any of the definitions. I retract the charge of vandalism and apologise to Geogene for the unjustified accusation on this particular point. VampaVampa (talk) 01:30, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

I looked at the last discussion of the talkpage and stopped reading details in the first paragraph when one of the editors described the RSPB as holding a 'fringe scientific view' on cat predation on birds in the UK. There is little point in even entering a discussion with someone who says that, as you are never going to convince them by reasoned argument. If you are in a content dispute revolving around sourcing with an editor who is never going to change their view, your options available are a)move on, b)Try and get a neutral third opinion, start a clearly worded RFC and advertise it widely to draw in more than the usual niche editors. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:35, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

It is, however, useful to actually read the material and the cited sources before pronouncing that specific editors are "never going to be convinced by reasoned argument"... because the RSPB in the past has indeed been pleased to throw their weight behind badly reasoned minority interpretations of the science on this topic. That is the point of this dispute. Please spare the stentorian pronouncements if your time is too precious to read up on the material. - That being said, there seems to be no reason for this discussion to continue here, as multiple avenues for expanding the discussion on the article's talk page do exist, and the editor has indicated that they want to pursue them. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 13:13, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the advice. Depending on the outcome of this incident report, I will consider an RfC and find suitable places to advertise it through. Elmidae seems to be suggesting that a potential RfC could revolve around how the respective positions of RSPB and Songbird Survival on cat predation of wildlife should be introduced in the article. However, as is clear from Elmidae's comment, this would likely end up triggering a much broader dispute about the respective merit of the current "majority" and "minority" conclusions drawn from available scientific evidence (assuming all of this evidence is methodologically unproblematic to either side), which could easily be the subject of a book. I think everyone's energy could be spent much more productively in editing the article, but if the only option is to debate the extensive literature in a talk page then so be it. I am open to any option that involves a careful examination of the evidence and the arguments. VampaVampa (talk) 16:17, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Just a quick word re the amount written hare and on the Cat predation talkpage. I've learnt over the years through my own errors, less is more. Boynamedsue (talk) 15:23, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, I will try to learn from my mistakes. VampaVampa (talk) 16:17, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Aside from not being an ANI matter, this proceeding is also redundant with an ongoing WP:NORN proceeding involving the same parties and material (specifically here). I.e., this is a WP:TALKFORK. "Geogene and SMcCandlish not only represent an extreme stance in the debate, but also deny that any debate is legitimate" is blatant falsehood on both counts. The first half of that is what the NORN thread is about, with VampaVampa attempting to rely on 1970s primary research papers and a defunct advocacy website (and later an "attack other academics" op-ed that is the subject of the long thread of RS analysis immediate above VV's repetitive PoV-pushing thread at the article talk page), to defy current mainstream science on the topic. The second half is just made-up nonsense. In point of fact, at the article's talk page, I specifically suggested that we might need a section in the article about the history of the public debate about the subject. But to the extent that VV may instead mean entertaining perpetual opinion-laden debate on Wikipedia about such topics, see WP:NOT#FORUM and WP:NOT#ADVOCACY. We are here to reflect what the modern RS material in the aggregate is telling us, not cherrypick half-century-old surpassed research claims that someone likes the sound of, and argue circularly ignoring all refutation, in an "argue Wikipedia into capitulation" behavior pattern, which is what VV is bringing to this subject.

PS: VV is completely incorrect that "RFC is not suitable for disputes in which more than two editors are involved", and has simply misunderstood all the material there. RFCBEFORE in particular makes it clear that RfCs should be opened after extensive discussion has failed to reach a consensus. That process almost always involves more than two parties. Where "more than two" appears on that page, it is simply noting that another potential venue one may try, for trying reaching consensus without an RfC, is WP:DRN (and VV notably ignored that advice and ran to ANI to make false accusations instead). The section below that, RFCNOT, certainly does not list "disputes with more than 2 editors" in it as something RfCs should not be used for, and that would be absurd. However, an RfC would not be appropriate at this moment, while the NORN proceeding is still open.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  15:38, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

As to the WP:NORN, we have reached a dead end there:

(1) no party uninvolved in the dispute has intervened,

(2) you have not replied to my last post,

(3) most crucially, in this last post of mine I invited you again to build the article and warned that I would report your conduct to the administrators if one of you reverts again, which Geogene proceeded to do. You left me no other option.

As to RFCNOT, you are probably right and I am happy to be corrected on procedures. But at this point my dispute is with your and Geogene's conduct. VampaVampa (talk) 16:31, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

The purpose of such noticeboards is to patiently solicit uninvolved input. There is no deadline, and starting talkforks at other noticeboards is not conducive of anything useful. Under no circumstances am I obligated to respond to your circular attempts to re-re-re-argue the same matters endlessly, and doing it at NORN would be counterproductive.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:29, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

One user against two shouldn't be able to preserve their disputed content indefinitly just by bludgeoning the talk page until the opposition is tired of arguing. That's the disrputive editing here Geogene (talk) Geogene (talk) 16:48, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

There is a policy about consensus which says polling is not a substitute for discussion. VampaVampa (talk) 19:10, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Also see WP:NOTUNANIMITY. Geogene (talk) 19:31, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

For that good faith would have been required. VampaVampa (talk) 20:20, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

VampaVampa, after nearly being WP:BOOMERANGed for arriving here with false accusations of "vandalism", has now turned to demonizing those they disagree with via false and undemonstrable accusations of bad faith. That is not exactly a wise move.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:29, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
PS: It's actually worse than I thought, with VV more recently accusing someone else (EducatedRedneck) of having "a nativist agenda" [27]. At this rate, I don't think we're very far away from simply removing VV from the topic area.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:34, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

An editor's claim that an RFC about content is unnecessary because they're right is prima facie proof that an RFC is necessary. The decision as to whether or not an RFC happens should be made with zero input from VampaVampa, SMcCandlish, and Geogene.

Much to the surprise of nobody, the NORN discussion is going nowhere because the three involved editors are bickering there exactly like they have been here and at the article's talk page while nobody else has weighed in on the actual content dispute. (As an aside, any of these three who has complained about anyone else running afoul of WP:WALLOFTEXT is a massive hypocrite.) An RFC will compel these three to state their cases in far fewer words, which will be nice, but much more importantly, it'll attract uninvolved editors who'll review the content issue and work towards a consensus on the content, which in the end is all that's supposed to matter. These threads won't accomplish anything because none of these three editors has shown a willingness to compromise to any extent and their tendency to link policies, guidelines, and essays across multi-paragraph messages ad nauseum guarantees they'll keep speaking past each other. City of Silver 01:05, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

@City of Silver: Re nobody else has weighed in on the actual content dispute Three editors (@EducatedRedneck:, @Elmidae:, @My very best wishes:) have weighed in on the article's talk page since this thread was opened. Still no evidence of support for VampaVampa's revision. Your "blame all sides" is not helpful. Geogene (talk) 01:12, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

@Geogene: Before anything else, edit your message to strike the quotation marks around "blame all sides" and add a note saying you were wrong to quote me as saying that. In your note admitting you falsely ascribed words to me, please include my username so it's clear to others. I never came even close to saying there were sides in this issue because I absolutely do not believe there are. You, VV, and SMcCandlish are all on the same side, the side of improving the website. I also entirely disagree that any substantial part of any discussion has been anything more than two people talking past one person and that one person talking past those two people. But if you've got consensus, why not start an RFC? City of Silver 02:08, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Before anything else, edit your message Edit your message to remove the personal attacks, including "hypocrits". I never came even close to saying there were sides in this issue because I absolutely do not believe there are. I said you are blaming all sides, which you are. I put that in scare quotes to express my disagreement with them. You, VV, and SMcCandlish are all on the same side, the side of improving the website thank you for that. I find editing Wikipedia to be an extremely thankless enterprise, this thread being a great example of it. I also entirely disagree that any substantial part of any discussion has been anything more than two people talking past one person and that one person talking past those two people. and then the one flings bad faith assumptions at the other two at ANI to try to eliminate them from the topic area. But if you've got consensus, why not start an RFC? Normally it's the one who wants content added who starts the RFC. I noticed above you said, The decision as to whether or not an RFC happens should be made with zero input from VampaVampa, SMcCandlish, and Geogene. I don't recall stating any opposition to an RfC. Geogene (talk) 02:20, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

And see also Brandolini's law; if someone text-walls with rambling claims that are a mixture of personal belief, repetition of and reliance on a defunct advocacy website, and OR extrapolation from and other reliance on ancient primary research papers from the 1970s, then later adds in op-ed material from one academic personality-smearing another and badly confusing public-policy political arguments with scientific evidence, then the response to this is necessarily going to be detailed and lengthy, because it involves multiple forms of refutation of multiple wonky claims and bad sourcing. The alternative is simply ignoring VV's input entirely, but that would be rude and less constructive.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:29, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Responding because I've been pinged. I agree with City of Silver that it feels more like people are talking past each other rather than to them. It's hard not to respond to what one hears, rather than what is actually said, when a debate has become drawn-out. Based on the most recent exchange with VV, which SMC alluded to above, I fear that now includes me as well. (Accusing me of a "nativist agenda" is making it harder for me to view the matter dispassionately, and I'm not sure I'm hearing what VV is trying to say at this time.) EducatedRedneck (talk) 22:12, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for this post because I could see from it that you genuinely tried to mediate, and it perhaps just so happens that with regard to the "objective" differences in worldview, which we have to somehow work past on Wikipedia, you seem to stand closer to Geogene and SMC, without necessarily having been aware of it. So I offer apologies for the accusation.

I also declare myself ready to work with Geogene and SMcCandlish on the condition that none of us tries to seize the upper hand in advance of putting in the work to edit the article. I should make clear that to me that involves seeking to discredit sources that do not unambiguously contravene Wikipedia guidelines (not to exclude genuine debates on the talk page, that's a different thing). I regret but I cannot compromise on this point. VampaVampa (talk) 03:29, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

@City of Silver: Thank you for this - even though I don't think I claimed I was right.

With regard to Geogene's reply, can I just point out that the impartiality of such third-party interventions cannot be assumed? VampaVampa (talk) 01:48, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

@VampaVampa: Please don't make edits unless you think they're right. And I hope you don't expect "impartiality" from other editors. My very best wishes hasn't said a single thing that could get them excluded from an RFC and neither has anybody else who's weighed in. City of Silver 02:08, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Thank you! I mostly agree with your comments and comments by Geogene and SMcCandlish above. As about user VampaVampa, they obviously made this posting to get an upper hand in a content dispute. That does qualify as a WP:BATTLE, in my opinion. That user is clearly not working collaboratively with others, at least in this dispute about feral cats. My very best wishes (talk) 02:29, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Holy mother of walls of text... I strongly agree with the most useful feedback that has been given here: this is clearly the stage at which RfC is not only warranted, but arguably the only path forward if one side or the other is not prepared to give way.

