Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents: Difference between revisions

Neplota (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
We currently have an editor (User:Neplota) having multiple slow edit wars in the middle of short talks and an RFC. Canada, UK, Japan.The main purpose of the edits is to add data to the infobox that despite being in other articles is being contested in these cases . I do find this edit odd that removed the data they are trying to add on other pages? Is this someone here just to mess with us and waste our time? Moxy- 16:57, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the Australia page. GoodDay (talk) 17:05, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

this edit is to that page...what is odd is they removed the data they are trying to add in other places. Saying "as the categories included are very ambiguous e.g., oceanian"..but this is what they are trying to add to other pages ...clasification with the term "oceanian". Are they just trying to start problmes/debates all over?Moxy- 17:11, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There's more countries, he's made such bold changes to, as well. GoodDay (talk) 17:20, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There are similar issues with this editor at United Kingdom per this thread. However, they abruptly stopped editing when this thread at ANI was opened - ANI flu? - but a pause for the editor to take stock may be helpful and all that's needed. DeCausa (talk) 07:02, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well he's active again. GoodDay (talk) 09:51, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Simply a net negative Copyright Moxy- 00:45, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Bunkerpr violates WP:COI and WP:REFSPAM on a regular basis and either deletes or ignores warnings on his talk page.

WP:COI violations (I. M. Mills, R. N. Zare, F. Légaré, P. Jensen, H. C. Longuet-Higgins, A. R. W. McKellar, C. di Lauro, T. Carrington are his associates [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8]): [9] (see references #51 and #53 in the arXiv paper) [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] [32] [33] [34] [35] [36] [37] [38] [39] [40] [41] [42] [43] [44] [45] [46] [47] [48] [49] [50] [51] [52] [53] [54] [55] [56] [57] [58] [59] [60] [61] [62] [63] [64] [65] [66] [67] [68] [69] [70] [71] [72] [73] [74] [75] [76] [77] [78] [79] [80]

Diffs with warnings about COI: [81] [82] [83] [84]

See also the bottom of this[85] message and this[86].

I suggest that Bunkerpr be blocked indefinitely per WP:DISRUPTONLY. A1E6 (talk) 06:46, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I gave a final warning since they're not currently active. They're on very thin ice. Star Mississippi 16:48, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

022 (UTC)

• Comment I haven’t met Bunkerpr in real life, but I work in the same research area. He’s an internationally respected scholar, trying to make contributions to Wikipedia in his retirement. His edits have all been technically correct, and he’s made edits having nothing to do with his own papers or book. I believe that this user has made these edits in good faith and that an indefinite block is going too far at this point. If a block is considered, it should be a short-term block issued as a warning. If the warning is not heeded, then next steps. Qflib, aka KeeYou Flib (talk) 13:23, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bunkerpr calls the rules "the stupid rules of wiki land"[87]. This is not good faith, he is not here to build an encyclopedia (WP:CNH), he just wants to promote his work and work of his associates (as you can see in the diffs). He was warned several times in the past (and was also blocked) but this wasn't enough (as you can see in the diffs). So blocking indefinitely is the only solution. A1E6 (talk) 15:43, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I did go through many of the diffs. I wasn’t aware that he’d been blocked in the past. I’m aware of those comments since they occurred in a conversation with me, wherein I was trying to steer him away from the point of view you just mentioned. As far as I know that’s the only negative comment he made, and he probably thought he was making it in confidence since he seemed unaware of why Wikipedia works the way it works. He was, I think, trying to strike an apologetic tone with me but certainly I wasn’t the one who needed an apology. In any case, if he was blocked in the past that may be a different kettle of fish. Qflib, aka KeeYou Flib (talk) 16:42, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Bunkerpr may not be the best or most experienced Wikipedia editor, but I find his recent edits to generally be constructive in that they improve the encyclopedia's coverage. It is unfortunate that Bunkerpr refspammed in the past, but he doesn't seem to be doing that anymore since September 2020. In [88] he settled for a version without his book referenced with the comment "Ah Well. People will have to look at my book to really understand angular momenta in molecules", so he seems to have internalized the refspam policy. Well, minus adding his book in [89]. Other papers he has cited since then have been Mills and Légaré, for which the COI claims seem overblown; e.g. François Légaré published precisely one paper together with Bunker, and from the actual paper site you can see they were all at difference research institutions and it was a collaboration of diverse researchers. Similarly Mills coauthored a paper and met Bunker at a picnic. Using this flimsy evidence we would ban everyone with an Erdős number from citing Erdős's papers because of COI.

There is likely to be an actual COI of Bunkerpr editing his own Wikipedia page Philip Bunker and the page of his doctoral advisor Christopher Longuet-Higgins, but he seems to have stopped that too. I have placed COI templates on their talk pages. --Mathnerd314159 (talk) 18:31, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

At worst I would say Bunkerpr deserves a main-article ban, he should at least be able to leave messages on talk pages. Mathnerd314159 (talk) 19:58, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In 2022 alone, he violated WP:COI at least 8 times. It doesn't matter if they were at different institutions, it's still a conflict of interest if they collaborate. A1E6 (talk) 20:30, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Unfortunately, Bunkerpr is continuing to edit the page Philip Bunker, even after the warnings. It does seem like he's unresponsive and doesn't plan to stop his practices. This is very unfortunate. Qflib, aka KeeYou Flib (talk) 21:00, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  as a partial step, he has been p-blocked from the article Star Mississippi 01:10, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  These logs [90][91] are very suspicious. It is possible that Bunkerpr uses socks/new IPs/his associates to edit the article. Also on 9/8/2020, Bunkerpr added[92] the link [93] to Angular momentum operator. On 9/18/2020, Sergeyarhivarius added[94] the same link to Spectroscopy. A1E6 (talk) 12:14, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks @A1E6. I blocked the IP as the quacking is deafening. Suggest this goes to SPI for broader tracking. Star Mississippi 14:29, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  ETA: the IP disclosed here. If someone thinks that merits an even longer block, I have no objection. Star Mississippi 14:31, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  It's up to you, but I don't see an end in sight. Qflib, aka KeeYou Flib (talk) 18:05, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I agree, but with one person opposing further action is going to need SPI or consensus. Star Mississippi 01:32, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support some sort of sanction. One option I had been thinking of was a ban from BLP and science pages. Gusfriend (talk) 00:51, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support ban from directly editing articles related to chemistry, atomic and molecular physics, or Philip Bunker. Since this is a COI issue, edits to talk pages should still be allowed. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 19:23, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with this, a selective ban on editing these kinds of pages seems proportional. Qflib, aka KeeYou Flib (talk) 21:55, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak support of a topic ban. It seems like this user has also engaged in incivility. GTNO6 (talk) 09:22, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just a quick note that مصر المصريين (talk · contribs) started an undiscussed mass move of pages, mass changing the spelling of people's names to Arabic transliteration (Abdul Hussain --> Abd al-Husayn, Abdul Latif --> ʻAbd al-Laṭīf, etc.). I've asked them to stop and reverted a couple of most recent moves, but I'm unable to follow through with reversal of all the ~80 page moves. Can someone step in to help? Thanks, — kashmīrī ^TALK 13:46, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

These are not my "preferred spellings", but the convention of WP:MOSAR for the romanization of Arabic on Wikipedia, which you've probably never read. مصر المصريين (talk) مصر المصريين (talk) 13:49, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have just read WP:MOSAR and it certainly does not mandate changing the common English translation of a name to a strict transliteration. In fact it says quite the reverse. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:59, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Precisely. MOSAR explicitly states that The strict transliteration (...) is only used for etymology, while articles titles should follow the article naming criteria. You need to revert all your page moves. — kashmīrī ^TALK 14:40, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you do. Johnbod (talk) 14:41, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

لمصريين should revert these changes and wait for consensus before restoring or performing any similar moves. MOSAR is in line with the vast majority of wikipedia style standards in stating that article titles should follow "translation or transcription that is most often used in English-language reliable sources (WP:COMMONNAME principle)", which in many of these moves can be easily shown to be the pre-move name.Dialectric (talk) 14:46, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

MOSAR is actually a bit intricate and not always well understood. For the names of modern people, places and things we use 'common transcription', which is basically WP:COMMONNAME: use the most common spelling in RS or the one used by the subject themselves. However, for historical subjects, RS themselves use transliteration, with the precise rules varying almost from publication to publication. For these subjects we too use a transliteration system, adapted from one of the most widely used ones in English-language sources, with two sets of rules: one with all the diacritics in place ('strict transliteration'), and another, simplified version of this which is easy to type for all editors because containing only ASCII characters ('basic transcription').

