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

Months of WP:HOUNDING by User:Let'srun

Since December 2023, User:Let'srun has been consistently WP:HOUNDING me by following me around and opposing me at various different places, including some extremely obvious examples coupled with some personal attacks, incivility, and general disruption towards football articles in the areas I work. I have been extremely patient in dealing with this user, trying to minimise contact, etc., but he has not stopped, and as such I feel I have no choice but to send this to ANI. Below, I have listed extensive instances of hounding and harassment directed towards me by this user. To make things a little easier to read in the "Complete – chronological" section, I have left some more minor evidences in small font, some moderate evidences in normal font, whereas more obvious examples are in bold font. I have also copied some evidences from the section to a "Major evidences" section.

Background

To start, I found it peculiar that his first contributions were attempts to mass delete articles; see [1]. First interaction seems to be me commenting at an AFD of his (August 2023): [2] - nothing unusual. September 2023: I assisted in saving an article he nom'ed for deletion: [3] Started nominating football stuff in October with [4]. Saved another Dec. 6: [5]. Saved an article he nom'ed for deletion on Dec. 11: [6].

Complete – chronological

Note that much of this comes from emails with other users from the past (who similarly believed the behaviour was disruptive); as such, a few of the links may be out of date, but can still be found by looking through contributions lists. Right after (two minutes) he responds at the Boston College-Virginia Tech AFD (mentioned in above section), disagreeing with my provided sources for GNG ([7]), he bizarrely draftifies an AFC submission I accepted for having "too few sources" ([8]) when it had three and significant coverage. December 16: he votes "redirect" at an article I substantially expanded; ultimately kept: [9]. Five minutes later: does the same at a different discussion involving me that I voted keep (eventually kept): [10]. December 18: I make a comment at one his AFDs (Darroll DeLaPorte), could be considered inclusion-leaning: [11]. Excluding two minutes later, his very next actions ([12]) are to tag two of my creations in two minutes, both Italians for the 1926 Hartford Blues whom I created in consecutive months, for missing significant coverage, one of whom (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rocky_Segretta&diff=prev&oldid=1190596820) that was incorrect. Five minutes after replying to me at the DeLaPorte discussion ([13]), he nominates an article created by me for deletion, which was kept ([14]). I save another article he nom'ed for deletion December 21: [15]. Seven minutes after it is kept, he mass tags for significant coverage 28 articles ([16]). December 21: creates a merger article from my work without attribution ([17]). (Not that I really care that much about it, but I've seen others get upset about it before.) Mass sigcov tags 23 articles on December 22, then eight more on Dec. 24 (not that its necessarily wrong, but he has access to sources and knows how to find them, so it'd be just about as easy for him to do that). On December 26, I reverted "refimprove" tags on List of current CFL players added by Andrevan; one day later, tags are interestingly re-introduced by Let'srun; reverts by me with explanation are repeatedly either reverted by him with no explanation or explanations that didn't make sense: [18]. Something similar happened with the XFL and USFL lists; but he later brought them to AFD and they were deleted, so I can't view the history. January 1, 2024, very oddly comes across Art Whizin, an article kept at AFD over a week earlier, where I had commented, and adds maintenance tags: [19]. January 2, there was discussion over whether to have a notability tag on an article just kept at AFD; I make a comment and include a source and Let'srun somehow finds my comment and finds a reason to discount it: [20]. Eight minutes after I rebut his argument there ([21]), he ludicrously TAGBOMBs - including for notability - (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/Let%27srun&target=Let%27srun&dir=prev&offset=20231227013618&limit=500) several NFL players that he could have easily found GNG-coverage for. Each reverted soon by two different editors (incl. myself); see [22] [23] [24] and [25]. Shortly after, nominates a 30 game NFL player for deletion; article kept after my efforts: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Vivian_Hultman. A little bit later, oddly adds and removes categories to a 1895 Tufts football article ([26]); not created by me but I did other Tufts articles; odd. Later that day, votes against me at an AFD; noting that he "never agree[s] with the constant [other stuff exists] arguments by BF" ([27]). After noting his disagreement with a comment I made at the 30-game NFL player AFD, his next two actions are to nominate for deletion to articles created by me - both of which I created in a two-day span ([28]). I do not see how he could have found those besides looking at my userpage. 15:24 January 4: votes "redirect" at a AFD I was involved in: [29]. Soon after, I revert some of the ridiculous notability taggings mentioned earlier ([30]) - his first actions after that, seven more silly notability taggings (six reverted): [31]. Then I added a sigcov source to Bill Gutterson, Ellery White already had one (two of the articles tagged by him) - he continually re-adds the tags, then inserts some more maintenance tags, on account of the non-existent requirement that "enough sources to satisfy GNG need to be IN the article". Ultimately reverted (notability tags are not allowed to be re-added...). When I add sources to another one - Shorty Barr - (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/BeanieFan11&target=BeanieFan11&dir=prev&offset=20240101220745&limit=500) - his first edit, aside from one in his userspace, is another ludicrous notability tagging, which he easily could have found sources to demonstrate GNG for (Jim MacMurdo). January 11: nominates two season articles created by me for deletion (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/Let%27srun&target=Let%27srun&dir=prev&offset=20231227013618&limit=500), starting a series of SIX consecutive unrelated nominations for deletion of season articles created by me (other non-football ones mixed in between - [32]). Early Jan. 12, another AFD of an article by me: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1897 South Dakota State Jackrabbits football team. Two more on Jan. 16 (1892 Biddle/Livingstone). The sixth (1901 Wilmington Conf. Acad.) on Jan. 19. Here's where it gets interesting: I comment "This is at least the ninth time you've nominated for deletion an article written by me in a month. Its starting to feel excessive." He leaves me a message ([33]) asking me to "withdraw my personal attack". I said it felt like a totally reasonable comment, especially since it was six straight and he was averaging one per three days of mine. Jan. 20, PRODs notable 1916 Tusculum Pioneers football team ([34]) - interesting how he found it, since he mainly focused on 1870s-1900s seasons, and it was related to an article I wrote (Tusculum Pioneers football, 1901–1910). Later on Jan. 20, tags for notability four clearly notable articles (Frank Robinson, Pete Swanson, Marshall Edwards, Joe Rowe) in FOUR MINUTES which were all created directly after each other by me as some of my earliest work ([35]). He had said, in the talk page discussion, that he was not targeting my articles. That seems pretty clearly targeting. Also worth noting - the MINUTE after I reverted one of the taggings for being clearly notable ([36]) - he has two more plainly ridiculous notability taggings for obviously notable NFL players ([37] - Ty Coon / Buster Mitchell). Five minutes after I revert the notability tag for Mitchell ([38]), he slaps on a bunch of other maintenance tags and makes me do the work, even when I linked sources in my revert edit summary ([39]). Jan. 22: opposes my good faith efforts to draftify some of the AFD nominations so I could work on them later - he repeatedly opposes them - I don't get why one would do so (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/1881_Georgetown_football_team and https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/1892_Western_Maryland_Green_Terror_football_team&diff=prev&oldid=1198089209). Right after, replies on my talk page (in response to me saying it was not a personal attack to point out his AFD statistics): "It comes with the inherent accusation that I am targeting your articles for deletion, which I am not." I respond by asking how he found the four (Swanson et al.) and the Tusculum season, he responds by avoiding the Swanson question, and saying "Using categories created for the respective teams, and the early college football seasons...For the last time, I ask you to strike that comment." Do you know what he does next? Tags for notability not one, not two, not three, but SEVEN articles relating to my work for notability (South Dakota, Columbian, Lewisburg - [40]). I question how he found them in rapid succession, and ask "And even if that's all random, I still ask: what about Edwards, Swanson, Robinson and Rowe". His response completely avoids the question ([41]): "I'm confused, were you formally MisterCake? That is who created the Lewisburg articles I tagged." (One season after the 1883 Lewisburg football team – 1887 Bucknell football team – an article I created.) I point that out, and again ask about Swanson; he replies "I already answered that above. Categories...." I point out that several of them had absolutely ZERO categories in common, ask again, and he gives the confusing non-answer "Because there are ways to switch queries beyond who created the article?" WHICH he follows by voting "delete" at an AFD I voted keep ([42]) and three minutes later doing similar for another AFD ([43]). I leave two comments: the first "I'm finding your response difficult to understand; but the only place these articles (Swanson, Edwards) are connected are at my userpage, where they are listed next to each other. There are no "categories" that connect them; considering the thousands of NFL stubs, how could your "queries" come across only mine?" and "How about this: why don't you tell me, exactly, how you came across these articles (Swanson, Edwards, Robinson, Rowe), and we can end this discussion?" He avoids answering for a bit, adds another pathetic-and-now-reverted notability tag to a clearly notable NFL player ([44]) and finally responds with a non-answer to the first one (ignoring the second - [45]) - "They don't. You just picked 4 articles that I have tagged which were created by you through searching multiple categories of NFL teams (and you have hundreds of articles). I don't have any issue with the vast majority of your articles, just because I maybe disagree with 1-2% of your creations (if that) does not mean I am single-handedly targeting them." Five minutes later, another AFD comment in opposition to me ([46]). I respond "You're avoiding the question; tell me exactly how you found those four completely unrelated articles in a span of four minutes ... answer the question: tell me, exactly, how you came across Swanson, Edwards, Robinson and Rowe in four minutes." He says that "I'll repeat myself: searching multiple categories of NFL teams." I tell him how absurd and unlikely that is; I am certain he just looked from the start of my userpage creations list to target: "OK - so in four minutes, you randomly searched Category:Brooklyn Dodgers (NFL) players, completely randomly came across, out of over 200 others, Marshall Edwards which I happened to create, found it to tag for notability; one minute later, randomly searched Category:Los Angeles Rams players, containing over 1,000, and randomly choose to tag for notability Pete Swanson, the article I created right after Edwards; then one minute later randomly searched Category:St. Louis Rams players, a category of over 800, randomly found Joe Rowe, which I coincidentally created right after Swanson; and then one minute later, searched Category:Denver Broncos players, a category of ~1,600, and randomly found to tag for notability Frank Robinson, whom I also coincidentally happened to create right around the time of Rowe? If so, that is the most amazing coincidence I have heard of in my life". Never responded. Soon after, I make a comment referencing him ([47]) and then within minutes, he nominates a category created by me for deletion ([48]). At the 1881 Georgetown discussion (mentioned above, where he opposed my draftification efforts), he repeatedly stated that I was advocating to keep it when I just stated to draftify so I could create a merger target - I straightforwardly tell him that I am not advocating to keep it - he replies with a massive failure of WP:AGF, straight out calling me a liar with ill intent ([49]): "You actually are advocating to keep it, you are just trying to pretend that you aren't by first creating a draft and once the smoke has cleared putting it back in mainspace." (interesting how he considers pointing out basic facts - i.e. that he nominated nine of my articles for deletion in a month - as personal attacks, whereas this...isn't?) Then, to prove him wrong, I simply start the merger target in mainspace (Georgetown football, 1874-1889) - now, in the past when others have done similar Let'srun has been supportive of this, even doing one himself on the Delaware State Hornets (which, actually, was a direct copy of my work without attribution) - however, within minutes of me finishing the Georgetown article, he starts by removing relevant content twice and then nominating it for deletion; the discussion has an overwhelming consensus to keep. (Also, interesting that, when I pointed out that he had done the same for arguably less notable groupings in DelState, he removed it from his userpage). More silly notability taggings on Jan. 29, this time on NBA players, which have been reverted (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/Let%27srun&target=Let%27srun&offset=&limit=500 - Noble Jorgensen, Harry Zeller, some others) User:Cbl62 had sent him a message about "over-personalizing" at AFD, probably referring to the Georgetown discussion - on Jan. 31 Let'srun states that "Looking to the future, I will work to be better". His next edits are to nominate for deletion an article where he had a dispute with me (List of CFL players, which was a clear keep). He also has repeatedly nominatied for deletion college football categories, knowing that I've opposed them before as its part of the standard categorisation scheme; User:Jweiss11 noted at one ([50]) "Let'srun, these nominations are, frankly, a waste of time." Feb. 1: as only AFD vote of the hour, votes at a discussion I was involved in. Feb 5: more silly notability taggings for NBA players Feb 6: No vote for 17 days after the start of the this AFD - within three days of me voting, opposition from Let'srun (consensus was in favour of my argument). Feb 6: more opposition to me at AFD (consensus was in favour of my argument) Feb. 7: finds another discussion I was involved at as the only edit in a 20-hour span, making sure to note what he considered problems in my comment Feb. 9: two minutes before replying to my rebuttal at the second Feb. 6 AFD, critiques my comment at an AFD with SNOW keep consensus Feb. 11: finds another of my AFD comments to critique - article kept Feb. 11: yet again AFDs one of my works Feb. 14: his first comment after refusing to answer a polite request on how many categories he planned on nominating for deletion, somehow finds the RM for USFL Draft and opposes me. Feb. 16: votes rapidly in succession, without any other AFD contributions at two completely different AFDs I was involved in, supporting me weakly at Lubomir Pistek while opposing me at Radoslav Holubek (AFDs). I ask him "May I ask, how did you find both this and [Pistek], your only two votes in the past two days, in rapid succession, considering they both happen to be discussions in which I am involved and seem to be part of an ongoing trend at AFD of you either voting against me or making sure to critique my comments when you do ultimately agree with me?" Doesn't respond there, but makes sure to start voting at other discussions within three minutes, and also responds to another polite college football talk request regarding his CFD noms by saying Why are you singling me out? I immediately responded regarding how it seemed he was actually singling me out while later pinging him asking on the topic; he never responded. Feb. 20: Only vote in a few days, "delete" at an AFD I found sources for. Feb. 21: first edits after a polite request regarding how many CFD nominations he intended on making - to which he never responded - he mass nominates more categories for deletion. Feb. 21: I had opened a close review for the NFL Draft discussion on Feb. 16 but stopped commenting afterwards; after a ping, I returned with one edit to the page on February 21. Very shortly afterwards, Let'srun opposed my close review with some bizarre comments about "forum shopping" that have since been criticised by a number of editors. Feb. 24: as his first AFD comments in awhile, Let'srun votes against me rapidly in short succession both here and here without any other AFD comments. I politely asked he found the discussion with a ping - he immediately voted at another AFD while refusing to answer my question. I asked again with another ping; he again refused to answer how he found the discussion. More following me around later that day, having never responded to any of my repeated questions about how he came across to oppose me at the discussions he did. By this point, I was already extremely close to sending Let'srun here, but decided to be patient and give another chance, and he left me alone for a time. That is, until I rescued the New Britain Mules, an article he sent to AFD, in mid-April. The day after I made an expansion that convinced a "delete" !voter to switch to "keep", Let'srun critiqued one of my comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Max Wirth (cyclist). May 2: he opposes me again at an AFD I voted keep, and the article was kept: [51]. I help rescue another article he nom'ed for deletion on May 2: [52]. Two days later: he re-nominates for deletion an article I had helped get kept just two months prior. Right after, he nominates for deletion another page created by me: [53]. May 6: the same day I provide sources to rescue Rome Chambers from AFD, Let'srun adds a maintenance tag to the article, and soon after that, !votes at two AFDs involving me in six minutes ([54] [55]). May 7: comments at two more AFDs in a row involving me (I had de-PRODed them): [56] / [57]. May 10: votes delete at an AFD which I suggested looking for sources. May 11: votes, including twice against me, at three AFDs involving me in a row: [58] / [59] / [60]. May 12: closed an AFD for an article I helped rescue: [61] (hadn't seen him close AFDs before). Later on May 12: minutes after responding to me at an AFD (where he refused to answer a query on how he found the article, given that it was related to me from months back), he !votes at two more AFDs involving me in a row ([62] / [63]) before returning to the discussion. May 17: critiques one of my comments at another AFD and does the same with another AFD. More following me around on May 19, May 21 (May 21 again, opposing me at another AFD).