That said, I strongly suggest the involved parties attempt torecruit a neutral to word the RfC prompt and that the most vociferous single parties from each side (and I would hope you both know who you are) exercise some considerable restraint in not bludgeoning the resulting discussion (either in terms of volume of response or the length of individual posts). As in, your positions having been well established already on the talk page, you should each make your contributions to the RfC roughly on the scale of 1/30th of what you've had to say so far. Given the relatively small number of sources being debated, the existing diatribes are way out of proportion and, bluntly, well into WP:disruptive territory at this point. And I say this as someone who isn't exactly always the soul of brevity themselves here at all times. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 05:22, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Detailed analysis of material and claims based on them requires a considerable amount of text. But I've already done the work, so of course I have no need to do it all over again, especially at the same page. Any politicized subject (see, e.g., virtually any major thread at Talk:Donald Trump and its 169 pages of archives) is going to be longer than some people like, both due to the detail required and due to someone trying to get their contary-to-RS viewpoint promoted being likely to recycle the same claims repeatedly, leading to recurrent refutations; rinse and repeat. This is a common "try to wear out the opposition" tactic, in which refutation is ignored and the same claims are re-advanced (proof by assertion fallacy).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:29, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

My friend, McCandlish, this isn't Donald Trump's BLP, and even if it were, what you have been doing on that talk page was clearly excessive. You added 24KB (31 paragraphs!) of text in one post, most of it dedicated to micro-analyzing every aspect of one source, down to caption summary of the careers of everyone involved with it. At the time you posted it, it was larger than all of the rest of the comments from all other editors on the talk page in all threads, put together. All to support an argument that said source was more editorial than a typical MEDRS primary source, and should be afforded less weight accordingly--an adequate case for which could have been made with one paragraph, and an excessive one with two. Nor is it the only titano-post from you or VampaVampa, who I think only slightly trails your numbers.

Look, I think you're an often-compelling participant in discussions, in part because of your propensity for thoroughness. But there's practical limits before it becomes a WP:Bludgeon issue (however inadvertently). And whatever compelling interests you may feel that you have to press your reading of the sources, they can't come close to justifying the extent of the wordcount arms race you and VV entered into. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 05:13, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

WP:BLUDGEON refers to re-re-re-responding to every or nearly every post in a discussion (RfC, etc.) with many participants. It does not refer to producing a source analysis that a particular person disapproves of because of its detail level. And you're not getting the chronlogy right. That material long preceded VV's participation at that page; notably, when VV attempted to recycle the same bad source, I did not post a lengthy re-analysis of it, but referred to the one already done. My responses to VV have been directed at unrelated claims and sources put forward by that editor, and when they turned to circular argumentation that ignored prior refutation, I walked away rather than continue. So, there is no "wordcount arms race". We are at ANI now because one particular person, VV, refuses to drop the stick, despite there already being two (article-talk and NORN) discussions open trying to resolve the underlying content-and-sources matter. Whether this subject rises to the subjective importance level of, say, Donald Trump is irrelevant; it is certainly as polticized and emotive, attracting the same kind of misuse-bad-sources PoV pushing, which is the point I was making.

In the spirit of what I just wrote regarding circular argument and just walking away, I am not going to respond here any further unless pinged directly. There is no ANI matter to settle, except possibly VV's renewed personal attacks in the same subject area (see diff of one against EducatedRedneck above). VV's ANI is WP:asking the other parent. Either NORN will address the sourcing problems, or will not and then we'll have an RfC, but ANI is not for content disputes.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:32, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Two Unpleasant Comments

I have not tried to read the content discussion, and don't know what the content details are. I have two mostly unrelated comments that are not about content, but this is not a content forum.

First, multiple posters have posted overly long posts, that were literally too long, didn't read, which is one reason I haven't studied the content. However, I can see that the original poster has misread two Wikipedia policies, and posted based on their misreadings, and has since backed off from their original comments. One of the guidelines was worded in a complex way because it is complex, and so it could have easily been misread. The other policy could not possibly have been misread by anyone who read it with an intent to understand it, because it is very clear about refuting misconceptions. The first was that User:VampaVampa said that RFC was not applicable if there are more than two parties. That is part of a sort of flowchart-like guideline, and could easily be misread, and was misread. The second was that User:VampaVampa said that Geogene had engaged in vandalism. The vandalism policy is very clear on what is not vandalism. It is sufficiently clear that anyone who argues that overzealous editing in a conduct dispute is vandalism hasn't read the policy. They obviously know that vandalism is one of the worst things that an editor can do, but they haven't read what it is and is not. In other words, VampaVampa insulted the other editor first, and only read what the insult meant after being called to account. So, if I do read the content details, I know not to give much weight to what User:VampaVampa writes, because they are an editor who makes sloppy claims. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:12, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Second, the dispute has not been addressed except by the original parties at the No Original Research Noticeboard because WP:NORN is a dormant noticeboard. It apparently has no regular editors, and it is very seldom if ever that anything is resolved at WP:NORN. It is a noticeboard where content disputes go to fester and die. The suggestion was made, and not followed up on, that perhaps it and one or more other noticeboards should be merged. So VampaVampa is not asking the other parent here. There is no parent at WP:NORN. But they appear to be following a policy of post first and think second. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:12, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

I find your comments fair, with one exception. I wish to contest the reputational charge that I am "an editor who makes sloppy claims", which is a generalisation from two instances, for one of which you have found extenuating circumstances. (Incidentally, a generalisation is also at the heart of the content dispute.) This criticism of yours comes after I have already admitted having overreacted, in the spirit of seeking reconciliation. In my defence I also plead inexperience in raising matters for dispute; I suspect that many a user with no exposure to procedural affairs would have been intimidated by the sheer conduct of Geogene and SMcCandlish to drop the content dispute. I finally wish to use my freshly learned lesson in logic to note that even if I were to be wrong in all of my claims it still would not follow that the other party to the dispute cannot be seriously wrong in theirs. VampaVampa (talk) 18:29, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

User:VampaVampa - It is true that whether you have been right or wrong is independent of whether Geogene and SMcCandlish have been right or wrong. You have stated that they have been guilty of serious conduct violations. You have stated that they have been guilty of serious conduct violations. You have used many words in making that statement. However, I have not found your argument to be persuasive. You haven't made your case, at least not to me, and I am not planning to read your walls of text again, especially since I have already seen that you made two mistakes, one of which suggests that you post first and think second. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:06, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Stubbornness of user AutisticAndrew and not being collaborative.

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

See his talk page with edits reverted. This user is not collaborative at all after explaining what the practice should be for certain articles (see my contributions indeed). I've enough of his stubbornness. Looks like I'm dealing with a kid. Island92 (talk) 13:07, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

I haven't looked into this fully, but why did you revert to restore the editor's removal of your message on their talk page? Daniel (talk) 13:14, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

You also haven't notified AutisticAndrew about opening this thread, as you are required to do (this is outlined both in the big red box at the top of this page, as well as the giant yellow box in this pages' editnotice). Daniel (talk) 13:16, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

He reverted. I did not want to make it read for others. Simply as that. Island92 (talk) 13:16, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

He reverted what, sorry? I do not understand your comment. Daniel (talk) 13:17, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

I added the "block" massage because it is not the first time he has been stubborn on some edits because he thinks must be his way/how he likes it. And he reverted my "warning". Island92 (talk) 13:19, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

He is perfectly allowed to remove your warning, and it is inappropriate for you to readd it (WP:REMOVED). Given you are unable to block editors yourself, writing a message entitled "Block" with the content "You are risking a block from editing. I've warned you." (entire content of message) is pretty inappropriate, in my opinion. We can communicate better than that.

Further, slowly diving into this, this edit, which you reverted as vandalism ("rvv"), is clearly not vandalism? Daniel (talk) 13:21, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

The further I dive into this, the worse it is. I sincerely hope the original poster has no relation to 191.58.96.178 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and 168.227.111.24 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). Both the original poster and AutisticAndrew have been wide-scaled edit-warring over the past couple of days, despite barely making use of article talk pages, and both are lucky they aren't blocked right now. Daniel (talk) 13:27, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

If only this user would be less stubborn... maybe. There are certain practice in some articles. See history page of 2025 FIFA Club World Cup as an example. Island92 (talk) 13:55, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

That is hardly an answer to my questions and concerns. Daniel (talk) 20:02, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

@Island92: - I've notified @AutisticAndrew: of this discussion, which you have failed to do even after it being pointed out to you.

You're both edit warring on that article, neither of you have attempted to go to the talk page, and you've continued since opening this thread, so I don't think all the blame can be attributed to one party. I'd remind you of WP:BOOMERANG before you go much further. I would advise you at least start the talk thread rather than continuing to revert war. Mdann52 (talk) 14:01, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

For what it's worth, this morning I left AutisticAndrew a message on his talk page about edit-warring in 2025 FIFA Club World Cup and noting that while I think it's pretty clear he's violated 3RR, I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt for the moment before I seek administrator intervention. Guess we'll see what he does in response. Given that I'm not asking for intervention here, I don't understand the policy to require me to notify him—I understand that to be Island92's responsibility (and it appears Mdann52 has rendered that issue moot anyway for the moment). I simply wanted to mention that I left the message there before I was aware that this discussion existed and I don't intend to do anything about it unless the problem persists. 1995hoo (talk) 14:02, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

And see history page of 2023–24 UEFA Champions League where he kept insisting on removing "in London" just because everyone knows where Wembley is. Now the page is protected for the edit warring. This user should not behave as a kid here. Island92 (talk) 14:21, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Yes, and you kept edit-warring to restore it, without discussing it, which makes you equally as bad as AutisticAndrew. Please immediately stop describing people as "behaving as a kid". Daniel (talk) 20:02, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

That is the impression he gave to me, to be a kid. Every Champions League page includes city name. That has not to be different. It's logical understanding. "Everyone knows where Wembley is doesn't make any sense at all". Island92 (talk) 20:09, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

@Daniel: He keps insisting. See history page of 2023–24 UEFA Champions League and talk page. Island92 (talk) 13:14, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

@Island92: AutisticAndrew removed a personal attack you leveled against them. I've warned you on your Talk page. You really need to clean up your act.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:58, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Ok. Thanks for that. Island92 (talk) 14:37, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

@Bbb23: please can you find a solution against this user who keeps insisting on reverting my edit? See history page of 2023–24 UEFA Champions League and its talk page. How much do I have to still deal with it?--Island92 (talk) 15:37, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

WP:DR. Get a third opinion or start an WP:RFC. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:40, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

This SPI AutisticAndrew created is relevant to this discussion. -- Cerebral726 (talk) 14:33, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

AutisticAndrew alleged (with evidence) that a new account was a sock of Island92. A CheckUser found that the new account was indeed a sock but not of Island92.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:40, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

• AutisticAndrew has been reverting at Sara Ramirez, an article about a non-binary actor, to use the word "actress" (diffs: 1, 2). AA has not used edit summaries while reverting. Previously, AA used the pronoun "he" to refer to non-binary singer Nemo, and reverted twice, without explanation again (diffs: 3, 4, 5). I can't tell if AA is intolerant of non-binary people or just unaware of their mistakes, but the lack of communication and willingness to edit war are problems either way. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 13:35, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

  Another revert at Sara Ramirez. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 13:46, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

  They've now breached 3RR. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 13:56, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

  I've blocked AutisticAndrew for 24 hours for edit warring as described here. DanCherek (talk) 13:59, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

User engaging in nationalist revisionism

The user @Aamir Khan Lepzerrin: appears to have been adding Kurdish nationalist historical revisionism to various pages, such as this this, this, this, and this.

According to their contributions page, they also have been engaging in edit warring when their questionable edits have been reverted.

Per their talk page, they have also responded to warnings against making disruptive edits by being combative, and they have also left blatantly ethnonationalist messages on the talk pages of some of the users who have reverted some of their disruptive edits. Antiquistik (talk) 16:41, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

You're wrong. I'm not even a Kurd. Aamir Khan Lepzerrin (talk) 16:48, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

I don't see anyone making the claim that you are. Canterbury Tail talk 17:45, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

He claims that I practice Kurdish nationalism. However, I am only writing information with cited sources. If I had written information without sources, he might have been right. There is a sanction for deleting sourced information, right? I will also report these users. Aamir Khan Lepzerrin (talk) 13:00, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

@Aamir Khan Lepzerrin: I didn't claim anything about your personal ethnic identity. The issue is with the content of your edits, which is assuredly Kurdish nationalist revisionism in nature. Antiquistik (talk) 06:09, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Please prove your claim, here you go! Aamir Khan Lepzerrin (talk) 21:11, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

I’m not an expert, but what’s wrong with the first and third diffs? It looks like relevant information being added. Are the sources bad? Zanahary (talk) 19:11, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

I wouldn't say the sources are bad, but it's more about cherry-picking undue sources that are out on a speculative limb to begin with. I don't think this user needs any sort of sanction other than an exhortation to respect consensus and not be so combative. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 19:15, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

The sources are either outdated themselves or rely on outdated scholarship. And the user Aamir Khan Lepzerrin is using them to make nationalistic claims that are presently rejected by the scientific scholarship on the subject and largely persist only in fringe (ethno)nationalist ideology.