But 'basic transcription', which is the standard for article titles, is still a transliteration system, and only fit for historical subjects and other subjects for which no 'common transcription' exists. Finally arriving at what مصر المصريين has been doing, i.e., moving name articles to transliterated titles, this is perhaps one of the most difficult types of articles to decide on. Often one finds a dozen or more different spellings for one name, with none of them being particularly more prominent. Though there are possible objections upon which I will not elaborate here, it would make some sense to use transliteration to make all Arabic name articles uniform and easy to decide on. However, and that is why we are here, this would mean moving hundreds of pages, which is something that should never be done without getting a solid consensus for it first.

We do have a bit of a problem though with an obvious space for editors to go and propose this. I would suggest Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anthroponymy/Arabic names task force, but the last 10 edits there go back to 2011. There's also WT:ARAB, but it's near-dead too. Your best bet is probably WT:APO with a notice of the discussion at WT:ISLAM. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 00:14, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

All those page moves should be reversed, if they've not gone through the RM process, let alone gotten a consensus to be moved. GoodDay (talk) 00:19, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I feel this account might belong to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SheryOfficial. Quack! — kashmīrī ^TALK 19:28, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well one thing that seems certain is that this user has edited a lot before creating this account. It's also true that SheryOfficial socks of the last past half year have been disruptively moving pages (many of which I have reverted during the past week), including quite a few moves citing MOSAR. However, that's where the similarity ends. I am very familiar with SheryOfficial, and though one can never be sure, I don't think it's them at this point. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 21:58, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks. I've now also spotted important differences, primarily in geo association. So, ignore my suggestion. — kashmīrī ^TALK 13:53, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How is one able to contact the editor-in-question, aside from posting at the editor's talkpage. Pinging would be difficult, as I don't have non-english letters on my keyboard. GoodDay (talk) 14:09, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just copy and paste their username (مصر المصريين) inside the ping template. M.Bitton (talk) 14:19, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Disclaimer: I am the primary contributor of several Star Trek articles which I have done a lot of work creating/expanding to get to GA status. This is the same way I work on many other film and TV articles with other editors, but there is less interest from other editors on these ones so the contribution stats are definitely skewed towards me by a lot. I am not surprised that someone might have WP:OWNERSHIP concerns with me because of that, but I firmly believe that there is no actual issue with my approach here. I am raising this because Bacon Noodles appears to be using these facts as a way to borderline-harass me into getting their own way in a content dispute:

• They added disputed content to Star Trek: Discovery (diff) which had some back-and-forth reverts before a discussion started
• Discussions at Talk:Star Trek: Discovery and MOS:TV both found consensus for my position and almost no support for Bacon Noodles
• Across both discussions, Bacon Noodles has accused me of ownership at least seven times. They have also left WP:WALLOFTEXT accusations at my talk page (diff 1 and diff 2) and their own (diff)
• I have pointed out the irony of this since I am working with other editors to get consensus for my position and they are not
• I have also asked them to stop these accusations multiple times as it is starting to feel like WP:HOUNDING to force me to back off, but they keep on posting them
  • I am especially concerned that they seem to be continuously posting accusations to my own talk page

Despite consensus forming to remove the disputed content that was added, Bacon Noodles's changes are still in the article and I am concerned about what they will do to try and keep them in. If they agree to back off with the accusations and remove the disputed content from the article then I will be happy to move on, but otherwise I will keep looking for ways to resolve the issue. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:33, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I've read both discussions and they do seem to favor User:Adamstom.97. I think the ownership accusations as part of those discussion are personal attacks and distract from discussing the content. Adam seems to have been very patient here in describing the policy. I'd recommend Bacon Noodles to walk away quickly.--v/r - TP 00:04, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not going to dismiss it as appearing as prompted by simple content complaints or as being completely unrelated; in fact, I made a point of it that my concern stems from the ways User:Adamstom.97 dealt with an edit I made to a page, which went they then went to unusual extremes to remove. To be clear on the actuality of things, rather than a single-sided interpretation, I've compiled a fuller, not complete, timeline of interactions, to show it's more than a knee-jerk reaction to having an edit reverted. There are quite a lot of points, so I don't want to write too much above it, at this stage. But, to address the main accusations:

• "Disputed" is an objection, when there has been no previous discussion on inclusion and no factual/contextual errors; I maintain this was not sufficient to revert and, the eventual (second revert) recommendation to discuss the matter was a step in the right direction.
• "You vs Everyone consensus" is wrong because I have highlighted opposing views, as well as my own; incorrect to say a consensus was ignored, before there was a consensus. On one talk page, I even stated that I did not disagree with the general consensus and more with the potential lack of neutrality in implementation. (Referencing it as a reason to revert, 10 minutes after adding it, during an ongoing discussion)
• "WP:OWNER 7 times" close enough, however, in my first message to User talk:Adamstom.97, I made an attempt to directly address my concerns; I did not assert it was any one edit or statistic, but what I felt was a trend that I had observed. WP:WALLOFTEXT was to attempt more objectivity, to quote likely indicators and perceived evidence matching.
• "No consensus building" if the complaint is I don't spend enough time on Wikipedia, that's the WP:PULLRANK point. I have explained my viewpoint, in response to concerns from different users ([95], [96], [97]); I don't keep refreshing the page and to expect a loop of repeating phrases is frivolous.
• "WP:HOUNDING" first talk page message clear on appreciation for WP:STEWARDSHIP, not "dislike, revert, remove, silence." MOS:TV specifically called me "offending user" and "pointed" to respond. first was large, to be unambiguous. second was paraphrased version, to reduce WP:WALLOFTEXT, after replying on my own talk page. Automatic notification on both reverts and reply on own talk.
• "Concerned about what they will do to try and keep them in" I'm insulted by this; after all the things Adamstom.97 has done, rather than wait for the discussion to end naturally, or another editor to implement changes, I am baselessly accused as being likely to do the unthinkable (whatever that may be). This is one of the prime reasons I'm concerned; if the response to a concern is this instead of just saying "I disagree", how are first-time editors meant to respond in a similar situation (again)? All over what started as one line about rerun ratings in a section on viewership and a statement on disagreeing about reverting to remove, before discussing.

1. I added referenced content to Star Trek: Discovery, which I deemed relevant to a specific section on viewership; this displayed as one sentence.
2. Back-and-forth reverting, initiated by User:Adamstom.97 (two each, additions maintained on last)
3. Shortly before the final reversion (taken by me), I had begun a discussion on the article's talk page, as suggested in a reversion comment from Adamstom.97
4. The immediate response was that this was "out of line" due to not having their endorsement to add it
5. Several days later, the article was reverted by Adamstom.97 on the perceived grounds of WP:BRD and WP:STATUSQUO, as well as a reference to additions to a manual of style
6. Counter to that action, I reverted to the previous (still containing the original edit from myself), on the grounds of perceived WP:STONEWALLING, unjustified WP:BRD (WP:BRD-NOT); the same page also mentioned the latter as a potential sign of WP:OWNERSHIP, which I chose to apply in line with each
7. Partially based on the talk page discussion, I revised the edit to include multiple new references and background, addressing points raised on notability, source reliability and context
8. Adamstom.97's objection changed to "bare minimum" and WP:UNDUE, from lack of same qualities.
9. Prompted by the mention of the manual of style, I reviewed the page's history and found that the specific reference to reruns (applicable to the original edit in dispute) was added by Adamstom.97, shortly before their reversion, in the previous point; however, the edits to the manual did have a discussion with a general consensus among those discussing
10. The changes were reverted by myself, on the procedural grounds that it was applied to the background of the Star Trek: Discovery discussion and directly used by Adamstom.97 to justify removing the edit, despite that ongoing discussion not yet having an apparent consensus (most recent discussion, prior to Adamstom.97's reversion)
11. On the manual of style talk page, I added my views on the change and emphasis that my concerns were based on application, but also the way that Adamstom.97 lacked sufficient individual neutrality to implement the change due to veiled attacks directed towards me as "offending user" and "someone who is trying to add [rerun ratings] without any commentary [... not] in appropriate context". On the claim that I am "hounding", the timings are clear a response on the MOS was expected, even requested, although slightly before my revision on context/relevance
12. In response to my concerns on neutrality and effect of the change, Adamston.97's replied that I had "forced" my "own personal view upon multiple other editors" and "[keep] doing whatever the hell you want"
13. As a final response, on the MOS page, I reiterated that my concern was separate from the Star Trek page, how so, and my issue that the MOS change appeared to bypass the ongoing Star Trek discussion
14. Finally, to respond to what I had felt reached a concerning level of uncivil behaviour, I posted to User talk:Adamstom.97, as recommended by Wikipedia:Civility#Dealing with incivility, when no one article is the focus; I even included a point where I acknowledge it is likely to appear personal or biased, so to compensate, I included quotes from WP:OWNBEHAVIOUR on the signs of it and, what I felt, although retrospectively it may have been an overreach, were objective statistical comparisons to demonstrate the trend in reverting good faith edits by multiple editors, being the overwhelming single contributor to related articles (including how it is not on its own enough), and going as far as changing manuals of styles, what I continue to feel was, to bypass discussion, and not typical in comparable examples.
15. The message was removed/reverted by Adamstom.97, responded to at my own user talk page, dismissing it as WP:HOUNDING, entirely personal and that it would be dealt with by "reporting you for harassment"
16. I replied identically on two pages, first with a paraphrased version on User talk:Adamstom.97, in a format less likely to be WP:WALLOFTEXT. In my second reply, on my talk page, I placed links to the original messages for context, I reiterated my observation of WP:OWNBEHAVIOUR signs, how it was not towards any specific content or edit with a trend, and my concern at dismissing it as retribution.
17. User:Adamstom.97 submitted their interpretation of events as perceived harassment, and brought it here.