Major evidences (copied from complete history)

Right after (two minutes) he responds at the Boston College-Virginia Tech AFD (mentioned in above section), disagreeing with my provided sources for GNG ([64]), he bizarrely draftifies an AFC submission I accepted for having "too few sources" ([65]) when it had three and significant coverage. On December 26, I reverted "refimprove" tags on List of current CFL players added by Andrevan; one day later, tags are interestingly re-introduced by Let'srun; reverts by me with explanation are repeatedly either reverted by him with no explanation or explanations that didn't make sense: [66]. Something similar happened with the XFL and USFL lists; but he later brought them to AFD and they were deleted, so I can't view the history. January 11: nominates two season articles created by me for deletion ([67]), starting a series of SIX consecutive unrelated nominations for deletion of season articles created by me (other non-football ones mixed in between - [68]). The sixth (1901 Wilmington Conf. Acad.) on Jan. 19. Here's where it gets interesting: I comment "This is at least the ninth time you've nominated for deletion an article written by me in a month. Its starting to feel excessive." He leaves me a message ([69]) asking me to "withdraw my personal attack". I said it felt like a totally reasonable comment, especially since it was six straight and he was averaging one per three days of mine. Later on Jan. 20, tags for notability four clearly notable articles (Frank Robinson, Pete Swanson, Marshall Edwards, Joe Rowe) in FOUR MINUTES which were all created directly after each other by me as some of my earliest work ([70]). He had said, in the talk page discussion, that he was not targeting my articles. That seems pretty clearly targeting. Also worth noting - the MINUTE after I reverted one of the taggings for being clearly notable ([71]) - he has two more plainly ridiculous notability taggings for obviously notable NFL players ([72] - Ty Coon / Buster Mitchell). Five minutes after I revert the notability tag for Mitchell ([73]), he slaps on a bunch of other maintenance tags. Right after, replies on my talk page (in response to me saying it was not a personal attack to point out his AFD statistics): "It comes with the inherent accusation that I am targeting your articles for deletion, which I am not." I respond by asking how he found the four (Swanson et al.) and a college season, he responds by avoiding the Swanson question, and saying "Using categories created for the respective teams, and the early college football seasons...For the last time, I ask you to strike that comment." Do you know what he does next? Tags for notability not one, not two, not three, but SEVEN articles relating to my work for notability (South Dakota, Columbian, Lewisburg - [74]). I question how he found them in rapid succession, and ask "And even if that's all random, I still ask: what about Edwards, Swanson, Robinson and Rowe". His response completely avoids the question ([75]): "I'm confused, were you formally MisterCake? That is who created the Lewisburg articles I tagged." (One season after the 1883 Lewisburg football team – 1887 Bucknell football team – an article I created.) I point that out, and again ask about Swanson; he replies "I already answered that above. Categories...." I point out that several of them had absolutely ZERO categories in common, ask again, and he gives the confusing non-answer "Because there are ways to switch queries beyond who created the article?" WHICH he follows by voting "delete" at an AFD I voted keep ([76]) and three minutes later doing similar for another AFD ([77]). I leave two comments: the first "I'm finding your response difficult to understand; but the only place these articles (Swanson, Edwards) are connected are at my userpage, where they are listed next to each other. There are no "categories" that connect them; considering the thousands of NFL stubs, how could your "queries" come across only mine?" and "How about this: why don't you tell me, exactly, how you came across these articles (Swanson, Edwards, Robinson, Rowe), and we can end this discussion?" He avoids answering for a bit, adds another pathetic-and-now-reverted notability tag to a clearly notable NFL player ([78]) and finally responds with a non-answer to the first one (ignoring the second - [79]) - "They don't. You just picked 4 articles that I have tagged which were created by you through searching multiple categories of NFL teams (and you have hundreds of articles). I don't have any issue with the vast majority of your articles, just because I maybe disagree with 1-2% of your creations (if that) does not mean I am single-handedly targeting them." Five minutes later, another AFD comment in opposition to me ([80]). I respond "You're avoiding the question; tell me exactly how you found those four completely unrelated articles in a span of four minutes." He says that "I'll repeat myself: searching multiple categories of NFL teams." I tell him how absurd and unlikely that is; I am certain he just looked from the start of my userpage creations list to target: "OK - so in four minutes, you randomly searched Category:Brooklyn Dodgers (NFL) players, completely randomly came across, out of over 200 others, Marshall Edwards which I happened to create, found it to tag for notability; one minute later, randomly searched Category:Los Angeles Rams players, containing over 1,000, and randomly choose to tag for notability Pete Swanson, the article I created right after Edwards; then one minute later randomly searched Category:St. Louis Rams players, a category of over 800, randomly found Joe Rowe, which I coincidentally created right after Swanson; and then one minute later, searched Category:Denver Broncos players, a category of ~1,600, and randomly found to tag for notability Frank Robinson, whom I also coincidentally happened to create right around the time of Rowe? If so, that is the most amazing coincidence I have heard of in my life". Never responded. At the 1881 Georgetown discussion (mentioned above, where he opposed my draftification efforts), he repeatedly stated that I was advocating to keep it when I just stated to draftify so I could create a merger target - I straightforwardly tell him that I am not advocating to keep it - he replies with a massive failure of WP:AGF, straight out calling me a liar with ill intent ([81]): "You actually are advocating to keep it, you are just trying to pretend that you aren't by first creating a draft and once the smoke has cleared putting it back in mainspace." Then, to prove him wrong, I simply start the merger target in mainspace (Georgetown football, 1874-1889) - now, in the past when others have done similar Let'srun has been supportive of this, even doing one himself on the Delaware State Hornets - however, within minutes of me finishing the Georgetown article, he starts by removing relevant content twice and then nominating it for deletion; the discussion has an overwhelming consensus to keep. User:Cbl62 had sent him a message about "over-personalizing" at AFD, probably referring to the Georgetown discussion - on Jan. 31 Let'srun states that "Looking to the future, I will work to be better". His next edits are to nominate for deletion an article where he had a dispute with me (List of CFL players, which was a clear keep). Feb. 16: votes rapidly in succession, without any other AFD contributions at two completely different AFDs I was involved in, supporting me weakly at Lubomir Pistek while opposing me at Radoslav Holubek (AFDs). I ask him "May I ask, how did you find both this and [Pistek], your only two votes in the past two days, in rapid succession, considering they both happen to be discussions in which I am involved and seem to be part of an ongoing trend at AFD of you either voting against me or making sure to critique my comments when you do ultimately agree with me?" Doesn't respond there, but then responds to a polite college football talk request regarding his CFD noms by saying Why are you singling me out? I immediately responded regarding how it seemed he was actually singling me out while later pinging him asking on the topic; he never responded. May 4: he re-nominates for deletion an article I had helped get kept just two months prior. Right after, he nominates for deletion another page created by me: [82]. May 11: votes, including twice against me, at three AFDs involving me in a row: [83] / [84] / [85].