For example, the name Waššukanni is now accepted to originate from an archaic Indo-Aryan language used by the ruling elite of the Mitanni kingdom. Meanwhile, the Kurdish language is an Iranian language not attested until around two millennia after the end of Mitanni, and whatever ancestor of it that existed at the time that Wassukanni existed would have been more alike to Avestan, Old Median and Old Persian than to the Kurdish language as it is historically attested.

Similarly, the name Karduniaš is from the Kassite language and was used as name for the Kassite kingdom of Babylon in the Bronze Age, again about two millennia before the first attestations of the Kurdish people, while the etymology of the name of the Kurds is itself still very uncertain and the Kassite language is still too poorly documented for any certain etymological connection to be established.

At best, Aamir Khan Lepzerrin's edits fall into WP:UNDUE.

Antiquistik (talk) 06:28, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Keep your personal opinions to yourself. We are not interested. You cannot remove information with specified sources just because it does not fit your personal ideology. Based on your field of expertise, do you say that the sources are not valid? All the information I provide is the claim of competent people in their field. They are experts but who are you? Aamir Khan Lepzerrin (talk) 12:45, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

With all due respect, this is exactly the type of response that is the problem. Attempted bullying is not going to be a successful strategy here. Dumuzid (talk) 12:47, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Bullying is not my thing. Let a few people who think like me come and defend me here. Is this fair? The only thing I do is write information by giving sources. I did not write a single piece of information that showed my personal opinion. Aamir Khan Lepzerrin (talk) 12:55, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Do you understand that Wikipedia works by consensus? So that if multiple people disagree with you, even if you can cite to some source, you may not be able to include the information you want? Dumuzid (talk) 13:01, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Consensus? By how many people? How many people saw this edit and how many approved it? Since only two or three people opposed it, that means hundreds of other people who saw it approved it. Logic is a principle of thinking. One has to be like Descartes. We can understand this by thinking simply. Aamir Khan Lepzerrin (talk) 13:08, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Your logic is faulty to say the very least; you cannot infer assent from silence when there is no obligation to participate. If two or three people oppose you and no one supports you, then you must accede to that consensus. You can ask for more eyes at a project page, or start an RFC or the like, but you cannot simply demand that your edits be included. Dumuzid (talk) 13:19, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

No one predicted that you would object to the information whose source was stated. Information is given and the source is stated. Of course other users would not object to this. You are probably succumbing to your ideologies. I am not Kurdish. I write whatever the information is. If there is persistent opposition to the regulations aimed at the Kurds, I would blame it on "hostility towards Kurds". Especially one user makes this happen constantly when it comes to Kurds. Aamir Khan Lepzerrin (talk) 13:27, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Okay, I officially retract my "no sanction needed" stance, and fear we may be nearing WP:CIR territory. I'm done. Cheers, all. Dumuzid (talk) 13:31, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

It applies to you and they too. I haven't complained about yet. Moreover, there is also the sanction of deleting the sourced information. Aamir Khan Lepzerrin (talk) 13:37, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

You are probably succumbing to your ideologies.

I wouldn't go there. This is very close to making a claim that people are racially biased against your edits, which is a personal attack. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:03, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

You all persistently put blame on me. But not a single one of you asks "why are you deleting information whose sources are stated?" Aamir Khan Lepzerrin (talk) 16:48, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

It sounds like they’re saying the sources are subpar. Zanahary (talk) 04:27, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

ZanaharyBased on what areas of expertise do they say that resources are insufficient? Example: I added a source regarding the possible name relationship between Karduniaş and Kurds. If i add the information, I did not say Kassites are Kurds. Since the source itself is Physical Anthropologist Egon von Eickstedt, it was added to the source as "There may be a connection between them". A source was also cited regarding Wassukani. None of the information I added is unsourced. They claim that I practice ethnic nationalism, but they cannot prove it.Example:List of Kurds. In the "Madig" article in question, it is written that he is Kurdish. I also add it to the "List of Kurds" section, but it is persistently taken back. If he is not a Kurd, why does it say "Kurdish king" on his page? When I insistently edit the information, it becomes "Ethnic nationalism". Nobody would believe this! Aamir Khan Lepzerrin (talk) 12:55, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Citing the Nazi anthropologist who argued that Upper Silesia must be part of Germany because the people who lived there were "Nordics" is not a terribly compelling argument to me, at least. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 13:02, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

The anthropologist's claim is not unreasonable. Anyone with intelligence can understand. It is logical to say that throughout history the Kurds were called with similar silent names "k, r, d", that they and other nations called the Kassites "Karduniash", and that they may have connections with the Kurds due to the "Zagros" mountains they come from. Kardu, Karda-ka, Kardukhi, Kassitan Karduniash and its modern version Kurd. Aamir Khan Lepzerrin (talk) 13:12, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

These are not my personal opinions. I am citing information from the latest reliable scholarship available on the topic while the sources you are citing are outdated by several decades.

And, based on how combative you continue to be, how you are resorting to personal attacks, and how you are defending citing a Nazi anthropologist who did race science, I second @Dumuzid:'s position that sanctions might be needed. Antiquistik (talk) 07:57, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

I wonder why you can't be impartial on this issue? Even though the anthropologist is a Nazi, his claim is not contrary to scientific thought. I think you have lost the practice of how an editor should think. We are not holding a symposium here. You are trying to impose your personal opinions as "certainty" without scientific support. If you have a opposing source, you can also state it in the article. For example: "Kassites can never be Kurds", if so, please specify your source :) Aamir Khan Lepzerrin (talk) 12:46, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

*Aamir Khan Lepzerrin's hostile posts on userpages ("It is obvious that you are an enemy of Kurds") are totally unacceptable on Wikipedia, and what they call "logic" ("Since only two or three people opposed it, that means hundreds of other people who saw it approved it") on this very page is absurd. They're cruising for a NOTHERE block. Also, Aamir, you might as well stop repeating that deleting sourced information will necessarily be sanctioned, because it's wrong. Edits can properly be reverted for several other reasons than being unsourced. For instance for undue weight, tendentiousness, or irrelevance. Bishonen | tålk 13:34, 6 June 2024 (UTC).

I responded to all the allegations one by one and it is obvious that I am right. For some reason, everyone is obsessed with my tone, but they don't focus on the fact that I refuted the allegations. Aamir Khan Lepzerrin (talk) 14:34, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

I am aware that there is a problem with my style. Please be aware that I refute the claims. Aamir Khan Lepzerrin (talk) 14:41, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

You may have rebutted the allegations, but you have certainly not refuted them.[28] RolandR (talk) 11:25, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

They are making unfair provocations. Sometimes I can't change my style either.

I admit my mistake in style. We are anti-Nazi.But the anthropologist makes this claim independently of his ideology. Why don't we focus on this? Aamir Khan Lepzerrin (talk) 12:50, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Even ignoring Eickstedt's politics and debunked theories, you have presented one claim from 70 years ago. This claim was made by a physical anthropologist with no demonstrated expertise in the geographic area or in linguistics or philology. It is not unreasonable to see this information as WP:UNDUE and so removing it. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 13:02, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

"Debunked Theories", Which theories have been disproved? Is the relationship between "k.r.d" and "Kurdish" just the claim of one person? Sumerian: Karda (krd), Akkadian: Kardu (krd), Amorite: Kurda (krd) Syriac: Qardu (krd) Greek: Karduk/Corduene (krd), Latin: Crytii (Old version Assyrians: Kurtie), And modern: Turkish: Kürt (krt), Arabian: Akrad (krd), Persian: Kord (krd). I'm sorry, but you have no evidence to prove otherwise!

We are all anti-Nazis. But if a claim is made on this issue and the claim has remained current for hundreds of years, you have to accept it. What does the anthropologist's ideology mean to us? We don't do politics. Aamir Khan Lepzerrin (talk) 13:13, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Coordinated editing around Indian military regiments

Users:

• Jatingarg9368 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Peakconquerors (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• GokulChristo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 78 MEDIUM REGIMENT (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (h/t Pickersgill)
• 117.98.108.127 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) (h/t Procyon)

Drafts:

• User:Peakconquerors/sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Draft:207 Field Regiment (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Draft:150 FD REGT (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Draft:1211 Medium Regiment (Congo) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (h/t Procyon)
• Draft:172 Medium Regiment (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (h/t Procyon)

SPIs:

• WP:Sockpuppet investigations/832LT

COINs

• WP:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#Indian Army regiments—articles being edited by orders from army brass

Over the past couple days myself and a couple of other helpers at WP:AFC/HD have noticed a serious WP:COI/WP:PAID situation with regards to Indian military units. The drafts in question all have virtually identical formatting and tone, are poorly-written and sourced, and are heavily jargoned to the point of incomprehensibility. While there is an active SPI on this matter, JBW notes that this is more a case of coordinated editing; apparently higher-ups in the Indian military have ordered the creation of these article( draft)s on military regiments which is leading to this situation.

I'm starting this thread primarily to collect which accounts and drafts that haven't already been addressed yet are part of this project, and to figure out what, if anything, can be done to stymie this. (I won't host them on my userpage because this falls into the Indian subcontinent contentious topic.) The accounts and drafts I've listed are just the ones I've seen on AFC/HD in the past couple days. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 18:19, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

78 MEDIUM REGIMENT Arrived today, and recently we've had 297 Medium regiment, 42 Med Regt, 108 Field Regiment, 638 SATA BTY, 106 Med Regiment, 95 Field Regiment, and 228 Fd Regt. There are probably more. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 18:37, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Don't forget Draft:1211 Medium Regiment (Congo) and Draft:172 Medium Regiment. Procyon117 (talk) 18:38, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

This IP address is also related. Procyon117 (talk) 18:46, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

We need this centralised in one place. Secretlondon (talk) 18:59, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

@Secretlondon: You thinking AN(/I) or LTA for this? —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 19:07, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

It's also at COIN and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/832LT. The sockpuppet entry is the longest, but they are meat puppets. 10:56, 5 June 2024 (UTC) Secretlondon (talk) 10:56, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

As an addendum, I'm putting together a sortable table of all identified accounts/drafts thus far, and I'm noticing a trend - there's quite a few autocon-buster accounts here who've used their status to create articles directly in mainspace; with no exception that I can see (yet) they've been swiftly draftified. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 19:42, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

• Admin note I've blocked the named accounts. CU evidence is  Inconclusive - most of the accounts have overlap on a range blocked for spamming, but the ranges at play are huge and extremely dynamic. There is also some UA overlap, but again, it's too common to be definitive. This is obviously coordinated editing which, behaviourally, looks to be the same individual (or group of indivduals) which falls afoul of WP:SOCK regardless if it's classic socking or WP:MEAT.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 19:57, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

  @Ponyo More accounts with the same editing patterns (Indian army regiment drafts in the last 3 days or so)

