Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

This page is for discussion of urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems.

  • Before posting a complaint about a user on this page:
  • Include diffs demonstrating the problem and be brief; concise reports get faster responses.
  • If you cannot edit this page because it is protected, click here.
  • Do not report breaches of privacy, outing, etc. on this highly visible page – instead click here.
  • Please consider using the help navigation page before posting the issue here. The administrator incident noticeboard should only be used as a last resort.

Sign your post by adding 4 tildes (~~~~) at the end.

Closed discussions should not usually be archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. (archivessearch)

When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on the editor's talk page.

The use of ping or the notification system is not sufficient for this purpose.

You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

Noticeboard archives
Administrators' (archives, search)
326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335
336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345
Incidents (archives, search)
1086 1087 1088 1089 1090 1091 1092 1093 1094 1095
1096 1097 1098 1099 1100 1101 1102 1103 1104 1105
Edit-warring/3RR (archives, search)
437 438 439 440 441 442 443 444 445 446
447 448 449 450 451 452 453 454 455 456
Arbitration enforcement (archives)
290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299
300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309
Other links

BerkBerk68[edit]

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

In the talk page sections of Talk:Turkic history [1] [2] [3], concerns were made against its neutrality, including the addition of groups of disputed origin (the Xiongnu and Huns), with the only person being an advocate for inclusion of these groups being BerkBerk68. However, 4 users opposed this, and thus mention of those groups were removed. What does he later do? Completely ignores all the discussions there, and proceeds to make the article even less neutral, restoring mention of the Xiongnu and Huns, as well as other stuff [4]. For example, recently at the Talk:Timurid Empire, he showed his dissatisfaction with the word "Turco-Mongol", only wanting it to say "Turkic" instead. I responded to him, showing that WP:RS says otherwise, etc. In his addition, he added the very proposal he had made in the talk page, completely disregarding my reply as well as WP:RS. Let me just show some few examples of what the main articles say versus his own additions:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Other concerning stuff;

[5] Here he proposes to add 'Turco-Iranian' instead of 'Iranian' in the lede... using a source that says 'Persian dynasty'. Right before then, he was shown multiple sources in another thread, that 'Iranian/Persian' was the used term in WP:RS [6], but once again he didn't care.

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

[8] Tried to portray a political tactic as some sort of "early Pan-Turkism", completely disregarding a vital piece of information in the very WP:RS source he used [9]. Even now he is still completely disregarding WP:RS and following his own personal conjectures/opinions [10]

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

First of all, I'd like to mention that I have not noticed his comment on the main article of the Timurids and I have told that already at the Turkic history talk page. I even told him that he can fix Timurids and openly imply that I am agreeing with him [11].
About Xiongnu and Hun situation at the lastest version written by me, I utterly reject that I am trying to Turkify them, I have never claimed that Xiongnu or Huns were Turkic, I just added the claims (with underlining that they are claim/theory), genetic researches and the non-primary sources about Chinese historical records, similiar with the Turkic peoples model. I have not also pushed or reverted the calendrical history deletions after the calendrical deletions got the majority on talk page (including a deletion without achieving consensus here [12], I even tried to save the lastest version of calendrical informations (that the disputed subjects are already deleted) by opening a new article [13] and opened a talk page discussion [14] instead of rewriting it.
I thought that "Turco-Iranian" would fit better for Afsharids because the reference itself says Empire's origins are based on a Turkic tribe,[15] and Afsharids used Turkic language as official military language just like many other Turco-Iranian civilizations. I didn't even make an edit, I just expressed my thought on the talk page.
I didn't even understand what exactly is the problem with Nader Shah's Turkmen policy, reference is Iranica there.[16] ("Nāder departed substantially from Safavid precedent by redefining Shiʿism as the Jaʿfari maḏhab of Sunni Islam and promoting the common Turkmen descent of the contemporary Muslim rulers as a basis for international relations." "Nāder’s focus on common Turkmen descent likewise was designed to establish a broad political framework that could tie him, more closely than his Safavid predecessors, to both Ottomans and Mughals." "Nāder recalled how he, Ottomans, Uzbeks, and Mughals shared a common Turkmen heritage. This concept for him resembled, in broad terms, the origin myths of 15th century Anatolian Turkmen dynasties. However, since he also addressed the Mughal emperor as a “Turkmen” ruler, Nāder implicitly extended the word “Turkmen” to refer, not only to progeny of the twenty-four Ḡozz tribes, but to Timur’s descendants as well." )
I also mentioned that I am trying to support the encyclopedia, [17] I am just interested in Turkic topics just like how HistoryofIran is interested on Iranian topics. BerkBerk68talk 20:43, 26 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

Right? My goverment, right Belugan (talk) 02:03, 27 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Down below you were already told twice that off-wiki links are not helpful in this situation. Also, I'm not sure how a link of someone being dissatisfied with me and accusing me of loads of stuff is helpful. However, it's clear that you have been stalking me for a very long time, which is concerning. --HistoryofIran (talk) 12:53, 27 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is about the article Turkic history

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

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

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

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

Now onto the Hun section;

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

Nothing has been addressed, you are simply sweeping it under the rug. You are repeating the same old points you made earlier, which has already been replied to [18]. One of the many concerns is that the Xiougnu and Huns origins are still disputed, and thus shouldn't be there no matter how you spin it, hence why it was removed in the first place. BerkBerk ignored that and went on to restore it. As you've already been told various times, we have a rule named WP:ONUS. Also, see WP:TLDR. I'll let the admins take over. --HistoryofIran (talk) 21:04, 26 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your answers were inadequate as you did not acknowledge that the edit solved the question of whether the Huns/Xiongnu should be mentioned in the article - it should as it isn't being pushed forward that they were Turkic, but that they could be. Thank you for admitting that you did not read how the edit solved this issue, this just proves you've been blabbering on about "concerns" without even reading how the Xiongnu/Hun problem in particular has been solved. Yes, let's leave it to the admins. zenzyyx_talk

Sigh, even the fact that they could be Turkic was also rejected, I’m not sure how many times you to have be told that. Pretty rich of you saying that I am the one blabbering. HistoryofIran (talk)

The fact they could be Turkic is NOT rejected and is still pushed by many scholars of the West, as evidenced by the sources provided in the new edit, and in the main articles of the Xiongnu and the Huns. Ignorance really isn't bliss. zenzyyx_talk

Youre not even following. It was rejected to be in the article by 4 (veteran) users in the previous discussions just this month - you know, an actual community discussing, i.e. WP:CONSENSUS. Ignorance truly isnt a bliss. HistoryofIran (talk)

In the original article, it was pushed forward that the Xiongu and the Huns were Turkic. This is what is talked about in the talk page. The new edit introduces multiple perspectives and does not state that they are Turkic, but that there are scholars who believe they are. Mentioning this doesn't contrast anything - and even if a few people came together and decided that it shouldn't be mentioned, nothing is set and stone. Wikipedia is a hub for debates, and thus views of multiple scholars on issues are required. The only thing correct in your statement is the last sentence. zenzyyx_talk

Let myself repeat myself for the 6th time: 4 users were against inclusion of those two groups no matter what. Why? Because their origins are disputed. Also, the original version which was removed also mentioned other perspectives, at least for the Xiougnu. WP:CIR. HistoryofIran (talk)

Let "myself repeat myself" for the billionth time (might want to read WP:CIR yourself), their origins are disputed, and this is stressed in the new edit which provides multiple perspectives to their ethnic origins. We're going around in circles at this point. Again, nothing is set and stone, Wikipedia is a place where debate is facilitated, and thus a consensus reached by 4 editors can be challenged. zenzyyx_talk

It can be challenged indeed, but that should be in the talk page first, just like the first time (WP:ONUS and WP:CONSENSUS, which you keep ignoring), not by forcing it onto the article, which you participated in. HistoryofIran (talk)

I constantly told you to create another section in the talk page about your disagreements with solely mentioning the Xiongu and Huns instead of reverting the ENTIRE edit, but of course, since you're biased against the Turks (as evidenced by all your edit wars in Turkish-related articles), that never happened. Anyways, there's no point continuing the discussion any further. It will only lead to more ad homs being used. I suggest we end the conversation here and leave the ultimate choice to the admins as we've cluttered this ANI. zenzyyx_talk

You lose the argument and proceed to accuse me of being biased against Turks, classic. As for the rest of your comment, you just keep proving me right about your WP:CIR issues. HistoryofIran (talk)

You've got it all wrong. The fact that you see this as an argument is just sad and proves what kind of an editor you are. Again, you've got it all wrong. I'm not accusing you of anything, I know for sure that you have an anti-Turk bias, as evidenced by all your edit wars relating to Turkish/Turkic articles. zenzyyx_talk

So edit warring in Turkic articles = anti-Turk? Thanks for proving that you shouldnt be taken seriously. HistoryofIran (talk)

Haha, no. It proves that you're obsessed with erasing anything Turkic and replacing it with Iranian (as seen in the Hun article, which you have heavily edited). Anything Turkic seems to bother you for some reason, as evidenced by your numerous edit wars in Turkic-related articles. So I can comfortably come to the conclusion that you have great bias against the Turks and the Turkic people. zenzyyx_talk

For the record:
Belugan's first comment at ANI was made at 20:43, 26 July 2022[19]; BerkBerk first commented at 20:43, 26 July 2022[20]; Zenzyxx first commented at 20:45, 26 July 2022.[21] All three are newly registed "accounts" with a pro-Turkish irredentist POV and a strong axe to grind with veteran editor HistoryofIran. Coincidence calling?
I have checked edits of User:Zenzyyx on Turkish Wikipedia, he doesn't have much edits, his first edit was a letter replacement on Alexander's article. He changed "varisi" (successor) to "varişi", which is not a Turkish word, he probably thought that the proper word was "varışı" (arrival), which is completely irrelevant to the section. He also doesn't know the "i/ı" difference, which is a major difference on the Turkish vocal. We have talked about a song in Turkish Wikipedia yesterday, he expressed that he is Sephardic Jew (He had major grammatical errors there too) and that is pretty consistent considering these datas.
Calling people that has different opinions "Turkish irredentist", There is obvious WP:ASPERSIONS at the comment unsigned by User:LouisAragon[22]. BerkBerk68talk 17:58, 28 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

My account is 4 years old. It really is funny how you accuse me of being a Turkish irrendist when I'm not even a Turk. How sad (for you). zenzyyx_talk

  • "But as we can see in Reddit or Twitter HistoryofIran is ruining Turkic related articles and try to ban newcomers here to build encyclopedia users with his policy knowledge."
Thanks for admitting that this is an IRL-related grievance, and thanks for admitting that you are trying to import these IRL-related grievances (Sevres Syndrome?) into Wikipdia. That's the problem with people swallowing state funded negationism by authoritarian states; they believe everything is a conspiracy.
- LouisAragon (talk) 21:09, 26 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"swallowing state funded negationism by authoritarian states" = like '4000 years old Iranian state' propaganda by Dictatorship of Iran? that you spread. Belugan (talk) 22:40, 26 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
State funded negationism? And "we" (I don't even know who is us) believe in conspiracy theories? Oh please, Turkish government banned Wikipedia and blocked Turkish Wikipedians to contribute on the development of the encyclopedia for years. I seriously hope that you don't have any stereotypes on people according to their ethnic origin. BerkBerk68talk 21:25, 26 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Zenzyyx and @Belugan participated at the Turkic history debate on talk page, they would ofcourse be aware of the ANI. The absurdness of this argument is that you have made your first comment at 21:09, 26 July 2022‎ [23] right after HistoryofIran's one at 21:06, 26 July 2022‎ [24] and you have not even participated on talk page. I do not claim anything, I am just telling that the argument mentioned can be used with different perspectives. BerkBerk68talk 21:38, 26 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Highlighting the bias of an editor who persistently gets into edit wars in articles anything-Turkish/Turkic isn't an IRL grievance, is it now? Biased editors ruin Wikipedia, and thus deserve to be exposed on here. Hope to see a Wikipedia without them - but, of course, that is not possible. zenzyyx_talk

You have not presented any evidence of off-wiki Reddit or Twitter threads that prove HistoryOfIran is biased, and even if you did, we are not interested in any off-wiki disputes. Only diffs here on Wikipedia are acceptable as evidence. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). 22:44, 26 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, I don't think that Zenzyyx's comment is related with Belugan's claims. BerkBerk68talk 19:06, 27 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

one of his false accusation from a Persian user Belugan (talk) 01:58, 27 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Again, off wiki disputes matter nothing here. In fact, neither you nor zenzyyx have provided any diffs at all, as far as I can tell. If you cannot bring any evidence to the table at all, then this report is without merit. If you think that is in error, then reply with an actual diff link, rather than having to resort to off-wiki links because you literally have no evidence. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). 02:17, 27 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for admitting that this is an IRL-related grievance Cherrypicking nonsense, I didn't admit anything. You can easily find sone Arabic or Turkish people complain about HistoryofIran's bias edits in anywhere of social media and you can also find meatpuppeting by some (hmm guess who :)) in Wikipedia community with Telegram groups. Don't try to manipulate community with these nonsense arguments. Belugan (talk) 22:22, 26 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

We aren't interested in what off-wiki users on social media have to say; you must provide evidence of bias within Wikipedia itself, not on other unrelated sites. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). 22:57, 26 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
(non-admin comment) "hmm guess who :)" No, you tell us - with evidence - or (...) No-one here is interested in your insinuations. Narky Blert (talk) 01:49, 27 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yeah, I guess he was just a banned trolling user that created a new account. BerkBerk68talk 19:08, 27 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note that Belugan (talk · contribs) has been blocked for being not here to edit Wikipedia, per the thread above. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). 00:59, 28 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Not surprising, thanks. BerkBerk68talk 12:17, 28 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Back to topic[edit]