BeanieFan11 (talk) 22:03, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

This is quite a lot to respond to here, so let me try my best here. I have nothing personal against any user here, including BeanieFan11. Rather, if I disagree with any user or believe additional context is needed somewhere, I look to say it and the reasons as for such. Perhaps I could be better about giving supporting evidence at times, and if others consider my behaviour to be disruptive, I am open to hearing why they think so. Let me start with the first bullet point. I edited under a IP before creating an account (which I noted when I was taken to ANI last year, apologies for not finding that post but I will continue to look for it). The first interaction I had with Beanie (or at least that I can find) actually was in July of 2023 when they commented (or critiqued, however you wish to view it) on my AfD for Eugene Petramale, which closed as delete.[[86]]. I have also done some closing of AfD's going back to last year, see this as an example of a AfD not involving BeanieFan11. [[87]]. And for the sake of transparency, one in which BeanieFan11 voted in [[88]] which I nominated and then closed myself as I was persuaded by the evidence provided.

Over 80% of my votes at AfD have closed as 'matches' and the vast majority of my nominations and votes (over 1200) are on articles which were not significantly edited or created by BeanieFan11. When nominating articles, including by BeanieFan11, I have looked to be open to ATDs, which is seen in my nomination statements. I also admit that some of my nominations were later shown to have suitable sources deserving that article to be kept and when that happens I look to refine my BEFORE. I am not sure about the CfD's but I would guess it is a similar match percentage, and other voters who commonly are at CfD have agreed with my nominations in that area, like at [[89]][[90]][[91]] and I have only disagreed with those users in that area that a WikiProject is the best venue for widespread policy to be discussed.

I don't label myself as an inclusionist or deletionist. I look at the available sourcing and follow the guidelines. I don't always agree with other voters but I respect their intentions and believe in WP:GOODFAITH.

Looking at the evidence provided here, I apologise for the conduct at the 1881 Georgetown discussion which was out of line and had unacceptable language, along with the lack of attribution on that combined season article (I wish you had brought that in particular to my attention earlier). I have not intended to hound anyone (honestly it is the first time I've ever seen that cited so I am only reading it now for the first time) and note that we edit in some of the same areas frequently due to common interests. I look at the deletion sorting for sportspeople and sports frequently and often vote in those discussions, several of which BeanieFan has already commented in or does so after myself. I have previously tagged articles sometimes in bulk after having added them to my watchlist but have stopped that practice.

If there is something I didn't cover, please let me know. Let'srun (talk) 23:08, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

• I find the evidence completely unpersuasive. The last three diffs (Special:Permalink/1224980664, Special:Permalink/1225004175, and Special:Permalink/1224641854) are ordinary AFD participation in the topic area of sports, not WP:HOUNDING. Some of the earlier diffs are less civil and more personal, but are stale. If there is a short (WP:THREE) argument that a TBAN or IBAN is necessary, make it; a collection of ordinary interactions is not that. Walsh90210 (talk) 00:52, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
  • I still don't see a case for action now. Too many of the diffs (in the "shorter" version) are complaining about AFDs such as Special:Permalink/1195055730 (which I think is the "South Dakota" reference mentioned). An insistence on keeping stand-alone articles like that, at all costs, is largely what got Lugnuts banned. The diffs presented from the past 3 months are still completely innocuous; if "an editor occasionally disagrees with me at AFD" is causing BeanieFan distress, BeanieFan is the editor who needs to disengage from the project. I'm not going to say there was definitely no "hounding" in December/January, but it has stopped and there is no cause for administrative action now. This is a collaborative project and one cannot demand to be the only editor on sports articles. Walsh90210 (talk) 04:11, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
• I agree with Walsh90210. This looks a lot more like common areas of interest where the two editors disagree often. Describing this diff as "he opposes me again at an AFD I voted keep, and the article was kept" as an example of hounding is particularly illustrative. Let'srun did not oppose Beaniefan11, they supported the deletion of the article based on valid policy arguments that other editors also provided. Beaniefan11 weakly supported keeping the article. Describing the article as being "kept" (and all that seeks to imply about Let'srun's motivations) is misleading, the deletion nomination was closed as "no consensus". BoldGnome (talk) 07:57, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

The editor interaction tool tells the same story: [92] The more I look at these interactions, the more innocent they become, and the more concerning this report becomes. It's just innocent content dispute after innocent content dispute after innocent content dispute. Most of the time Let'srun and Beaniefan don't even interact in any way. Assuming good faith regarding the filing of this report, I'd be more concerned about the "users of the past" fuelling these concerns via email. BoldGnome (talk) 12:16, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

• I haven't been impressed with Let'srun's various AfD nominations. His pre-AFD research is non-existent which is how he can nominate and tag 10+ articles per day. When given more sources for various nominated articles, he usually disqualifies the new sources or just stops replying. It turns the nomination process into a game that frustrates and annoys serious editors and makes clashes with people like Beanie inevitable. I think Let'srun's nominations privileges should be limited or restricted and it's clear that at some points in time he was likely targeting Beanie.KatoKungLee (talk) 18:08, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

  While I have already explained my tagging above (no worries if you missed it), and have no plans to continue tagging in that manner again due to its lack of effectiveness, I haven't nominated "10+ articles per day" to AfD once this year and don't plan on doing so going forward - [[93]]. I know you have had issues with my nominations before and took action to address them at that time [[94]]. I will look to do so again here if at all possible. I look to be respectful in discussing the sources provided in any discussion that I take part in and do not intend to play any type of game here. Let'srun (talk) 18:56, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

• My thoughts here's largely align with KatoKungLee's. In recent months, Let'srun has nominated a large number of categories for merging, many related to the topic of college football. He's continued to nominate lesser-populated categories with the same rationale as other nominations that have failed, again and again in a one-off manner, disregarding the value of parallelism in the category tree and failing to appreciate that many of these smaller categories relate to topics that are under active development. And he's not been responsive to rapid growth of such categories during the course of time that his nominations are open. What's most troubling is that Let'srun has been unwilling to engage meaningfully and collaborate with editors focused on college football and find a more pragmatic and stable approach to managing categories; see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College football/Archive 26#Categories for deletion. His behaviour is indeed frustrating and annoying and I've described it in the past as time-wasting and obstructive. I've considered opening up an ANI notice myself about this. I don't think I can dig through everything that BeanieFan11 has assembled here, but the second AFD of Asim Munir (cricketer) in two months is not good. I think some sort of formal admonishment with a temporary of limiting of XfD privileges is in order here. Jweiss11 (talk) 19:37, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

  As I mentioned to you there, I am completely willing to talk about those activities, just not at a WikiProject as it is not a suitable forum to discuss widespread policy and not all of my nominations in that area are related to college football. Let'srun (talk) 03:15, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