  1. Rahulsingh278 (talk · contribs)
  2. Topguntwoatethree (talk · contribs)
  3. Sarvatra15 (talk · contribs)
  4. 831 palali (talk · contribs)
  5. Basantarbull (talk · contribs)
  6. Piyushkb95 (talk · contribs)
  7. 85josh (talk · contribs)
  8. Braveheart0505 (talk · contribs)
  9. Sam4272 (talk · contribs)
  10. Vijaykiore (talk · contribs)
  11. Garuda35 (talk · contribs)
  12. Manlikeut (talk · contribs)
  13. Govindsingh2494 (talk · contribs)
  14. 171 FD REGT (talk · contribs)
  15. Valiants216 (talk · contribs)
  16. Freeindiandemocracy (talk · contribs)
  17. Srushtivv (talk · contribs)
  18. Sarthak Dhavan (talk · contribs)
  19. Vaibhav Kr Singh (talk · contribs)
  20. Abhi892 (talk · contribs)
  21. Abhi1830 (talk · contribs)
  22. Yugsky (talk · contribs)
  23. Veerhunkar (talk · contribs)
  24. 172fdregt (talk · contribs)
  25. AmrishAnanthan (talk · contribs)
  26. 171FieldRegt (talk · contribs)
  27. Behtereen (talk · contribs)

  Qcne (talk) 20:00, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

  Qcne, could you please cut and paste this list to the SPI? I'll handle it from there.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:04, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

  I've put the list on the SPI as a new request, and included what Procyon has below. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 21:38, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

  Before I go to bed (and since you haven't posted to SPI yet) I'll post these ones too:

  • SSBSAMmedium (talk · contribs)
  • Velluvoms (talk · contribs)
  • Mighty53 (talk · contribs)
  • 202.134.205.64 (talk · contribs)
  • Proansh1661 (talk · contribs)
  • AU1963 (talk · contribs)
  • Hararkalan101 (talk · contribs)
  • Unknown5xf (talk · contribs)
  • Bahattar (talk · contribs)

  Procyon117 (talk) 20:39, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

  Damn you, but also thank you, Ponyo. I just got thru the initial list here and at the SPI; I'll add the list above, where it doesn't overlap with what we've already seen there. As soon as I'm done, I'll post the table to my userspace; this is serious enough I'm willing to ignore my usual "No Contentious Topics" rule. Watch for this link to turn blue: User:Jéské Couriano/2024 Indian Military Regiment Spam. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 20:13, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

  Worth mentioning that this seems isolated to artillery units. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 20:45, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

  I've put up the table and updated it with every name provided by Qcne and Procyon; it's linked above. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 21:10, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

  Another, User:AyushRoy99/sandbox. @Ponyo @Jéské Couriano Qcne (talk) 07:37, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

  Updated the table with everything that's gone on in the past 18 hours or so. One of the accounts requested an unblock which was summarily declined by Yamla and basically confirms that, yes, this was indeed a concerted effort done under the orders of Indian military COs. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 16:48, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

So after all this, what's the advice going forward – do we bring further cases here or to the SPI case or both or neither or something else? I'm asking because I've just declined another one, Draft:237 Medium Regiment by Yudhhe Nipunam, so this is clearly not over yet. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:06, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Take new accounts to the SPI, I'd think. That works as well as anything for a centralised location. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 17:10, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Going through the "AfC submissions by date" category and working my way through the dates, there's a few more that have not been reported still. Procyon117 (talk) 17:18, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

I just created a new section on the SPI; add them there? I can pick them up and add them to the table from there. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 17:22, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Sure. Just double-checking first. Procyon117 (talk) 17:26, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Doing a search on the category looking at latest changes [29] shows several more new editors changing existing articles and even one trying to prod page as it contains "confidential information" Lyndaship (talk) 17:23, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Again, add new accounts to the SPI as you find them. I can add them to the table from there, and it'll allow the responding admins there to whack them without looking for bone needles in a haystack. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 17:26, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

SPI are gonna love it, as soon as they close a case, it gets re-opened. :) Then again, it's not like the Indian Army is a large organisation, eventually they must run out of steam...

Anyone happen to know Manoj Pande, who could have a quiet word with him? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:29, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Wonder if they'd be able to just leave it open for a few days, and see if other accounts will still be trying, then it won't have to be reopened and reclosed again and again. Unless they don't mind it or if that's not how it works. Procyon117 (talk) 17:32, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

They should be able to do that; the reason it isn't really happening here, however, is that this is so clear-cut that leaving it open for a long while isn't generally necessary. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 17:35, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Whelp speaking of reopening a case, I just found two more right as the most recent SPI closed. Procyon117 (talk) 17:54, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

If the report hasn't been archived yet, just change the status to open and add the additional accounts you find. I have the SPI on my watchlist, I'll see the changes.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 17:58, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Ah I already made a new section...I should have waited a couple more minutes. Procyon117 (talk) 17:59, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

I just want to say that I appreciate the effort people are putting into addressing all this. It sure seems like a handful! I encountered this editing as well on 40 Field Regiment (India) and 56 Field Regiment (India) but I didn't know the proper noticeboard to go to or who to notify. Knowing it was part of a larger issue puts my mind at ease (to an extent) with the realization that other editors were on the case as well!

Seeing as though this seems to be a substantial COI, MEAT, UPE (etc.) issue, is SPI still the same venue I should notify if I come across more of this sort of thing? I'm pretty sure I found a couple accounts not listed on the investigation page. -Sigma440 (talk) 03:08, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

If you find any that haven't been blocked yet put them on the SPI page. We could use an extra pair of eyes. Procyon117 (talk) 03:11, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Will do! Thanks for the confirmation. -Sigma440 (talk) 03:15, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

In re the drafts

With the accounts (currently) dealt with, I think the next point of business is the drafts, and whether or not they should be kept or deleted under G5. I'm of the opinion that the lot of them should be deleted under G5; even if they are notable subjects (and I make no judgment on that front; the sourcing presently on them does not help) the articles are so badly-written that they'd need ripped up from the roots and redone by someone with no connexion to this campaign. We also shouldn't be rewarding clueless brutes upstairs by keeping their efforts to spam Wikipedia around. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 22:11, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

I agree. None of the "articles" (or drafts, rather) should be kept. I would say under G5 as well. Procyon117 (talk) 03:07, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

I support G5ing all of the drafts that were created after the first sock was blocked. We shouldn't be slaves to a literal interpretation of G5's wording; there's no point in dragging the process on for six months until G13 applies. Air on White (talk) 03:11, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

I have already gotten the drafts in userspace wiped with U5. Air on White (talk) 03:08, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

It doesn't sound like they would be valid CSD G5s since no editor was evading a block when they were created. CSD criteria are intentionally limited. Better see if they fit another criteria then try to bend the accepted rules as a way of deleting these articles. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:38, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for all the work done on this to date. Questions: do we know when the first of these accounts was blocked? And does this fit the pattern (it seems rather different from those I've seen to date)? Thanks, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 09:40, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

This one is not in the SPI, but seems to fit the name/editing pattern too: 106medregt. Blocked on 04:58, 17 May 2024 by @Cullen328 as a spamublock.

That said, I haven't really looked at this, just checked over if the list of accounts here was copied properly to the SPI case (many hours ago) and found this account's sandbox by searching some of the abbreviated terms in user space (ordered by page creation date). – 2804:F14:80BE:B501:BC28:2F:9049:1F4D (talk) 10:05, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Would a bulk MfD work, Liz? I'm not comfortable leaving a bunch of poisoned drafts to linger for 6 months given the likelihood this farm may spin up more accounts, especially as we now know an Indian military commander is ordering this. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 16:56, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Jéské Couriano, as our IPv6 friend says above, the user 106medregt was blocked at 04:58 on 17 May 2024 by Cullen328, and is now included in the SPI. My reading is that any page created by other socks after that block was executed is fully eligible for deletion as G5, "created by a banned or blocked user". Meat or not, the master and puppets are all considered to be one user, a block on any account is a block on all. Liz, does that seem right to you? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:09, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

@Justlettersandnumbers: We have an account older than that - Ananthua9560b (talk · contribs) was created January 2018, but didn't edit until this incident. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 18:13, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

The G5 clock starts once the account is blocked, not created.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 18:14, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

After the discovery of 106medregt, I've just been bold and started tagging the eligible drafts for G5. Air on White (talk) 18:16, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

• There's some difference of opinion above on whether the drafts can legitimately be G5-speedily deleted, with Liz thinking no, and several other editors thinking yes. Liz says "Better see if they fit another criteria then try to bend the accepted rules as a way of deleting these articles." Well, if we are to stick rigidly to "rules", then Justlettersandnumbers is right: as soon as one account is blocked, any others which edit are sockpuppets (whether run by the same person or by meatpuppetd), and pages they create can be G5-deleted. However, it's much better, in my opinion, to remember the one of the 5 pillars which says that Wikipedia has no firm rules ("The principles and spirit matter more than literal wording") and the very important policy WP:IAR. For some reason many editors seem to think that IAR is something separate from policies, and somehow applying it is a bit naughty; in fact it is a policy, and has just as much authority as any other policy. So here is my conclusion: (1) The important question is not "would G5 speedy deletion bend the accepted rules?", but "would speedy deletion be the best thing to do under the circumstances?" to which my answer is "Yes, obviously it is." (2) However, if anyone prefers to take a legalistic view and inisist on sticking to policies then they can take solace in the facts that any page created after the first block clearly satisfies the criterion G5, in view of the policy on meatpuppetry, and I therefore intend to delete pages created after 04:58, 17 May. Also, any created before then can, I think, reasonably be deleted in view of the policy on on ignoring all "rules", but for the present I will leave those. JBW (talk) 20:19, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Since I was pinged, I want to mention that I am on a cruise ship in Ketchikan, Alaska with limited internet access, and do not have the time to look more deeply into this matter. I will answer any questions on my talk page or anywhere else when I have better online access in a few days. Cullen328 (talk) 20:27, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Concerning appeals

On reading the appeal made at User talk:Ironfist336, I'm concerned there may be some level of not just coordination going on, but actual coercion. Perhaps it's time to loop in the Trust & Safety team?-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 18:18, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

What could T&S realistically do here in this situation? Would Indian military brass even listen to what they have to say? —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 18:20, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with notifying T&S. It's up to them to determine whether to proceed and what to expect out of it. Air on White (talk) 18:30, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

If true, holy hell that is actually concerning... Procyon117 (talk) 18:24, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

It might also explain the lack of unblock requests we've been seeing. Only Rahulheer, 172fdregt, and Ironfist have used their user talk pages since their blocks, with the first two filing unblock requests which wound up summarily declined. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 18:34, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Also linking User talk:PRISH123 who appears to give more details about the official orders received. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 22:32, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

That is grim. Qcne (talk) 19:22, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Comment: I am on a break concurrently, but I will say that, at least to my knowledge, the Bharatiya Janata Party are known to be highly promotive of the military. It could be Indian election shenanigans that are leading to this sudden spate of COI editing by multiple accounts across different IP's.

To me, this feels more like a assignment that people have been told to do as part of a political campaign, likely at a particular place such as a office (given the overlap of IP's involved here) rather than a military base and then subsequently went home and went on to Wikipedia to carry it out. And I wouldn't be surprised if they work as part of the Indian political system.