This report has steered too much into the direction of off-topic as a result of excessive bickering, some of it instigated by a now indeffed account. I'll make a quick TLDR of the most relevant bits of my report; BerkBerk68 completely disregarded the WP:CONSENSUS in Talk:Turkic history (everything was discussed here [25] [26] [27]) by re-adding groups of disputed origin (the Xiongnu and Huns) [28], a edit which also added several entities, however now with more Turkic/less non-Turkic mentions compared to its (well-sourced) main article counterpart (which I demonstrated in the initial report). I would appreciate it if someone would look into this mess. --HistoryofIran (talk) 19:02, 28 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I pretty much agree, this case turned into a defamation mess especially when @LouisAragon called a Sephardic Jewish user (@Zenzyyx) a "Turkish irredentist who is influenced by Turkish government propaganda" at his unsigned comment [29][30] (WP:ASPERSIONS).
I've already mentioned that the Huns and Xiongnu sections of the edit written by me doesn't violate WP:POV since nothing has been claimed definitively; rather, it contains differing points of views by different academics. Theories, Chinese historical records and recent genetic researches were mentioned with the emphasis of the controversial situation. Let me also add that I have always supported that Huns and Xiongnu should be included on the article, not just because of the controversial claims about them being Turkic but also because of their influence on Turkic history, culture and civilization. I have already explained how and why several times (can be seen at the talk page @HistoryofIran mentioned).
Since the article was unsuitable for Wikipedia's standard (WP:MOS), and with the lack of consensus, I wanted to introduce a new, much more detailed and properly sourced edit. I put the Huns and Xiongnu in their own sections ("Early historical affiliations") to further emphasise their controversial origins and did not state that they are Turkic.
I again have to reject all claims positing that I am Turkifying the Huns and the Xuongnu. I just added their affiliation within Turkic history and included related theories, alongside multiple other theories relating to their origins, clearly expressing that nothing was definitive.
Regards, BerkBerk68talk 11:21, 29 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • "I pretty much agree, this case turned into a defamation mess especially when @LouisAragon called a Sephardic Jewish user..."
I said: "All three are newly registed "accounts" with a pro-Turkish irredentist POV and a strong axe to grind with veteran editor HistoryofIran. Coincidence calling?"[31] As usual, your edits are loaded with nonsense making stuff up. Good you brought this up though; more evidence of your disruptive edits for admins to see.
Nope. If you'd only read the policies you are so keen to cite: " If accusations must be made, they should be raised, with evidence, on the user-talk page of the editor they concern or in the appropriate forums." The ANI case here is littered with verifiable, egregious misconduct on your behalf. So no, zero "aspersions". Its a verifiable fact that all three of you are pursuing such an editorial pattern. Belugan already got indeffed for it based on solid policy judgement. As user:Black Kite sensibly stated: "There are far too many red flags, from familiarity with obscure Wikispeak from the get-go, to the use of "we", to the reference to off-wiki collusion with like minded editors."[32]
  • "...at his unsigned comment"
It wasn't "unsigned"; I adjusted part of my comment[33] that I had already placed and signed.[34] More WP:NOTHERE.
- LouisAragon (talk) 13:54, 29 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@BerkBerk68; Yes, you have multiple times stated that you did not present the origin of the Xiongnu and Huns as definite Turkic. That was also what you stated the previous time. We get that, however consensus was still that they shouldn't be there no matter how it would be spinned, which you were told countless times (here for example [35]). What do you then do? Proceed to re-add them and repeat the very same old argument (WP:REHASH) which was already rejected. Frankly, it seems that you simply dont care about community input, and only follow your own personal opinion. And I am certainly not the first person to notice that [36]. And thus I have reported you, because time and time you have proven that words (whether its from scholars or users) dont get through to you. Wikipedia is a collaborate effort, not a individual one. --HistoryofIran (talk) 15:05, 29 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree with that Wikipedia is a collaborate effort, that's why editors had to improve the new appropriate version together instead of deleting it completely when three different users were supporting the new version on the talk page while you were the only one who didn't support the new version. I am open to discuss the article to develop the encyclopedia together, I openly supported you on Timurids topic. As it's mentioned above, I wanted to write a new version and introduce it to the editors of Wikipedia due to lack of consensus (especially about Xiongnu and Huns) and I actually got positive feedbacks more than I thought. However, you just kept reverting the version. Let me also remind that I haven't reverted any of the edits, just discussed it on the talk page.
Regards, BerkBerk68talk 17:48, 29 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sigh, even still now words are not getting through to you. You shouldn't have added that version in the first place before discussing, as there was indeed a consensus, which you even now keep ignoring. Yes, as I've already told you at least 6 times, I reverted you because it violated the previous consensus as well as WP:POV (per the diffs) even more this time (there is also WP:ONUS which you have been told of multiple times). And no, it is not my job to fix your mess, as you also have been told [37]. Either fix it yourself, or expect it to get reverted. There are no guidelines that says I have to hold your hand. --HistoryofIran (talk) 19:52, 29 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Could you please explain which consensus are you talking about? I don't think a consensus was achieved, every recent sections ended up with endless conflicts.
"it is not my job to fix your mess" The new version was more suitable for the encyclopedia (WP:MOS) and it's written by one editor, if you are not willing to develop the article together, then you should leave it to the other users of the community. BerkBerk68talk 09:12, 30 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No, you shouldn't have added that version in the first place, as you've been told countless times. The fact that you still think like that and consider a version riddled with WP:POV as more "suitable" says it all really. I'm tired of explaining stuff to you, one may begin to ask whether there are underlying WP:CIR issues as well. I'll wait for an admin. --HistoryofIran (talk) 11:15, 30 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well it's your decision [38] to participate or not, I have already informed you about all my edits and openly called to participate on developing the article. Again, it's your decision, it doesn't bother me at all. BerkBerk68talk 14:18, 30 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Belugan was an obvious troll, I have already expressed that [39], his actions doesn't bother actual editors who want to develop the encyclopedia. Calling editors "irredentist" or "swallowing state funded negationism" just because they have different opinions than you is not WP:CIVIL, and again, WP:ASPERSIONS.
Ironic, because you did the same with Belugan, said "No worries, we'll get to the bottom of it" on a threatening language, [40] and you didn't answer my questions when I asked about the situation. From your language it seems like there is an "off-wiki collusion with like minded editors" just like how Black Kite described, especially considering you did not participate on the lastest section of Turkic history talk page. @Black Kite, I believe that this information should be considered at the case.
Regards, BerkBerk68talk 18:37, 29 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oh please, you didn't say anything about Belugan's problematic behaviour till he got indeffed. In fact, even after his block you were still supporting him (just like he had been supporting you), writing a unhelpful comment in a thread that was closed [41]. But now he's suddenly a problematic troll? Also, if you're planning on accusing someone, I sure do hope you have diffs, otherwise you are being no different than Belugan in violating WP:ASPERSIONS yourself. Anyways, let's not deviate again, the only users which should be talked about are you and me. If someone has other concerns, please take it somewhere else. --HistoryofIran (talk) 19:52, 29 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I writed that comment because of the absurdness of the claimed conspiracy. I have never defended Belugan's arguments, my only comment on his case is related to Afsharid Empire since it was the topic. But what Louis doing here is accusing editors with misbehavior without evidence, and his threatening comment at the talk page increases the confusion.
He told "No worries, we'll get to the bottom of it" while he did not even participate at the talk page discussion, only user that participated on his side of arguments was @HistoryofIran and now he is actively siding with him here. I am not claiming anything, I just want a clarification to the community to end the confusions just as I did 2 days ago [42][43][44].
Additionally, this subject is directly related to the case and it's my right to ask these questions. A clarification is necessary.
Regards, BerkBerk68talk 21:16, 29 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You are literally insuating that I am doing something fishy - you are the third user in this report to accuse me of something alike, and the third to do so without any form of evidence. I could also very easily point out even more questionable stuff regarding you, but I rather stick to direct evidence in the form of diffs, as seen up above. This is nothing but WP:ASPERSIONS. As for your comments in relation to Belugan, I’ll the admins be the judge of that. --HistoryofIran (talk) 22:23, 29 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I am not insuating anything, I just express my confusion and ask for a clarification from @LouisAragon since days. Threatening other editors using "we" phrase is confusing and not WP:CIVIL. BerkBerk68talk 08:51, 30 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As someone who just skimmed through the conversation here may I suggest a way of short circuiting a prolonged conversation that runs the risk of getting out of control? The talk page has a large amount of discussion with differing views which can make it hard to see exactly what is going on and which bits need to be changed. This may be one of the times when a formal RfC with a closure on the talk page is the best way forward as it would allow for precision when it comes to exactly what changes to make and would open it up to an uninvolved editor to close the RfC to help with any concerns about bias. As always, feel free to ignore my advice. Gusfriend (talk) 10:11, 30 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yeah, he doesn't react. Just as I expected. BerkBerk68talk 07:53, 2 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Request closure[edit]

I know this report is hard to follow, especially due to much of it having roots in another talk page, as well as due to the excessive amounts of unnecessary bickering (myself included, sorry for that), but can an admin please check and close this? It would be much appreciated. --HistoryofIran (talk) 00:04, 5 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

FYI: there is a PERM request to restore extendedconfirmed open at Wikipedia:Requests_for_permissions/Extended_confirmed#User:BerkBerk68 - I'm inclined to grant it unless there is some exceptional reason not to from this discussion. If so, please leave a note there when closing this. — xaosflux Talk 21:34, 6 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Case is inactive since over a week, it would be nice if an administrator takes a decision. BerkBerk68 11:16, 7 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Weird, thought I had already updated the report so it wouldn't go into auto-archive, but it did. I just restored it, hope it's okay. --HistoryofIran (talk) 13:33, 10 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:Alsoriano97 (Long Term Violations of Edit Warring, WP:CIVIL & Tedentious Editing)[edit]

Alsoriano97 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Portal:Current Events (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Alsoriano97's edit log at Portal:Current Events (overview of deletions and uncivil comments)

Alsoriano97 has engaged in persistent and habitual edit warring (including violations of WP:3RR), WP:CIVIL & tendentious editing over an extended period of time.

Alsoriano97 frequently edits at Portal:Current Events, primarily removing content added by other editors. The majority of Alsoriano97’s removals relate to news on Anglophone countries, with a specific emphasis on the USA. These removals frequently relate to news that, while occurring in the US, are widely reported globally in many RS's.

Alsoriano97 frequently uses uncivil language when challenged by other editors over removals. Attempts to discuss the removals in edit summaries and talk pages have failed to reach a resolution, due to the aggressive tone and reluctance to address the issue. Much of the longer explanations for this behavior are incoherent ranting, mixed with gross incivility.

While removal of content does occur at Portal:Current Events on occasion, with a range of editors doing so (myself included), the removals are usually for content which are clearly unnotable, relevant only locally, or reported in very few RS's. Such removals are rarely challenged by those who originally added the content.

In contrast, Alsoriano97's removals are frequently challenged by a range of editors who originally added the content. As per Alsoriano97's reasoning, such removals are made due to the belief that the Anglophone countries and the US in particular, is overrepresented on the page. A common comment made by Alsoriano97 is to use the country category page instead. However, this is usually contentious in relation to the entries posted.

Given the apparent consensus with Alsoriano97's faulty reasoning when removing content, the onus should be on Alsoriano97 to begin discussions to reach a further consensus to justify these content removals. However, no such attempts have been made, with no talk page topics started by Alsoriano97 to address any revert or the overarching issue. Instead, Alsoriano97 has resorted to unilateral enforcement of opinions through disruptive reverting of items that are disagreed with. When others start talk page entries to discuss the removals, Alsoriano97's replies do not address the issue, while frequently violating WP:CIVIL.

Alsoriano97 is fully aware of the restrictions relating to 3RR. He has previously been banned for 24 hours for a 3RR violation. Reference to the policy is also made on his Userpage. It should also be noted that Alsoriano97 has on many occasions cited 3RR against other editors.

Violations of WP:3RR

Alsoriano97 has previously been blocked for violating 3RR on 20 September 2020

  1. 16 July 2022 [45] [46] [47] [48]
  2. 12 May 2021 [49] [50] [51] [52]

Warnings & Talk Page

Significant

  1. Portal_talk:Current_events/Archive_12#Multi-Revert_Issue_with_Alsoriano97
  2. User_talk:Alsoriano97#Use the summary box before making an edit!
  3. User_talk:Alsoriano97#May 2021
  4. User_talk:Alsoriano97#Your use of the word "Domestic"
  5. User_talk:Alsoriano97#Revert of Current Events
  6. User_talk:Alsoriano97#Your revert about Dwayne Haskins
  7. User_talk:Alsoriano97#Matt Gaetz
  8. ANI Report

Routine

  1. User_talk:Alsoriano97#Vandalism
  2. User_talk:Alsoriano97#Artemi Panarin
  3. User_talk:Alsoriano97#NYC Mandate
  4. User_talk:Alsoriano97#Personal comments at ITNC
  5. User_talk:Alsoriano97#Exclusion of Harry Reid from 2021 Deaths List
  6. User_talk:Alsoriano97#Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion
  7. User_talk:Alsoriano97#About Buccaneers
  8. User_talk:Alsoriano97#Explanation wanted
  9. User_talk:Alsoriano97#Warning
  10. User_talk:Alsoriano97#Question on notability
  11. User_talk:Alsoriano97#Removal of Current Event.

WP:CIVIL Violations

Talk Page

In general, almost all interactions on talk pages made by this user is ranting and uncivil, which can be clearly seen on upon a cursory inspection.

Some quotes are presented below.

1 Multi-Revert Issue with Alsoriano97

  • Do you think that after more than a year editing Current Events I act arbitrarily and according to how I want?
  • "trying to decide what represents "relevant" based on their own interests"....Jesus Christ!
  • This is not a page of The Seattle Times where to put any news that has to do especially with the United States.
  • t's very dangerous for Wikipedia when editors in this community make decisions and arguments against other users in a partisan, threatening and non-conciliatory manner.
  • This way the concept of "community" is dynamited, and this comment speaks more about you, than about me. "he is quite an ideological person" SURPRISE! I AM A LIVING HUMAN WHO IS LIVING LIFE IN A VITAL WAY. Does that concern you?
  • How dare you question my neutrality if you don't even know more than 90% of the edits I have made?

2 Your revert about Dwayne Haskins

  • You admit that Portal Current Events is not an American newspaper but you still act as if it is. Can you simply follow the rule of.... Like everyone else does? This is exhausting.
  • You should know that international coverage ≠ international notability. Everyone knows that.
  • Let it be clear that if you add news related to the USA and I don't remove them (the vast majority) is because I consider that have the level of notability that this Portal deserves.
  • I'll stop debating obvious things like this.
  • When I say international coverage ≠ international notability, means international coverage ≠ international notability. That means that international coverage ≠ international notability.
  • And I hope, I just hope, that you are not comparing an accident with 16 DEATHS with a collision of a vehicle with a train (which IS HABITUAL) that has caused the death of ONE PERSON. I really hope you are pulling my leg and this is a joke. If more people had died, including Haskins, I would understand. But stop. It's being ridiculous and you're acting vandalistic.

Diffs of Uncivil Edit Summaries

  • [53] This is a clear US-centric bias. They are so globally popular that the explosion has been reported by hundreds of international RS! It is a pity that this is a lie and is covered by newspapers of little national or international circulation. Do the work yourself and you will see. Its site is at 2022 in the United States
  • [54] Hes, culturally significant but local. Can you please check if any international newsites are talking about this? It’s not even a popular monument! This id ridicolous
  • [55] But what are you talking about? I don't "get mad" because I have more important things in my life, but I only delete trivial news related to the USA that you would delete if it happened in another country. Not a regional election. Next time, delete also regional elections in Nigeria, USA, Germany that you see, so you don't look like a redneck to many people. Franco? Come on man, how old are you? Grow up.
  • [56] Don’t be childish, boy. I’ve ever respected regional elections in ‘merica.
  • [57] "bias"? lol nice joke. It doesn't work like that, sorry. Two very famous people fighting over slurs has neither encyclopedic nor informative value. This is not a tabloid and you should know that. Much less a local newspaper.
  • [58]If he doesn't even have a wikipedia article, do you really think his murder is notorious? It's not that hard to understand!! People are murdered EVERY day.

Alsoriano97 also seems to regularly patronize people for not including the name of a country in an entry. The usual procedure for such minor technical issues is to amend it with a polite edit summary, as others who have cleaned up such mistakes have done.

  • [59] Daily updatings of the fires are not necessary. At least name the country
  • [60] Iowa is a new country???
  • [61] rewrite it adding the country where it happened. it doesn't cost that much to do it yourselves. Learn.
  • [62] Is Louisiana a new country????????
  • [63] Is Idaho a new country?
  • [64] Once again some users cannot mention the country....this is not a local newspaper!
  • [65] Is Virginia a new country?
  • [66] At least you will be able to locate the news in a country, right? Northern Virginia is a new country? This is not a local newspaper. And that you take away from the notability of a minister's murder....
  • [67] country?????????????????????????? It's not hard to mention it!
  • [68] Ontario what? A country?