  @Let'srun: You're willing to talk about everything? Then how did you find Asim Munir, which you previously had no interest in but decided to re-nominate for deletion just two months after I helped get it kept? Why did you refuse on a number of occasions in February polite requests as to how you found multiple completely unrelated AFDs where you !voted against me in order? And how did you find to tag for notability the completely unrelated Frank Robinson, Pete Swanson, Joe Rowe and Marshall Edwards – all created by me in that order – in four minutes, while every time you replied regarding that on my talk page, you either tagged for notability seven more articles relating to my work or !voted against me at completely unrelated AFDs? BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:03, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

  Respectfully, I was replying to Jweiss11 referring to the nomination of categories he was talking about, but I'm willing to answer your questions to the best of my ability as well. I didn't think that not being involved in a previous AfD meant I can't re-nominate that same article to AfD again, I've done so several times and nobody has ever called me on it so far as I'm aware, you can see my AfD statistics to see exactly how many. The first Asim Munir AfD closed as "no consensus", not "keep", so I'm a bit confused why you would say "I helped get it kept". I found it through searching another cricketer (I don't remember the name unfortunately) and not finding the sources needed for it to meet the notability guidelines, which is why I nominated it. I vote in many AfD's relating to sportspeople and sports and also nominate articles in these areas frequently as I am interested in improving the project there. I explained my tagging upthread but I was looking at my watchlist, I don't remember how I added the particular examples you referenced or when that occurred. I can promise you that I have no plans to mass-tag any articles in the future or add maintenance tags at all to articles, sports related or otherwise. I respect your contributions to this project immensely and believe in WP:GOODFAITH. Let'srun (talk) 18:19, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

  The rapid tagging in order looks more targeted than could reasonably be explained by general activity in the area, but from what Let'srun has said I definitely can see how the AfD !voting could happen. I watch the sportsperson delsort and frequently add AfDs to my watchlist as they come up, and then revisit them once I see someone has !voted keep for reasons with which I might disagree. Since I start from the bottom of my watchlist it's pretty common for my participation to follow directly behind someone else who is methodically going through the delsort, and in the order that they !voted. JoelleJay (talk) 18:33, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

  @JoelleJay: To an extent – that could make sense. But when its five minutes after saying "I'm not targeting you" – without other AFD contributions? Multiple times? And if that's truly the case, why would Let'srun refuse to answer questions of how he found discussions on about four other occasions? And why would his first action after one of those requests be to oppose me at an area he'd never previously shown any interest (AFAIK) – capitalization? BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:19, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

  The issue was related to the NFL draft, which I have an interest in (along with the NFL as a whole, as seen through my edit history). Let'srun (talk) 19:26, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

  Let'srun !voted to redirect a subject a full week after you had left a comment at the AfD and a full week after its third and final relist. Four minutes later he !voted at another AfD (that you had not participated in) that was also at the 7-day mark. Doesn't it make more sense that he was just looking at the AfDs that were due for closure at the bottom of the delsort? JoelleJay (talk) 20:40, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

• If some editors just can't see the evidence to support claims of egregious personal hounding and instead need to pivot to accusations of broad "AfD disruption", maybe comments of the latter flavor can go in a separate section. This would have the additional convenience of allowing us to examine AfD naughtiness in all its forms and to voice opinions like "a group of disaffected editors constantly disguising ILIKEIT arguments and deprecated guidelines as IAR !votes is not good" or "asserting AfD noms perform terrible BEFORE searches because they don't exhaustively search every non-English offline newspaper that could possibly have covered the subject, when per our guidelines there is explicitly no expectation any coverage exists for this subject, is not good". JoelleJay (talk) 21:38, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
• @Walsh90210, BoldGnome, KatoKungLee, Jweiss11, and JoelleJay: I realise I have probably formatted this poorly resulting in a difficult-to-read wall of text. As such, I re-organised the report and copied the more major and questionable actions to a new section. I don't think actions such as tagging for notability four completely unrelated football articles created by me in that order in a four-minute span, or then tagging seven articles in a row relating to me for notability just when the prior action had been questioned, or voting "delete" at AFDs I had voted "keep" minutes after each response to me at another discussion, or nominating nine football articles written by me for deletion in a month, with no others in between for the final 6/9, are "ordinary interactions". BeanieFan11 (talk) 22:17, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
• Comment I haven't examined all of BeanieFan11's examples but with previous disputes about hounding, it's important to look at the totality of diffs, not just one or two isolated incidents. As a regular closer of AFDs, it's not uncommon to find two editors who repeatedly butt heads over AFDs in a particular subject area. And it's also not rare for editors to go on a deletion binge of overnominating articles they find, flooding the daily log with many nominations of a similar kind which is frustrating to our regular AFD participants who want to handle each article discussion individually and carefully. Editors going on a nomination spree is a consistent problem we see periodically at AFDLand. I'm not making any judgment here as I've stated I haven't examined all of the diffs but this scenario seems very familiar to those editors who spend time reviewing AFD discussions. I hope this dispute can be resolved so as to retain both editors as they generally do good work. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:53, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
• Comment: Just commenting to prevent archiving, as I think this could use a bit more discussion before being auto-archived. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:52, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Hey man im josh, perhaps you want to offer your thoughts on the matter? Jweiss11 (talk) 16:59, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

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 [95], [96] despite warnings [97] , [98] , [99] . Non constructive comments with personal attacks in talk [100] [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 [101] and continued [102] adding anonymous tg channels as sources. Removing reliable sources at the same time [103] . 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 [104] , 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.[105] 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” [106]. 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 [107] . 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 [108] 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 [109] 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 [110] [111] 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 [112]. 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. [113] 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 [114] 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 [115] 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)

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 [116] [117]. 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 [118] . 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 ([119] [120]). 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.

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)

User:Normanosborn1's spam

All of Normanosborn1's contributions appear to be spam links to sitemile.com, consistently out of scope. They are placed as references, but they are not connected to the previous statement. Est. 2021 (talk · contribs) 19:30, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

I think it's too soon to take this matter here to ANI. The user has only been given a level-1 spam warning so far, and appears to have stopped the activity. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 20:11, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

A report to WP:ANI as a promotion only or spam account may have been more appropriate had they continued. Jellyfish (mobile) (talk) 20:44, 2 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" [121]. 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)

Ribosome786

This editor is entirely disruptive as visible from the dozens of recent warnings from his talk page.

He has now tried multiple times to create an article [122] as well as submitting a draft of the same[123] despite the topic already existing at Muhammad ibn al-Qasim. He is not listening to anybody.

I believe a WP: NOTHERE block is warranted now. Ratnahastin (talk) 08:20, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

He is writing about the son of the target, who has the same name? His other work looks okay. Secretlondon (talk) 17:46, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

@Secretlondon: I don't think that's the case, their talk page is full of warnings [124], they've also engaged in copyright violations at [125][126][127] aswell using vile ethno-religious personal attacks in their edit summaries [128][129][130], their conduct proves that they are not here to build an encyclopaedia Ratnahastin (talk) 04:41, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Personal attack

Blatant personal attack by Bortak42: [131]. Super Ψ Dro 15:38, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

There was no attack. He was the first to start attacking people because the article was not in line with his private vision and its changes were illegal and not agreed upon in the discussion, he was the first to threaten me and resent me for restoring the legal version of the article. He should stop illegal editing and arbitrariness.Bortak42 (talk) 15:44, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Worth noting you've already been blocked over this [132]. And also that you are editing WP:RUSUKR articles while not being an extended-confirmed user, which I just realized. Super Ψ Dro 15:59, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Get the fuck away from me and take care of yourself forest grandpa. I'm telling you once again. Come on. Bortak42 (talk) 16:34, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

..."forest grandpa"? XD Super Ψ Dro 16:39, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Why are you picking on me, overhang horse? Bortak42 (talk) 16:43, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Omg this is fierce Zanahary (talk) 08:17, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Note: I highly suspect this edit was made (edit conflict style) as this “be civil” note was being sent on their talk page. Two minutes after making that message linked too above by Super Dromaeosaurus, Bortak42 deleted the personal attack part. I think both editors (Bortak42 and Super Dromaeosaurus) are too involved in the discussion/article they edit warred over to see the bigger picture and both seem to be missing contextual clues from each other. This AN/I was really a “jumping the gun” moment, and reporter failed to even see or indicate the comment was changed to remove the PA two minutes after being made. Since we are here though, maybe a formal edit warring warn for both editors (one being reported and WP:BOOMERANG for reporter) on edit warring would be helpful. See the edit history linked too above. Long, multi-day edit war with no formal discussions taking place until today, with even Super Dromaeosaurus saying they did not do formal processes, after being alerted to being involved in an edit war. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 15:50, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

No boomerang to me. I am who has actually started a discussion in the first place. I did notice the personal attack was removed. The personal attack is a different issue from the content dispute and edit war. By the way go ahead and revert my merge if you wish. At least there is now a discussion. Super Ψ Dro 15:56, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

So based on what you just acknowledged, you saw the personal attack be removed and then went ahead and decided to AN/I report? Yeah no, you need a boomerang “reminder” honestly or at least need to be reminded to take a step back from Wikipedia. You reported someone after seeing them remove the mistake. In fact, you made a “final warning” to Bortak42 two minutes after edit warring to merge the article again. In fact, that “final warning” was your first communication to Bortak42 since 22 May. You are jumping the gun multiple times. I do support a formal boomerang edit warring warn for you and one for Bortak42 after seeing the edit history between you too. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 16:01, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

I have striken out the final warning, given I did not follow formal procedure either. Super Ψ Dro 16:08, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Get away from me and put your mouth down already. Romanian dirty guy. You started first. I deleted it and you're still complaining. Give yourself some hay. End of discussion Bortak42 (talk) 16:25, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

I’m not an admin, but can we please do something about this blatant personal attack? DalsoLoonaOT12 (talk) 20:52, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Bbb23 already indeffed them. Disregard DalsoLoonaOT12 (talk) 21:19, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

This is gonna stick with me Zanahary (talk) 08:19, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