I'll be clear, I do not think everything was said perfectly, and there has definitely been regrettably charged language at times, not always; although I can't quote every policy and when one should have been used instead of another, I still believe the patterns show my concerns were/are genuine and not purely out of contempt over a reversion, where I have freely highlighted concerns to prospective editors. -- Bacon Noodles (talk • contribs • uploads) 11:48, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I seem to be the only administrator who has taken an interest here. So, let me be clear. I read your timeline. You have a serious case of not listening. Consensus is against you. The MOS doesn't support your insertion of material. There is no ownership issues here, you're just wrong. And continuing to push that as your central point is becoming a personal attack. So, literally shut the fuck up and do something else for awhile because your behavior is bordering on tendentious. Stop it. You're wrong.--v/r - TP 01:02, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I note that Bacon Noodles features their first edit to Adamstom.97's page several times above, describing it as "an attempt to directly address my concerns". This extremely large edit contains no diffs, but all the more quotes from the WP:OWN policy. That is a very strange way of debating; it means many accusations, phrased in the voice of policy, and no evidence. (Bacon Noodles's expressed regret above that "I can't quote every policy" seems misplaced. Please don't keep quoting policy!) Adamstom97 is told for example that "in many cases (but not all), single editors engaged in ownership conflicts are also primary contributors to the article", "If you find that the editor continues to be hostile, makes personal attacks, or wages edit wars, try to ignore disruptive editing", "An editor reverts a change simply because the editor finds it "unnecessary"", with many more quotes from WP:OWN. The renewed shorter version of that edit that Bacon Noodles posted later is better only in being shorter (still no diffs), and worse in being more aggressive: "before you patronise me into calling all this random trumped-up accusations because I've felt your wrath after adding one sentence on a stat, which I felt was relevant, even if that is not the subsequent consensus, have a little humility" (bold in the original), "Your opinion isn't worthless, but neither is an unregistered user's, who may also have seen Star Trek, but isn't aware of every Wikipedia policy, manual or a self-anointed article owner filtering every change." As TParis says, these are attacks. You are wrong, Bacon Noodles. If you persist, a site block for tendentious editing and personal attacks, or a block from Star Trek pages, will become likely. A "Star Trek pages" block may indeed be impractical, as they are so numerous, making a site block more likely. Bishonen | tålk 07:49, 19 July 2022 (UTC).[reply]

Hello. I'd like to report edit warring, a violation of WP:BRD and MOS:PRON by User:Akerbeltz.

I removed the stress mark from the IPA transcriptions of Basque in Álava, Basque language and San Sebastián because it is not a part of the Help:IPA/Basque guide. Per MOS:PRON (section Other languages), Other languages have dedicated IPA-xx templates, where xx is the 2-letter ISO 639-1 code or the 3-letter ISO 639-3 code for the language in question, as in {{IPA-el}} for Greek or {{IPA-fa}} for Persian. A number of languages also have dedicated templates that automatically convert ordinary letters (or conventional ASCII equivalents) to IPA characters that are used to transcribe the language in question, such as {{IPAc-fr}} for French and {{IPAc-cmn}} for Mandarin Chinese. These languages and templates are listed at {{IPA}}. Again, if the language you're transcribing has such an IPA key, use the conventions of that key. If you wish to change those conventions, bring it up for discussion on the key's talk page. Creating transcriptions unsupported by the key or changing the key so that it no longer conforms to existing transcriptions will confuse readers. This means that transcriptions linking to Help:IPA/X guides should agree with those guides and vice versa.

They keep refusing to engage with me on Help talk:IPA/Basque, which is the appropriate place for such discussions. Edit summaries such as adding stress symbols to shut up the IPA lawyer show that this person has absolutely no interest in respecting the proper way of dealing with such issues, instead showing the my way or the highway (or WP:OWNERSHIP, basically) philosophy. Given that they've been here for over a decade, they really ought to know better than to behave like this.

First wave of edits: [98], [99], [100]. Reverts: [101], [102], [103].

Second wave of edits: [104], [105], [106]. Reverts: [107], [108], [109]. Note the edit summary it just says "use the conventions of that language, it does NOT say you can only use what's listed on the IPA page, indeed many languages don't even have that page which is clearly at odds with what MOS:PRON says (and then goes off on a tangent about other languages that are not the topic of the discussion).

Third wave of edits: [110], [111]. Reverts: [112], [113]. The edit summaries that read restore stress mark, stop removing relevant info, the stress mark is so universal it's not going to confuse anyone who can read IPA give off WP:OWNERSHIP vibes with a complete disregard for MOS:PRON. And it is an insult to my intelligence to suggest that I think that a stress mark would "confuse" someone who can read the IPA, as it is one of the most basic IPA signs.

Then, after User:Largoplazo created a discussion on Talk:San Sebastián#Phonetic representation, Akerbeltz added the stress mark to Help:IPA/Basque with a disregard for other IPA transcriptions of Basque which would then have to be changed per MOS:PRON (to repeat myself, this means that transcriptions linking to Help:IPA/X guides should agree with those guides and vice versa.) Because of that, I reverted them. Then, they start edit warring with me, disregarding MOS:PRON and WP:BRD. In fact, they completely disregarded WP:BRD as they ignored the discussion on Help talk:IPA/Basque#Stress mark. Diffs: [114], [115], [116], [117], [118], [119], [120], [121], [122]. Sol505000 (talk) 19:37, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

While your complaint here is, I'm assuming, aimed primarily at the edit warring, can I just hold up for reflection the notion that if phonetic transcriptions from a particular language uniformly fail to represent something so fundamental as the stress, we must never begin remediating that deficiency anywhere because we can't fix it everywhere at once?

The real deficiency seems to have been at Help:IPA/Basque, and Akerbeltz fixed that. I don't see how you make that out to be a MOS:PRON violation. Where does MOS:PRON say "Thou shalt not include stress in IPA representations"? Have you taken a look at Help:IPA/Spanish? Help:IPA/Russian? Largoplazo (talk) 01:52, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Akerbeltz is generally a good editor; the problem here is that if IPA-eu is changed, then all the articles that link to it should be changed to match. That's a significant project, affecting many articles, so there should be an announcement on the talk page of the key, where people could register their objections. At the least, a discussion should be started on the intended project if they start running into difficulty implementing it because they're getting reverted. It's not a matter of whether stress should be marked or not [and BTW stress is much less salient in Basque than it is in Spanish or Russian, so those aren't good analogies], but of consistency. No, it doesn't have to all be done at once, but there should be some indication that there are plans to do it, like 'I've started a project to add stress to all trasclusions of this key.' Also, in the case of marginal distinctions like this, there may be good reason to avoid it (such as it being inconsistent between dialects). Why wasn't it in the key to begin with? Was there a consensual decision to not include it or to remove it? That might be relevant to restoring it. — kwami (talk) 04:55, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As for why it wasn't there, I suspect nobody ever got round to the suprasegmentals, since there's nothing exotic about primary/secondary stress. People likely have to check up on stuff like ɟ or ts̻ in Basque but ˈ much less so.