Carter00000 (talk) 12:12, 31 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Carter00000, on a purely procedural note: in your very long post above, you make claims about uncivil comments but provide no diffs. As filer, it's your responsibility to provide evidence, not expect others to go find it. Please note this is not a comment one way or the other on the merit of your report, just an invitation to improve it. Jeppiz (talk) 12:55, 31 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Jeppiz, thank you for your suggestion, I will add some diffs as per your comment. Carter00000 (talk) 12:59, 31 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Go to contributions for namespace Portal and they jump out at you left and right. Some choice ones: "Stop being a jerk and using American bias. Stop doing vandalism."; calls edit-warring opponent "racist"; calls edit-warring opponent "boy" (!); "redneck", "grow up" - way over the top even provoked as it was; variants of "Country?????????????????" - 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9. —Cryptic 13:58, 31 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have added a partial list of uncvil comments. Some may overlap with what has already been written. Carter00000 (talk) 14:23, 31 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, I would like to see a pattern of uncivil comments; the only ones I can see are on Portal:Current events/2022 June 19 where the IP deleting the information was not exactly civil either. As a more general point I see Alsoriano97, in the main, deleting minor, local or trivial stories from the portals - which is of course correct. Recent removals have included multiple minor updates on COVID and monkeypox stories, politicians visiting other countries, routine local political stories (including statements by politicians and unimportant elections like primaries), someone without a Wikipedia article being murdered, minor shootings in the USA (there are dozens of those a day) a fight amongst fans at an ice hockey match, a hockey team hiring a new manager, random other sports results, etc. There might well be a few debatable ones, but I certainly don't see him removing anything that should definitely be there. Black Kite (talk) 13:16, 31 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Black Kite, on the subject of your blocks on the protal, as mentioned in your comment, I want to raise an incident for the record.
In this Talk Page Discussion that I started after I was reverted 4 times by Alsoriano97, and where I stated in the lead sentence of such reverts, you later commented to defend Alsoriano97’s rationale.
Given your familiarity with the portal and Alsoriano97, I was very surprised that you took no action; given that 3RR is a “bright line” as stated in WP regulations. I also note you seem to have no issues with blocking others on the portal for similar issues. Carter00000 (talk) 14:47, 31 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I took no action because your edits were not improving the encyclopedia. It was story about the murder of someone who was so non-notable that they don't even have a Wikipedia article. Black Kite (talk) 17:59, 31 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I would like to note that "edits were not improving the encyclopedia" does not fall under the exemptions for the 3RR per the WP:3RRNO policy. This was a content dispute, where the content in your opinion was not worth adding to the portal, which does not justify your inaction. Such a dispute should have been resolved through consensus, and not edit warring, hence why I started a entry on Alsoriano97's talk page. Carter00000 (talk) 18:13, 31 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It should have been resolved by you ceasing to insert non-notable material into the page. I was certainly not going to "reward" you for edit-warring that material back in, which is why I didn't block A97. Black Kite (talk) 18:25, 31 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
My understanding is that what material is considered "non-notable" is a dispute of content, and thus is subject to the normal dispute resolution channels, which does not include edit warring. You characterization of enforcing a "bright-line" rule for a clear violation as a "reward" seems to be faulty. Carter00000 (talk) 18:31, 31 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
User talk:Alsoriano97#Warning isn't "routine"; it's a straight-up refusal to accept warnings from non-admins, with the inevitable result that non-admins don't warn or at least warn less, and hurried admins don't take action because there haven't been warnings. It's 100% of the reason why I went straight to a block in that 3RR block linked above, instead of warning him like I did the user he was edit-warring against. —Cryptic 13:27, 31 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The warning appears to be about this edit, which appears to be a content dispute. I don't believe it would fit the description of WP: VANDALISM. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested transmissions °co-ords° 13:41, 31 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The point isn't what that specific warning was about; it's his statement that "I only admit warnings from admins, not from angry editors." —Cryptic 13:58, 31 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Separately, this user's block log would be much, much longer if I was willing to make 3RR blocks for edit wars I observe that aren't actively in progress. Just this year, I see 3RR breaches on the Jan 1, Mar 11, Apr 9, Apr 28, May 6, Jun 1, Jun 30, Jul 6 (7 reverts!), Jul 14, Jul 26, and Jul 27 current event pages. —Cryptic 13:27, 31 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Perhaps, as a suggestion for A97, it would be better if they did not revert every addition of trivia, but waited for a while until the activity on the daily page had died down, and then removed all the stuff that doesn't belong in one edit. Either that or we need more people patrolling the pages. Black Kite (talk) 13:37, 31 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think the issue here is not the timing of when Alsoriano97 removes the entries, but the actual act of the removals themselves. With respect, given the context, your suggestion almost sounds like WP:GAMING.
In relation to "patrolling" the pages, we currently do have people removing items of trivia on a live basis, as mentioned in my original post. Such actions are almost always accepted, with very few times when the reverts are challenged. Carter00000 (talk) 14:38, 31 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That's not what I see. i see a lot of people reverting when their particular bit of trivia gets removed. Which is understandable, but it's mainly because they think that thing they think is important is actually important in an international sense ... when most of the time it isn't. Black Kite (talk) 17:57, 31 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree that some back-and-forth reverts does happen, but these reverts are usually resolved in the edit summaries, and do not involve 4RR (or even 3RR) or uncivil comments. Carter00000 (talk) 18:17, 31 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I use to interact with this user a lot when I only worked in the Portal:Current events (ie, 2019–2020), but I was also a fairly bad editor at the time (as shown in some of the diffs linked above). The really only recent interaction I had with Alsoriano97 was during the Georgia Guidestone bombing so, I am only going to comment toward that interaction and one specific interaction linked above. Would like to note, I am not sure this went alerted as it was between multiple editors, but Alsoriano97 did violate WP:3RR with 6 reverts in an attempt to prevent that news from being listed on the Portal. [69][70][71][72][73][74] In the 5th diff I just provided, Alsoriano97 said, “This is a clear US-centric bias. They are so globally popular that the explosion has been reported by hundreds of international RS! It is a pity that this is a lie and is covered by newspapers of little national or international circulation. Do the work yourself and you will see.. This was after my interactions with them that day, but today I “did the work” via a Google search of “Georgia Guidestones bombing” and I found tons of national level WP:RS including (USA Today), (NBC News), (The Wall Street Journal) & (BCC News), so Alsoriano97 did state all those were “little national or international circulation”, which might mean a slight refresher in WP:RS is needed ontop of a significant warning for violating WP:3RR which might mean being warned/blocked for 6 reverts in a few hours from various editors. I am not here to talk about the bombing, so I will stop on that and move to the one link provided above by Carter00000, which is # User_talk:Alsoriano97#Warning. This was an interaction between myself and Alsoriano97 back in 2020, so to me it alone cannot show anything because editors can change, but in it, Alsoriano97 said, “I only admit warnings from admins, not from angry editors. Back in 2020, I was still learning what was and was not notable for the Portal:CE, so Alsoriano97 wasn’t really “wrong” for not accepting the warning, but I would like Alsoriano97 to state whether or not that statement is still true today, because that could become a serious issue down the line if a non-admin editor calls out any WP:3RR violations or even general warning/alerts. Again, most of my interactions with Alsoriano97 were months to years ago, so I cannot really comment on those, but the recent incident from earlier this month of a 6 revert violation of WP:3RR is significant and needs to be dealt with, maybe even by a post-revert event block. Elijahandskip (talk) 13:58, 31 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Funny enough, I just had another interaction with Alsoriano97 on today's Portal:CE. Nothing worth noting for ANI as it was just an interaction, but noting the fact it happens since I haven't had much interactions with them and this happened within like an hour of my big text block post. Elijahandskip (talk) 15:19, 31 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Per Alsoriano97: Vandalism? You've got to be kidding me. Vandalism is breaking the 3RR rule. (User talk:Alsoriano97#Vandalism) — So to Alsoriano97, he openly “vandalized” Wikipedia numerous times by breaking the 3RR rule (as shown in the various diffs above). Elijahandskip (talk) 14:32, 31 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    They're not vandalism, many are even good faith, but they don't belong there. That's why I made the suggestion that they be removed in one edit at a later date. Black Kite (talk) 18:01, 31 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I agree with Black Kite that they are almost all in good faith and majority should be in discussion sections to avoid the 3RR rule, nevertheless, Alsoriano97 is fully aware of the rule, even mentioning it to other editors, but still broke it more than a few times. I would say maybe a 24 hour block to get their attention (especially since they have been blocked previously for it and broke it numerous times), but then also suggest removing all the edits one time and emphasize on discussing before a 2nd or 3rd revert to avoid the 3RR rule breaking again. I honestly don’t know how a 6 reverts in a few hours went unnoticed, but nevertheless, as I have learned, no matter how much the edits are in good faith, if you break the rules, there will be consequences. It should not be a significant consequence (hence my suggestion of a 24 hour block), but some level of block is fully justified for the numerous unalerted 3RR violations discussed. Elijahandskip (talk) 12:46, 1 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Carter00000 Thank you for the reference on talk. Attempted to report this issue in October, 2021 with apparently no result [noticeboard/Edit warring - Diff, Oct 2nd, 2021] (top result in diff). The list of proof provided was:
Diffs of the user's reverts:
  1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Portal%3ACurrent_events%2F2021_September_19&type=revision&diff=1045432916&oldid=1045430468
  2. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Portal%3ACurrent_events%2F2021_September_19&type=revision&diff=1045400547&oldid=1045399945
  3. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Portal%3ACurrent_events%2F2021_September_19&type=revision&diff=1045375066&oldid=1045366985
  4. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Portal%3ACurrent_events%2F2021_September_19&type=revision&diff=1045303309&oldid=1045302097
  5. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Portal%3ACurrent_events%2F2021_September_19&type=revision&diff=1045272572&oldid=1045271722
Second example of 3RR from 10/1/2021
  1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Portal%3ACurrent_events%2F2021_October_1&type=revision&diff=1047642463&oldid=1047637998
  2. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Portal%3ACurrent_events%2F2021_October_1&type=revision&diff=1047643131&oldid=1047642752
  3. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Portal%3ACurrent_events%2F2021_October_1&type=revision&diff=1047649964&oldid=1047649055
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Portal%3ACurrent_events%2F2021_May_12&type=revision&diff=1022949962&oldid=1022925020%7C
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Portal_talk:Current_events&oldid=1023348929
As noted in the attempt to resolve dispute page above, @GWA88 also attempted to raise this issue almost a year prior to when I started discussing and encountering this issue in ~April-May of 2021. The "....Jesus Christ!" and "LIVING LIFE IN A VITAL WAY. Does that concern you?" quotes are from our talk discussion. I attempted to be civil and received those responses. Araesmojo (talk) 18:49, 31 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Today, Alsoriano97 said, “Stop with this American bias of Current Events[75] during the removal of an ITN Nominated historic US flood event. Elijahandskip (talk) 17:24, 1 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • ... which had already been posted the day before at Portal:Current_events/2022_July_31 ... Black Kite (talk) 18:27, 1 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I would like to note that your reply above does not address the underlying issues expressed in the original entry, nor the topic of this filing. The original comment cited an example of Alsoriano97's typical comments, which violates both WP:CIVIL and WP:TENDENTIOUS, relevant to the topic of this filing. Carter00000 (talk) 16:24, 2 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As mentioned above by Carter00000 and Elijahandskip, I have had multiple disagreements with Alsoriano97 over these past several years. From my own experience in dealing with him, I can say that he seems to be obsessed with removing anything "domestic" related to the United States, UK and to a lesser extent Canada and Australia from the current events portal, while seemingly not having an issue with "domestic" news from anywhere else in the world. He's often reverted by multiple different editors and when I've pulled him on this he just accuses me of being "Anglocentric". I find it quite concerning that his editing of the portal appears to be mostly motivated by ideology. And again, as mentioned above, he often ignores the 3RR and uses the edit summary box to make insults or in other cases, not bothering to use it all. As someone who has been editing the portal for 8 years now, pretty much on a regular basis, I'd have to be say that Alsoriano97 has been one of if not the most disruptive editor on the portal. GWA88 (talk) 15:53, 1 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I note that over 450 of your last 500 edits have been adding information to Current Event Portals. It is unsurprising that some of them (a very small amount, I suspect) would have been reverted. Black Kite (talk) 18:41, 1 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    You appear to be purposely missing the point, and then making the equivalent of ad hominem arguments. How does GWA88 being a regular and long term contributor and then noting that the user may have had "some" reverted add anything? Personal reverts were not even mentioned.
    Main issues, "reverted by multiple different editors", often responds with accusations, "motivated by ideology", "ignores the 3RR", "uses the edit summary box to make insults", "one of if not the most disruptive editor on the portal."
    Personal view, obviously contentious, and has motivated significant discussion. People are literally filing 3RR violations and block requests every year. Cryptic noted (11) eleven violations of 3RR...? Don't have enough personal experience with these issues for a punishment recommendation. Just keeping A97 off Portal:Current events would work for me. Araesmojo (talk) 19:47, 1 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Carter00000[edit]

Meanwhile, is it only me that is somewhat suspicious of an account whose very first edit was on a Portal/Current Events page, was aware of obscurities like WP:MINORASPECT by edit 16, was filing at WP:ANI by edit 44, and was filing ArbCom cases by edit 56? Black Kite (talk) 18:12, 31 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As I've explained to users in that previous incident, I spent quite a lot of time reading WP articles and their related talk pages prior to editing WP the first time, so picked up some WP speak. I also talk some time to look up policies when replying. I understand my initial actions on WP were not acceptable, and I've walked away for now on the disputed sections which caused the incident. I've spent the past month trying to be productive on the Current Events Portal and ITN.
I ask that you refrain from casting doubt on my character by digging up past events unrelated to this filing. It would seem that the general consensus thus far is that my complaint is justified.
This is what I previously wrote to Ad Orientem [76]
I started reading Wikipedia regularly because of the current events page. I found that it provided a more global overview of the news on a given day.
One thing I later discovered was that each article on Wikipedia had a "Talk Page" where content on a page were discussed. It was quite interesting for me to see the discussions, since there were times when I felt the content on pages were not justified, and the discussions allowed me to see how the content had been decided.
After some time, it became a habit to just read the talk page with the main article, since it gave a degree of context to almost all articles. Over time, I started to pick up some of the abbreviations used, since they came up so much. That's why I've been able to use them sometimes when I edit.
Maybe you think what I've said is just a made-up story. I wouldn't blame you for thinking that, given my actions in the past few days. But if you use the technical tools that you detect sockpuppets and ban evaders with, you'll find that my profile will come up clean.
You may also consider the fact that I'd probably not have drawn attention like I've had if I really was trying to evade or avoid anyone, since that would have clearly been counterproductive. Carter00000 (talk) 18:26, 31 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I would argue that because competence is required, the ability of an editor to understand Wiki policy and procedure early in their career wouldn't necessarily be suspicious. Not everyone immediately jumps in and starts editing, the policies and procedures exist to learn far in advance of a first edit. FrederalBacon (talk) 18:27, 31 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Black Kite has every right, and in fact an obligation to mention if something doesn't add up. It doesn't mean Carter must be a sock, but it is highly, highly unusual and it isn't uncivil to ask or investigate. That is what the community wants us to do. Most of the time, someone in that circumstance is a sock. Whether you are or not, I have no idea, but time will tell. Dennis Brown - 18:32, 31 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      @Dennis Brown I agree that it is a obligation to raise-out information if something doesn't add up. However, I feel that in the context of @Black Kite's above comments thus far, and my scrutiny of his actions, such a comment could be seen as divisionary.
      I also note that I've been closely scrutinized previously relating to the above allegations, and evidence of such scrutiny is readily available, so it seems a bit unfair to now present it again, like its never been mentioned before on WP. Carter00000 (talk) 18:39, 31 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      Is there behavioral evidence of socking? If so, I would imagine this ANI would be a quick close if an SPI revealed Carter was a sock. FrederalBacon (talk) 18:45, 31 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      As I stated in the previous incident, this is my only account. I invite any CU or admin to verify this themselves if needed. Carter00000 (talk) 18:50, 31 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      Black Kite and I are both admins. That's why I'm saying it is fine to ask. I don't have an opinion at this time, I'm just pointing out it's his job to ask the tough questions. Dennis Brown - 19:03, 31 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      @Dennis Brown To reiterate, I agree with your comments on the role of Admins on WP. However, in this case, I believe that Black Kite's role in the matter would fall under WP:INVOLVED. As you mentioned that you "did not have a opinion at this time", I assume you have not reviewed the case in detail, but only wanted to make a comment on the specific point of admin roles.
      I would like to note that Black Kite only started this section after I asked him to account for some of his actions above, hence my characterization of this section as divisionary. In addition, he was involved in some of the content disputes which are the topic of this case.
      I further note that I don't see the point of making this section in the first place. It would seem that the standard procedure would be to contact a CU or do a SPI if sock puppetry is genuinely suspected. Carter00000 (talk) 13:11, 1 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Being a new editor, I get why you don't understand, but I do. We can keep jabbering on about it if you like, but it is kind of pointless. Dennis Brown - 19:49, 1 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I would like to register my objection to your characterization of this discussion as "jabbering", along with the general patronizing tone of your last reply. Let me be clear that I am asking for clarification of the abovementioned admin actions, something that each admin is obligated to provide upon request per WP:ADMINACCT.
    So, let me ask my question again. I would like clarification on the point of making this section. As I mentioned previously, It would seem that the standard procedure would be to contact a CU or conduct a SPI if an admin has genuine and legitimate suspicions that an account is a sock puppet, given that the aim should be to efficiently resolve the issue. I really don't see what this post serves to do, since it does not address the actual issue.
    As previously mentioned, I note that Black Kite only started this section after I asked him to account for some of his actions above, hence my characterization of this section as divisionary. I also noted that I've been closely scrutinized previously relating to the above allegations, and evidence of such scrutiny is readily available. Given that Black Kite has taken the time to number the edits he presented from my edit log, I assume that he is aware of the previous scrutiny
    It seems a bit unfair to now present it again, like its never been mentioned before on WP. Furthermore, I don't think its very fair that just because I'm a new editor, and happen to be well informed, that it entitles admins such as yourself and Black Kite to cast doubt on my character, especially during a AN/I filing proceeding. It very much seems like a scenario where if you're new, you either know nothing and don't get taken seriously, or you know something, but will be labeled a sock puppet, and still not be taken seriously. To be honest, this very much seems like a case ofWP:ASPERSIONS. Carter00000 (talk) 17:43, 2 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Jabbering is this subthread, and applied to all parties, not you. You seem to be going out of your way to be a victim here. As for accountability, exactly what admin action did I take that needs explaining? That doesn't apply to simple comments that anyone can make. I didn't read the rest. Dennis Brown - 17:47, 2 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    My intention in pointing out the phrase "Jabbering" was to highlight my objection to the patronizing tone of your previous reply.
    "Being a new editor, I get why you don't understand, but I do. We can keep jabbering on about it if you like, but it is kind of pointless."
    If you don't see how that reply is patronizing, then I guess I have nothing more to comment on the matter. Carter00000 (talk) 18:04, 2 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Separately, my request for explanation is for Black Kites actions, as I think I made clear in my reply. Given that you jumped into the conversation, I thought you might have further comment. If not, then I think you may leave it to Black Kite to answer. For me, either of you answering is fine. Both of you answering is fine as well. Carter00000 (talk) 18:06, 2 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    There's nothing to "answer". He expressed a concern. The jabbering, again, was obviously referring to you and I equally. I have no idea what is so hard to understand, again, unless you automatically assume the worst in people. Dennis Brown - 18:11, 2 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @Dennis Brown, upon reviewing the previous incident cited above (declined RFAR [77]), I noticed that you were in fact one of those who commented. You comments were "This feels like we are being punked by an LTA." & "A CU should feel free to poke around, I would think... ".
    Given your comments, I believe that your are WP:INVOLVED in relation to myself. I formally request you to recuse yourself from this ANI filing, and cease all activities relating to the filing. While I realize I cannot force you to do so, I ask you to seriously consider this based on the standards of which are expected of administrators such as yourself. Carter00000 (talk) 15:26, 3 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    No. First, you are misunderstanding WP:INVOLVED. Second, I haven't used the admin tools in either situation, so WP:INVOLVED is meaningless. Third, I have had no stake in the outcome with either report nor had any extensive interactions with you or the reported party in articles or previous actions, so I can't be INVOLVED. The fact that I commented as a disinterested bystander more than once doesn't make me involved in anything. So no, I'm 100% free to participate or act in an administrative or bystander capacity and shall. You're free to get all the second opinions you like, policy is quite clear on this. Dennis Brown - 17:01, 3 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Remedies[edit]