There is massive edit-warring on this page, seemingly slightly more so by SD. The personal attack was by B, but was withdrawn. I would suggest either double warning, or none. Boynamedsue (talk) 16:00, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

I agree. This is either a double or nothing situation. Both editors are guilty of continuing this edit warring and both are overall jumping the gun with a personal attack and ignorance AN/I report to show for it. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 16:09, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

They have now added more personal attacks above. I suggest that a block is in order here.Nigel Ish (talk) 16:36, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

I agree that Bortak42 needs a second block for personal attacks, perhaps they'll get the point after a longer block (first was 72 hours). Schazjmd (talk) 16:45, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

• I've indeffed Bortak42 for personal attacks.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:48, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. Super Ψ Dro 16:51, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

'Romanian dirty guy' is beyond the pale - I concur that an indef is warranted. Having said that, I was rather enjoying the weird insults at the top of this thread. 'Forest grandpa' and 'overhang horse' are gems. Can you just connect two random nouns and use them as an insult these days? I hate all those waterfall cornflakes editing my favorite article... Girth Summit _(blether) 16:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

"Overhang horse" sounds more like a compliment, assuming the recipient is male. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 17:08, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Literal translations of an insult, without cultural context! Fun! Secretlondon (talk) 17:38, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Bloody hell, there is something in the water today. There should be instructions at the top of the page on how not to get yourself immediately banned while a consensus seems to be emerging that you shouldn't be. I suggest calling it WP:FORESTGRANDPA. --Boynamedsue (talk) 21:05, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

'Forest grandpa' is a literal translation of the Polish idiom 'leśny dziadek' and is referring to someone as a 'fossil', Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:21, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

What about overhang horse? Super Ψ Dro 21:48, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

The only guesses I have for that are https://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ko%C5%84_(rze%C5%BAba_Davida_%C4%8Cernego) or a horse ornament for a Christmas tree — rsjaffe 🗣️ 02:03, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Another Proxy IPs that are conducting disrputive edits

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

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

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

Related to WP:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1157#IPs that persistently harass me. 117.53.77.84 (talk) 15:54, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

IP editor is falsifying sources

• 174.251.209.49 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 174.251.208.108 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 174.251.209.226 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

This IP editor is changing the author, date/issue number, and pages of reviews from a specific magazine in 4 articles, replacing them with wrong ones. I have full scans for 3 of these reviews (I even presented one on their talk page) and enough evidence to say the fourth one is also wrong. I warned them, I tried talking with them, none of it had any effect, they just return next day and manually revert it. And now they menacingly put the name of whoever they're reverting in the edit summary (so far it's me and another editor who reverted them yesterday). AstonishingTunesAdmirer 連絡 17:00, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

• Looks like they've been doing the 'mention the name/IP address of the person they're reverting' thing for a while now - most of the contribs of the /23 range look like the same person going back a while now. I'm going to block that range from article space to see whether they can be persuaded to explain what they're doing. Girth Summit _(blether) 17:17, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

  Thank you! IP ranges confuse me, so I wasn't sure which one to choose so it's not too large. Looking at the contributions on /23, it appears to be new behavior from a known LTA. AstonishingTunesAdmirer 連絡 17:33, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

User:Pigay at Talk:Alexander the Great

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

---

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

In their couple dozen edits, they have so far failed to respect the time of other editors or show any willingness to understand what others are saying to them on the most rudimentary level. They have been nothing but rude while insisting every other editor is oblivious to their pet definition of who knows how many different words and concepts. One could easily just assume they are trolling, and maybe I should've given up earlier. In any case, they seem like they are going to continue being disruptive at Talk:Alexander the Great on a daily basis until something is done. Remsense诉 18:32, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Couldn't you have tried a welcome and a WP:NOTFORUM warning first? 128.164.177.55 (talk) 20:01, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps my intuition was too harsh, but it seemed to me that their signals of "please show me proof of this being Wikipedia's notion of consensus" followed immediately by both "I do not care to read about Wikipedia's notion of consensus" and "I refuse to believe the people summarizing what Wikipedia's notion of consensus is" (my interpretation, not direct quotation) excluded the possibility that they would like to be welcomed to the community. WP:NOTFORUM doesn't really apply here. Remsense诉 03:16, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Remsense, I'm going to join with the other respondents thus far in saying that this looks to me, after a fairly exhaustive review of the involved threads on the talk page, to be mostly a content dispute--and for what it's worth, that was my assessment from earlier today before there were responses here. Yes, Pigay is starting to indulge in some IDHT, but initially they seemed to be making sincere efforts to understand the relevant policies and at a minimum they are trying to work with sourcing rather than original research--they just don't understand all of the nuances of our (let's be fair, not always entirely intuitive) procedures. My main observation working through the previous discussion is that there was a lot of missed opportunity to onboard them to better understand the particulars of WP:V and WP:WEIGHT, which are concepts they seem more than ready to accept, even if they've yet to fully internalize the specifics.

Now of course, neither you nor any other one editor has a responsibility for educating them (and the longer the conversation has proceeded, the more insistent Pigay has become, in a way where I can see how it might to start to grate on your patience), but in a purely pragmatic/best-practice sense, I think you could have saved them and yourself a lot of trouble with a little more patience in explaining some things more thoroughly--or if you weren't willing to do so, pointing them to some basic newbie resources (i.e. relevant policies and fora) early on. Again, my sense is that this is a user who could adjust with a little more help. They are a getting a bit ahead of themselves in trying to supplement actual policy with their idea of the best way of doing things, but they aren't currently edit warring, nor would I say they have crossed the threshold into WP:TEND or WP:DISRUPT quite yet--and I don't think they would have come as close as they have now except that there was a little bit of WP:BITE at the outset.

Indeed, while I don't know which of you and the other experienced editors on that article have been there for two weeks or ten years, but what I can say for sure is that the issue of shared cultural identity between the Macedonian and the Greek peoples is to be expected, given both historical and contemporary factors. In fact, if the human race were to somehow survive until near the heat death of the universe, I would not be surprised if at least two out of the last one hundred human beings were still regularly invested in arguing about whether or not Macedonia was really a part of Greece and which Aegean-adjacent peoples were properly called 'Greek' and 'Macedonian'. By which statement I meant to stress that anyone who wants to contribute in this area should be prepared to regularly demonstrate some patience on such matters and be prepared to guide opinionated newcomers through the sources, relevant policies, and existing consensus. Provided said newcomers don't come in super hot and disruptive--which in my opinion, this one did not. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 05:08, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

I really appreciate your insight, and I think you're right. I'll close this for now. Remsense诉 05:13, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

HATCHA! ;) ...errr, I mean, humbly pleased to be of some assistance. :) SnowRise ^{let's rap} 05:42, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

At this point, other than being a time sink and not understanding Wikipedia policies, they haven't done anything wrong and it's just a content dispute. @Pigay - Patience is wearing thin and you can be blocked for being disruptive. WP:V states that sources must be verifiable - it does not state verification must be easy or in the form of an online resource. If you want to verify the source, you can find your local library. And "nearly unanimous" is consensus. This is your only warning from an admin on this topic.--v/r - TP 01:42, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

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

User:StopTheV4dals

• StopTheV4dals (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Safa Khulusi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

SPA determined to restore an old revision of Safa Khulusi containing a lot of OR and fringe. [133][134][135][136]

Was warned by two different admins that they would be blocked on further reverting. [137][138]

Desisted for a while, but now came back to partially revert again to their preferred revision. [139]

Between the username, the bad faith accusations [140][141], and the continued edit warring, the user seems effectively WP:NOTHERE. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 18:57, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Pinging @Johnuniq: and @Bishonen:. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 19:11, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Yup. Their last edit, which I reverted, was to restore a whole chunk of WP:OR/off-topic content, with an edit summary that basically amounted to an assertion that the existence of one section with a maintenance template is sufficient grounds to justify adding more of the same. [142] Nothing they have posted on the talk page even approximates a sincere attempt to discuss anything. Nothing but stonewalling and baseless accusations. WP:NOTHERE would certainly seem to apply. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:23, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

INDEFfed. Not Here/RGW/SPA, etc. Star Mississippi 01:49, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Sorry I dropped the ball there! Bishonen | tålk 08:07, 1 June 2024 (UTC).

Nah, they had two weeks to improve after your warning. They had no interest in doing so. Star Mississippi 13:31, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

User:Or-Shalem

Or-Shalem (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) keeps removing sourced information from the article Moroccanoil (see recent history of the page and Talk:Moroccanoil) on the basis that it is disputed while they are the only one who disputed it and refuses to bring evidence of their claims. To sum up:

1. the user proposed a deletion of the article on the basis that the creator was acting in bad faith;
2. the user accepted that the page is worth keeping but at the condition that the company is not referred to as Israeli, giving the rationale that several countries are involved;
3. once I edited the page to provide clearer referencing, the user refused to acknowledge that at least five sources call the company Israeli and no other available source calls it any other nationality;
4. the users threatened not to read the sources if I did not stand by their own conditions of refraining from editing the article;
5. all along the user accused other users of their own misbehavior. ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 19:43, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

I'm not going to comment on anything else, but I'll point out (and notify) AitMazigh, who created an account and within 2 minutes posted a personal attack(diff) in the discussion.