As for the edit war, I object to people wasting other people's time for no good reason. The primary stress mark is hardly exotic in IPA and its use Araba and Donostia is relevant and non-controversial. For an editor with an apparent knowledge of the IPA and MOS but apparently little in the way of Basque to come in and start removing stuff from Basque pages because of some rather dubious MOS angle and then to have the cheek to suggest if I add the missing bit they've complained about to the IPA page that this means I am therefore obliged to weed through an unknown number of pages, sorry, that's wasting everyone's time for *very* little gain, so yeah, I get short with that kind of thing and I'm not apologetic about it. Akerbeltz (talk) 10:01, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Kwamikagami: Some good points that I hadn't considered. About the inconsistency part, though: It isn't the same as if someone were to replace one representation with another and begin implementing the new one. That would create confusion, with the same sound or phoneme being represented in different ways in different places. In this case, there would be renderings that indicate the stress and renderings that don't. This wouldn't be confusing, it would look like what it was: a case of something missing that could be added by anyone who came along, noticed the deficiency, and knew where the stress marks should go. Largoplazo (talk) 11:20, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Like incomplete tone information in languages that have simple tone systems that a lot of dictionaries don't bother with. I've come across WP transcriptions like that, and yeah, it's pretty obvious that they're simply incomplete. I have no objection to that, but at this point, having come to ANI, I think it would be best for Akerbeltz to start a thread on the IPA-eu key talk page, saying what they intend to do and why, list a couple RS's, maybe ping those involved in creating the key or drop a note on the wikiproject talk pages, and wait a week for feedback. If no-one bothers to reply, you can take that as silent consensus. Sol505000 is correct in how we've set things up to work in this cooperative setting -- you need to satisfy those with no knowledge of the subject that you're following sources, because otherwise how can they tell? There's no rush here, and @Akerbeltz:, even if you're rolling your eyes over having to go all bureaucratic over something you find straightforward, remember that there's no peer-review before you publish, and it'll probably take less time and effort for you follow WP:BOLD than it will to repeatedly argue over it in edit-summaries. — kwami (talk) 20:29, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just gonna add, it isn't immediately obvious that the IPA transcriptions of Basque should include stress. Basque dialects show big differences in stress/accent patterns, and stress in Standard Basque has little to no contrastive value. MOS:PRON recommends, generally, following national or international standards, in this case being Standard Basque's stress patterns, but I think there is room for opposition and it's something that should be discussed. Erinius (talk) 23:32, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problem with including stress for some dialects if the relevant transcriptions are going to be adjusted along with the guide. I've never taken a definitive stance on this. Sol505000 (talk) 11:37, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just because stress in Basque is complicated doesn't mean it's a complete free-for-all. Like you won't get [ˈdonos̺tia]) in any dialect but if we put [donos̺tia]) then the chances non-speakers putting the stress in a totally wrong position goes UP. Collaborative is fine by me until it turns into "my knowledge of some Wiki policy trumps subject expert knowledge", at which point it becomes a waste of time and the main reason I do so little mainspace editing on the English Wikipedia these days. Akerbeltz (talk) 10:25, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have never said that my knowledge of MOS:PRON or WP:BRD "trumps" your knowledge of Basque (I can't verify the "expert" part and it's not terribly relevant anyway). Stop putting words in my mouth. I can see that you participated in discussions on Help talk:IPA/Basque as early as in 2010 (12 years ago), so you really should've known better than to edit war with me in multiple articles. If you can't follow the aforementioned policies after that much time on WP then I can see why you edit so little. Sol505000 (talk) 11:36, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The user Iterresise (talk · contribs · count) insists on simply deleting, without any prior discussion or consensus, various demographic tables from country articles (see here, here, here, here, etc). He has already been warned by user Moxy (see here and here) about this kind of destabilizing behavior and about the promotion of edit wars, but he insists on this kind of attitude. I request some kind of administrative intervention, as the previous warnings have not had any effect. Chronus (talk) 02:28, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yup...second report on this board ....they are not new very familiar with Useful links

-(Moxy- 02:44, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Moxy Second report? Chronus (talk) 02:48, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

opps achieved ...my bad]Moxy- 02:50, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Moxy You think Neplota & Iterresise might be the same individual? GoodDay (talk) 02:56, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Notified the editor on their talk page about this thread since they hadn't recieved the notice. I found it odd that after being warned for edit warring they removed the warning citing "don't template the regulars". The account is less than four months old, so either there's some kind of delusions of grandeur going on or something's shady. Either way, I also find the behaviour incredibly disruptive. The templates they are removing are useful for readers of the articles to easily get an overview of population clusters without having to go to some different stub article for it that may or may not even be as detailed as the template itself, and the reasons they have been citing for removing it have been flawed at best. They're currently blocked for edit warring but if this continues more drastic measures should be taken. TylerBurden (talk) 19:42, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

They replaced the notification with an edit summary of "how ridiculous" [123] then changed their talk page User talk:Iterresise to "hypocrites and liars". I also agree that it is a little odd to say don't template the regulars when they posted a template on an editor who has been here since 2008 ([124]). Gusfriend (talk) 00:45, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So it doesn't exactly look like they have learned from their mistakes. Calling people hypocrites when templating 2008 users.. nothing posted on that talk page has been a lie, their edit history confirms edit warring across several articles. I think a longer block at this point would be preventative because there is evidently no accountability here. TylerBurden (talk) 12:10, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• They seem to have a history of making a change and, after they are reverted, repeating their edit. For example at International Science Olympiad they repeated their edit after it had been reverted [125] and gave a warning to the other user [126] which included the standard talk page message even though they rarely use the talk page themselves (and didn't in this situation). On the DAB pages Faro and DM they also re-added content after being reverted without using the talk page or attempting to generate a consensus. Gusfriend (talk) 06:15, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  (non-admin comment) Consensus which they would be very unlikely to get; MOS:DAB#Grouping by subject area recommends against the type of changes they made. Narky Blert (talk) 08:55, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Let's not ban them longer for now...much easier to follow this account then the sock they will make. Moxy- 00:43, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• It would be good to hear a response from @Iterresise:. Gusfriend (talk) 10:54, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated a page Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Philip_Brooks_(basketball) for AFD, the votes were in favor to delete the page because it has no independent coverage. The guy hired a few people from Upwork a freelancing site and hiring people to edit their page and save it. A person name Franklin Darrk and one more is adding useless website links such as weebly.com, their personal website of Philip, Press releases website, and trademark.trademarkia.com as a reference. I warned him multiple times but every time he added the links. Two Wikipedians including the voter told Franklin to add the 3 independent news sources to the article but he is adding weebly.com and personal website links as a third-party reference. Kindly take action and see the AFD page. --IntelisMust (talk) 15:11, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Non-administrator comment) @IntelisMust: As the red text near the top of the page states, you must notify the user in question on their talk page. I have done so for you this time. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 15:16, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt that there's much to do here except to close the AfD as a clear "delete", as has been done. I see that the editor in question has been given some warnings on their talk page. Any accusations of underhand behaviour need strong evidence to support them, and, unless an editor freely discloses their true identity on Wikipedia, we should be wary of WP:OUTING. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:05, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This user MeGowtham (talk · contribs · count) deleting, AFD template, without providing reasons (here, here). It has been previously warned on the talk page. (WP:LISTEN) HurricaneEdgar 04:32, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also here, here, here and here on the one article. Also warned on users talk page. Hughesdarren (talk) 04:40, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have also taken issue that some of the articles they have created have zero sources. Draft:Deepa Shankar was deleted per G7 after some sloppy handling of this unsourced BLP, but then got recreated in article space; it is now at AfD. MeGowtham added a source (using improper markup, as I recall) only when I told them to do so in a draft comment, and as noted by Deepika o (talk · contribs), that source does not verify any of the associated article content. Their other article, Mr. and Mrs. Chinnathirai (Season 4), has a similar history.