Pinging other involved editors who have commented on this filing to add their opinion for this section: Araesmojo, Black Kite, Cryptic, GWA88. Carter00000 (talk) 18:08, 2 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am starting this section because too many opinions and editor replies too keep track of the actual remedies being suggested. Elijahandskip (talk) 04:00, 2 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • I suggest a 24-hour block only because it appears too many 3RR violations have occurred from Alsoriano97, who has been blocked for 3RR violations in the past and is fully aware of the rule, even mentioning it to other editors. I do believe all the 3RR violations were in good faith; however, due to their previous block & fully aware violations, a block would be the best course over a warning. As to all the other issues mentioned, I believe the blocking admin should do a message to Alsoriano97 to be more open to discussions on talk pages, not just in edit summaries, especially before that 3rd revert would occur. I believe bringing the 3RR violations to Alsoriano97's attention should lessen or hopefully eliminate the amount of NPOV edit summaries/"incivility". But no matter what, a block, even a short 24 hour block, is fully justified and warranted, especially as I have been told numerous times that if you break the rules, no matter how much good faith they were made in, there will be consequences. Elijahandskip (talk) 04:00, 2 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As discussion has begun on the remedies, I would like to make my viewpoints known as well, being the original filer. I note that @Elijahandskip has suggested above that a 24 hour block be used as a warning.

  • My opinion is that Alsoriano97 should be indefinitely banned from WP. As can be seen from the above submissions, Alsoriano97 has committed numerous violations of WP:3RR and WP:CIVIL, to many different editors, over a period of many years. Such conduct clearly shows that Alsoriano97 feels that he is above both the rules and other editors. More critically, Alsoriano97 believes that he is above the consensus forming process, a pillar which WP is built on. His disregard for the process has caused significant disruption, as mentioned many times in the above submissions.
Much of the issues relating to Alsoriano97's editing arises from his extreme viewpoints relating to the Anglosphere & USA, and its place in world affairs. Such flaws have been noted by a number of editors. Attempts to reason with his pattern of tendentious editing have failed, and has been met with hostility. Given WP's commitment to NPOV, such flawed reasoning and editing is of significant damage to the project. While I am aware that Alsoriano97 has contributed to other areas, I am unable to assess his actions in those areas, given my unfamiliarity with those areas.
Alsoriano97's response to warnings merely reiterates the above points. Despite being blocked 24 hours for 3RR once already, such a ban seems to have had no impact on him. Numerous other warnings from editors are met with hostile and uncivil responses. Alsoriano97 has also stated that he does not admit warnings from non-administrators on one occasion. Despite his attitude towards warnings, he himself constantly issues warnings to others relating to 3RR, civility and other issues.
The point of warnings and administrative sanctions is to modify an editors behavior to become acceptable to the community. It is my opinion that Alsoriano97's behavior will not be changed by warnings or other administrative sanctions. As evidenced in the previous paragraph, numerous warnings of different types, from different users, have failed to have any impact on him, and his conduct has only gotten worse overtime. It is due to the intractability of these issues that I ask for a indefinite ban in the interest of stopping the damage he continues to cause to the overall project.
Carter00000 (talk) 05:06, 2 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Although I haven’t posted much recently, I have been watching the current events page for a long time and almost every day. As stated above, the user clearly understands WP policies, has been temp banned for 3RR before, and warns other users for the same breach of policy. I feel that something more than a warning is necessary. ( Augu  Maugu ♨ 06:15, 2 August 2022 (UTC))Reply[reply]
  • There is a lot of moderate incivility, but we usually don't start out with blocks for this, if we can get them to explain. I left a short note inviting them here, I would prefer they participate before handing out sanctions, as maybe one can be avoided. Not that it excuses the rudeness, but I can see how this is a high stress area, and maybe they just need to spend more time elsewhere. Dennis Brown - 18:40, 2 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Have to agree with the sentiments mentioned by Carter00000 and AuguMaugu above. I too feel like a warning in this case would be unsatisfactory. I would recommend indefinitey blocking Alsoriano97 from editing the current events portal, or at least a lengthy block, say six months or a year. It should also be noted that Alsoriano97 has continued this pattern of behaviour on the current events portal even during this discussion about him, only yesterday in fact, and once again pushing the whole "American bias" thing. Indeed, apparently people dying from floods in Kentucky and Virginia aren't as important as flood victims in other countries. He clearly had no issue with the news about flood victims in Iran mentioned here on July 29. Again, yet another example of Alsoriano97's own biases. GWA88 (talk) 23:18, 2 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I agree with Elijahandskip. I cannot see any grounds for a lengthy block - the suggestion appears unnecessarily vengeful. Denying that there is any US-centricity in Wikipedia articles is to be blind to the obvious, and Alsoriano97 is not wrong to point it out when it occurs; he just needs to do it more politely. Deb (talk) 07:26, 3 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Deb, I agree that a permanent ban on the current events page (or even a 6 month ban) might not be productive. I also agree that there are many US local news articles posted that need to be removed from the page. However, Alsoriano97 consistently removes internationally published Anglo-topic events (which appears as bias).  Augu  Maugu ♨ 07:42, 3 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Dennis Brown, @Deb
Please note that while incivility is one component of the filing, it far from covers the whole scope of the filing. Issues relating to intractable violations of WP:3RR & WP:TENDENTIOUS also form major parts of the filing. Looking at your responses, it would seem that you have completely disregarded these sections of the filing.
I also object to the characterization of Alsoriano97's incivility issues as "moderate". As can be seen from the above discussion and presented diffs, the consensus is that Alsoriano97's's incivility issues are both severe and habitual.
I would further note my concern with your assessment that Alsoriano97's actions as described in this filing can be resolved with warnings or minor sanction's. Of the three main issues described, WP:CIVIL, WP:3RR & WP:TENDENTIOUS, Alsoriano97's violations in each issue has occurred frequently, over the course of many years. It is my opinion that Alsoriano97's pattern of behavior in any of the three sections alone would have warranted a indefinite block, let alone all three simultaneously.
I would also note that Alsoriano97 is not "starting out" in any sense of the phrase. Alsoriano97 has been warned by many editors and administrators of his actions, but to no avail. He has been blocked once for 3RR and edit warring by @Cryptic. It is my understanding that edit warring warrants a firm response given that it is a "bright line rule", with repeated violations even more so. With Alsoriano97, edit warring occurs on a near daily basis, at an extreme level, with an editor citing seven reverts in a single day of a single sections of an article. While pointing out US bias may be reasonable, such action should take the form civil talk page discussion, not unilateral enforcement through edit warring and uncivil comments.
It is highly recommended to familiarize yourself with at least the basic points of a filing prior to attempting to summarize it's status and shortcomings. It is also recommended to note the consensus among editors who regularly edit at current events and their cited experiences working with Alsoriano97. Carter00000 (talk) 15:16, 3 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I would highly recommend that you stop trying to tell the rest of the community what their opinion should be on this matter. Individuals will decide which approach they favour, based on their own judgement. Administrators have a lot of experience in dealing with such cases. Deb (talk) 16:07, 3 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What Deb said. And as I stated above, no, I'm not WP:INVOLVED. Your behavior in this report is slowly but surely declining. I count 21 times you have responded in this thread. Unless you are introducing new evidence, it would seem that 21 is enough. Dennis Brown - 17:02, 3 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Dennis Brown, @Deb Noted on the WP:BLUDGEON policy and will strive to follow its principles. I was not aware such a policy existed until you pointed it out, but agree with the logic of the content in the policy. Carter00000 (talk) 17:14, 3 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Also, this As can be seen from the above submissions, Alsoriano97 has committed numerous violations of WP:3RR and WP:CIVIL, at a rate of multiple times per day, to many different editors, over a period of many years. is simply false, this Alsoriano97's viewpoint of the world is deeply flawed. and this Attempts to reason with his pattern of tendentious editing have failed, and has been met with hostile and incoherent ranting. are WP:NPA violations and I would suggest you withdraw the whole lot before it results in a WP:BOOMERANG. Oh, and while we're talking about ranting, bold underlined text gives the impression of exactly that. Black Kite (talk) 18:12, 3 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Amended my sections to remove the content as per your comment above + other content which may potentially violate NPA. Please let me know if there is any further content which you feel falls under the category. Carter00000 (talk) 18:30, 3 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Response from Alsoriano97[edit]

Well, I see I missed a lot while I was out of signal and on vacation. The truth is that I find the exhaustive analysis of my activity a bit creepy, especially by editors who have recently collaborated with Wikipedia. But let's get to the important stuff. And I will be brief.

I apologize for my manners and for my uncivil comments (although some of those mentioned here aren't even offensive). I insist, my manners sometimes fail me (we already know that written language is often misinterpreted), but not the content of my contributions in Actualidad. I explain myself in the following subsection.

About the alleged "anti-Anglo-Saxonism" that "inspires" my contributions[edit]

Groundhog day. And I refer to what I've said countless times. The problem is not there (entirely). Wikipedia is a victim of a clear Anglo-Saxon-centrism that needs to be corrected and is seen in: Current Events, Years in Topic (births and death sections), the existence of many articles about American personalities of any branch, such as subnational politicians (which I don't think is wrong, let's be clear) and the deletion of those who are from other countries, articles of world leaders in which only (or the great majority) of photos that appear is with an American president or the SofState of the day. To give a few examples. Yes, this is a Wikipedia in English and it's natural that there should be a higher incidence of articles and biographies related to English-speaking countries, but if that language is considered the priority for its international use, we have to believe it. And this is a global enciclopedia, let's not forget it.

But you are incapable of seeing that there is an American bias that needs to be corrected. And who corrects it, is the evil one that needs to be kicked out of WP. You really don't realize it? Do you really? Really?

When I've included news about any country that I doubted of its notoriety, I've always accepted its removal if another user would remove it up. Is it so hard for you to do this exercise? If you don't do it, it's because of just what I say: patriotic pride. Centrism. Bubble. It's fine to think like that, but when someone refuses to be like that, don't bash him. If the deadly floods had been in Spain, would I have made a daily (I repeat, daily) update of the number of deaths in Current Events? No. Would I've included that the vice-president of an Autonomous Community tested positive for COVID? No. Would I have included any official trip of Prime Minister Sñanchez? No. Would it have included that the Spanish government approved a package of infrastructure measures? For God's sake, obviously not. The problem is that you believe (fortunately only some editors, I insist) that if this happens in the United States it is untouchable. And that when someone from outside those countries questions it, you think it jeopardizes the dominance of news about those countries because you think it must be so. And that is the kind of bias that should be unacceptable on Wikipedia. Just as any kind of Hispano-centrism, Franco-centrism or Micronesian-centrism should be unacceptable. You think that because you are English, American or Canadian you are above others and that any information included in Current Evenets is untouchable. For that there is 2022 in the United States.

You also recklessly ignore (being reckless is not an insult, by the way) when I remove news included that are not notorious when it happens in other countries. Even when it happens in mine. In the same way that you recklessly ignore when I don't remove news related to Anglo-Saxon countries because they are sufficiently notorious. Therefore, I'm certain that the accusations against me are, in part, arbitrary and personal.

Fortunately I participate in other articles and portals, being my attitude peaceful, neutral, without centrism, constructive, of consensus. And do you know why I've no problems with other editors, but a good (and in some cases very good) relationship? Because they are also like that and everything works better. As in Years in Topic or Candidates. I won't mention them because frankly I don't want to, nor do I think I should, bring more editors into this dissuasion. It's also seen that my contributions to Wikipedia are positive when I create new articles in good condition, improve others and participate in discussions to improve the pages.

About remedies[edit]

I think it's important that, when possible action is taken against me, it's not done from the gut. What isn't fair is that the work of more than six years (and which has been in favor of Wikipedia and recognized by many editors) that I've done here is thrown away because of my recklessness and certainties. But be that as it may, I ask that it be taken with proportionality, responsibility and rationality. I'm sure it will be taken that way. I'll assume the one that will be taken. As I've always done.