If the Indian Armed Forces are behind this, it is a worrying and oddball progression, but I think they have more pressing matters to deal with than blackmailing people to edit Wikipedia. Still, Trust and Safety may be necessary here.Fantastic Mr. Fox (talk) 21:21, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

The comment reads I am just editing my article for my unit [...] i am under strict orders to complete it by tonight, so it definitely appears to be military-related. Agree that T&S might be necessary. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 22:23, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

User talk:172fdregt's unblock request reads This is the official account of the 172 Medium Regiment created post Orders from the higher HQ.The unit has been ordered to update the regimental information on the Wikipedia page that has been created by our HQ, so it seems to confirm that orders have been issued from higher up. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 22:27, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

I doubt this is the BJP (and if it is, they're using military higher-ups as their proxy). We have multiple members of this group directly stating that they're being ordered to do this by their COs (or at the very least by people far higher up the chain of command of the military). I've learnt that, when pressed, editors in a not-so-willing COI will tend to rat out their bosses in an effort to try and distance themselves from any moral/ethical complicity, and I'm thus more willing to take them at face value. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 06:15, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

And based on the fact we're still getting new accounts spun up, this isn't looking like a political stunt, unless Modi is trying to intimidate opposition leaders by making Wikipedia articles (which doesn't come close to passing the laugh test). —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 16:36, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

It looks as if it's only the Regiment of Artillery (India), going by the mentions above, so probably not an edict to all the armed forces from Modi or his Minister of Defence, or even the Chiefs of Staff. NebY (talk) 20:35, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

And we have User talk:Ashveer1796 who've tried to justify their edits to 1889 Missile Regiment (India) as related to national-security concerns. This might not seem unusual if not for the fact that account was spun up less than 12 hours ago for the sole purpose of editing that article. This isn't going away. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 15:39, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia uses published sources. What "national-security concerns" can there be about information that's already published? Brunton (talk) 20:56, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

This has evolved from propaganda to censorship... Air on White (talk) 20:57, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Is this really so bad?

I have to wonder about the above question. Yes, the instigators of this have gone about things in the wrong way, but most people in the world know nothing about the internal workings of Wikipedia. There is some useful information among the flowery (dare I say, "typically Indian"?) promotional stuff. If "Indian" was replaced by "British" or "American" in the title of this section would there be such a pile-on? Phil Bridger (talk) 20:08, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Even the most blatant advertising contains true information. Even if the information seems useful, it is unsourced. Air on White (talk) 20:10, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

It's a concerted effort by those with a distinct conflict of interest to promote their specific military units on Wikipedia using a large number of undeclared accounts. It has eaten up an extensive (not hyperbole) amount of volunteer time in reviewing, tagging and cleaning up the submissions with ongoing discussion at several noticeboards including WP:ANI, WP:COIN and WP:SPI. I really really hope that you're not suggesting that the individuals who are raising concerns and attempting to clean up this huge mess are somehow motivated by anti-Indian sentiment, because that's what your post suggests, Phil Bridger. And in case it does need to be said, it doesn't make a lick of difference what country or nation the military units are affiliated with - the policies and guidelines being violated apply to all editors.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:35, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Heck, I'm Aussie. If this was done by the Australian military, I would still be doing the same thing I'm doing now. Procyon117 (talk) 20:39, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Yes, Phil, it really is "so bad". Of course "most people in the world know nothing about the internal workings of Wikipedia", but bad editing done in good faith by an editor who doesn't know Wikipedia policies is still bad editing. And why on earth do you think that we would be any less concerned if the armed forces of the United Kingdom or the United States were to do the same thing? I think there would be just as much concern about it, and just as much concerted effort to deal with the problem (or "pile-on", to use the more emotive term that you prefer). JBW (talk) 20:48, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Phil, you're defending mass-spamming of content which is under-sourced, under-baked, and mandated to be so by a clueless executive/commanding officer, and on subject matter that falls in a contentious topic to boot. Are you really sure you want to try and fight on this hill? —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 06:19, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

There would indeed. CMD (talk) 06:34, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

ARCA Request

I've filed a request at ARCA to try and see if we can't put a 500/30 rule in place here to stymie the article edits. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 17:31, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Raúl Quintana Tarufetti and Svartner

The user Raúl Quintana Tarufetti (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) previously blocked by disruptive edits to the article Argentina–Brazil football rivalry, has returned to making edits that completely disregard the scope of WP:FOOTBALL to impose WP:POV, insisting on duplicating matches counted in the full-international list as unofficial, to validate his point that these matches, which are listed, are not official (see [30] and [31]).

I've already reverted his edits twice and explained why they were wrong, but he indefinitely insists on his point. I create this incident notice to avoid another edit war. Svartner (talk) 21:02, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

The user Svartner (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) makes disruptives edits to the articles related to Argentina–Brazil football rivalry, making edits that completely disregard the scope of WP:FOOTBALL to impose WP:POV, insisting in not seeing a lot of sources (by FIFA, AFA, Rsssf.com, Elo Ratings, TyC Sports, El Gráfico) of matches counted as official (many of them) and unofficial (many of them) in the full-international list, to validate his point that these matches, which are listed, are not official or official, depending if they "beneficiate" to Brazil or not. (see [32] and [33]). I´ve tried a lot of times to discuss with this user, but he refuses... He only sees what it´s convenient to Brazil. For example, he uses the Rsssf.com and Elo Ratings sources to "prove" the 1922, 1923, and 2 matches of 1968 (won by Brazil) were "official", but when these 2 same sources say the 1920 and 1956 matches (won by Argentina) are official, he doesn´t see that and says they were not official (?) [34] [35]... For what he likes they are right sources, but for what he doensn´t like they are not. And I´am the "disruptive" and want to impose WP:POV?

The naked truth is that those 6 matches are unofficial according to FIFA. This user disrespects the FIFA´s source I gave with the complete list of official matches and I do not see these 6 matches in the FIFA´s source with the complete list of games; no 1920, no 1922, no 1923, no 1956, no 1968 (two games)!!! There is notihing in football more official than FIFA, and this source and many others says clarely that 1920, 1922, 1923, 1956, and the two matches of 1968 were unofficial!!! Look, the source from FIFA: FIFA official´s page (archive). Argentina vs. Brazil head to head. February 2013. This FIFA´s source is from Feb. 2013. After that date, they played 10 times, with 4 wins for Argentina, 4 wins for Brazil, 2 ties and 1 suspended match. To see the complete list of matches according to this FIFA´s source, please click in "Advanced search", and then in "Show all matches" So I´am the "disruptive" and want to impose WP:POV?

Moreover, there are also a source of AFA (Argentina FA) with the complete list of official matches: Asociación del fútbol argentino official´s page. “Historial de los enfrentamientos entre las selecciones de Argentina y Brasil”. November 19, 2023. The AFA´s source is from 11-13-2023. After that date, they played 1 time, won 1-0 by Argentina. I do not see those 6 matches either... And I´am the "disruptive" and want to impose WP:POV?

There is also a El Gráfico magazine source with the complete list of games: [36] and I do not see those 6 matches... And I´am the "disruptive" and want to impose WP:POV? It seems all of these sources are not valuable for him. Look, from Rsssf.com, about the two 1968 matches: List of Argentina UNOFFICIAL matches and the match of 1956 [37]... The only sources he accepts are the one that "beneficiates" Brazil!

I've already reverted his edits and explained why they were wrong, but he indefinitely insists on his point. I create this incident notice to avoid another edit war. Raúl Quintana Tarufetti (talk) 21:34, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

PD: I tried to discuss lot of times and he refused [38] [39]. I also took this issue to the Football Wikiproyect but nobody came to participate. [40]. I can´t do anything else... I think the most important and official source in football that we can have is FIFA... No other site or association can be above FIFA, and the only source of FIFA that have the complete list of matches is the one I put above [41] I repeat: To see the complete list of matches according to this FIFA´s source, please click in "Advanced search", and then in "Show all matches". And you will see there aren´t the 1920, 1922, 1923, 1956 and 1968 games. I ask you: am I the "disruptive" and want to impose WP:POV? End for me. Raúl Quintana Tarufetti --Raúl Quintana Tarufetti (talk) 21:53, 4 June 2024 (UTC)(talk) 21:51, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

No comment on what this is about, but could you stop using that amount of boldface? It doesn't make it at all easier (and certainly not more inviting) to read. Please use words, not typography, for emphasis. Thank you. ---Sluzzelin talk 23:32, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Ok I will take off the boldface. But please read all the arguments and go to the point. Please. Thanks. --Raúl Quintana Tarufetti (talk) 23:40, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Most of your arguments are content-related, which we do not settle here. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:06, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

The problem is exactly this, these points explained by him have already been debated on talk page, but he refuses to accept the point of anyone who is contrary to the arguments presented. To avoid this situation, I had recently redone some of the controversial content (in this case, the list of matches between Argentina and Brazil) with more than 190 different sources, but it does not seem possible to reach a point of agreement through dialogue. Svartner (talk) 17:23, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Regardless of who is ultimately right and wrong, the behaviour of Raul is hugely problematic with aggressive and threatening behaviour, inaccurate edit summaries, blanket revision and reversions, and a complete expression of WP:OWN. Very close to WP:NOTHERE Koncorde (talk) 14:47, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

I´am not problematic and I´am not "aggresive". The problem is when a user tries to confuse or to see only one version of things, trying to favor his convenience. This is double standard, and it´s serious... Many many many media see wikipedia to publicate articles or make reports, and when there is a wrong information here we have to correct. Moreover, if I have lot of sources (official of FIFA) that endorse what I´am posing, and the other user do not want to see them, and I try to discuss to reach a solve or an agreement and the only thing I recive are complaints, It´s not my problem... I will not remain silent when there are injusticies. --Raúl Quintana Tarufetti (talk) 16:09, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

I can point at multiple instances where you have made accusations of vandalism, threatened to have people blocked, described someones behaviour as obstructive, repeatedly called peoples editing motives into question etc. Even here your hyperbolic "injustices" is plain nonsense. This isn't a crusade. It's a discussion about whether or not 6 games are shown on a particular page of the internet and you have been pretty diabolical. I was actually quite warm to your need for support / feedback on WP:FOOTBALL until I saw how you conducted yourself and realised why you cannot get a simple consensus, and have instead railroaded another user with threats, edit warring, and spurious accusations of bad faith editing. Koncorde (talk) 18:35, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Bite: the problem is that the content of those articles is the problem... I was accused by Svartner of being "disruptive" and to try to to impose WP:POV. The user Svartner only want to see sources that beneficiates his country. I went to the Wikiproject Football (the correct place to discuss this) and nobody came to say anything! I discussed with him a lot in the talk page, but he had no responses for what I said when I proposed a solution. For expample: the same sources he uses to say there would be a few matches apparently official that won Brazil, this sources (THE SAME:rsssf.com, 11v11, Eloratings) ALSO say there are a few matches won by Argentina that would be official too, but HE do not count those matches (won by Argentina) because he wants; simple...Those disputed games won by Brazil, yes, they are right for him, but when THE SAME sources he uses for those games say that the disputed matches won by Argentina are correct he says "nooooo, unofficial"... As I said: the naked truth is that FIFA (the MAJOR official football organisation in the world) do not consider NONE of those 6 matches as "Class A matches". This source "kills" everything. Meanwhile FIFA doesn´t show a new article with the complete list of games, the most neutral and valuable source we have here is FIFA´s one FIFA official´s page (archive). Argentina vs. Brazil head to head. February 2013. This FIFA´s source is from Feb. 2013. After that date, they played 10 times, with 4 wins for Argentina, 4 wins for Brazil, and 2 ties. To see the complete list of matches according to this FIFA´s source, please click in "Advanced search", and then in "Show all matches". I will try to take the issue again to the Wikiprojet Football...

And Svartner, I don´t agree with the sandbox you made: [42]. First of all, this sandbox does not include the 1956 match won by Argentina, because according to Elo ratings and Rsssf.com (sources you "love") it was official [43], [44], [45] [46]. You see there don´t you??? And second, I do not agree in taking off the notes that are in the article about matches of 1920, 1922, 1923, 1956 (it must be included), and the 2 of 1968 (played against Guanabara and Minas State´s selections, as it was demonstrated [47] [48].