More recently, they also uploaded an image of Aishwarya Rai Bachchan without any licensing information, and which turned out to be a copyvio of [127]. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 05:09, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for 31 hours for disruptive editing. Anarchyte (talk) 06:48, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The AfD for Deepa Shankar has been withdrawn after additional sources were found, while the image was tagged as non-free for use on a nonexistent article, and has been tagged for deletion per F5 and F7c. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 19:06, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

EditPatroller296 (talk · contribs) has, over the course of several weeks, been adding errors to the article Townley Grammar School (1) (2) (3) (4) (4) (5) (6) (7), even possibly entering into an edit war with editors from the school itself. The errors claim that the school is closed, while using an outdated source [128] instead of the current, up to date source [129] which I also added to the article. StartOkayStop (talk) 06:38, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I’m also going to add that they also have recently been making some unconstructive edits, where they replace some content and change the reference, and then say “just trust me bro,” as they did here [130] and here [131]. The typical edit summaries they’ve been using for these edits are things like “Fixed inaccuracies” and “Fixed issues.” ProClasher97 ~ Have A Question? 06:54, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reading the admissions page from the school's website gives the impression that the "Townley Grammar School for Girls" was indeed shut down, but then the "Townley Grammar School" reopened in its place. EditPatroller296 hasn't edited in a week, so I don't think it's necessary to take any action right now, but if they return to their disruption it could be worth opening another thread. That or, and I say this without checking any of their edits, a partial block preventing them from editing that page could work. Anarchyte (talk) 06:55, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Krimuk2.0 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Aamir Khan filmography (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I reported this issue at AIV but was told to take it to another admin board (which I acknowledge is appropriate). I removed content at Aamir Khan filmography because it was not supported by the source cited. User Krimuk2.0 reverted with no explanation. When I again stated that the information was not in the source cited, Krimuk2.0 restored the content again with the explanation "the onus is on you to provide the correct source". I pointed out WP:BURDEN here. Krimuk2.0 added a different source that again had nothing to do with the content in question. I would appreciate it if someone would point out to Krimuk2.0 that any material on Wikipedia that is challenged should not be restored without a source that actually supports the edit. If I should discuss this elsewhere please advise. Thanks. Sundayclose (talk) 16:54, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• 172.58.219.0/21 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))

Someone using IPs from Boston has been adding spam links to media by "J. M. Smig" to multiple articles.[132][133][134] The links connect to Smig's Bandcamp page or Smig's YouTube page. Wikilinks are often added to the notional biography J. M. Smig,[135] a page which was deleted in 2006, moved to User:J.M. Smig. The user made two edits in userspace in 2006 and then fell silent. In the last week, the person has resurfaced to promote their work.[136] Below, I have listed the IPs involved in this activity. Binksternet (talk) 18:11, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Involved IPs

• 172.58.219.150 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 172.58.222.208 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 172.58.219.232 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 172.58.220.251 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 172.58.222.157 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 172.58.219.18 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 172.58.219.46 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 172.58.219.114 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 172.58.222.169 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))

• I have made a one-month rangeblock of 172.58.219.0/21 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)). EdJohnston (talk) 18:31, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks! That will send a message. Binksternet (talk) 21:55, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2001:8003:3cfd:fc00:6154:228f:2b0b:498c (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) Is repeatedly removing content and sources from Kip Williams (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) citing "invasion of privacy". All content is, as far as I can see, is sourced, publicly available and not harmful to the subject. Not responding to messages left on anon's talk page. Appears to want the article to be a hagiography. Could I please get some more eyes on this? Thanks Adakiko (talk) 22:38, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This looks like an edit war, and a 3RR violation. Not sure if this would be better reported to the 3RR noticeboard, but here are some some diffs:

Last good version: [137]

Reverts:

1. [138]
2. [139]
3. [140]
4. [141]
5. [142]

StartOkayStop (talk) 22:43, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Additional note: There appear to be other accounts and IP addresses making the same types of edits, including 2001:8003:3cfd:fc00:20dd:e912:877f:dcfe (talk · contribs) [143], MikeWayneSydney (talk · contribs) [144], and 203.220.230.206 (talk · contribs) [145]. StartOkayStop (talk) 22:49, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is not an edit war. What this is a highly disruptive individual who is removing citation without an explanation. Judekkan (talk) 22:54, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The involvement of multiple IPs is why I posted here rather then EWN. Adakiko (talk) 22:56, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Another new IP just popped up doing the exact same things: 49.195.18.217 (talk · contribs). Same types of edits, and the only recent edits on this IP. StartOkayStop (talk) 23:09, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I requested page protection at WP:RPP. Judekkan (talk) 23:16, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Semi-protected for a week to stop the edit warring. I'm about to log off and haven't had time to look through all the references, so I don't know if there is any additional action needed there, though I will make the general note that BLP concerns aren't necessarily invalid just because they are brought forth in a non-ideal manner. --Blablubbs (talk) 00:44, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• 2A00:23C4:BF84:BE01:0:0:0:0/64 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))

Someone using IPs from Cambridge has been adding unreferenced, unsupported genres to music articles, especially songs by the Chemical Brothers.[146][147][148] The person is also adding unsupported genres to film articles.[149][150]

The person is uncommunicative, never responding to the many talk page warnings that have been delivered. Binksternet (talk) 01:57, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Blocked for 72-hours.--v/r - TP 02:42, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators please bock this IP 2601:406:4103:230:F966:1EF8:F796:B979 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). He's doing Unconstructive edits at Maddam Sir, Pandya Store, Banni Chow Home Delivery and Sasural Simar Ka by replacing Gulki Joshi, Alice Kaushik, Ulka Gupta and Avika Gor's names with Dipika Kakkar Ibrahim and Nia Sharma respectively. Pri2000 (talk) 09:42, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Hasn't edited since 04:48 UTC, all edits reverted, so probably no need for action at this time. Black Kite (talk) 10:40, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Black Kite: this IP's sock IP 2601:406:4103:230:3D6E:C3A0:5C65:A7AD (talk · contribs · WHOIS) is repeating same thing on Maddam Sir, Pandya Store, Ravivaar With Star Parivaar, Alice Kaushik even after other editors reverting this IP's edits. It has been done within few hours.Pri2000 (talk) 18:07, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • 2601:406:4103:230:0:0:0:0/64 blocked for 72 hours. Black Kite (talk) 18:22, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OR by Hobbitschuster (talk · contribs), most recently at Flag desecration, Xenon, Nuremberg U-Bahn, U2 (Nuremberg U-Bahn), La Hague site, Helsinki–Tallinn Tunnel, and a host of other articles. User has responded to warnings not with a determination to begin adding sources, but with this [152]. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 15:04, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(invited by 2601:19e:4180:6d50:65f5:930c:b0b2:cd63) This appears to be a persistent, cross-wiki issue, looking at their enwiki talk page and their dewiki talk page. Quick examples: [153], [154], [155]. Responding to these concerns as displayed in [156] and [157] isn't acceptable even if the content turns out to be verifiable, and I think we've reached a point where all substantial additions by Hobbitschuster can be considered to be "challenged in advance" by the community, requiring citations as described in WP:BURDEN.

Additionally, Hobbitschuster appears to have a general issue with having to deal with unregistered editors's policy concerns when editing Wikipedia ([158], [159]) ~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:41, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have blocked Hobbitschuster for 72 hours for persistently adding unreferenced content. Their snide and disrespectful comments about other editors is an aggravating factor. Cullen328 (talk) 16:56, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Much appreciated. A new user who can contribute intelligently, if initially outside the guidelines, is always welcome when they acknowledge the necessity of WP:RELIABLE sources. Seven years down the road and treating those guidelines by persistently dismissing them, and other users, doesn't work. I will start reverting some of the edits, though the trail is a long one. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 18:55, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Diffs & quotes + background:
You have basic deficiencies in the critical apparatus. ([160] on 19:02, 22 December 2021)
Yes, I am going through your edits persistently because I don't trust you as an editor. ([161] on 21:30, 22 December 2021)
I mentioned these on an admin's talk page as evidence of Marcelus' grudge against me and his insults towards me ([162]), where Marcelus wants to get me wrongly banned for "ethno-nationalist activity" after his report about me here received zero attention. In response to me, Marcelus replies I didn't insult you once, but I stand by what I said you have deficiencies in the critical apparatus, you are pushing nationalist POV, and I am going through your edits persistently because I don't trust you as an editor. [163] .
After I said: Marcelus' clear doubling down on insults and going against the rules laid out in WP:BATTLEGROUND show that he has a grudge against me and thus he repeatedly mislabels my activity on Wikipedia as nationalist POV-pushing, when it isn't. ([164]), Marcelus answers with I never insulted you. [165].
A back-and-forth with a lot of friction between me and Marcelus has been going on since early September 2021 (visible on the history page of the first article since which there has been a never-ending interaction between Marcelus and I) and has been continuously going since (!!!), to this very day, 17 July 2022.
This needs to end.
Marcelus has repeatedly belittled me, thus breaking WP:NPA. His words clearly fulfill WP:IUC, which says (d) belittling a fellow editor is against Wiki rules.
I would like to ask for a one-way WP:IBAN, whereby Marcelus is banned from interacting with me due to his chronic and intractable hostile disposition towards me.--Cukrakalnis (talk) 15:09, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I never insulted Cukrakalnis, I have all the right to voice my opinion about a quality of his edits, and I firmly stand by everything I've said. And I monitor his edits because they have multiple issues. Lately I prevented his attempt to sneakily publish false historical facts, when he was trying to publish maps of prewar Poland provinces labelled in Lithuanian as lands "occupied by Poland". He was also trying to spread racial theories that Belarusians and Polish minority in Lithuania are "really" Balts/Lithuanians. That's only some of his actions. I'm actually proud of my actions in regard to his edits, I think it's a big contribution on my part to Wikipedia as a project. Best regards Marcelus (talk) 15:25, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

sneakily publish false historical facts That's how Marcelus calls statements that multiple WP:RS affirm. In fact, Marcelus repeatedly mislabels views that are not his as POV pushing, as he removed a WP:RS like the established Universal Lithuanian Encyclopedia because of supposed 'extreme POV pushing' when that was clearly not the case. Another case is when I gave him seven WP:RS with quotes supporting a statement Marcelus disagrees with ([166]), which he simply dismissed as 'WP:NPOV per definition' ([167]) due to them holding a view that is contrary to Marcelus'.