About other aspects[edit]
  • Carter0000, is it necessary that you had to inform almost all Current Evenets editors that you have opened this ANI against me? What is unconstructive is to promote a kind of coven against me to try to have undoubted support for your intentions. Black Kite is partly right in what he states. You're new, that's great, welcome and I'd love to hear that you're enjoying Wikipedia. Nor is it constructive for you to state this, "While I am aware that Alsoriano97 has contributed in other areas, I cannot assess his performance in them, given my lack of knowledge of them." Do. Familiarize yourself and, then, you can judge my contributions. You are quite wrong. And yes, "international coverage ≠ international notability". That's the way it's always been.
  • I've also been criticized for not intervening in other ANI (as if it were a daily or weekly thing...) or warnings; I don't have time to enter into extensive discussions and on matters on which I've already expressed myself in the past. A wise man once said: it's no use arguing if one of us doesn't want to listen. And that is how I have felt in discussions with Elijah, GW, Mount Patagonia, etc.
  • GW, Elijah, Carter. You have also been rude, you have violated the 3RR rule, you have been unconstructive. What legitimacy do you have? You are not untouchable
Conclusions[edit]

I insist, I rectify (and I have done it many times) of the forms, never of the substance. But many of you don't even do that. Some of you are not even capable of trying to understand me (and us). Make the decision you think is best. I will respect it. _-_Alsor (talk) 18:00, 3 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Questions to Alsoriano97[edit]

Starting this section because Alsoriano97‘s response is long and contains different sections. Elijahandskip (talk) 18:14, 3 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • I agree with Alsoriano97 that I have been rude and have also violated 3RR in the past. (In fact, I got called out for violating it yesterday). There is a reason I did not ask for you to be perm blocked/tbanned. I fully do agree that you do amazing work cleaning up the Portal:Current events. But, like I said and have personally been told/experienced: If you break the rules, there will be consequences. I was told that after a tban violation months ago that actually was added back just after a self-revert (for the violation), because it improved the article. My main question to you is: Why do you think you should or should not receive some level of a block for all the 3RR violations discussed in the discussion? In my mind (and from personal experiences), edits never go away (hence why I actually still had an editor saying I was not capable to edit Wikipedia a few months ago from edits I made 2 years ago.) If you can give an honest explanation or reason as to why you understand the 3RR rule and will strive to not violate it again, then I will reconsider my 24-hour block suggestion, which would be more of a 24-hour block warning to not violate 3RR again. I believe a violation of the 3RR rule should not always lead to a block, but it appeared that it was violated numerous times (and unless I am mistaken) they went unwarned/unchecked prior to this AN/I. So the 24-hour block would sort of be the compounded consequence for all the violations. Elijahandskip (talk) 18:14, 3 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I'm a very regulatory person and if my conduct of repeated breaches of the 3RR implies some type of blockade for 24 hours, that must be applied. I would not like it, obviously, but if it must be so, so be it. I don't want to break that rule again, but we all have to do our part. _-_Alsor (talk) 18:25, 3 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Alsoriano97, your incivility, which I labelled as moderate (but way, way too common) is more than a burden to those you are throwing those comments to. They waste MY time, EVERYONE's time, because we have to deal with these long, drawn out dramafests at ANI. So the consequences of your inability to rein yourself in a bit reach out farther than the page you are editing. There are plenty of examples to block you or consider a topic ban. It isn't about punishing you, it's about restoring order to that area of the encyclopedia. Universally, that is why we block/tban users, to quieten down an area of the encyclopedia so we don't have to keep hearing complaints. At the end of the day, we don't like complaints, it wastes time, and if you give us no other choice, that is the path we WILL take. What I want to see is clear, concise steps you would take if you weren't blocked/tbanned. I want a reason to not block you, or only block a short time. A reason to not pursue a topic ban. You owe me a couple of hours of my time, and hours of other users time. What are you offering in return? Dennis Brown - 18:36, 3 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I offer you the following: do not be disrespectful in the edit summary and try not to break the 3RR rule. But as I said, the other users must do their part... _-_Alsor (talk) 18:54, 3 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Of course others are responsible for their actions, but even if they are rude, that doesn't give you a license to be rude back. It has to stop somewhere. As I've said to many others, if you are in a contentious area, do us a favor and make it EASY for us to see who is in the wrong. If you don't edit war (not just 3RR) and you aren't rude, then obviously it isn't you and would be the other guy. That makes it possible to just act without these long, ANI reports. It isn't enough to say "I won't if they won't". That doesn't fly. Dennis Brown - 19:02, 3 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Yes yes, this is clear. I try not to act like they do with me, but I just wanted to point out that I'm not the only irresponsible one here either. _-_Alsor (talk) 20:03, 3 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Do you still think being reverted by an ip is reason to label them with multiple ethnic slurs? —Cryptic 19:45, 3 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    What exactly are "multiple ethnic slurs"? The ones I received from that user when he called me "Franco"? It's clear that calling him "redneck" was not correct, but from there to talk about "multiple ethnic slurs".... _-_Alsor (talk) 19:58, 3 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    You seem to be very badly underestimating how offensive it is to call an adult American "boy". It doesn't mean "you should grow up"; it means "you should be a slave". —Cryptic 01:58, 4 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I think it's almost obvious that since I'm not American, by no means does "boy" or "grow up" have a racist connotation. I didn't even know this double meaning. _-_Alsor09:00, 4 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    and taking into special consideration that in Wikipedia the ethnicity of the editors is unknown... _-_Alsor (talk) 09:02, 4 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I’m sorry but in that same edit post you did say “‘merica” as if you understood some culture references or were just insulting Americans.  Augu  Maugu ♨ 09:05, 4 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I’m not insulting, come on. I know references, but very few. Should I apologize for not being an American? _-_Alsor (talk) 11:21, 4 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Alsoriano97, I’m also not American, but I don’t understand how you would expect “boys” (racial or not) to use wikipedia to issue complaints to admins against you. The only way I can see that word used against another user is derogatory.  Augu  Maugu ♨ 04:14, 5 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Alsoriano97, why do you believe that "trying" to act appropriately is a satisfactory reason to not be blocked/tbanned? Given that you have been 24hr blocked before, how have you "tried" to fix the issue for that block?  Augu  Maugu ♨ 00:39, 4 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Alsoriano97, you have responded to other questions yet you decline to answer this one. Why is that?  Augu  Maugu ♨ 03:56, 5 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Frankly I think you are having a very unconstructive and superb attitude. You haven't responded to mine either, by the way. My attitude changed in several ways, such as the use of edit summaries to justify my edits and a more conciliatory attitude. I have a life beyond Wikipedia and this discussion, I guess you will understand that I don't spend as much time on it as you would like me to. _-_Alsor (talk) 04:02, 5 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Alsoriano97, I am not in anyway acting in the way that you feel. I just look at CE every day. Your conduct has been against policy and also “unconstructive” (your words).
    As regards to the question I asked, you have still not given an answer.  Augu  Maugu ♨ 04:14, 5 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    ” My attitude changed in several ways, such as the use of edit summaries to justify my edits and a more conciliatory attitude” is the answer. And in my country we don't use "boy" as a derogatory term, but to indicate vehemence. It’s not the same as insulting. _-_Alsor (talk) 04:20, 5 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Stop using the term. You now know that it has racial implications in other countries which are represented heavily on Wikipedia. It's really that easy to just refrain from further using it. 🌈WaltCip-(talk) 17:40, 8 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Yes, at no time have I stated that I would continue to use it. Obviously I won't do it from now on, I thought I had made myself clear. I was simply justifying why I used it. _-_Alsor (talk) 01:35, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Why are you oblivious to the fact that the Current Events Portal is watched by so many people with different ideas and backgrounds that you can't just act as you feel is right? Please reduce the amount of your activity there until you have gained more experience as a Wikipedian. Nxavar (talk) 13:43, 5 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Close please[edit]

It's fairly obvious there's no consensus to do anything here, and there have been no significant comments in the last 5 days. I'm fairly sure that A97 (and for that matter Carter00000) are aware of what other editors have found problematic. Black Kite (talk) 15:51, 10 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Style warrior[edit]

A significant proportion of User:Aonbheannaigh’s edits regards their evident personal, style-only preference for the usage of the Oxford comma. These are largely or entirely in instances where its absence is an equally valid style choice, there is no issue of ambiguity to address or the use actively goes against the consistency of style used in the given article. No meaningful explanation of any supposed necessity for the change is given in edit summaries. Requests to desist and warnings that the campaign has become disruptive have, after initial inaccurate responses, been ignored. Mutt Lunker (talk) 16:48, 2 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As stated at the top of this page in red, an ANI Discussion Notification must be posted to the talk page of a user when an incident regarding them is posted. Please be aware that this is not optional. I have posted one to their talk page as a courtesy to you both but please be attentive in the future. GabberFlasted (talk) 17:01, 2 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks, my oversight entirely. Mutt Lunker (talk) 17:21, 2 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Off-topic commentary. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 19:01, 3 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
No, thank you for reacting so well to such a condescending "bollocking" for a simple oversight. Not everyone posts at ANI all the time, and the matter could just as easily have been raised on your talkpage without the tedious and very public "mall cop" routine which honestly makes my blood boil just a little every time I see it. Why don't we just fix ANI so that folks don't have to police other people about their compliance or otherwise with the "red box"? Just saying (and apologies for any offence to anyone on this specific occasion - I'm sure everyone was acting with the best intentions...) Begoon 14:39, 3 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If you take issue with what I say or do, it would benefit everyone to contact me directly, instead of an unrelated ANI thread. Or if you think it is a grand enough issue to complain about on an ANI thread and believe contacting me directly won't be productive, consider making an ANI ticket. Regardless, this is quite the lambast for someone who is supposedly assuming good faith. GabberFlasted (talk) 17:27, 3 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
They have continued to add Oxford commas since this report was started. I suggested to them that they should be part of the conversation here. Gusfriend (talk) 11:03, 3 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And they are continuing to add Oxford commas and mark their edits as minor. Gusfriend (talk) 10:34, 4 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And again today, on both counts. Mutt Lunker (talk) 16:09, 5 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
They made two responses to posts about their editing on 27th July with nothing at all since, despite numerous attempts by multiple editors to elicit a dialogue. They are evidently determined to continue their edits in like manner. Mutt Lunker (talk) 12:20, 4 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We just went through this, and in fact are still going through this, with the passive-voice obsessive (see tail end of WT:Manual_of_Style#Fallout_from_ANI). This kind of obsessive style-warrioring (if that's a word) needs to be nipped in the bud. EEng 18:20, 5 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There was a bit of a hiatus the last few days but the editor has resumed, evidently paying no heed and making no response to the concerns expressed above. Could somebody move to closure please, with the implementation of any appropriate sanction? Mutt Lunker (talk) 11:33, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Competence of User:Hildreth gazzard and copyright concerns.[edit]

Hildreth gazzard (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Per Wikipedia:Competence is required, I think User:Hildreth gazzard's repeated mass creation of biography stubs is creating too many issues. For starters most, if not all of their creations only cites references using bare URL's, which is a problem as it can lead to rink rot. This user has been asked before to not use bare URL's [78]. I had warned them in June 2021, that their repeated mass creations had misspelled words and bare URL's [79], yet they refuse to engage at all with any sort of criticism from their work. Moreover, most of the prose of this user's article creations is paraphrased or copy pasted from actual source, which violates copyright. Using three of their most recent article creations as examples:

1) Daniel Powell, has placed the wrong place of birth (Sutton Coldfield). As per one of the sources in the article [80] has the correct place of birth (Walsall). I don't want to carry over copyrighted prose, but the start of the second line is a direct copy paste from [81]. Some phrasing is also used directly from this source [82].

2) Ezekiel Nathaniel, again start of second line is directly copy pasted from this source [83]. The last is mainly copied from this source [84].

3) Lachlan Moorhead, the second paragraph is quoted directly from this source [85].

This user continues to insist on creating stub biographies with bare url's and copyright concerns. There needs to be some sort of intervention here before things get out of hand. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 00:50, 3 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Not sure what the guidelines for this are, but I would like to second this if possible. As a new page reviewer, I have seen dozens of articles with all sorts of careless mistakes being thrown into the New Page Feed by this user. It is left to us to clean up. It seems like they just care about being the first to create new articles, such as recent gold medallists, with no regard to quality or copyright concerns. JTtheOG (talk) 01:35, 3 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Good heavens, well we don’t want things to get out of hand. As I have said before, but Sportsfan 1234 may not have noticed, I don’t have all my sight and anything beyond the the bare URL is too awkward for me so instead I tag the pages as needing a citation bot. I’m not sure inclusivity is the domain of Wikipedia but I am thankful for the opportunities I have had so far, it has been a real privilege. As for the insinuations of my intention by JTtheOG, I am very grateful for all their work as a new page reviewer and it was never my intention to deliberately cause extra work for them or anyone. The answer to my intention is much simpler than maybe they imagine. If there was someone I was personally interested in reading about and they didn’t have a page I would try and throw something together in case someone else was in my position and also looking for that information. It’s really as simple as that. No one tries to make cosmetic errors, I just took to heart the notion of “if in doubt, edit” that I heard Jimmy Wales espouse on an interview a couple of years ago, and I do hope that any errors I may have made have been ironed out by other users within this wonderful tool. We mustn’t lose sight of what a wonderful thing wikipedia is and how much it enriches the lives of millions of people every day. Thank you for your time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hildreth gazzard (talkcontribs)
    • Erm. I submit that if you are too impaired to properly cite your contributions -- especially with you not being hesitant to admit that you're leaving the work to be done by others -- then that does call into question whether you're too impaired to make mainspace edits, never mind creating new articles. Ravenswing 14:46, 4 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      I strongly object to the idea that it should be impermissible to use bare URLs as references when creating articles. --JBL (talk) 17:24, 4 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      Same here. We have bots to fix such things. XOR'easter (talk) 17:51, 4 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      This is not the main issue at hand. A lot of this user's edits have copyright violations. The references couples with copyright issues leads me to believe there is no competence here. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 18:08, 4 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      And it is not "impermissible" to use bare URLs. It's just lazy practice. (Nor, by the bye, can we rely on bots to get it right.) If that was the only issue, this would never be at ANI, and neither of you are ANI rookies to need to be told that. Ravenswing 16:48, 5 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      I don't want to understate the importance of copyright, but I looked at the three articles (and rewrote and expanded one of them, Lachlan Moorhead) and I see some exaggeration of the extent of the problem in all three. In view of Sportsfan 1234's concern about carry[ing] over copyrighted prose, I will entirely understand if an admin finds it necessary to rev-delete the following comparisons (I've used the text as last edited by Hildreth gazzard, but other than my work on one, I didn't notice any other editor changing the wording) and I'm going to try to put them under a cut.
The examples cited, and my evaluations
::::*At Daniel Powell (judoka), the claim that the second line is a direct carryover refers to "Powell, from Sutton Coldfield, trains in Judo at the University of Wolverhampton’s Walsall Campus" being taken from "Powell, from Sutton Coldfield, is one of 14 judokas from the University of Wolverhampton’s Walsall Campus ...". Only the opening 4 words are copied.
Some phrasing is also used directly from ... refers to "after stepping up to senior judo won a silver medal at the Sarajevo European Open" from: "won a silver medal at the Sarajevo European Open four years after making the step up from junior competition.", and "Powell won six medals in the European Junior Cup between 2015 and 2017" from: "winning six medals in European Junior Cup between 2015 and 2017". Both of these are overly close paraphrasing, but they are not entirely copied.
  • At Ezekiel Nathaniel, the claim start of second line is directly copy pasted refers to "Running for Baylor University, Nathaniel broke a 35 year old national record of his fellow compatriot Henry Amike when he ran 48.42 for the 400m hurdles to win the big 12 title in May, 2022." being taken from: "Running for Baylor at his first Big 12 Championships since moving to the US, Ezekiele Nathaniel was absolutely in an amazing form, storming to a massive Personal Best (PB) of 48.42s and breaking Henry Amike’s National Record (NR) that was set in 1987!" In my judgement this is not copyvio at all. Only "Running for Baylor" repeats, and the necessary clarification word "University" has been added, while the rest has been selected from and transformed, including making it neutral.
The last is mainly copied from this source refers to "Nathaniel become the fourth Nigerian man after Daniel Ogidi in 1983, Amike in 1987 and Rilwan Alowonle in 2019 to qualify for the semifinal of the 400m hurdles in the history of the World Championships." from: "Nathaniel has now become the fourth Nigerian man after Daniel Ogidi (1983), Amike (1987) and Rilwan Alowonle (2019) to qualify for the semifinal of the 400m hurdles in the history of the championships." This, too, is overly close paraphrasing, but "mainly copied" is an overstatement.
  • At Lachlan Moorhead, the second paragraph is quoted directly from this source refers to "As well as studying business management at the University of Birmingham, Lachlan is an ambassador for charity If U Care Share which raises awareness of male suicide and mental health issues." from "From Yorkshire, Moorhead studies business management at the University of Birmingham, and is an ambassador for charity If U Care Share which raises awareness of male suicide and mental health issues." This could have been done better—I separated the university studies from the charity activity, and "From Yorkshire" is completely unnecessary given his birthplace and the club he is a member of—but it is far from "quoted directly". Only "business management at the University of Birmingham" (which is in my view not transformable) and "male suicide and mental health issues" have been left unchanged.
Hildreth gazzard should do better. I see instances of overly close paraphrasing. But I personally don't see a massive copyvio problem, and I don't believe the history of the articles requires any revision deletion. (Others may disagree, hence both the examples and the attempted cut.) What I do notice is that Hildreth gazzard hasn't used the tables of wins and medals in some of the sources to fill out the previous career, and filling out the article is the best way to avoid close paraphrasing, because it dolutes the information taken from a particular prose source and the prose added from tables is by definition your own prose. Hildreth gazzard, you say above that you have vision problems. Can you see tables such as those in this source?
Alternatively, I'm wondering whether the problem with covering the references is partly caused either by the defects of the mobile app—all edits appear to be tagged "Mobile edit, Mobile web edit, Advanced mobile edit"—or with typing [ and ] so as to add the title of the reference? If the square brackets and other stuff is available, then perhaps the advice at User:Cullen328/Smartphone editing regarding using the desktop interface on a mobile phone would be helpful? I understand that you have to select the desktop interface again each session, it's not possible to change the default, but it's an option many users on smartphones and tablets don't appear to be aware of. More basically, I've run into editors who aren't aware that the citation templates are not required. You can use any format you wish for references (except MLA-style parentheticals, I believe). I personally prefer not to use the templates; they are crotchety things and their output is a bit strange. But even just the title and the name of the newspaper can be a lifesaver when trying to find an old newspaper reference; it's often there in the archive at a changed URL.
More fundamentally still, there's a bit of ABF in JTtheOG's It seems like they just care about being the first to create new articles, such as recent gold medallists, with no regard to quality or copyright concerns. I do think Hildreth gizzard could do a better job, and he does need to stop close paraphrasing. But even though sports people are not my cup of tea, covering gold medallists at major international events is pretty central to our mission of having a useful and up to date encyclopaedia, and contributes to our avoiding systemic bias. There's a link on his user page to a Guardian article that explains his motivation quite adequately, as it happens. His stubs are neither horribly short nor, in my view, terribly copyvio'd ... although yes, Hildreth gazzard, you shouldn't be getting places of birth wrong, especially on a BLP. I'd like to see you craft these articles better. For one thing, in continuing testament to the decay of WP:SOFIXIT, other than category work and someone running a bot to fill in bare references here and there (most of them; the bot apparently chokes on the Team England site), I don't see people stepping up to help shape up these BLPs. I consider myself a wikignome; we gnomes can do better. As for NPP: I'm sorry, I know it's a firehose, but the problem there partly stems from artificial scarcity of reviewers: only admins, who have the right bundled, and those willing to not only go through training to get the right but also download some tool can help out by reviewing articles. Those who do volunteer to work there and accept those requirements, please remember that nobody required you to do that, our readers do deserve to have articles on Olympic and Commonwealth Games athletes, and there's no guarantee someone else would write them. In my view, Hg's articles are neither a flood nor as bad as they're here implied to be. Yngvadottir (talk) 09:24, 7 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you Yngvadottir for taking the time to give a considered response. I won’t pretend to understand all the wiki-acronyms but I’ll study the bits that concern me, take it on board, and strive for improvement. I am quite sure I was previously unaware of the things you suggest. As for the disputed place of birth, in future if sources appear to be contradicting I shall just leave it blank. The sources seemed to be in agreement that he is studying at the University of Wolverhampton’s Walsall campus but the local newspaper website, as you indeed noted, said he was from Sutton Coldfield - hence my usage of it. But as I say, in future I shall not make such a judgment call. The fact you can drive from Walsall to Sutton Coldfield in less than 20 minutes is neither here nor there and should his career continue more sources will no doubt provide us with greater clarity. Hildreth gazzard (talk) 14:24, 7 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:TylerDurden8823, mass changes, introducing factual errors[edit]