The problem or point isn´t the amount of sources. The point is the quality and the neutrality of the sources. I can put you more than 100 sources (of Argentina´s media) if you want. That´s not the point... You only want to count the things only with the brazilian version, and it´s not correct. But as you saw, I put the 3 versions in the article. I proposed in the talk and you didn´t answer [49]. --Raúl Quintana Tarufetti (talk) 20:59, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Block needed of block-evading "MARCELIUS MARTIROSIANAS" vandal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Can an administrator please block User:85.254.97.149? They are evading the recent block placed on their previous IP address 193.219.130.166. They're a long-term vandal who makes bizarre edits to articles and Talk pages including the text "MARCELIUS MARTIROSIANAS." They've been at it for several years between their many blocks. I've recently asked for an edit filter be created to potentially address this but since they've begun editing articles - typically, they mostly edit Talk pages - a block of their new IP address also seems warranted. (Note that I'm not notifying this blatant vandal about this ANI post per WP:RBI.) ElKevbo (talk) 12:04, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User: Sideshow Bob persistent vandalism on Constantine Bodin page

Page: Constantine Bodin (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Sideshow Bob (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Diffs on recent edit warring's:

1. [[50]]- you can add another 100 sources, it won't make them reliable and your edit wrong and unnecessary.
2. [[51]]
3. [[52]]- rv biased intro, maliciously based on dubious sources
4. [[53]]
5. [[54]]

Previous examples:

1. [[55]] - rv eternal nationalist bullshit

The last one is just an example of Side show Bob`s behaviour over the years, constantly insulting and putting nationalistic slurs in their edit summaries, examples [[56]],[[57]], [[58]],[[59]], [[60]], [[61]], [[62]] etc.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [[63]], Side show Bob does not participate on talk page

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Sideshow_Bob&diff=prev&oldid=1227399794

Comments:

This is going on for several years now, Sideshow Bob continues to vandalise different Wikipedia pages, using WP:battlefield words and excuses on edit summaries to remove reliable sources without any valid explanations on talk pages i.e the last disruptive edits on Constantine Bodin where that they removed J.A. Fine [[64]] [[65]] and Christopher Deliso [[66]] with an excuse that those are tourist guides [[67]], besides that Sideshow Bob used my talk page to leave comments like this [[68]], or the similar aggressive narrative on their tp [[69]], which is clear example of WP:aspersions and obvious case of WP:nothere, not understanding what WP:RS is, breaking the rules of Balkan contagious topic issued by Wiki admins, not using tp for their argumentation, breaking of 3RR rule etc. Theonewithreason (talk) 13:55, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Please tell me how saying Duklja was the most powerful Serbian principality is due anywhere but Duklja. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 21:41, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

That information stand there for few years now, also this has absolutely nothing to do with wp:undue since the imoprtance of Dioclea as being most important Serbian state at that time was very well explained by Fine on page 206.[[70]], also even on Duklja article that is mentioned, but what is more important is the editors behaviour, if you think that they can just remove sourced material sorely on WP:OWN and WP:IDONTLIKEIT then you are wrong. Theonewithreason (talk) 21:49, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

I happened on this like yesterday, and it's one of those times where I don't know anything about a subject and just want to help out. But for what it's worth, I just don't see how it matters on Constantine Bodin's page - as I said, it's already on the page for the state, so it's probably redundant on the ruler's article. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 22:48, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

It is not redundant for Constantine Bodin page since Dioclea was at its peak during his reign, that is even described in Dioclea lede, yet it appears you are missing the point. There are certain rules on wikipedia when it comes to removal of sourced material. Which this editor is purposely breaking. Theonewithreason (talk) 04:02, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

I am not going to waste time with this n-th attempt of well organised group of Serbian nationalist disruptive POV-pushers to discredit me for attempting to introduce a bit of NPOV into the parallel ultranationalist reality they have created on Serbian and English Wikipedia, where everything Montenegro-related has to be somehow labelled as Serbian. This guy has an agenda, and it is not improving the encyclopedic knowledge, quite the opposite. Cheers. Sideshow Bob 06:46, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

P.s. The sources listed at the end of the article are quite a good laugh as well if you look at them. 90% them is from Serbian authors belonging to organisations such SANU, pushing the nationalist agenda used on here to impersonate neutral and objective information. This guy is trying to prove that a medieval state had a national identity, seven centuries before the French Revolution, and I am a vandal here. This is a joke, and not a very good one. Sideshow Bob 06:53, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

• Okay, this article has been subject to a slow back-and-forth editing dispute (dare I say "edit war") over the last week between Theonewithreason and Sideshow Bob. The article is now fully protected so that this ongoing disruption will stop and in hopes that you both will discuss the matter on the article's talk page. No communication between the two regarding the article or any attempts to work things out has occurred at all. The only direct interactions between the two I found were here and on this section of Sideshow Bob's user talk page where Theonewithreason incorrectly warns Sideshow Bob about adding original research to the article (which did not happen - while it's technically possible for someone to engage in the addition of original research to an article by removing content and/or reverting an editor's modification to an article, either by reverting original research back or using OR to justify content removal, this obviously doesn't apply here).

Theonewithreason has also incorrectly stated that Sideshow Bob's reverts constitute vandalism. This very situation is listed as an example on Wikipedia's vandalism policy page here saying that this isn't vandalism (and I agree that it is not). Sideshow Bob has repeatedly accused Theonewithreason of being a "Serbian nationalist disruptive POV-pusher" as well as someone with a "anti-Montenegrin agenda" both here as well as on their own user talk page and Theonewithreason's user talk page - none of these accusations provided any evidence supporting this, which is considered to be casting aspersions (diff 1, permalink 1, diff 2, permalink 2, diff 3, permalink 3, diff 4, permalink 4).

This behavior by Sideshow Bob, on top of the disruption and ongoing edit warring on Constantine Bodin by both users involved here, need to stop immediately. Take this issue to the article's talk page (Theonewithreason has started a discussion there on June 4 that Sideshow Bob has yet to respond to), work things out, and come to a consensus. You don't have to solve every problem; just start by finding things that you two do agree about regarding the two revisions, write a change request that reflects this agreement, and start from there. Trying to have a collaborative discussion and come to some agreement, even if it's tiny - is much better than what you two have been doing on the article over the last week, I can assure you of that one... ;-)

If any disruption continues on this (or any other article) between the two of you, or if Sideshow Bob continues to make accusations without supporting evidence, the next logical step to putting a stop to, and correcting the disruptive behavior is to apply and enforce blocks or other sanctions. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)}

Talk page

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Could someone yank talk page access for the blocked PEEPEEPOOPOOGaegump (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) please? 81.187.192.168 (talk) 14:11, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Done. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:13, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Many thanks, SFR! :-) 81.187.192.168 (talk) 14:14, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Improper RFC close at DYK.

I'm not sure what to do about this. But the on-going RFC at Wikipedia talk:Did you know was closed twice without discussion and without a proper neutral summary of the RFC. User ‎AirshipJungleman29 closed it the first time, with a note it could be re-opened. I re-opened it with an additional question and then Narutolovehinata5 closed it a second time soon after. I would like the RFC to continue, but am ok if it is closed if a proper thorough and neutral summary is done. My main concern is that the lengthy discussion was not given a proper close. The closer should at least articulate the wide community division on this topic in the close and make it clear there is no clear community consensus in support of or against negative hooks at DYK and that it is clearly is controversial topic that needs to be addressed further. There was some lengthy conversation with two wide divisions and that needs to be summarized in the close. Preferably I would like a non-DYK participant to close this RFC when it happens.4meter4 (talk) 14:33, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

I don't see how the close is improper, and you've not articulated any reason it's improper. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:12, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

The WP:CLOSE information page seems to indicate an expectation that closers be uninvolved editors. Both AirshipJungleman29 and Narutolovehinata5 appear to have commented in the thread that they closed (direct diffs of these comments aren't possible because of getting caught up in a span of edits that was oversighted, but the comments can be seen by keyword searching their usernames on WP:DYKT).

The same information page recommends that most contentious discussions benefit from a formal closing statement, and that closers undertake to assess consensus to the best of their abilities, which OP is saying did not happen in the closes because there wasn't a formal assessment of the state of consensus (why there is or isn't a consensus and what that consensus or non-consensus is). Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 16:22, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Hydrangeans, see the standard "involved" definition at WP:NACINV. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:29, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

4meter4's contention is that my close and Narutolovehinata5's were not lengthy enough to summarise the discussion. Now, I am no stranger to providing lengthy closes ([71] [72]) should there be a need. However, for this RfC, any close would just say "this was a point of discussion, for which there was no resolution whatsoever" over and over again. I saw no reason to match the needless bureaucracy of the RfC's structure with an interminably lengthy close. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:23, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

I believe a proper close would 1.) highlight the wide community division on this issue. 2) Affirm that there is not wide community support for the current practice at DYK based on that division (meaning the use of negative hooks on BLPs is currently permissible at DYK but controversial in the community at large) 3) Conclude that there needs to be further discussion to reach a meeting of the minds as a community 4) Place an RFC note at DYK indicating the wide division and contention on this topic with a caution to tred carefully based on about half the people saying we shouldn't be using negative hooks at all on BLPS at DYK. There should be some sort of community note highlighting the lack of broad community support for the use of negative hooks on BLPs in the WP:DYKBLP section based on the input at this RFC. In short, an RFC close with no summarizing record or concluding message to the wikipedia community is not ok with me. 4meter4 (talk) 16:46, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

@4meter4: Remember to notify AirshipJungleman29 at User talk:AirshipJungleman29 (Narutolovehinata5 appears to be notified.

Diffs:

• AirshipJungleman29 closing the discussion
• Narutolovehinata5 closing the discussion

Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 16:15, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

@Hydrangeans Sorry had some internet connectivity problems (solved now) which prevented me from adding AirshipJungleman29's notification. I would place it. but AirshipJungleman29 has already commented here.4meter4 (talk) 16:46, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

I can empathize with the view that a lot of people volunteered a bunch of time to discuss something complicated and a close that basically just says "this specific RfC has gone nowhere" fails to do justice to the perspectives offered. Since the outcome of the closure isn't in dispute, Narutolovehinata5, you could save a bunch more people a bunch more time disputing the close by just going and adding another paragraph summarizing the perspectives before concluding that there's no consensus. (although I'll say it's not clear to me this needed to be closed early, despite the fact that I agree a consensus doesn't seem likely, both due to the complicated format and subject of the rfc) — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:13, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and modified my closing statement to include a brief summary of the discussion, although feedback on wording is appreciated. While I did comment on the discussion, I wasn't a major participant and didn't vote in any of the questions so I thought closing the discussion was safe on my end. Regardless, it could also be argued this was an IAR case since it was clear anyway that no consensus was ever going to emerge from the RfC and discussion had already died down by that point. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 23:15, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Multiple commenters had suggested that the RfC be halted, and 4meter4 had indicated that they might do so. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:30, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

User:Tarih-ül Mümin persistent unsourced edits

Tarih-ül Mümin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Editor has been warned many times, via their talk page ([73], [74]) or in edit summaries of reverts, about unsourced edits and other disruptive behaviour. Nearly all their edits have been reverted (not counting those I've reverted myself). They have not responded on any talk page. Since a final warning received on 1 June ([75]), they have continued: [76] (fictional or incorrect flags added), [77] (unsourced numbers added), [78] (unsourced change to "result"). Some of the edits are also misleading, either in their edit summaries (e.g. no "source" cited in this or this) or by adding citations that seemingly do not verify the content (e.g. [79]). Courtesy ping to HistoryofIran, who I believe has dealt with many of their edits so far. R Prazeres (talk) 16:51, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for making the report, R Prazeres. I fail to see how Tarih-ül Mümin is a net positive to this site, a lot of their additions are either unsourced (eg [80]) or have severe WP:VER issues, often ending up being non-WP:RS [81]. They have been reverted by several established editors now. HistoryofIran (talk) 22:04, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Has never edited a talk page, including their own. P-blocked from article space to see if we can get this editor to start responding to concerns. Valereee (talk) 14:43, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Obvious socks are obvious