– 2804:F14:8085:6201:60D0:5E55:B29D:8875 (talk) 20:07, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

You're the one defending the article and edit warring and you were the first to accuse me of bad faith editing and posted on my user talk page accusing me of being a disgruntled Israeli trying to hide something. I offered to discuss with you in the talk page, but you refuse to engage with me there, essentially claiming your opinion is absolute and correct. I have asked you multiple times to stop warring and to try to come up with a compromise with me, but you are only responding by repeatedly claiming that the sources say it is an "Israeli company," despite me reminding you that these sources aren't suitable for Wikipedia for the most part and that not all the sources agree with this claim. I have pointed out that calling this an "Israeli company" can be interpreted in different ways, and isn't entirely an objective statement, and argued that while the company can be traced to Israel with enough research, it isn't obviously clear and that there are other countries involved, yes. I pointed out that just because something is sourced doesn't necessarily make it appropriate for wikipedia standards, and when you stated that it is normal for an article to lead with a company's nationality, I responded that not all of them do and for instance Waze, which is also from Israel doesn't, because it is owned by Google. There's some nuance missing here, and I think you're being overly defensive of the article and not allowing other users to contribute. Or-Shalem (talk) 20:21, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Not only did you remove FIVE legitimate sources that state that it’s an Israeli company you also moved down unrelated sources which have nothing to do with your original grievances and instead criticize the company in question. Seems to me that you’re an individual who works for this company and you’re deliberately trying to alter the page in a disingenuous way. AitMazigh (talk) 20:26, 31 May 2024 (UTC) User blocked as a sockpuppet by Yamla. The Kip ^(contribs) 23:07, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

I don't work for the company (again I'm being accused of something I am not... I think IP above me may be on to something). The sources were speculating that it is an Israeli company. It has not been confirmed by the company themselves that they operate as "an Israeli company." Once again, I repeat that jist because there is a source for something doesn't make it wikipedia appropriate, nor absolute. I'm using nuance to determine that the company should not be called "Israeli" in the opener and I explained that saying the company was founded by Israelis and partially operates in Jerusalem is the objective and indisputable way to go about this. But you are being extremely defensive about an issue I am trying work out with you, diplomatically. Or-Shalem (talk) 20:34, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

This article should probably fall under WP:ARBPIA restrictions. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:02, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with Palestine lol, this is one individual deleting sources and altering pages to suit his narrative. AitMazigh (talk) 21:04, 31 May 2024 (UTC) User blocked as a sockpuppet by Yamla. The Kip ^(contribs) 23:07, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Agree. The issue is mainly with an editor refusing to stand by the sources and claiming a clearly sourced nationality should be changed based on consensus. ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 21:06, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

It's an article about an Israeli company most of which deals with I/P controversies. The editor isn't EC confirmed, my point is that they probably shouldn't be editing the article at all. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:12, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Well you see, that's kind of the dispute - whether it should be considered an Israeli company or not. Also nonsense that all articles involving Israel belong in the I-P conflict. Plenty of them don't. You just want to gatekeep Israeli articles. At this rate, considering how many changes I am getting from this article, I'll be extended confirmed very shortly. Or-Shalem (talk) 21:23, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Other than the header there are two subsections to this article, one details criticism by Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions and the other fall out from Eurovision 2024. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:27, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

And both of those sections hang on whether this is an Israeli company or not. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:28, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

I don't understand what your getting at? What is your point?

The whole controversy with this company is that it is debatable whether it is Israeli or not. That is why calling it "Israeli" in the opener is fitting a certain narrative. The company has not publicly refuted the allegations that they are Israeli, not have they confirmed it. Fact of the matter is they are HQed in NYC. They were founded by an Israeli couple while they were in Montreal. Some of the manufacturing is done in Jerusalem. This is what we have that is objective and factual.

Using this as a basis to call the company itself "Israeli"," which is what the sources Ivan used justified their allegation of it being so did, is itself dubious and debatable this is why there needs to be a discussion before calling it such. The article needs to be neutral until then. Or-Shalem (talk) 21:35, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Yes I agree with you point, it's about whether the company is Israeli or not. The company has received criticism, that criticism comes from it being perceived as an Israeli company. I'm not saying it is or it isn't (I stay away from editing in the subject area), only that that criticism should fail under ARBPIA restrictions. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

No you and your "friend" are the ones trying to suit a narrative. I don't see how removing subjective and interpretive "Israeli company" from the lead, but keeping "founded by Israelis" or "founded in Israel" in the opener is suiting a narrative. Or-Shalem (talk) 21:27, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

I agree, parts of the Moroccanoil article fall under the WP:ARBPIA restrictions. M.Bitton (talk) 21:39, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

FYI: Instructions on how and when to invoke ARBPIA in a case like this are described at WP:A/I/PIA#General sanctions upon related content. – 2804:F1...9D:8875 (talk) 21:43, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

If you're trying to block me from the article because my change doesn't fit your narrative, i'll be extended confirmed very shortly. I can guarantee that this will not be approved to fit under ARBPIA, all things considered. Or-Shalem (talk) 22:34, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

What matters is that right now, not only you're not EC, but you also violated the 3R policy multiple times. M.Bitton (talk) 22:51, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

In light of a certain attitude shown by the user here and on their talk page, I’ll list WP:GAME as possible additonal disruptive behavior. ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 23:02, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

• I don't see how editing an article about a hair care product company, whether or not it is "Israeli", falls under the intended remit of WP:ARBIPA. The company might be the target of activists because of its perceived or real ownership but that, in itself, doesn't mean that the company is involved in the Israel-Palestine conflict and the attempt to stretch the 500/30 guidline for WP:ARBIPA articles to cover a consumer product company is, I believe, disingenuous. This is a content dispute, not one that requires intervention due to Arbitration concerns. This is just another messy incident of editors disagreeing about article content and having to work out a conseensus among them. That's what I see here but I will also defer to admins who work more closely in the AE area. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:42, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

  As I pointed out in my opening post, the user has acted assuming the editors’ bad faith from the very beginning, and has refused to bring sources to support his claims when all the ones provided are clear about how the company should be defined. It has to do with their behavior before being a content dispute. ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 07:46, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

  And to add on, they have even rephrased the content of some sources to pretend they aren’t straightforward – I’m referring to these: [143][144], from which the user claimed the company was founded “when they were in Montreal” and not “in Montreal”, refusing to acklowledge the clear content. See their talk page per above. ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 07:55, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

  Nobody's saying or even suggesting that the company is somehow involved in the Israel-Palestine conflict, but there's no denying that parts of the article relate to the conflict (this is no different than the Eurovision Song Contest 2024 article). M.Bitton (talk) 14:36, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

  The connection between the cosmetics company and the Israel-Palestine conflict is tenuous at best and the sources being used to make that connection are questionable as well. An Israeli company sponsoring the Eurovision Song Contest doesn't make them involved, and this is an overzealous use of the 500/30 guideline, in my opinion. Isaidnoway (talk) 17:31, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

  Regarding "the attempt to stretch the 500/30 guidline for WP:ARBIPA articles to cover a consumer product company is, I believe, disingenuous", it may be, but intent doesn't matter. Content within scope of the topic area is covered by the restrictions. I see the article has a {{ArbCom Arab-Israeli enforcement|relatedcontent=yes}} template because some of the current content is clearly within scope of the topic area. The WP:ARBECR restrictions only apply to that content and related talk page discussions/edit requests within scope of the topic area. If that content doesn't survive for whatever reason (sourcing doesn't look great) the restrictions will no longer be relevant. Sean.hoyland (talk) 16:38, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

  The argument is that this is not in the scope of the conflict between Israel and Palestine. It would be a hell of a stretch to include this company in that geopolitical conflict, simply by fact of it being Israeli (or not). Including this company would, in effect, be stating that every company that is based in or has strong ties to Israel falls under ARBIPA, which seems incredibly out of proportion. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:33, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Long-term sporadic abuse from one IP address

User contributions for 69.127.244.66

In January, added "accurately and truthfully" to the Don Imus article where it said "He was fired by CBS Radio in April 2007 after accurately and truthfully describing the Rutgers University women's basketball team as "nappy-headed hos".

In May, added "(which they were)" to the same article where it said "describing the Rutgers University women's basketball team as "nappy-headed hos"(which they were)."

Comments left at Talk:Don Imus (like "Suck it up Nancy and deal with it")[145] are also offensive.

This is a cable internet customer who has been disrupting since last October. Obviously not here to contribute in a good way. JimKaatFan (talk) 20:22, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

How would you know he’s a cable internet customer did you lookup his ip address is that itself not a violation of tos? AitMazigh (talk) 21:07, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

No, trying finding out someone's IP address using illicit means is a violation. Looking up a publicly displayed IP address is absolutely fine since that's public information voluntarily revealed when you edit logged out. I mean, sheesh, there are multiple links to look up this information on every contributions history of an IP user. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 21:32, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

CoffeeCrumbs is right, there are about 1342 websites where you can paste an IP address and get the URL of the provider returned to you. If I knew how to use Linux I could probably do it myself with a ping command or something like that. The URL is optonline.net, which is a cable internet service. The length of time between edits to the Imus article, and the somewhat-racist nature of many of the talk page posts and edits to articles, makes it obvious that this is the same guy the whole time at this IP. JimKaatFan (talk) 22:34, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Just noticed this edit from this IP: "He referred to them as nappy headed hos because he was making a truthful observation. They were nappy headed hos, so he was only pointing out the obvious. Sorry to those who were thin skinned and offended, but the truth sometimes hurts. " Please block this IP. JimKaatFan (talk) 22:40, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Yeah they can enjoy the weekend off Wikipedia. Blocked 72 hours for disruption. Will obviously increase future blocks if needed RickinBaltimore (talk) 22:42, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

@RickinBaltimore: I don't understand the point of 72 hours: the edits are from January 24 and 15 May, and it seems likely that all edits from that IP (going back to October 2023) are the same person, so either it's stale and not worth blocking about or the block should be for a month or more. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 02:12, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Chronic and long term edit warring at Jyotirlinga

The page Jyotirlinga has been the subject of an edit war for months now, primarily between IP users or registered users with fewer than 50 edits whose edit histories exclusively or almost exclusively consist of edits to this page. Can an administrator apply some sort of edit protection here? Brusquedandelion (talk) 01:03, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Typically, you'd take this to WP:RFPP. I've taken a look anyway though, and these edits are weeks apart at a time. Normal editing can deal with the issue, page protection isn't needed.--v/r - TP 01:35, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

@TParis the page has very few eyes on it (and by eyes I mean those of competent Wikipedia users who have enough domain expertise to detect what is actually unproductive editing). Can you explain according to what metric you feel that "normal editing can deal with the issue"? Brusquedandelion (talk) 22:34, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