Regarding Polish-occupied Lithuanian and Belarusian lands, there are many WP:RS indeed stating that. I found seven reliable sources (the ones above) calling the thing in question as "the Polish occupation of Vilnius", neither of which was a Lithuanian source, thus removing any possibility of claiming that this view is somehow Lithuanian nationalist, as Marcelus likes to erroneously claim. Regarding the naming of the Voivodeship maps as occupied, that was because multiple WP:RS speak of a Polish occupation of Belarusian (and other) lands, thus justifying such naming:

During the Polish occupation of Belarus and Eastern Galicia... (p.22, Homelands: War, Population and Statehood in Eastern Europe and Russia, 1918-1924 edited by Nick Baron, Peter Gatrell)

Thus, the western part of Belarus and Naliboki Forest in particular were under Polish occupation. (p.1177, 'Naliboki Forest: Land, Wildlife and Human. (2nd ed.) Volume III. Historical outline and ethnographical sketch' by Vadim Sidorovich (2020).)

Indeed, by December 1919 the Poles had occupied all of Belarus as far as the Beresina river. (p.xxviii, A Polish Woman’s Experience in World War II: Conflict, Deportation and Exile' by Irena Protassewicz (2019).)

Pogroms on the territory of Belarus occurred in three waves. The first occured in 1919-1920, during and particularly after the Polish occupation; as the troops withdrew, they plundered Jewish property and torched entire villages, but committed few murders. (p519, 'Russia in Flames: War, Revolution, Civil War, 1914-1921' by Laura Engelstein)

To claim that what I am did was POV-motivated is false. Instead, it follows WP:Verifiability, which Marcelus' edits sometimes fail, as users besides me have noticed: [168].

As for the things that Marcelus falsely calls racial theories that Belarusians and Polish minority in Lithuania are "really" Balts/Lithuanians, there were many sources stating those things and because they go against Marcelus' POV, he frames those things in ways that are not true - no one even mentioned race except Marcelus. Furthermore, Marcelus' statement And I monitor his edits because they have multiple issues. is verifiably wrong - he is repeatedly the only one who ever belittles my edits and thus articles, while other users have frequently said the opposite, e.g. "That’s a good article you created Cukrakalnis by the way, good for you." [169], and I have been thanked by far too many people for my edits to be overall considered as "having multiple issues". Considering that I have done +10k edits on en.wiki, people besides Marcelus would have noticed that my edits "had multiple issues" if they were as bad as Marcelus says. Clearly, this is just another proof of Marcelus' WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality against me.

Finally, Marcelus restates that I never insulted Cukrakalnis, when evidence clearly shows the opposite. Cukrakalnis (talk) 16:13, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for showing exactly why your edits are "problematic". As Renata3 once told you: You need to realise there is a huge difference between "sourced" information and "neutral" information. There are plenty of biased albeit at face value reliable sources. Some of the texts you quoted refer to the years 1919-1920 when the territories mentioned were under short-term Polish rule of a military-civilian nature, they were not included under the normal administration of the Polish state. In view of this, talk of "occupation" is legitimate in this sense and for that time period, but certainly not in relation to the entire inter-war period, when the Polish administration in these territories was legal under international law and of a purely civilian nature. The book about the Naliboki forest is written by a Belarusian zoologist, for whom apparently the whole period of Polish rule over the Belarusian lands was an occupation. He has the right to do so, but that does not make his opinion a reliable source. As for your racist theories, I can quote Renata3 again: interwar and Cold-war sources are much too dated for such claims. There is plenty of modern-day western scholarship which discusses (for example) the idea of "Polonized Lithuanians" as nothing more than a Lithuanian POV that continues to cause tensions with the Polish minority in Lithuania (...) As such, the claims of "Polonized Lithuanians" cannot be left as statements of fact in Wikipedia's voice and must be properly attributed and explained as reflecting Lithuanian POV. Which also proves that I am not alone in my opinion and that I am not the only one who has had serious reservations about the quality of your edits. Not to mention you were blocked once for exactly this, ethno-nationalist editing. Marcelus (talk) 17:50, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for showing exactly why your edits are "problematic". Do you realise that reducing all of my edits to something as problematic when they simply aren't, is a depiction of WP:UNCIVIL? The absolute majority of the more than 80 articles that I created didn't cause any issue and yet Marcelus still despises and criticizes me (see his insults above).

Regarding Marcelus' calling it "Racist theories", I just point out MOS:RACIST: Value-laden labels – such as calling an organization a cult, an individual a racist, sexist, terrorist, or freedom fighter, or a sexual practice a perversion – may express contentious opinion and are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution. Marcelus never brought up any sources calling it racist.

Regarding the occupation question, it's a sourced statement to say that Poland occupied Belarus in the interwar, as scholarly WP:RS talk about that:

Meanwhile, the politics in West Belarus in the 1920s remained less consistent. Even though Belarusian deputies tried several times to force the Belarusian question onto the agenda of the Polish government (Rudling 2015, 18), the Polish government was still unsure on how to treat the minorities. The varying reactions about the Polish occupation among Belarusian intellectuals further complicated the issue for Polish officials. (p.8, Political Cartoon at the Service of West Belarus Left Wing Movement)

Guerrilla struggle of the Belarusian people against the Polish occupation after the Polish-Soviet War... (p.46, Partisan Movement in Western Belarus in the early 1920s: State and Prospects of the Study)

Which also proves that I am not alone in my opinion and that I am not the only one who has had serious reservations about the quality of your edits It is manipulative to use a person's criticisms of a small part of my editing just for you to brand ALL of my work as "problematic" when it simply isn't. Marcelus has a grudge against me and wants me banned, pure and simple. Cukrakalnis (talk) 19:21, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion on occupation isn't relevant to this noticeboard, as it's a content issue (I believe it has been discussed somewhere, but can't find it immediately). Please try not to bloat the discussion. - LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 19:41, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree that the discussion on occupation is irrelevant here. Yet Marcelus portrays historical statements he disagrees with as always some sort of "nationalist POV pushing", notably when he said Lately I prevented his attempt to sneakily publish false historical facts, when he was trying to publish maps of prewar Poland provinces labelled in Lithuanian as lands "occupied by Poland". [170] As shown, talking about an occupation by Poland is justified and mentioned in WP:RS. Cukrakalnis (talk) 19:58, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You historic statememts don't appear to be the mainstream modern view, something that not only Marcelus has noted, and I don't necessarily disagree with him that you appear to have a very strong POV. Also again just because something is referenced, doesn't immediately qualify it for inclusion. - LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 20:33, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The content that was removed includes what would appear to be a claim that the massacre was actually the fault of the people massacred. I haven't gone over all the details, but that doesn't look good. - LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 18:28, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I linked the removal because Marcelus said "removing extreme POV pushing" while WP:RS were used. The content was re-added by me in the next edit, because Visuotinė lietuvių enciklopedija is clearly WP:RS. Outright removing what it says is a clear violation of Wiki rules. Justification of "removing extreme POV pushing" is nonsense, as absolutely neutral edits that only improved the article's quality (like pointing to Schutzmannschaft Battalion 258 instead of the unspecific Lithuanian Auxiliary Police Battalions, Home Army 5th Wilno Brigade instead of unlinked text, adding ill to pl and de.wikis) were removed by Marcelus. Regarding ...to be a claim that the massacre was actually the fault of the people massacred, I would disagree and say that I was adding more information (one of the sources used was an encyclopedia) on the prelude to the massacre, not that this would entail any justification.