Anyone care to spare me a cumbersome trip to SPI and do something about

• Toxicv4lor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Toxic5valor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Toxic54Valor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

who is messing childishly with Madagascar women's national football team? 81.187.192.168 (talk) 18:24, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Plus

• Toxi cValorr (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• TheMostToxicValor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

just created. 81.187.192.168 (talk) 18:26, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

And

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

also just in. 81.187.192.168 (talk) 18:27, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

• TOXX11CCVALOR (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

too. 81.187.192.168 (talk) 18:37, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

And 09ToxicValor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). 81.187.192.168 (talk) 18:39, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

+ 67toxicVAlor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). 81.187.192.168 (talk) 18:42, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

+ ElToxicVal0r (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). 81.187.192.168 (talk) 18:44, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

• I've done the easy part and semi-protected the article for a week. But I'm going to be pulled away from WP in less than 5 min, so someone else is going to have to indef all the socks. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:51, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

  ok i was able to do half but gotta run Floquenbeam (talk) 18:54, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

   Done, along with @Oshwah and Smalljim:. GiantSnowman 18:59, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

  Thanks to all four of you! ⭐️ 81.187.192.168 (talk) 19:00, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

  Happy to help! I pulled their IP address ranges and was able to squash a few more accounts that weren't blocked yet. Let me know if any more of these accounts start causing shenanigans again and I'll be happy to take care of it. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 19:24, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

  I created an SPI that's now moot thanks to your quick work, @Oshwah: Wikipedia talk:Sockpuppet investigations/Toxicv4lor. Given there's a backlog at SPI, would you mind deleting it (or preventing it from being listed or whatever) to not add to that backlog? (Deleting is fine, I'm not precious about it existing! G7 would cover it, I believe.) Thanks again! 81.187.192.168 (talk) 19:33, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

  It'll get cleared from the SPI list automatically after its status is changed to be 'closed'. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 22:12, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

  Thanks all. Floquenbeam (talk) 19:56, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Extremely rare Madagascar vandalism Zanahary (talk) 04:24, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

User:Imachillguyman

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

A newish contributor, who seems intent on engaging in a slow-motion edit war in articles regarding Osteopathy, and in particular to Doctor of Osteopathic Medicine. The contributor has been notified of Wikipedia's contentious topics rules with regard to pseudoscience and fringe science, has been warned multiple times, and blocked once (for 48 hours) with regard to their editing, but even after the block they still persist [82][83][84][85] in attempting to impose their own personal opinions into articles, without consensus, and with no attempt at discussion. At minimum, I would suggest that an article-space block is required until they show signs of acknowledging the need to comply with Wikipedia policy, and to work collaboratively. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:03, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Let discuss this issue. Sorry, English not good. Not fst langauge. Imachillguyman (talk) 04:35, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Then why not contribute to a wiki where you can communicate proficiently? .Town...Shouter...Pro (talk) 04:54, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Practice makes perfect Imachillguyman (talk) 04:58, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

@Imachillguyman We aren't denying that's not good advice; but perhaps it's better that you first contribute to a Wikipedia project whose language is one you're fluent in; and then come back to edit the English Wikipedia when you feel more confident. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). 05:01, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

The user I'm replying to, .Town...Shouter...Pro, added 10 thousand bytes worth of invisible characters to the archive header template of this page when they made this reply...

Anyone else find that suspicious? – 2804:F14:80BE:B501:C033:1C2F:5D84:A79C (talk) 07:17, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

You're right. First time I saw that. So weird. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 07:35, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Their first edits were 2 large deletions, reverted now, with edit summaries citing, with a link, BLP policy. I've asked them about earlier accounts as they clearly are not new. Doug Weller talk 08:44, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

And they've been blocked as a sock of Raxythecat. Imachillguyman blocked indefinitely as NOT HERE. Doug Weller talk 15:57, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

User:AndyTheGrump

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

A old contributor, who seems intent on engaging in a slow-motion edit war in articles regarding Osteopathy, and in particular to Doctor of Osteopathic Medicine. Editor is taking an all or non stance on whether OMM is an pseduoscience, despite proof shown in the talk page by other editors that not ALL of OMM is a pseduo-practice. Imachillguy (talk) 04:56, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Sleeper account, registered seven years ago, makes its first English Wikipedia edit, after making a few Chinese and Commons edits. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:11, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Sleeper sock. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:15, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Did the puppeteer forget whether he was using his left hand or his right hand? Robert McClenon (talk) 06:23, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Uhhh... were their zhwiki and Commons edits deleted? Because I can't see them. In any case, I'd assume they simply forgot the password to their older account. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 06:27, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Oh, I see. Imachillguyman signed the original post as Imachillguy for some reason. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 07:42, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

I should think the reason may have been they thought signing as Imachillguy would magically turn the edit into an edit by Imachillguy. I remember I had that notion myself when I was new and had some socks... (No, of course I didn't have socks! Who said that?) Bishonen | tålk 12:24, 6 June 2024 (UTC).

• Blocked. I've indeffed Imachillguyman for persistent disruptive editing plus this silly retaliatory report against reporter per above. WP:NOTHERE. Also blocked their sleeper sock Imachillguy. Bishonen | tålk 12:24, 6 June 2024 (UTC).

User:Wilkja19

wilkja19 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) This user makes unexplained, unsourced changes to articles, and falsely mark them as minor. They have never responded to any messages. There are dozens of "final warnings" on their talk page. It is very clear that only a block is going to stop them editing harmfully. Adding "final warnings" to their talk page every week or two and doing nothing when they ignore them is causing real harm to large numbers of articles. 185.201.63.252 (talk) 09:44, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

@185.201.63.252 you must give diff's showcasing the behaviour you are accusing them of. Fantastic Mr. Fox (talk) 10:16, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Follow the link above that says "contribs". You will find 5,520 examples there. 185.201.63.252 (talk) 10:32, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Has never edited a talk page, including their own. P-blocked from article space to see if we can get this editor to start discussing. Valereee (talk) 14:34, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

@Valereee:, the OP is very likely to be community-banned user WP:LTA/BKFIP. BKFIP has made it their "mission" to get wilkja19 blocked; search the ANI archives.

You'll also notice they removed a note at the talk of wilkja's talk page explaining that this might be a WP:THEYCANTHEARYOU issue and they aren't "refusing" to answer messages. I don't know if that's still true (someone with an iOS device will need to check that the WMF really did fix this), but removing it before posting here, and not even mentioning it, was clearly disingenuous.

Regardless of the merits of this block, it creates a dangerous precedent where, if you're a banned user with a grudge, you can just try over and over and over, creating endless ANI threads, until one sticks. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 16:51, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Definitely BKFIP. I'll be blocking the range shortly as they are already blocked on User:185.201.63.253.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 16:59, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

@Suffusion of Yellow, I hope this person will be motivated to figure out how to communicate. Not communicating is a problem. Valereee (talk) 17:35, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Blocking someone in response to a request from a community-banned LTAs is a bigger problem, no? Again, don't just look at this one case, and think of the precedent.

In any case, I'm not sure how your block message is going to help them find their talk page. I'm not sure if they even can read the block message. Can you (or anyone) please block Suffusion of Yellow alt 9 with autoblock disabled, for 48 hours? I've dragged out an ancient iPad, and want to see just what they see. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 17:50, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

 Done. DanCherek (talk) 18:02, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. So, while user talk notifications are still basically broken, at least it looks like block notifications are fixed. I got the standard Mediawiki:Blockedtext notification when I tried to edit, which does include a link to my talk page. Of course, we sill don't know if Wilkja19 is using an up-to-date app. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 18:12, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

From personal experience (on mobile), I am pinged when someone tags me or when someone blocks me. Anything else (including replying) require me to click on notifications to see. Fantastic Mr. Fox (talk) 18:18, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Are you using the mobile web interface? Wilkja19 is using the iOS app. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 18:24, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Sorry to hijack this, but regardless of if the OP is an LTA: If you look at the reported user's logs you will see that they created another account in 2019, which has been indefinitely blocked since May of 2020 for disruptive editing - I do not see an explanation for that account anywhere, so is that not just block evasion? – (user who usually edits as this /32, currently 143.208.239.37 (talk)) 18:32, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

That account was blocked in 2020. Back then, iOS users were in a total black hole. No talk pages alerts at all, no block messages. If suddenly you're unable to edit and don't know why, is it really "block evasion" to continue with another account? Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 18:42, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Yes, it obviously is block evasion. You don't get to evade blocks just because you prefer to use one particular means of accessing Wikipedia. You are going to absurd lengths to defend this user. When you talk about "Blocking someone in response to a request from a community-banned LTAs", you are misreading the situation. The user has been blocked because of long term severe problems with their editing; those problems exist no matter who posted here. If problematic editor 1 reports problematic editor 2, do you think to yourself, "hm, must defend problematic editor 2, they must be a valuable editor if problematic editor 1 has reported them"? If you do, then I think you are seriously misguided. The obvious thing to do is to deal with both problematic editors as necessary, not to aggressively defend one of them because of the other one. 94.125.145.150 (talk) 20:26, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Going from 2nd edit to ANI and then removing 'best known for' from an article [86]? Evidently a WP:DUCK of WP:LTA/BKFIP. Fantastic Mr. Fox (talk) 21:07, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

It's an open proxy, now blocked.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:13, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

I edit on the mobile web interface. They may differ slightly, but generally speaking I counter the lack of notification alerts by simply checking the notifications tab after logging in. @Wilkja19 needs to take the initiative to do so as well, rather than be under the illusion that he can edit Wikipedia in single player mode and not engage with others because he isn't prompted to do so.

Fantastic Mr. Fox (talk) 19:35, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

They're completely unrelated, and based on brief testing, the "notifications tab" only shows up on the app's homepage, and it's very easy to miss. If you're willing to test the iOS app, great! But please don't make assumptions about software you've never used. And "not engaging with others unless prompted to do so" is how many people edit Wikipedia. It's the WMF's responsibility to make sure they know we're prompting them, and years on, they're still failing in that responsibility. If a block of Wilkja19 is necessary, it's a necessary evil and we shouldn't be throwing around phrases like "refusing" and "single-player mode" like we know it's their fault. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 19:54, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

SoY, I agree that WMF should be putting a priority on fixing this. This person has had six years and 5000 edits and (skimming here) 17 complaints at their talk to figure this out. It sucks that the only solution is to block from article space and hope that'll prompt them to finally discover there are things besides articles. Happy to try to remember to use "Apparently hasn't discovered talk pages yet" for future similar situations. If you look, you'll see that I immediately appended "No objection to any other admin lifting this block once we've got this editor discussing" to the block notification, which is what I generally do in this situation. The block is not meant to be punitive. It's meant to encourage them to investigate. Valereee (talk) 11:59, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

User: Jjj1238 persistent vandalism on Maxime Grousset page

The user Jjj1238 is constantly vandalizing Maxime Grousset's page to include non-notable information, namely that his sister participated in Miss France 2024. 2001:861:4801:2670:35B9:6015:67FD:D88C (talk) 14:35, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

First of all, you need to notify @Jjj1238 when bringing them here, I have done that for you here. Second of all, he is not 'vandalizing' the page, but rather is reverting a contentious removal of information, and hasn't crossed 3RR and has only carried out 2 reverts so far. You are engaged in a edit war, and I advise you go to talk page and give your case to why content should be removed there. Otherwise, you will be blocked for breaking 3RR. Fantastic Mr. Fox (talk) 16:19, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, Fantastic Mr. Fox. I have already warned this IP about their disruptive editing and was planning on reporting them if they continued removing content. { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 16:21, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Since October last year 2001:861:4801:2670:0:0:0:0/64 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)) has tried to enforce the same edit (or something very similar) 9 times, 15 October[87], 13 December (3 times)[88][89][90], 17 December[91], 26 May[92], today (3 times).[93][94][95] -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:47, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Given the sister isn't a notable person by Wikipedia's standards, why does this content need to be included? It's fair to assume that the person removing the content is potentally a member of the family. I feel like a decent argument could be made to exclude the content. Daniel (talk) 17:15, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Standard procedure is that it is good to add blue links (notable people) for relatives to a bio. However, mentioning relatives because we can is bad. What reliable source describes how the sister has influenced the subject of the article, Maxime Grousset? What reliable source has commented on how the accomplishments of the sister are related to those of the subject? Johnuniq (talk) 08:32, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

94.255.152.53 and illegal drugs

94.255.152.53 (talk · contribs) added illegal drugs related contents to different articles, without enough reference and seemed to be highly likely disruptive. For example, adding sleeping drink to Drink et, al. -Lemonaka 08:28, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

@Lemonaka:Why didn't you use my Talk page?