By the "users edits are weeks apart" metric. This isn't a hot edit war requiring admin intervention.--v/r - TP 00:25, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

User needs TPA revoked

User:Abdulmalek majeed was blocked as a promotion-only account and has returned to continue self-promotion on their talk page. TornadoLGS (talk) 02:40, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Y Done. It was actually User:Abdulmalek majeed. v/r - TP 02:50, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

But look! Look at the first message! TornadoLGS said it was User:Abdulmalek majeed! No mistake here that I can see. City of Silver 02:56, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

User:JR NaveenLakshman

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

---

It's clear from their edits thus far that this account is only here to promote themselves. I've deleted their Commons upload (multiple speedy criteria apply) and I think their talk page and sandbox here should get wiped, and possibly the account be blocked, as well. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 03:53, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Blocked (and spam deleted). For future reference, these reports should go to WP:AIV. – bradv 04:05, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

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

Maria-Ana Tupan

Maria-Ana Tupan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
ForTupan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Admin intervention is required here. The user (with a clear COI) has been making disruptive edits on the article's talk page, despite being warned multiple times on their talk page. ([146][147][148]) Also see the COIN discussion. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 09:28, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

It looks like the user has committed to not editing the article directly. What's the problem?--v/r - TP 12:23, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

@TParis their comments on the talk page after their proposed changes were denied for being promotional. (see the diffs above) This isn't the first time they've done something like this, see their complaint at AN a month ago. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 12:30, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Vandal/Stalker involved in harassment etc back again

The vandal who I've reported numerous times before is back again, this time under the name DiddysInYa (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Again the edit summaries are uncivil enough to warrant revdel. If some passing soul could block and revdel, I would be grateful. And to think, I had my rollback ability removed because I called this person a vandal, which was and is the least of their many shortcomings... - SchroCat (talk) 09:53, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Many thanks Black Kite. - SchroCat (talk) 10:13, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

No problem. I deleted the offensive ones, but left the "pillock" and "plonker" ones as it just makes them look childish anyway. Black Kite (talk) 10:14, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

That's fine. The whole thing is rather childish, but such are the ways of some. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 10:18, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Oh, that guy again? Jeez. jp×g🗯️ 12:18, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Is something weird going on at Articles for Deletion?

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

---

Just noticed that an AfD I had open has been closed 3-4 times, only to be reverted, by accounts that, when I look, are blocked for vandalism. Do we have a weird sockpuppet situation going on? Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.8% of all FPs.} 17:11, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

...a link to the AFD in question would be helpful. GiantSnowman 17:17, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

It's an LTA making the rounds, just report to AIV on sight. Pahunkat (talk) 17:17, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

(ec) @Adam Cuerden: Not much more to do except keep playing Whac-A-Mole and move on. --Finngall ^talk 17:21, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Adam might be referring to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Fantastic Beasts characters. A newly-created account named Wizzrobe61 (talk · contribs) seemed to be mass-closing AfDs as No Consensus. Wizzrobe61 has been indefinitely blocked for vandalism by User:Jauerback. EdJohnston (talk) 17:35, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Aye. That AfD has been closed by: User:Wizzrobe61, User:Wany314, User:WikiWiz31, User:Wizzrobe610, User:Weiorea, User:Mouser30, and User:Mouser29 in the last 2 days. It's becoming a noticable trend. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.8% of all FPs.} 17:49, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

• This is an LTA. Admins are aware, but there's not really a whole lot we can do to stop it. Just revert, block, ignore. —Ingenuity (t • c) 17:51, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

  Okay. Ignoring from now. I guess I don't do a lot of AfDs. Kind of presumed it was new. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.8% of all FPs.} 17:59, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

We could adopt a practice of automatically semiprotecting AfDs, or semiprotecting at the first sign of shenanigans. These discussions need not be as accessible as article editing. BD2412 T 18:17, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

If the goal of this disruptor is to harm Wikipedia by preventing most users from commenting on AfDs, they will have done their job perfectly if we do this. Air on White (talk) 18:38, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

For the sock connection, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/BuickCenturyDriver. EdJohnston (talk) 03:39, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

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

Suspect closing of RFC

See [149]. Reason: he closed his own RfC, some of those who voted are newbies or WP:SPAs. tgeorgescu (talk) 17:38, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

• I'm dealing with this, give me a few minutes. Black Kite (talk) 17:44, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
  • Yup, while Cezxmer made 210 edits, most of them are tied to Steaua (either FCSB or CSA Steaua). That is, including articles about people who played for these teams or trained them. tgeorgescu (talk) 17:59, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
    • I'm prepared to give them the benefit of the doubt. They may have the article on a watchlist, unlike the other accounts that have hardly edited at all. Anyway, I've pblocked Gunnlaugson from FCSB and the TP, I've ECP protected FCSB, unclosed the RfC, and tagged all the dubious accounts. A checkuser might find those accounts interesting, there's certainly evidence that they're co-ordinated. The long history of dubious editing on this and related articles may be relevant. Black Kite (talk) 18:03, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Inappropriate talk page protection: Talk:Donald_Trump

This is insane. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&logid=162410466

It's one thing to have a politician's page protected, that makes sense. However, when a page is protected, the talk page is necessarily the only place that members of community and the public can weigh in or suggest edits.

An alt-right editor protecting the page, claiming falsely that there is "disruption," should not be allowed. 98.198.62.167 (talk) 21:22, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

• This is the 23rd time the page has had to be protected because of disruption, and it's only for three days. There's only so much fuckwittery that can be tolerated, especially on a BLP. Dunno where you get the "alt-right" stuff from. Black Kite (talk) 21:28, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Oh, come on. The reason the talk page is protected is because of people who may (and probably have, considering it was protected) post comments that would violate WP:NOTFORUM or otherwise be unconstructive. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 21:51, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

• I have blocked the OP for three months, given their repeated personal attacks. —Ingenuity (t • c) 21:53, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

@ScottishFinnishRadish has now been accused by three individuals in the last month of antisemitism, supporting a genocide, and now being alt-right lmao. All were baseless, obviously.

The life of a good admin, I suppose. The Kip ^(contribs) 03:16, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Become an admin they said! It'll be fun, they said! ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 09:42, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

At least you don't edit under your real name (unless you really are the root vegetable you claim to be, I guess?). I have to be somewhat careful which editorial quagmires I put my name to. Too late to change now but definitely would not advise. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:37, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

I like to imagine that the last part of SFR's name is meant to imply that he is so rad that it might as well be considered a fundamental aspect of his make-up. As in "I'm Scott-ish, Finn-ish, and Rad-ish." SnowRise ^{let's rap} 03:11, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Just remember that if vandals insult you, especially for completely opposite reasons, it means you're doing a good job. EvergreenFir (talk) 03:47, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Revoke TPA for blocked user

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

---

Known2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

See [150]. Contents are Arabic-language spam for a beauty shop they are promoting. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 21:58, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

 Done RickinBaltimore (talk) 22:13, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

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

user:Slaefwjops consistently removing content

user:Slaefwjops has been consistently removing cited content from the Roh Soh-yeong page with their only reasoning being that Roh is a good person. They keep on just shouting in all caps in their summary, and in general are acting quite disruptive. Gaismagorm (talk)

Y Done. Given indefinite, they are a single purpose account.--v/r - TP 00:27, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

IP vandalizing talk page with rude comments after being blocked

The IP 174.18.55.230 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) was blocked for writing rude comments on many talk pages. However, they have continued on their own talk page, removing the block notice and adding a rude comment on the one warning they received. Although this was only one thing, it's clear that they will likely continue, so talk page access should be revoked for them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Interstatefive (talk • contribs) 02:16, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Already done. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 02:18, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Mfarazbaig

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

---

The editor has been correctly warned using {{Gs/alert|cry}}, at 18:23, 29 September 2017, and has persisted in this area. Please will an uninvolved admin investigate their edit history since that warning, and consider what sanctions, if any, are appropriate. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 07:41, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

You need to provide some evidence before throwing any allegation. Admins are requested to dismiss the matter altogether. - Mfarazbaig (talk) 07:51, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Indeed. An admin isn't going to "investigate" an editor based on no evidence at all other than the issuing of the DS/CT warning seven years ago. @Timtrent: The edit notices when you file something at AN/I clearly say that you should "provide links and diffs here to involved pages and editors". I suggest either providing such evidence or withdrawing the accusations, otherwise this will reflect more poorly on you than on the editor you're asking about.  — Amakuru (talk) 08:01, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

@Timtrent: do you mean this WP:ARBIPA alert? I couldn't find any evidence that they ever recived a {{subst:Gs/alert|cry}} (WP:GS/CRYPTO) alert. Victor Schmidt (talk) 09:16, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

@Victor Schmidt, @Mfarazbaig @Amakuru My apologies. I was not careful enough and did not read things correctly. This may be closed as "nothing to see here" 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 09:51, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

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

SonicXMasako2

Said user partakes in edit wars by reverting files when it's not necessary, please do look into this. Vanguardsofthesupporters (talk) 09:22, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

• There might be some good hand/bad hand socking going on here. Multiple accounts with barely any edits suddenly show up and start arguing over the flag. SonicXMasako2 Vanguardsofthesupporters Smokyjosh AlQassamMujahideen and Qafaa should all be scrutinized.--v/r - TP 10:19, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

  what about Pineconefoxowlyipman SonicXMasako2 (talk) 16:31, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

User:Rywrhdfuwy34jhewryr

please block him. inapropriate username. ----modern_primat ඞඞඞ ^TALK 09:41, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

No. WP:UPOL states that confusing or extremely lengthy usernames [...] are highly discouraged but are not so inappropriate on their own as to require action. It was also inappropriate to tag his userpage as an attack page. In fact, I'd say your own userpage is much more inflammatory... Spicy (talk) 09:50, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

I agree 100% with you. v/r - TP 10:32, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

IP POV and rudeness

I came across this vandalism on North London derby by User:2A00:1858:1054:848B:203D:82EF:416A:9C17. I reverted it but looking at his contributions, I came across this rude message he posted on @LuK3:'s talkpage. I think it, along with his edit descriptions, that he's WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopaedia and just wants to push a WP:POV for his favourite football club. The C of E God Save the King! (talk) 10:16, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Also appears to have similarity to this IP in the context of the comments he is referring to. The C of E God Save the King! (talk) 10:20, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

For reference the IP addresses are all part of 2A00:1858:1054:848B:0:0:0:0/64 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)), which has already been blocked twice for the same issue. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 12:48, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

• I've blocked the range for two weeks.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:00, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Can someone block 2A04:4A43:4FCF:D943:D89A:4387:EBF1:C398 please?