Still, the main issue is the never-ending friction between me and Marcelus that has been going on too long, and in order to avoid wider disruption on Wikipedia, it is best for there to be some sort of WP:IBAN, especially considering Marcelus demeaning attitude towards me. Cukrakalnis (talk) 18:43, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@ActivelyDisinterested: thank you for noticing that. That is why I retracted the whole edit, because it was done in bad faith, implying the guilt of the victims. There was untrue information such as "The massacre of civilians in Glitiškės was the sole case when a Lithuanian military unit cracked under the tension between Poles and Lithuanians caused by the Home Army's anti-Lithuanian actions and the terrorization of Lithuanians in eastern Lithuania during the German occupation". This is untrue, as there had been earlier massacres by the Lithuanian police (the villages of Adamowszczyzna, Sieńkowszczyzna and Pawłów in May 1944 and Święciany, Łyntupy in May 1942; 400 to as many as 1,200 people were killed in the latter crime), not to mention crimes against the Jewish or Belorussian population. The Cukrakalnis edition denies this, moreover places the blame on the Home Army. Which is scandalous.Marcelus (talk) 19:04, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, this thing with Glinciszki massacre is a content dispute that should have been adressed on the article's talk page. Marcelus never mentioned any of the things he is mentioning now in Talk:Glinciszki massacre when it was relevant, and this noticeboard is the wrong place to talk about an article's content. I have never denied the things that Marcelus accuses me of denying, which he never even mentioned to me previously. He is now 1) trying to divert attention from the main topic of this report and 2) trying to frame me in order to ban me. Cukrakalnis (talk) 19:40, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that some of Marcelus replies have been less than civil, but I also believe you have an issue with POV. Certainly both of you should try to stop reverting and bickering across multiple pages, you've both already been partially blocked from Antanas Mackevičius. - LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 20:04, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly both of you should try to stop reverting and bickering across multiple pages... That can only happen if there's an WP:IBAN, which I ask for at this report's end, because Marcelus' self-admitted grudge against me makes it impossible for him to stay away from me. Cukrakalnis (talk) 20:20, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm in agreement with ActivelyDisinterested here. I noticed in this edit [171] this sentence was added "After the events in Glitiškės, the Home Army 5th Wilno Brigade organized a so-called revenge action" (emphasis added). I question whether any editor who think it's acceptable to use the term "so-called revenge action" in wikivoice in that way should be touching such articles. And so notably while I think the way Marcelus has dealt with this has often been unhelpful, I'd be reluctant to endorse an iban, especially a 1 way iban, when there are strong POV pushing problems with the editor. Even more so if it's an area which I think many other editors have gotten sick of. Nil Einne (talk) 03:48, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@ActivelyDisinterested and Nil Einne:~I can try to limit my interactions with Cukrakalnis to absolute minimum, if that makes him happy Marcelus (talk) 07:22, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@ActivelyDisinterested and Nil Einne:~ Marcelus' offer to do so would make me happy. As for me, I just want to not be indefbanned because I really wish to continue editing Wikipedia for recreational yet constructive purposes. I am willing to forbid myself for a prolonged period of time - a month or three (maybe even longer, as the admins or Marcelus wish, just not indefinitely) - from editing any articles where I and Marcelus have strongly disagreed (articles where we have reverted each other) or may cause such disagreement (editing other articles with edits similar to the ones that already caused disagreement). I sincerely hope we reach an agreement of some sort, thus ending this whole thing that has been going on between me and Marcelus for far too long.--Cukrakalnis (talk) 11:10, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking of punting both up to AE, as this is covered under Eastern Europe. But it is to hot here to figure out how to raise a teport. - LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 14:58, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

AE means Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Eastern Europe? I'm not familiar with all English Wiki lingo Marcelus (talk) 17:47, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. TylerBurden (talk) 18:48, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A WP:PIA article with a history of socks. More eyes requested. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 03:36, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for flagging this, 2601. Yaniv Horon sock indeffed. Proxy IP blocked 1 year. Article indef-ECP'd and logged under WP:ARBPIA. If anyone wants to take a crack at removing some horrifically POV language, please have a look at the article. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 09:29, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, Tamzin. I have misgivings about the way the content re: her husband is written, as well as the tone throughout, but I was not at liberty to edit. Thanks. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:F5BD (talk) 14:09, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I was alerted when 2601:14C:100:CC:EC1C:963E:82B1:849C (talk · contribs · WHOIS) added a death date for Eileen Gibb: seemed strange, as no editors working on her had managed to find one. I assumed it was perhaps a family member adding "known" but unpublished date, and reverted. But on looking at the IP's contributions list, there is a stream of unsourced additions of dates. All were done in half an hour, 9 hours ago. I suspect they are all fake and should be reverted en masse. One other has already been reverted and a talk page note left. PamD 08:53, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Since 10 June 2022, you can see disruptive edit warring from single-purpose IP range 45.115.0.0/16 almost daily at the history of Swimsuit. Note: 45.115.0.0/16 is range-blocked from the talk namespace.

What I request is that the article be indefinitely semi-protected, or the IP range indefinitely blocked from editing the article (not other articles, just that specific one).

Thanks, GTNO6 (talk) 09:17, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, you can request semi-protection for a page at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. Regards, Fish+Karate 09:54, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

This user seems to think it's okay to simply remove information they don't agree with in Highland Park parade shooting. They are removing the fact that he frequented far-right websites and was asked to leave a Synagogue months before the shooting, in this edit, calling it "double-speak". Also violated WP:3RR. They even said here that they are "assuming bad faith". Nythar^T.C 10:27, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Diff 1 - the user Matthead added original research to the first sentence of the article. It might be a WP:PROMO violation as well if you look at where they've placed their content and the links they've added. Diff 2 - I reverted and referred to WP:OR. Diff 3 - I left a note on their talk page. The note was reverted. It means the user is aware about the issue. Diff 4 - the user misused their rollback tool and rollbacked me without providing an edit summary. Diff 5 - and after I reverted them again they baselessly accused me of using Wikipedia to promote propaganda by abusing a real name of real people. Diff 6 - I created a new topic on article's talk page. And explained everything in detail. I asked them to stop making baseless accusations and to self revert, but they did not listen. Diff 7 - Instead I've got another pile of baseless accusations and uncivil behaviour. The core issue was not addressed at all. To be honest, I've looked at this thread (yes, about Matthead) - AE thread - and this situation is just a continuation the situation described in the AE thread. The same pattern - Repeated accusations against others (of edit warring and stalking) while edit warring himself. Bad faith towards other editors. It looks like not much has changed since then. --Renat 12:20, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm lost. You say it's original research but there is a source for it, and I did a quick search and ancestory.com agrees that Putler is a sir name, although they don't mention Germany specifically. So it doesn't strike me as that odd to include that fact in the lede of an article specifically called "Putler". The intensity of your language when talking to him on talk page, and even in this report, almost smacks of WP:OWN. Your language towards him seems to be just as hostile as his towards you, although I've only checked a couple of times, and it was you that started the dialog. I'm not going to lie, when I followed your diff showing prior instances of his problematic behavior at WP:AE, and saw the date was over 13 years ago, I thought "wtf?". Diffs from 2009 aren't really helpful to show a pattern of abuse. Unless you're saying he does this every 13 years, like clockwork. Maybe I'm missing something, but you seem to be more of a problem than he is with the aggressive tone. I was going to ask how this was possibly WP:PROMO, but I don't think it matters, as you didn't bother to explain it. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:37, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I think that Govvy may have an unrealistic view of what an adequate Before search looks like: They've insisted that it requires an offline search [172][173][174][175], which would presumably require the AfD nom to travel to Denmark if they are not currently located there. WP:BEFORE actually says that if an editor has searched Google, Google Books, Google News, Google News Archive, Google Scholar and The Wikipedia Library and found a lack of sources, than they have completed their basic due diligence.