User:TylerDurden8823 mass changes the term "alcohol abuse" to "alcohol use disorder", even though they are different things. Wikipedia has two seperate articles for it. The article Alcohol use disorder says, "This article is about chronic alcohol abuse that results in significant health problems. For alcohol abuse in general, see Alcohol abuse." So basically, the user assumes everone who (ab)uses alcohol has a disorder which is factually wrong. Even if it was correct in certain cases, it would be an unsourced change. A previous talk page discussion was blanked (Special:Diff/1101915733#"Alcohol_abuse"_to_"alcohol_use_disorder") and an ongoing one ignored (Talk:Stevie_Ray_Vaughan#"Alcohol_abuse"_vs._alcohol_use_disorder). Even if you interpret both terms as synonyms (which wikipedia doesn't do, as again, we have two seperate articles), it would still be an unnecessary change as "alcohol abuse" is a perfectly fine term to use, and it would be a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT -- FMSky (talk) 10:56, 3 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's not because "I don't like it". The discussion was over and my talk page had become very lengthy (people had asked me to archive my page for some time and it was becoming burdensome). There is no reason to regularly use the term alcohol abuse since it is stigmatizing when a perfectly reasonable less stigmatizing alternative exists. I'm not sure how you decided that Wikipedia doesn't interpret both as synonyms, the dictionary does, but regardless of whether you see it as an "unnecessary change," is merely your own opinion, but there's nothing wrong with it. Even if Wikipedia has two separate articles for it, that doesn't make it factually true. As below, you have acknowledged that it is a synonym and contradicted yourself. You were unable to provide a compelling case for why the term "alcohol abuse" is necessary over alcohol use disorder before too and remain unable to do so. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 21:53, 3 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I regularly abuse alcohol, but do not have a disorder? Good point. I agree, these are not the same. We aren't all teetotalers.PrisonerB (talk) 11:58, 3 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I never said that I am a teetotaler nor that everyone should be. I am sorry to hear that you regularly abuse alcohol though I'm not sure how that's relevant. Your opinion here about whether these terms are synonymous is irrelevant. High-quality sources say they are (see below). Wikipedia reflect what high-quality sources say. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 21:35, 3 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree that these are NOT synonyms, and @TylerDurden8823: should NOT be making such changes. Use disorder is not the same thing as abuse, and we should strive to reflect what the sources themselves say. If the source says something is "________ abuse" we should use that phrasing, and if the source says something is "________ use disorder" we should use that phrasing. They are different things, and should not be used interchangeably. --Jayron32 12:36, 3 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Really? See the following quote from alcoholism: "Because there is disagreement on the definition of the word alcoholism, it is not a recognized diagnostic entity. Predominant diagnostic classifications are alcohol use disorder[2] (DSM-5)[4] or alcohol dependence (ICD-11); these are defined in their respective sources.[15]" The NIAAA also says you're wrong here with a direct quote: [86] "It encompasses the conditions that some people refer to as alcohol abuse, alcohol dependence, alcohol addiction, and the colloquial term, alcoholism." Merriam Webster agrees too, FYI [87] "NOTE: Alcohol use disorder ranges from mild to severe and is typically considered to encompass conditions also referred to as alcohol dependence, alcohol abuse, alcohol addiction, and alcoholism." TylerDurden8823 (talk) 21:29, 3 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I warned him about this previously (probably 2 years ago) and was basically given the impression I needed to piss off, I just hadn't gotten around to following up. But this is a very long time problem. It would take a lot of time to go through and fix everything he has done. But they aren't the same, and he has been extraordinarily disruptive with it, to the point it will take someone going through his edits to fix it. I can't see just letting this slide. Dennis Brown - 19:16, 3 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, because your warning and conduct were inappropriate and you didn't interact well and come across as disrespectful. I have not been disruptive about it and you seem to misunderstand the differences here. Please see the quotations from very strong sources below. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 21:33, 3 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
just looked it up, yikes: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:TylerDurden8823&diff=1018259691&oldid=1018215721 --this is a bigger problem than i'd originally thought --FMSky (talk) 20:19, 3 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, and your objections are all inappropriate. They are appropriate substitutions. It is the name for the disorder. As I have discussed in several places, it is backed up by numerous sources. I think you may need a hobby rather than wikistalking me. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 21:29, 3 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes great thats a name for the disorder. What does this have to do with people having abused alcohol on occasion? --FMSky (talk) 21:33, 3 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There are clearly defined criteria for what constitutes alcohol use disorder. A person can qualify even if it's periodic. So, you're admitting then that it's a name for the disorder and thus a synonym. Great, that's progress. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 21:37, 3 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
A name (not even the name, that would be "alcoholism") for the disorder yes, synonym to alcohol/substance abuse obviously not. --FMSky (talk) 21:43, 3 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Are you really going to try and debate what constitutes a synonym with a nonsensical semantics argument? Please see the dictionary's definition of a synonym here [88]. I do not see why you are clinging so desperately to unnecessary stigmatizing language when you have acknowledged on more than one occasion that alcohol use disorder is a synonym, even in this thread. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 21:48, 3 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
not a synonym. the end --FMSky (talk) 21:50, 3 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You are contradicting yourself and flying in the face of the dictionary and other strong sources, FYI. This now just seems like stubborn refusal because you don't like it. Seems hypocritical to me to cast aspersions of WP:IDONTLIKEIT when this is the display I'm seeing. How about you address the actual sources I have provided? You have now acknowledged that they are synonyms twice [89] [90] and then backpedaled [91] and contradicted yourself [92] both times.(talk) 21:54, 3 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Don't forget to focus on content. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 22:19, 3 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I haven't, but it doesn't prevent me from pointing out contradictions and a pattern of behavior directly aimed at me since they decided to open this can of worms back up and aren't leaving me alone.(talk) 22:22, 3 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Didn't someone called 'TylerBurden' just get ARBCOM banned? Is TylerDurden a second cousin or something? 🤔  Tewdar  21:34, 3 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have no clue. Unrelated. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 21:37, 3 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
My apologies then, just a coincidence.  Tewdar  21:38, 3 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Just to make it clear that there's no connection there, Tyler Durden is a character from the novel (and movie) Fight Club. Tyler Burden is just a play on the name Durden, but both are (presumably) named after that character, one just decided to make a play on words with it. There are at least 6 editors that contain TylerDurden or Tyler Durden at the beginning of the name (which is honestly way fewer than I expected), but it's a popular character in certain circles so it's very much just a coincidence that two different editors happen to have a similar name around that theme. - Aoidh (talk) 01:46, 4 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • In light of Tyler's comment about being a physician who has treated many people with this disorder, as well as his objection to the 'stigmatizing' nature of the term 'alcohol abuse', I suspect we might be in WP:RGW territory. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 22:02, 3 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Nonsense and I don't appreciate the focus on character. Please focus on the content. As I have said, I have yet to hear a compelling argument for the stigmatizing term nor seen it disproved that alcohol use disorder is a synonym. The facts remain what they are. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 22:12, 3 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Let me ask you this way: is it possible for a person without an alcohol use disorder to abuse alcohol? Dumuzid (talk) 22:15, 3 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I refer you back to the definitions provided. But yes, if it has been under a year since alcohol use disorder refers to a slightly more longstanding pattern of this kind of alcohol consumption. Nevertheless, based on how we use this term on Wikipedia and widely in other sources, they are largely considered synonymous (see the many sources I have provided). If someone abused alcohol and then stopped for a few months and never did it again, I suppose that would be the exception to the rule. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 22:22, 3 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The problem is that one is a disorder and the other an activity; I understand your argument here, but there is a sense in which they are synonymous (understanding "abuse" as a habit or ongoing activity) and one in which they are not (understanding "abuse" as an independent incident). By my lights, it is worth preserving that distinction for encyclopedic purposes. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 22:34, 3 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No, the disorder encompasses that. I still have yet to see you address the sources provided. Please do. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 22:38, 3 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
So, if I were to say "we have to stop alcohol abuse at fraternity parties," you would understand that I was making a mental health plea? Dumuzid (talk) 22:40, 3 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What is your point? TylerDurden8823 (talk) 22:42, 3 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
My point is that the phrase "alcohol abuse" can indeed be used as a substitute for "alcohol use disorder," but it can also be used to refer to discrete activities. In my "fraternity" example above, I would understand the phrase to refer to overconsumption at said parties without reference to the mental state of those involved. Dumuzid (talk) 22:44, 3 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Please read the comments above carefully. I didn't say that they can't though others have and that's the point. Even though I would understand what you're saying in the sentence above, it would be more correct to say binge drinking or high-risk alcohol use. Again, this really seems like splitting hairs. Out of the articles I edited, I have a feeling that examples that your specific example would apply to here, if any, would likely be in a very small minority at best. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 22:51, 3 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Taking a quick gander, the only recent example I find is Stevie Ray Vaughn's father, and while I certainly understand your point, for me, anyway, I would slightly prefer the "abuse" language. It strikes me as something closer to an objective, observable fact. "Alcohol use disorder" strikes me as more like a diagnosis from afar, even if it is one that makes a great deal of sense. In everyday life and common parlance, I think you are right, but on Wikipedia where I believe in epistemic humility, it strikes me as just a bit too far. It's like some (admittedly obvious) WP:OR. I'll be the first to say that medicine is not my forte, but I think this is an instance where we need to hew closely to the sources. Reasonable minds may differ, of course. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 23:09, 3 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • This is a common misunderstanding I see, even sometimes among experienced editors, where someone thinks that some sources equating two things in the general case mean that we can do so in each specific case. This may be true for terms that are strictly synonymous. Like if RS agree that a wrench and a spanner are the same thing, and one source says "The Queen always carries a spanner", it might be acceptable to state that the Queen always carries a wrench. But for academic terms like these, not defined the same way by everyone, with meanings that have evolved over time, that doesn't work. If you're going to say someone has alcohol use disorder, you need a citation saying that they, specifically, do. Anything less is WP:SYNTH. If Tyler can't see that, then I'm inclined to support a TBAN. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 22:32, 3 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I disagree that you have to have the source use that exact terminology when that is the name for the disorder. Please address the specific sources specifically saying that these are direct synonyms and the massive contradiction that we use the term "use disorder" for every other substance other than alcohol (despite many sources in the laypress continuing to use archaic stigmatizing terms-it's a mixed world out there and addiction medicine remains very misunderstood). We have used plenty of sources that probably say "opioid abuse" or abused opioids yet say they have an opioid use disorder. Your internal logic here has some major holes in it. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 22:35, 3 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    We have used plenty of sources that probably say "opioid abuse" or abused opioids yet say they have an opioid use disorder. That's not acceptable either. Neither is saying that someone has major depressive disorder based on sources saying they're depressed, antisocial personality disorder based on sources saying they're a sociopath, etc. If you don't understand that, I worry that a TBAN from alcohol might not go far enough. And it's not my "internal logic". It's the logic of this community in creating SYNTH. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 22:51, 3 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I 100% disagree with your premise and it falls afoul of the reductio ad absurdum logical fallacy. I'll tell you what though-I think I've had enough of the malignant policies and people on Wikipedia. I think I'll just stop editing altogether. You may do what you wish. You'll continue to lose veteran editors if you keep this up. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 22:55, 3 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Tamzin, to be honest I would go a step further to say that Wikipedia's psychology articles have an especially hard time distinguishing psychopathy/sociopathy from antisocial personality disorder and narcissistic personality disorder. I agree it's not acceptable, and this is only made harder by the overlap between criminal psychology and clinical psychology and their real-world disagreements that are in my experience difficult to represent with due weight in-article. Darcyisverycute (talk) 08:59, 6 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Not commenting on this discussion but clerically noting that I have fixed the links in the original message (they were broken raw links as the last parenthesis was being treated as part of the link) and made them wikilinks to the intended destinations. --TheSandDoctor Talk 23:13, 3 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I will point out that academically speaking the words are not synonymous. According to [93], Alcohol misuse is a broad term that incorporates a spectrum of severity, ranging from hazardous use that exceeds guideline limits to misuse severe enough to meet criteria for an alcohol use disorder (AUD) ie. they are not synonymous, and do not even overlap as far as defitions go since alcohol abuse/misuse refers to subclinical AUD. In the interest of a less biased term, I would suggest "alcohol misuse" and "alcohol abuse" are synonyms, and I think the first is less stigmatising (this is just my opinion though - I don't know what other people think). AFIAK, the term "alcohol abuse" has fallen out in academia in preference for "alcohol misuse", and I believe it is probably to try and dodge the stigma, although I haven't seen any evidence it's actually achieved this. Thanks Darcyisverycute (talk) 08:40, 6 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I have not done an exhaustive check, just a dozen or so recent edits from TylerDurden8823's recent contributions. I do not see a mass of inappropriate changes. Most of the changes I looked at appeared reasonable, if not necessarily necessary, and were associated with a large number of minor copy edit improvements during the same edits. This does not tick the boxes of "mass edits" for me, considering that there were other edits interspersed. Also, most of the reversions also removed all the improvements as collateral damage. I would say the reversions I looked at did more harm than good. I do not know how many of the other people commenting here have inspected the actual changes under dispute, or how many they have checked, or how many of the cases of changing alcohol abuse or alcoholism to alcohol use disorder were actually inappropriate, taking into consideration that I also think that there is a difference between alcohol abuse as an activity and alcohol use disorder as a medical condition and alcoholism as a poorly defined non-medical term. To those of you who have not personally checked, I suggest that you do so. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 12:58, 6 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Topic ban proposals [edit]