2A04:4A43:4FCF:D943:D89A:4387:EBF1:C398 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) – disruptive editing across multiple articles. Doesn't respond to notices and warnings, often repeating edits that have been reverted. A 24h block should do it, hopefully. Thanks, — kashmīrī ^TALK 17:27, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Done by Drimes. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 01:05, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Off-wiki Hounding

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

---

Over the past few weeks, I have been subjected to numerous off-wiki attacks, primarily on my LinkedIn profile. It's been pretty unsettling to say the least. Today, Libraa2019 (talk · contribs) openly confessed that they have obtained some off-wiki evidence about me. They referenced a news story (I'm open to sharing it privately) that discusses my real-life identities and profession, which strongly suggests that they're actively stalking/hounding me off-wiki. What's troubling is that @Libraa2019 was also actively involved in a WP:ANI report against me last month where I was attacked by now blocked UPE editors Aanuarif and Lkomdis. I believe @Libraa2019 is stalking me off-wiki, and potentially behind recent attacks on my LinkedIn, due to my active involvement in nominating articles - created by UPEs and sock farms - for deletion. Their frustrations in AfD discussions seem linked to these incidents. Additionally, while they are hounding me off-wiki, they are also accusing me of having a COI with a startup whose article I created. --—Saqib (talk I contribs) 20:07, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

(Puts clerking hat on) - The only group of editors who have the ability to discuss/handle evidence "privately" are the Arbitration Committee. Best contact them directly. Amortias (T)(C) 20:18, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Saqib is accusing me of something which i have not done. The reason i mentioned about off-wiki (did'nt shared that site) is because since last few weeks i was gathering evidences to report him [151], He is contineously harrasing me by calling me UPE/sock on multiple platforms without any evidence [[152]] & nominating my creations despite of meeting notability criteria [153] [154]. He even wrote on Wikimedia Commons "the user is socking on English WP" [155], he accused me of socking on commons without any evidence, initiated AFD's by calling me UPE [156] [157], all of my creations are nominated by him with similar statements & i am unable to understand his behaviour as many editors have told him that my picking of sources is correct and they recognized my efforts [158], [159], [160], [161] but he objected all of them. Its natural any one can get frustrated & start gathering evidences to prove that the one calling other editor UPE is may be UPE himself (although not calling him UPE but trying to prove my point that why i wrote "Saqib mentioned his creation off-wiki"). The accusations regarding my involvement in linkedin attacks are false and i would like to see evidences (or he should share evidences to admins regarding my involvement in those attacks) if he thinks so. Libraa2019 (talk) 20:44, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

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

IP editor confessing to harassment on behalf of a registered user

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

---

An IP editor, 2A02:8084:F1BE:C780:C1C9:AFE1:C54C:17C1, just to confessed to harassment on behalf of @Bluebird207: toward @Imzadi1979: with this edit. No idea if this is really Bluebird207.

I'm not sure why I was tagged in that post but, since I'm aware of it, passing this along to ANI... - RevelationDirect (talk) 21:24, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

This is not an urgent matter, please retract this, waste of everyone's time - the people pinged by the IP, if they're interested, can do something about it with absolutely no need for ANI's input. If you're not willing to get involved with it, and honestly I'm not willing to even read that IP's message that is bigger than a lot of articles, then I don't see why ANI should be willing to either. – 2804:F1...BD:4D (talk) 21:31, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Happy to retract this if @Imzadi1979: or an admin requests I do so. RevelationDirect (talk) 21:45, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

I am unsure of what can and should be done. It's been an intermittent but insistent campaign of harassment directed at me over a decade-old grudge for a truthful comment I made that this person didn't like. I have felt no need to apologize for stating the truth back then, and other than this comment, I have not dignified this person's actions with any sort of response. They've retired from editing at their account, and they've been using VPNs to edit from IP addresses all over the world. If they were only targeting me, I'd just continue to ignore the pings and posts, but they've been pinging dozens of other editors with no connection to the original issue. Because of the harassment of others, something should be done, if only symbolically to impart the message that this behavior is inappropriate and needs to stop. Imzadi 1979 → 22:19, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

User:Imzadi1979, I'm sorry that you were treated like that and you handled it like a champ. I left a note for them which may not altogether satisfy you--it may well be that another admin comes by and blocks the account, and that would be fine with me. I appreciate the work you've done here and that you keep doing here, despite all that nonsense. Drmies (talk) 00:37, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

I mean, there's also the fact that only a checkuser (and with VPNs that's a big maybe) or someone very familiar with the behaviour of the user would even be able to know if they're not just joejobing to get an older target of theirs (or whatever other reason), who apparently left Wikipedia over 5 years ago, blocked.

After all, why not just log in to their account to confess? – 2804:F1...BD:4D (talk) 22:47, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

I'm curious as to who the mobiles 2A02. & 2804, are. GoodDay (talk) 22:02, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Well, on Bluebird207's talk page 2A02 wrote This is Bluebird207, posting at an IP address. Deor (talk) 22:13, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

I am not a mobile IP, if you would like to see my other contributions look at my /40 or /32 range, besides a handful of reverted edits to animated movie articles(I think), all others were mine. – 2804:F1...BD:4D (talk) 22:23, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

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

Hold up, Drmies: should the technical feasibility of a temporary block/range block (or blocks) for 2A02 and other affected ranges not be discussed first? The IP is either an editor tenaciously continuing a many-years-long campaign of harassment and disruption, driven by a truly astounding level of obsession to extract an apology they think they are due for a decade-old comment that was testy at worst....or else they are someone joe-jobing in an attempt to sell that story. Maybe I'm missing some technical background here though: have they been IP hopping fast and constantly? SnowRise ^{let's rap} 01:01, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Snow Rise, of course it's feasible to block that range, and I think a bunch of the IPs/ranges (like this) are already blocked. I think I probably blocked some of them. There's almost a dozen admins among the list that they pinged and so I figured that that page already will get plenty of admin attention. And blocking their range--we can always do that if they start trolling from that one, but it's clear that the previous blocks just haven't done a lot to stop them. Drmies (talk) 01:12, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

I see: thanks for the indulgence and the extra context. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 03:05, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Spammer

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

---

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

Could someone block this user. Since their account was created, they have been exclusively spamming. Even when I warned them not to, they still done it anyways. OhHaiMark (talk) 23:29, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

They haven't edited since yesterday. If they resume spamming, reporting them to WP:AIV.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:49, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Now globally locked. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 01:05, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

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

Requesting a block review

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

---

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Block_request; perhaps this was in the wrong place initially. Seems pointless to rehash everything here. If an admin would be kind enough to review, assess, and close, it would be appreciated. Buffs (talk) 05:44, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

 Done by @User:TParis. WaggersTALK 10:49, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

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

Popera

I'm here because I really don't see where else to go, so please don't shout at me when pointing me in a direction I missed. Popera is a long-standing redirect to Operatic pop. Two days ago, 117.224.87.42 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) hijacked it with an article about the 'Popere' (also spelled 'Popera'), a clan in India.

This is a less than ideal way of going about things, so I reverted and dropped them the standard {{uw-hijack}} with its links to how to go about proposing a new article. They reverted me, I reverted them back with an edit summary asking them to read their talk page, and that was that.

They've come back on a different IP today, 2409:40d6:c:cdc:8000:: (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), and reverted me once more.

The thing is, I suspect the article they've created has merit. If I'm right about that, it should be at Popere, and Popera should either be a disambig or remain a redirect to Operatic pop (perhaps with a hatnote on that article).

If that is correct, it needs someone to split the history currently at Popera, moving the hijacking to Popere and leaving the non-hijacked redirect where it is. Is that even possible? If it is, it's obviously beyond my skill and what I can achieve as an IP editor anyway. 81.187.192.168 (talk) 14:02, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

I may be wrong, but I don't think the sources at that version verify the statement The Popere, or Popera is a clan of Koli caste found in the Indian state of Maharashtra. At best, they mention a few people with the surname Popere (for example, Rahibai Soma Popere) and then a single, possibly academic source mentions a mythological king named Popera. Does the existence of a surname automatically mean that a clan or caste by that name exists? (I ask that in good faith. I don't have the background to know.) There's nothing at List of Koli states and clans, for example. Woodroar (talk) 14:48, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

No idea – I know as much about the subject as you do! If the hijacked version has no merit, then this thread is moot, other than... can a couple of people watchlist the redirect so I don't accidentally go over 3RR if the person hijacking it keeps jumping IPs to rehijack it again? 81.187.192.168 (talk) 14:53, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

That's a good call. It's on my watchlist now, and I don't mind requesting protection if they keep hijacking it. But I'm also not an admin so the more watchlists it's on, the better. Woodroar (talk) 15:27, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Apparent script kiddie skewing views on an article

This isn't urgent per se, but it's a chronic issue happening over many months. this Village pump post covers all the details. While this isn't a huge problem, the accumulating fake views of Neatsville, Kentucky are skewing our statistics and rankings. I am thus inquiring as to whether this access to Wikipedia can be blocked. Stefen Tower_{s among the rest!} ^{Gab • Gruntwerk} 22:09, 3 June 2024 (UTC)