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

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

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

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

and the IPs in the range have been misused by someone who is vandalizing Wikipedia article talk pages with edit summary that says "Tidy using AWB". Please check their range and edits in last few months. @Praxidicae: has reverted today's edit. Some range block may be needed due to the long term vandalism.Venkat TL (talk) 14:26, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There's several IP ranges for this, all part of this SPI. PRAXIDICAE🌈 14:27, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

yes IP 27.6.62.249 seems to be the same vandal, same edit summary. Venkat TL (talk) 14:30, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Help, please. Lots of blocks, page protection needed. JNW (talk) 15:37, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Semi-protected by Drmies. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 15:52, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Moved to User talk:RMCD bot § Notice of noticeboard discussion

 – wbm1058 (talk) 04:19, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RMCD bot is doing crazy thing! Look at Talk:Whitman, Spokane, Talk:Hillyard, Spokane, Talk:Five Mile Prairie, Spokane, and a few other pages. The robot is spamming the page like every few minuutes.לילך5 (talk) 19:27, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also on the article pages, like Peaceful Valley, Spokane, but there it is at least reverting itself a minute later. On the talk pages it is leaving screen loads of empty messages.לילך5 (talk) 19:30, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is looping on 17 articles. On each one it places a move notice, then reverts on the article. On the talk it places a message and then removes part of it, leaving a section heading and text without a link. This related to some move from X,Spokane to X,Spokane,Washington affecting these 17 articles but I don't see what's making the robot do what it is doing. Who is giving it commands?לילך5 (talk) 19:41, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Non-administrator comment) Oh no, it looks like it's edit warring against itself again... weeklyd3 (block | talk | contributions) 19:44, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

On the articles. On the talk pages it is like the brooms from Disney filling up the place with water. I cleared out like 100k of talk page spam.לילך5 (talk) 19:46, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I’m looking forward to the movie version: “Robots gone wild”. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 19:47, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

See the advice at the top of Wikipedia:Bots/Noticeboard — rsjaffe 🗣️ 19:46, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Pinging Wbm1058 (the bot's operator). I'll go out on a limb and surmise that the bot is hiccuping due to the discussion for the relevant move request being at a page with a slash in its title. I can't seem to find an emergency stop for it (not that this is an emergency situation, per se), and I would rather not block the bot outright since this seems to be an isolated problem, but if anyone feels otherwise (or has another solution), please feel free to implement it. --Kinu ^t/_c 19:50, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Kinu: I was also looking for an emergency stop button. I left a message at User talk:RMCD bot and pinged Wbm1058. At some point before too long, we may need to break glass and block the bot. —C.Fred (talk) 19:53, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I took decisive action, and commented out the move code at Talk:Audubon/Downriver, Spokane.לילך5 (talk) 19:55, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Shiloh Hills, Spokane, Talk:Rockwood, Spokane, Talk:North Indian Trail, Spokane, Talk:North Hill, Spokane, Talk:Nevada Heights, Spokane, Talk:Minnehaha, Spokane, Talk:Five Mile Prairie, Spokane, Talk:Chief Garry Park, Spokane, Talk:Browne's Addition, Spokane, Talk:Balboa/South Indian Trail, Spokane, Talk:Northwest, Spokane, Talk:Whitman, Spokane, Talk:Peaceful Valley, Spoakne, Talk:Bemiss, Spokane, Talk:Logan, Spokane, Talk:East Central, Spokane, Talk:West Central, Spokane, Talk:Hillyard, Spokane are all under attack!לילך5 (talk) 19:52, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• This was continuing to happen less than 15 minutes ago, after this thread was open, so I've blocked the bot until it can be addressed. The bot op can unblock the bot as soon as they think it's been addressed, no need to check with me first. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:07, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @Floquenbeam: you can unblock. Commenting out the move code at Talk:Audubon/Downriver, Spokane made it stop, it stopped right after I did that.לילך5 (talk) 20:09, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

   Done. unblocked. shortest bot block ever! --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:10, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Further reading: [176]. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:16, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm user:Nguyentrongphu. I've been blocked indefinitely due to an incident (short summary). First of all, I'm not contesting my block and haven't done so for almost a year. I have tried to forget about all of this, move on and continue to contribute to Vi Wikipedia "in peace" like I've done so over the past 14 years. However, Praxidicae continues to insult me by calling me a Nazi and throw wild accusation by implying that I use sock with absolutely 0 evidence (here). This is like harassing a dead horse (me). I'm happy to be checkusered. I'm asking Praxidicae to either retract her completely false statements or face serious consequences for her misconduct. Lastly, I also ask to be left alone from now to contribute in peace. That means no more insulting, wildly accusing, digging up the past, beating up a dead horse and etc. 2600:6C44:117F:879E:E46F:A57E:EDC8:9AE1 (talk) 01:49, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

By posting here logged out, you're evading your block. GoodDay (talk) 01:53, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that is correct. However, I have no other way of reporting misconduct, and my account won't be unblocked. Just because I'm blocked indefinitely, that doesn't mean I deserve to be continuously insulted long after the incident especially when I haven't done anything ever since. 2600:6C44:117F:879E:E46F:A57E:EDC8:9AE1 (talk) 01:57, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Non-administrator comment) Don't mean to bash you for a mistake, but Praxidicae's pronouns are she/her. Also, please take GoodDay's comments into account. — 3PPYB6 — TALK — CONTRIBS — 01:54, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Non-administrator comment) I concur with C.Fred. While Praxidicae may sound harsh with her discussions with you, know that she means well. Nguyentrongphu, this is not the way. What you need to do is relax, simmer down, and prove the administrators that their block on you is not necessary because you have stopped any wrongful behavior of yours and that you will make useful contributions. If necessary, take the standard offer. If you can prove that you can do well without a block, you will eventually gain back the trust of the community and Praxidicae. She may be biting you, but note that she has the right to be suspicious if someone has a low edit count and [has] ties to Vietnam. If you haven't read already, you should assume some good faith on your part. Please, stop all this and go down the right path. Thanks. — 3PPYB6 — TALK — CONTRIBS — 02:16, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unless I feel strongly compelled to make another comment, I'll stop here and leave it to the administrators, because, after all, this is the administrators' noticeboard for incidents. — 3PPYB6 — TALK — CONTRIBS — 02:23, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

First, I no loner live in Vietnam. Second, even if her suspicion is justified, that does not justify her calling me a Nazi for no reason since I haven't done anything since my block. I can't assume good faith when someone calls me a Nazi, can you? Third, I have no intention of gaining the trust of this community. Lastly, I ask to be left alone from now on (that means no more personal attacks toward me from now on!). 2600:6C44:117F:879E:E46F:A57E:EDC8:9AE1 (talk) 02:28, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Contrary to your repeated bludgeoning, the act of referring to WP:NONAZIS to describe your behaviour ≠ calling you a nazi. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). 02:44, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Non-administrator comment) I have reason to believe that it the IP is not a troll impersonating Nguyentrongphu, but rather it is them making all these comments. I have evidence in the form of this edit, with similar behavioral characteristics in the edit summary. In this case, it would lead to a community ban per C.Fred. Thanks. — 3PPYB6 — TALK — CONTRIBS — 03:14, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Praxidicae is well within her rights to be suspicious of an account with a low edit count and with ties to Vietnam asking about your block and wondering if they are connected. As for the invocation of WP:NONAZIS for the rationale of the block: it may be abrasive, but it's not entirely unreasonable, after reading the history of events that led up to the block. —C.Fred (talk) 02:07, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I've blocked Victor311 for sock-puppetry and trolling in Vi Wikipedia. The whole thing (that led to my block) was a big misunderstanding. How many times do I have to say this? Regardless, I conceded and accepted my block. Does that mean I deserve to be continuously insulted when I have done nothing??? My only concern right now is that I'm continued to be a target for harassment and insults for no apparent reason long after the incident was resolved. 2600:6C44:117F:879E:E46F:A57E:EDC8:9AE1 (talk) 02:12, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The explanation of Victor311 trolling—and note that it was a question from Victor311 about Nguyentrongphu's block that started this mess[177]—is plausible. If that's the case, then congratulations on spreading their latest troll of you all over ANI. *sigh* This report now involves, by implication, Victor311 and Victor311Alt. —C.Fred (talk) 02:18, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You guys can block Victor311 if you want. However, Victor311's misconduct does not justify someone else calling me a Nazi for no reason. Please don't attack the strawman. 2600:6C44:117F:879E:E46F:A57E:EDC8:9AE1 (talk) 02:20, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia isn't the real world. There's no rights on this project, but only privileges. GoodDay (talk) 02:31, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I have blocked the IP. I cannot rule out the possibility that somebody else is trolling Nguyentrongphu by editing as the IP. Since Victor311 was mentioned by Nguyentrongphu while logged in, that seems a plausible but unproven identification. There is no good that will come out of this situation by allowing the IP to continue to post here—since if it is truly Nguyentrongphu editing as the IP, that sort of doubling-down behaviour is the kind of thing they did that led up to their block, and this time the outcome would be a community ban. —C.Fred (talk) 02:35, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm talking User talk:Imtiaz.kazi3, which has long been misused by multiple accounts. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:F5BD (talk) 04:42, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• My mistake--it appears to have been filled with arguments and warnings about content the user added to articles. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:F5BD (talk) 04:48, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]