I'm proposing a topic ban from all topics regarding alcohol, broadly construed. Dennis Brown - 20:37, 3 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Support As proposer. This is a long time problem that won't get fixed any other way. Dennis Brown - 20:37, 3 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That's way overkill and not appropriate. The edits I have made are completely appropriate and have not introduced factual errors. I wholly disagree with your assessment and sense a clear ax to grind. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 21:29, 3 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That you can't understand the problem is why a topic ban is necessary. Dennis Brown - 01:08, 4 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support for obvious reason. Or just never making that edit again, but that would be hard to monitor --FMSky (talk) 21:51, 3 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
For anyone reviewing this, I again refer you to the aforementioned sources showing that Dennis, Prisoner, and FMSky are wrong. Here are just a few more showing that they are, in fact, synonyms by definition: [94], [95], [96] (suggesting these terms can be used interchangeably from a very strong source, NIDA), [97], [98] (analogous to how we use opioid use disorder, not "opioid abuse"-we literally do this for basically every other substance use disorder and appropriately so).
While I haven't thoroughly analyzed all of those sources, I wouldn't put too much stock in the Dictionary.com definition. While it says that the disorder is 'characterized by alcohol abuse or or dependence', I do not interpret that to mean that all forms of alcohol abuse are necessarily connected to the disorder. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 22:23, 3 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That's up to you but that's the weakest of the sources provided. Merriam Webster is a much stronger source and says the same as do sources like the NIAAA. Your argument sounds like a pedantic one that misses the intention behind the definition you're quoting. Cleveland Clinic disagrees with you [99] as does UPenn [100]. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 22:26, 3 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm making an honest effort to help sort out this dispute, and it's requiring a little bit of extra effort to fully understand what these terms mean and whether they can be used interchangeably. You may deal with these issues on a regular basis, but the rest of us don't. If you could actually answer Dumuzid's question, that would help all of us to better understand your point of view. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 22:33, 3 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Based on how you originally entered the discussion, I did not get that impression since it felt like you immediately started commenting on character. If that's the impression you want others to have, then perhaps consider a different approach next time. I did answer Dumuzid's question. If you could read the sources I have provided (most of them are not that long) before commenting further and seeing that there are numerous examples that are directly saying that they're synonymous, that would be great. That would be more helpful to truly trying to sort out the issue. Thanks. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 22:37, 3 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Perhaps I will peruse the sources when I return to Wikipedia later this evening. Or perhaps not. Talking down to me is not the best way to get me to do extra reading, and I think you'll find most other people here are similarly unimpressed. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 22:49, 3 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Talking down to you? I think you need to re-read your initial comment and really decide who spoke down to whom here. I just don't buy this feigned I just wanted to help innocent comment after opening with a comment on me. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 22:56, 3 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support topic ban from psychiatric disorders. The discussion above does not leave me with faith that Tyler is able to edit in line with out policies and guidelines in this topic area. I actually don't know if a topic ban from alcohol in particular is necessary, if this topic ban is enacted; color me neutral. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 23:09, 3 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support TBAN on alcohol, broadly construed - Conflating alcohol abuse with alcohol use disorder is problematic WP:SYNTH. It's worsened by the fact that such conflation could lead to something like a BLP being described as having a mental disorder (alcohol use disorder) when the really don't have it. It also appears as though Tyler is not willing to acknowledge he is wrong or even agree to stop doing this, which is WP:IDHT. Iamreallygoodatcheckerst@lk 23:53, 3 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support topic ban on alcohol, broadly construed We do not need tenacious axe grinders misbehaving for years in a certain topic area. If the disruption spreads elsewhere, I will support a sitewide block. Cullen328 (talk) 01:35, 4 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support TBAN on alcohol and drug use issues, broadly construed. I would expand the TBAN beyond the OP. Tyler hasn't limited this to alcohol, this is representative, not exhaustive, and if we narrow this TBAN to alcohol, it will continue for other issues as well. As a side note, they have taken their ball and gone home, though I think the TBAN discussion should continue since they could return at any time. --Jayron32 01:38, 4 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support topic ban on alcohol, broadly construed - I have no opinion about a topic ban on the broader drug issue or psychiatric disorders (though the above comments from Durden are not reassuring that there won't be an AN/I discussion later about these things in a broader sense) but what is well demonstrated is that there is an ongoing issue with alcohol that needs to be addressed, and a topic ban is the most narrow solution which will solve that without having to resort to flat out blocks or bans. - Aoidh (talk) 01:54, 4 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support topic ban from psychiatric disorders even if it will be moot as long as Tyler stays retired, which is certainly his prerogative. It's a shame to see a veteran editor leave on such terms, but nobody forced him to insist that everyone else was wrong. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 02:31, 4 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Well ... I'm not supporting because there's plenty of pile on without me, but if I had a dollar for everyone at ANI who slaps "RETIRED" on his or her user page in the wake of a filing not going their way (most of whom slink back after a few days or weeks), I could go to the corner pub and get thoroughly hammered. Ravenswing 14:35, 4 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Striking my support upon further consideration. The underlying issues are clear as mud to me, and in retrospect I probably shouldn't have gotten involved in this discussion. I don't want to see an editor get unjustifiably sanctioned (retired or otherwise). I think this thread might have taken a very different direction if Tyler hadn't been so doggedly combative, but that's not a sufficient reason to topic ban him. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 21:48, 8 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support because of the continuing problems.PrisonerB (talk) 10:15, 4 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support topic ban from medicals as a whole. There is clear evidence of disruption more than just alcohol. Georgethedragonslayer (talk) 15:56, 5 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I feel like this whole discussion is overkill. We're dealing with a situation in which terms have multiple meanings; also, we're frequently dealing with lower-quality sources (e.g., journalists who toss in whichever term they're familiar with, or whichever term a family member used, without verifying that this is, in fact, the completely and precisely correct term). And since some editors believe that term X means whatever Miss Snodgrass told them, and some editors believe, as an article of faith, that we should blindly follow the sources right off a cliff even if we know the source is wrong (or at least not so precise that we should rely on it for fine distinctions between closely related, overlapping, and sometimes contested terminology), and yet other editors believe that term Y is highly preferable because some other sources say to normally prefer Y over X, we are... going to topic ban someone who turned several highly viewed medical articles, including one on a serious and common psychiatric condition, into Wikipedia:Good articles?
    This might not be a proportionate response to a reasonable difference of opinion.
    In case folks haven't reviewed the edits in question, let me step you through two:
    The disputed change in MicroRNA is about whether we should say "Alcoholism" to "Alcohol use disorder". The cited source mentions:
    • "alcoholism" four times (not counting two mentions of the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism; counting one mention of specially bred animals for lab testing)
    • "chronic alcohol abuse" five times
    • "long-term alcohol abuse" once
    • "alcohol abuse" once (again, not counting NIAAA's name)
    If the goal were to stick strictly to the sources, then chronic alcohol abuse is the winner. That's a red link. What's the nearest term? Well, reasonable people could disagree, but alcohol use disorder sounds like a plausible option to me. AIUI everyone who "abuses" "alcohol" "chronically" actually does have AUD.
    This disputed change took a sentence that's probably got a Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing problem, and changed the plain-text words "teen drug and alcohol abuse" to a link to the nearest relevant article, "teen substance use disorder". Is this perfect? Maybe not. Is the cited source (in which the author says things like "I guess what they say is true: Everything is bigger in Texas, including their ignorance on the effects of such laws") perfect? Definitely not. Is there a material gap between "teen drug and alcohol abuse" and "teen substance use disorder"? Reasonable people could disagree, but the statement is going to be factually true (i.e., in the real world) regardless of whether you link to Substance abuse or Substance use disorder, and the reader's IMO best served by having a link to one of those pages, instead of having no links, which is what the reversion created. (Also, Wikipedia is best if we could please avoid copyright problems, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing, and reverting back to the prior too-close-for-comfort version is Not Actually Helping on that score. I'm going to assume here that the reverter didn't bother to look at the source, because the alternative is worse [i.e., that the reverter either doesn't understand our copyvio standards or doesn't mind violating them].)
    I think this dispute might have reached a productive resolution if the editors involved had tried contacting editors who know something about these subjects (e.g., Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine) before trying to process this as an alleged rule-breaking incident. I wonder whether that might still be possible. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:24, 6 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    This is a reasonable suggestion. · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 13:00, 6 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Me too. I'm also interested in precisely what the scale of this mass editing is. The editor could have made three edits or three thousand from the evidence provided. I'm also very interested if there has a detailed discussion of the distinction between the terms... and how much the editor was involved in this discussion. I'm aware that content discussion can take a long time, and I'm not sure this is the correct forum, but it does rather feel like people have come to a conclusion here without much reference discussion of wht is right and wrong. It also strikes me that the terms "use" and "abuse" are very likely to be used within the literature for "political" purposes, so it's unlikely to be an open and shut case. Darcyiscute's source above seems like a good source on this [101], it has a summary of the terms in Table1... which does make things a little open and shut, but I wonder if this is simplification or editorializing on the part of the author. Talpedia (talk) 14:13, 6 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That is a good point about to what extent that source editorializes the terms. So I've had a closer look at the 2016 review, which says which says: This table is adapted with permission from [...] and uses terminology from the DSM-IV for alcohol abuse and alcohol dependence, and from the DSM5 for [alcohol use disorder]. The source table was abbreviated and updated to reflect the DSM-5 terminology for this report in collaboration with Dr. Jonas. If this is a faithfully reproduced table, then I have no reason to believe the review editorialized the definitions. The [...] is referring to [102], which is a standards recommendation by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, so for at least the US I believe this is a secondary source faithfully reproducing these 2013 standards and representing academic consensus on definitions, which in turn were largely based on the DSM-5 and ICD-10 at the time.
They mention a more detailed report of their methods is described at [103], which says: The operational definition of drinking limit guidelines varied across studies. Studies typically defined limits by a weekly total of standard drinks (eg, <20). (More detail on page 33).
There are a few nontrivial questions which I think would be best established at RfC (I do not think ANI is the right venue for this):
1. What term should articles use for referring to "consuming excessive alcohol"? Can editors use the USPSTF guidelines to determine if alcohol consumption is excessive?
2. (using placeholder "alcohol misuse") Does not following a USPSTF guideline constitute alcohol misuse? Is it original research for us to say x person has alcohol misuse based on this logic if it's not stated in a reliable source?
3. Is it libelous to claim on a BLP article that a person has "alcohol misuse" if this is not directly stated by reliable sources? (I haven't looked at all the editors' changes, but I think this is relevant)
Thanks Darcyisverycute (talk) 16:07, 6 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In a way quoting the DSM makes me *less* sure about the terminology - since the DSM will be prescriptive rather than descriptive of how researchers talk... but I agree let's chase this up somewhere else if we are going to dig into it.
On 2. I almost feel as if alcohol misuse has a distinct meaning with lower standards of evidence in biographies. If a lot of newspapers talk about alcohol misuse then perhaps we should use the "lay" meaning and not try to be specific. To be clearer we would need to have access to someone's medical records!
On 3. I suspect that if someone is shown to be repeatedly drinking to excess with negative results in reliable sources it would be reasonable to describe them as "misusing alcohol". On the other hand saying that someone has "alcohol use disorder" may well be libelous (depending on context) because it's more specific and it sort of implies that a doctor has agreed to this (and so, presumably, this information is more reliable). Talpedia (talk) 18:21, 6 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I am tempted to add to this conversation, but I think we need to have the conversation elsewhere. I suspect that we need a conversation on stigmatizing language in general plus a separate one for alcohol specifically. Additionally, some of the disputed articles might need individual discussions.
Talpedia, I find 95 instances of FMSKy reverting TylerDurden's edits, so presumably, if we assume that 100% of those involved these terms, that means the "mass edits" is on the order of 100 edits. (They aren't all about alcohol; I don't see those terms in either this or this, both in the same article [the only one I checked], and the word alcohol doesn't appear on the page. But, still, as a rough approximation, it's probably closer to 100 than to 10 or to 1,000.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:25, 6 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose topic ban per WhatamIdoing. Tyler has helped get articles to Good Article status. The changes Tyler has been making seem reasonable and the problem seems to surround nuanced disagreements between terminology e.g., alcoholism vs. alcohol use disorder, misuse vs. abuse. Such disagreements exist in the academic literature, professional bodies and treatment/recovery groups/organisations. This is a pure content dispute and this specific content dispute has arisen before on Wikipedia over the years. It is inappropriate to topic ban a user to settle a content dispute when there is no convincing behavioural issues.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 15:40, 7 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Is there an official process for suspending or otherwise giving up on this discussion, at least until the content question can be discussed at other/suitable pages? I'm sure that nobody here wants to issue a topic ban when there's any significant chance that subsequent RFCs would prove the disputed edits correct, and it would be preferable to have this editor free to join in the content discussions (if he's willing, which is uncertain). WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:10, 7 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Why would that be needed? We currently have over 10 people in favor of a topic ban and only one against. Case seems pretty clear to me --FMSky (talk) 05:22, 8 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Btw here again the source that the terms are not synonyms https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4837467/ --FMSky (talk) 05:27, 8 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I count 3 and half (the half being me). I think it's still unclear what the best term is and it may well vary from a case to case basis. But you are correct, a lot of people seem to be in favor of topic ban. There are clear advantages of resolving content disputes through source analysis rather than topic bans in terms of compliance, personal growth, procedural fairness, article quality, and drama reduction and editor retention. There are however time costs and some editors may simply ignore any evidence given. Talpedia (talk) 15:58, 8 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@FMSky, let's look at your source. It's got WP:MEDDATE problems and it's about something else, but you like it, so let's look at it. Specifically, let's look at the relevant footnotes in the source you recommended. The footnote for "AUD§" says "DSM-5 criteria. Not all exact criteria are listed. This new category integrates the 2 DSM-IV disorders “alcohol abuse” and “alcohol dependence” into a single disorder for DSM-5."
That means that – according to your own recommended source – Tyler was absolutely factually correct to say that "alcohol abuse" should (sometimes) be called "alcohol use disorder". Specifically, your own recommended source directly says that "alcohol abuse" is an older concept that has been replaced by "alcohol use disorder". In other words, this whole kerfuffle is based on you being concerned about someone replacing a much older (DSM-IV from 1994) term with a newer, broader category that – again, according to your own recommended source – includes (but is not limited to) the older, narrower diagnosis. Everybody who had a diagnosis of "alcohol abuse" or "alcohol dependence" in 1994 got a (single) new label called "alcohol use disorder" when DSM-V came out in 2013.
I realize that by the time people have spent a week here, it's hard to detach and look at disputes from fresh eyes. It's probably hardest for people who have been involved in the content dispute, instead of those who saw the dispute for the first time here. But I am looking at what @Lepricavark wrote ("nobody forced him to insist that everyone else was wrong") and thinking that it might be a very bad idea to proceed from the POV that not only Tyler but also your own recommended source are wrong about the facts, and that only the non-medical editors above are right.
I think the better choice here is to get this content dispute off of ANI and hand the question over to Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine. Once the content dispute has been sorted out, if it turns out that editors conclude that your recommended source is wrong, then it's easy enough to come back here and ask for a ban proposal to be revived. But if it turns out that your recommended source is correct, then I hope you can agree that it would be stupid for the English Wikipedia to ban an editor for the crime of "insisting that everyone else was wrong" if "everyone" (I think I could four editors in that category, none of them with much experience in medical subjects?) turned out to actually be wrong. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:46, 8 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose. I saw this the other day and my heart sank. Looking again, I am encouraged that at least now there has been some sensible analysis and commentary. I too am concerned that some longstanding editors/admins perpetuate a myth that our articles are required to use the terminology of our sources (which to begin with, supposes our sources are even consistent on this, something WAID's analysis demonstrates they are not). It is a really dangerous myth that gets wheeled out typically to support reverting someone trying to improve word-choices on Wikipedia in a way an editor disagrees with. It is patently false to anyone who has paraphrased a source, or tried to make a difficult topic accessible to and engaging for general audience, or done any significant amount of copy editing and prose polishing.
AN/I is not the place to have a discussion about what terminology is preferable, interchangeable, deprecated, or which words to use in which cases but not others. Nor is it appropriate for editors to make a 100 reverts and then google some sources to try to justify why they were right and an actual subject expert was wrong. As Literaturegeek and Talpedia's comments indicate, it is not clear what terminology our articles should use, and I agree with others that there is need for a discussion on this topic in a venue where the incentive is to find how best to improve our articles, and not (for crying out loud, really) for folk to start suggesting site bans. -- Colin°Talk 19:57, 8 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Is it an accepted community or administrative standard to topic ban for a content dispute without even allowing for a content RfC or discussion at the relevant WP Med project? To me this topic ban proposal is premature and ill thought out. For all we know an RfC might side for TylerDurden (or against, or neutral).--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 21:33, 8 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Certainly there does not seem to be any community consensus that all/most of the edits made by Tyler were bad, and my impression so far is they were mass reverted solely on a "I don't like it / I didn't understand it" basis. Scrabbling around for sources to justify that mass revert looks, em, bad, especially when an offered source was so thoroughly dismantled by WAID as not saying what it was claimed to say. Even if an RFC or big discussion concluded in a way that justified some/most/all being reverted, I doesn't follow that Tyler should be topic banned (though that might be appropriate if he didn't accept the consensus and persisted afterwards). This looks much like garden variety situation where two editors disagreed on content and got hot headed about it, one of them took the other to AN/I to settle their content dispute through sanctions and mass reverts. The result, currently, is Tyler is retired, an editor who was clearly capable of producing quality medical articles.
I am really concerned that a topic ban was proposed to resolve a dispute that was far far from clear and straightforward, which quickly escalated in scope to "all of medicine" by people claiming "evidence" of wider problems (evidence that appears AFAICS to be entirely lacking wrt diffs, etc), and even a threat of a site ban. If I were an admin, I'd be recommending a few people take AN/I off their watchlists till the summer is over and they cool down. -- Colin°Talk 07:12, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:Ο Ροζ Πάνθηρας, single-purpose account on a revert spree[edit]