"For example, adding sleeping drink to Drink et, al." -- the section "Sleep_drinks" already existed: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Drink&oldid=1226068026#Sleep_drinks -- you owe me an apolygo. --94.255.152.53 (talk) 08:41, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

@Lemonaka: I don't think you should be an admin. --94.255.152.53 (talk) 08:42, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

@Lemonaka: "added illegal drugs related contents to different articles, without enough reference" -- please give relevant examples instead of just saying it. I added legal drugs to illegal drug articles too. --94.255.152.53 (talk) 08:54, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Oh, I guess you are referring to List_of_drinks#Other_psychoactive_drinks? These entries do not need references, because they are all articles about psychoactive drinks, so it's self-explanatory. --94.255.152.53 (talk) 09:07, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Re Why didn't [they] use my Talk page?, probably because that's proven ineffective so far. Your talk page has:

• 23 CS1 Error notifications spanning nine months
• 2 separate notices of copyright violation
• 9 cautions about adding unsourced material from 8 different editors; 1 caution about synthesis / original research
• 11 cautions from 9 different editors re non-constructive / disruptive / vandalous editing
• numerous other discussions questioning the nature of your edits, especially the mass changes across a broad swath of articles, and overlinking
• Among the above are 5 "level 3" warnings and 5 "final" warnings

It's clear that addressing things on your talk page will not be effective. All these problems are distributed across the nine months you've been editing. So it's not like you've been learning from feedback to improve your editing. And defending against each individual tree in the forest of problematic editing isn't going to set us in the direction of improving things, either. _signed, Willondon (talk) 15:11, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

---

I won't address this editor directly anymore, as they asked me not to when they removed my advice on proper handling of talk page threads [96]. I address the general readership instead: Even after all this, I didn't place another warning on their page, per above, but just now, I again reverted content added without sourcing [97]. I would have gone directly to WP:AIV at this point had this thread not been started. _signed, Willondon (talk) 19:44, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

I won't deny that receiving so many warnings has been tiring. Editing with an IP address instead of an account can make it harder to keep track of past discussions, and I've encountered a few warnings in the past that seemed like misunderstandings. However, I understand now that this wasn't the way to handle the situation.

Moving forward, I completely agree that using talk pages for communication is the best approach. Willondon, you're welcome to use my talk page for any future concerns about my edits.

I see there's been a lot of back-and-forth about my recent edits to the drinks articles. I apologize that I didn't take the warnings from other editors more seriously.

Looking back, I understand that the repeated edits and lack of sourcing caused disruption. I'm committed to following Wikipedia's policies for verifiable sources and using talk pages for communication.

While I appreciate the effort to improve Wikipedia, I've decided to step away from editing for the foreseeable future. Thank you to everyone who has taken the time to discuss these issues. I wish you all the best in your future editing endeavors. --94.255.152.53 (talk) 22:35, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for that response. So many talk page warnings is not good, but the fact that you have not been blocked yet is an indication to me that the community has seen value in the many improvements you did make. Each disimprovement creates a burden on others to correct it, which is routine in a collaborative effort, but if the cost of oversight outweighs the benefit, it can't stand. Taking a break is best. I would be pleased to see you rejoin in the future as a member of the editing community here. You always were, but you seemed to rebuff feedback, as if you didn't think you were. A different approach could benefit all of us. Sincerely, _signed, Willondon (talk) 23:02, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

User deletes talk

WP:ECR. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:47, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The user SelfStudier keeps deleting talk points without any valid reply. This is in the following talk https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:History_of_Palestine#The_name_Palestine — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.112.152.54 (talk • contribs) 18:30, 7 June 2024 (UTC)<diff> IP users are not allowed to participate in discussions about the Arab-Israeli conflict outside of specific edit requests. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 18:34, 7 June 2024 (UTC) IP has also failed to notify Selfstudier about this discussion, which they are clearly instructed to do in a big red notice at the top of this page. Bgsu98 (Talk) 18:38, 7 June 2024 (UTC) IP, this article is a contentious topic, and is subject to the extended-confirmed restriction, meaning that unregistered users and users with new accounts are not permitted to edit, including making comments on talk pages. You can visit the links here for more detailed information. Selfstudier could have done a better job of explaining that when they removed your comments, but they were correct to remove them. There is also a notice at the top of the talk page describing these restrictions. Thank you. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:40, 7 June 2024 (UTC) I have explained to this editor by edit summary, at their talk page and at my talk page. Also see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive356#Selfstudier "As a non-EC editor, you essentially have no standing to make edits related to the topic. You can make an edit request, but any other editor can remove it, even without providing reason. Further, making a complaint against another editor as a non-EC editor in the WP:ARBPIA area is fully not allowed." If you have a suggestion how this should be explained to an editor, I would be most interested to see that.Selfstudier (talk) 18:46, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

User:51.6.6.215 hates the word "British"

User:51.6.6.215 hates the word "British" and keeps removing it haphazardly from articles:

[diff] [diff] [diff] [diff] [diff] [diff] [diff] [diff]

Also ham-fistedly changing "about" tags[diff] and citation titles[diff] in their quest to nuke the word "British".

Left a note on their talk page about not arbitrarily change MOS:NATIONALITY/labels from "British" to "English" and they deleted it with "Bollox and anti English! ". Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 20:51, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

That's definitely a LTA. I know someone's been doing this for a while now on a bunch of British people's articles, but I can't remember if there was a name associated with them. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 21:04, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

This IP has been engaging in disruptive ethnonationalist nonsense for about six weeks and so I have blocked the IP for three months. Cullen328 (talk) 06:16, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

This is EnglishBornAndRaised (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (I don't know why their account wasn't blocked).

They've been at this for over a year from a range of IPs, e.g. 146.90.190.136 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 146.90.190.240 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 51.6.6.209 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 80.189.40.27 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), ...

We could probably do with an edit filter. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 15:25, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

IP nationality warring

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

This IP was recently blocked over nationality warring over the descriptions "British," "English," "Welsh," and "Scottish." They are back again. Please block. Air on White (talk) 00:54, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Which IP was recently blocked? There are no logged blocks for that IP. – 2804:F1...AE:B631 (talk) 01:16, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, I misread the user talk page. They have never been blocked before, but have resumed their nationality warring after a break. They have been warned multiple times. Air on White (talk) 01:20, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Seems related to the above. I've merged the two. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 02:56, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

racist POV pushing user

This racist rant and calling for mass deportations "I HATE THEM!". Obviously WP:NOTHERE. — ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 09:14, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Never mind, an admin blocked them before I could even put the ANI notification tag on their page. Disregard. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 09:15, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

It is probably worth removing the racist rants from their talk page.Nigel Ish (talk) 09:31, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Done, and a few other comments elsewhere as well. Black Kite (talk) 10:15, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict) TPA revoked and revdel'd edit @Rhasidat Adeleke.^{(admins only)} No hate speech, including in unblock requests. El_C 10:18, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Maybe they should be allowed to post unblock requests and told that if they are unblocked, they will only be able to work on Wikiproject Nigeria articles. Sometimes I think being blocked is too easy. I mean, come on, listen to Rhasidat Adeleke's Irish accent. Sean.hoyland (talk) 10:30, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

What the heck is going on here on Wikipedia?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

What the heck happened to the infobox person templates on almost every single Wikipedia article right now? Why are there some red errors on them messing up the articles and that template? What caused all of this to happen? Is this some sort of a glitch or something like that? Who is going to fix all of this right now? How can we fix all of that right now? Take care! — Preceding unsigned comment added by PlahWestGuy2024 (talk • contribs) 11:33, June 8, 2024 (UTC)

@PlahWestGuy2024: Please provide a link to an example affected article. I just pulled up a random person to compare (Tom Gleisner), and found that his infobox was unaffected. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). 11:39, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Here! Let me give you an example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Biden

Wait a minute! What about the red-linked "ambassador to"'s on the U.S. President articles and stuff like that? Also, how did you guys just fix the marriage infobox template sections? — Preceding unsigned comment added by PlahWestGuy2024 (talk • contribs)

@TheDragonFire300: It looks like there's a Lua error somewhere in Template:Infobox officeholder. 2A00:23C5:50E8:EE01:995D:42D0:B13A:6744 (talk) 12:07, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Oh good! Now they're all fixed for good! Finally! But anyways, how did all of that happen all of a sudden by the way? I just wanna know! I'm very curious here!

This seems to be resolved for now. Keep it one place; I suggest those who are curious follow the discussion at WP:VPT (or at User talk:Nick, Template talk:Infobox officeholder or Template talk:Both, or one of the other places). With thanks to those reporting.. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 12:19, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User: Mason.Jones and United States

Please see User talk:Alexanderkowal#United States, Talk:United States#Foreign relations: developing countries, Talk:United States#RfC: foreign relations with developing countries, User talk:Mason.Jones#RfC, and User talk:Mason.Jones#Battleground editing. I should've involved admins much earlier, I've not been involved in anything like this before. Alexanderkowal (talk) 13:38, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Also Talk:United States#Lede history, I just feel like I'm being bullied and obstructed by a senior editor who feels like they own the page Alexanderkowal (talk) 13:41, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

User:BloodSkullzRock and Party of Women

Requesting some help here. When I first noticed BloodSkullzRock and Apricotjam edit warring at the edit history of Party of Women over an "anti-transgender" labeling, I warned both here. They seem to stop, but BloodSkullzRock created their userpage, which denies trans and non-binary gender identity. I responded by placing a contentious topic notice on their talk page. [98] They said that they were a member of the party, and when I cautioned that it might be a COI, they made a response that appears to assert that Apricotjam and other "TRAs" had also a COI, and defend their position as "immutable biological facts". This might be battleground behavior and I think some admin eyes might be needed on the party article. I might not respond further as I am in a rush. ObserveOwl (chit-chat • my doings) 14:41, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

hi thanks for requesting help, i've stopped reverting edits but would like to assist in any admin or whatever coming in to fix up the article and prevent vandalism. i suspected that both BloodSkullzRock and Ghanima are party members hence their edits and refusal to acknowledge critical sources. I would welcome any process which allows this article to be protected from bias and accurately descriptive of the party's ideology and context. Apricotjam (talk) 14:50, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

• I've indeffed BloodSkullzRock. The article is a mess.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:59, 8 June 2024 (UTC)