Hello, the single-purpose account account Ο Ροζ Πάνθηρας (talk · contribs), which began editing one week ago, began making non-content edits to stable articles and initiating discussions on a couple others seeking input for some changes. The user has changed course in past hours. After naming me "officially ignored", the user made multiple reverts at Doiran Lake, Geography of North Macedonia, and Western Macedonia. The latter article is not one which this user had edited previously, so it seems the user may be beginning to target my edits in general. Also regarding that edit, I was simply completing a reversion of the page to a stable version. In edit summaries, the user has told me twice to "find another hobby". I have warned the user twice on the user's talk page ([104] [105]), but was reverted each time. The user then copy-pasted the exact wording of my warnings to my own talkpage.

WP:MOSMAC is the relevant policy in this area. The user is seeking to change stable articles to include the "North Macedonian" adjectival form. In some instances the user sought input on talkpages, while in others the user just made the edits. On Geography of North Macedonia, for instance, I accepted most of the changes in good faith but applied a neutral wording adjustment. Now, it seems the user has devolved into revert warring, with which I won't engage.

Revert diffs:

Thanks. --Local hero talk 22:50, 3 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Local hero If someone looks at the history of your edits will notice that you always target all users who implement WP:MOSMAC. Here you try to pretend that you protect stable versions of wikipedia but you don't say the truth which is written on the talk pages Talk:Demographics_of_North_Macedonia and Talk:Doiran_Lake. Every sentence you write is against the decisions of this community, your only goal is to avoid using North Macedonian. If you look at all my edits, they don't add North Macedonian, they improve the text that nobody tried to improve. You are the one who reverted only those edits that add North Macedonian although I have already explained you the reason in Talk:Doiran_Lake. Everybody can read the truth there. You explicitly stated that you try to avoid using North Macedonian, which is against the decisions of our community. It's clear that the decisions of our community are not implemented after 3 years because of some people like you who block any change that adds the new name of the country. If this is the goal of wikipedia, then I want to know that by the other users here. Your personal goal is very clear to everyone.
WP:MOSMAC clearly states:
However, in line with the reliable sources, adjectives may still be used when referring to such institutions in generic terms (e.g. the Greek and North Macedonian prime ministers), especially where the possessive form would be grammatically cumbersome or unnatural. While reliable sources continue to use both plain "Macedonian" and "North Macedonian" in such contexts, the majority opinion in the RfC favored the fuller form, "North Macedonian".
Moreover, WP:MOSMAC says: In the absence of a clearer consensus on which of the two to prefer, it is recommended to use the longer form' where ambiguity might be an issue (especially on first introducing the topic).
I showed you those sentences multiple times under Talk:Doiran_Lake, and you always run out of arguments and you re-wrote the sentence in any possible way with one goal, TO AVOID NORTH MACEDONIAN, and you explicitly admitted, although WP:MOSMAC says we should use the full from North Macedonian in cases of ambiguity. WP:MOSMAC doesn't say that we should rewrite the sentence in any possible way to avoid using North Macedonian which is your own interpretation.
Local hero everybody here knows the truth. Jingiby is another victim of your special way of acting about the same issue Talk:Geography_of_North_Macedonia.
Do you feel like the owner of those pages? You always talk about consensus, but that's why we have WP:MOSMAC, and you constantly ignore it. Ο Ροζ Πάνθηρας
@Ο Ροζ Πάνθηρας: As an aside, your signature doesn't link to your user page, talk page or contributions. For the sake of easy communication, could I politely ask you to add such a link to your custom signature? Zudo (talkcontribs) 08:57, 4 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
They were informed but just deleted the statement without changing the signature. They’ve been informed again on their talk page by a third user. So hopefully they change it. Canterbury Tail talk 11:45, 4 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Zudo, Canterbury Tail I am really sorry for that. I am new here and didn't understand your message. Hopefully, my signature is correct now. Ο Ροζ Πάνθηρας(talk)
The editor Ο Ροζ Πάνθηρας (talk · contribs) has already been alerted to the ARBEE sanctions but has removed the notice. I hope that we don't see an outbreak of edit warring at Geography of North Macedonia. It raises concerns when a brand new editor starts modifying terms about nationality that have been carefully negotiated in the past. Since the editor already knows about WP:MOSMAC I hope they are willing to say if they have had a previous Wikipedia account. EdJohnston (talk) 15:28, 5 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes I had one in the Greek wikipedia a few years ago, but I am active the last five years without an account in the english wikipedia. Indeed I have carefully studied WP:MOSMAC, and it's really sad that is completely ignored from editors.
EdJohnston Please check all my edits and you will see that they are in line with WP:MOSMAC. The edit war with Local hero was caused because s/he explicitly admitted that s/he doesn't want to implement the decisions of WP:MOSMAC as you can confirm https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Doiran_Lake&diff=1102194512&oldid=1102192699.
For example, in the case of Doiran Lake, the sentence uses Macedonian to refer to a side of the lake, but every side of the lake is Macedonian, because the lake lies in Macedonia (region), and the term Macedonian is used with a different meaning (than that of North Macedonian) in two other places of the same page. So I tried to explain to Local hero in any possible way that the sentence is completely ambiguous, and the adjective North Macedonian is suitable to resolve the ambiguity according to WP:MOSMAC that clearly handles this case with the following:
In all other contexts, both "North Macedonian" and "Macedonian" may be used on Wikipedia in reference to the country (e.g. a North Macedonian company, or the Macedonian economy). In the absence of a clearer consensus on which of the two to prefer, it is recommended to use the longer form where ambiguity might be an issue (especially on first introducing the topic).
The answer of Local hero was that s/he added "Macedonian (western)" to solve the ambiguity, since he tried to avoid using "North Macedonian" which is the decision reported in WP:MOSMAC.
Everything is very clear here. Local hero explicitly states that s/he doesn't care about the decisions of this community and ignores WP:MOSMAC. How do we handle such a behaviour? If we need the permission of Local hero for every single change on a page that is clearly handled my WP:MOSMAC, my question is why do we have WP:MOSMAC? Ο Ροζ Πάνθηρας(talk)
Do you equally oppose edits that remove all mentions "Macedonian" for no good reason, such as this one? You claim to be such a staunch defender of MOSMAC so I presume you would. Strange that this single-purpose account began editing around the same time as you and exclusively focuses on erasing "Macedonian" where it's perfectly fine or implementing "North Macedonian" where it isn't needed. --Local hero talk 16:41, 6 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes I will equally treat any page that violates WP:MOSMAC. All my edits confirm that and all the discussions between the two of us are supported by arguments. How does the edit you are worried about violates WP:MOSMAC? I don't see North Macedonian used anywhere on this page, and I see real improvements made by the user. It would be great if you can show me at least one edit of yourself the last three years that adds "North Macedonian" in any wikipedia page to implement WP:MOSMAC. It would be great to know, in your opinion, in which cases "North Macedonian" should be clearly added based on WP:MOSMAC. I want to have some concrete examples. Please. Ο Ροζ Πάνθηρας(talk) — Preceding undated comment added 20:41, 6 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The edit I pointed out needlessly eliminates "Macedonian", while you accuse me of needlessly avoiding "North Macedonian". Yet, you only see it as an issue when "North Macedonian" is avoided but not when "Macedonian" is avoided. I do not use "North Macedonian", as MOSMAC generally prefers "Macedonian" or other formulations. In cases of ambiguity, I use neutral formulations. --Local hero talk 14:21, 8 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Date-changing vandal from Brazil[edit]

Someone in Brazil persistently vandalizes music articles by changing to wrong dates. Here's the latest example. The problem is larger than putting a few articles into protection; I'm looking for any ideas regarding how to prevent this person's disruption. Very wide IP6 range. A list of involved IPs is below. Binksternet (talk) 12:56, 4 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Involved IPs
Binksternet, do you think it's contained to 2804:* and 187.* and how often do they vandalize daily or monthly..? -- GreenC 04:25, 5 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The IP4 range Special:Contributions/187.41.80.0/20 made 17 edits in the last 2.5 years, every one of which is vandalism. The edits are clustered a few at a time. Regarding the IP6 range, I don't really know how to classify it. The edits are very widely spaced out, unless I'm missing some of them. Binksternet (talk) 05:05, 5 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Does Special:Contributions/2804:D49:2200:0:0:0:0:0/40 look good? -- Malcolmxl5 (talk) 15:42, 5 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, blocking that IP range would be ideal. Binksternet (talk) 02:17, 8 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
O.K. Binksternet. This meddling with dates and numbers has been happening on and off since May 2020. There seems very little collateral damage so I’ve blocked for one year. The CIDR for this ISP is very wide so it’s possible they'll pop up somewhere else, we'll have to see. -- Malcolmxl5 (talk) 09:28, 8 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Disruptive editing from user:CABF45[edit]

Reported user is actively disrupting the Ice cream article trying to push Chinese contribution to the history of that food. They refuse to achieve consensus on the talk.

  • Reported user adds content with unreliable sources
  • reported user is reverted for copy vio by another user
  • Reported user begins with an aggressive tone a discussion on the talk page of the user who reverted them and threatened to add back the content [106] while being said that this content is not improving the article [107].
  • Other users said that the content added by the reported user is not relevant for the article [108]
  • Reported user seems unable to find out if a source has expertise for a topic or not and refuses to listen when other users try to inform them about that (several times) [109], [110], [111], [112], [113]
  • Reported user added again some content while claiming that the source for their edit is a food historian, i reverted them with an explanation on why their source isn't reliable and left a message on the talk about that and finally warned the user, their reaction was to ignore WP:BRD and to revert my edit and post two warnings on my talk [114], [115].

All in all, when i look at CABF45's contributions, i don't see any will of improving the article and, more generally, the project.---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 13:07, 5 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Since when is the BBC News an "unreliable source"? After clarifying that this was the children site of BBC News I didn't add back the content.
  • I was accused of copyright violation. Please check the link and the edit summary and make up your mind whether it was warranted or not. Also reverting editor calls me a halfwit while trying to discuss. I "threatened to add back the content" after further tweaking it which is what we do when accused with CopyVio.
  • I added ABC-CLIO and Royal Society of Chemistry sources, which weren't good enough, because they were not so-called "food historians".
  • Now I'm adding a historian (published by John Wiley & Sons) who wrote seventeen(!) books on history, cuisine and the French regional culture, but he reverts it again, because Maguelonne Toussaint-Samat is still not food historian enough.
  • Several reliable and relevant references claim a Chinese origin of ice cream, but User:Wikaviani only accepts the Iranian origin of it.
  • Do we really want to be in disagreement with Encyclopædia Britannica as they too seem to favor the Chinese origin of ice cream.
  • However, User:Wikaviani accepts a book published by none other than RW Press only because it supports the "Iranian origin" narrative.
CABF45 (talk) 13:19, 5 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Britannica does not claim a "Chinese origin" of ice cream, it only says that iced desserts were introduced to Europe from the east. Besides, it has been said unreliable as a source by an admin, Doug Weller. Last but not least, as explained to you many times, Wikipedia works with consensus and i don't see any for your edits.---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 13:26, 5 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Britannica says:

Iced desserts were introduced into Europe from the East. Marco Polo brought back descriptions of fruit ices from his travels in China.

That's fair enough for me: Would you keep it or would you disruptively remove it?
When did Doug Weller say that Britannica is unreliable? CABF45 (talk) 13:32, 5 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I rest my case, i leave it to the admins. Best.~~ ---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 13:36, 5 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Just to answer to your above comments, firstly, "when did Doug Weller say that Britannica is unreliable ?", here.
"However, User:Wikaviani accepts a book published by none other than RW Press only because it supports the "Iranian origin" narrative." odd how you seem to ignore the other source written by a food historian, Gil Marks and also this edit of mines where i say that i don't support any sharp claim like X or Y invented ice cream ... I usually assume good faith, but i confess that in your case, it doesn't seem obvious to me.---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 00:16, 6 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
So Doug Weller treated Britannica as an unreliable source in 2017. First, how should I know that? Second, he still thinks that way and all of Wikipedia should throw out Britannica from now on?
(On the Gil Marks source see more below.) CABF45 (talk) 01:49, 6 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Many articles from Britannica are written by the editors of Britannica (like the one you cited by the way), this makes that encyclopedia unreliable, some articles are written by expert sources, they are generally considered reliable, but this is not our point here, this report is about your disruptive editing and inability to find out if a source is reliable or not along with POV pushing and refusal to listen what other editors tell you. Just one example, i said i disagree with your last edit at Ice cream and so did Spudlace below, if you were here to build an encyclopedia, you would have self reverted and tried to achieve consensus on the article's talk page.---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 02:09, 6 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I engaged in discussion on the talk page throughout the process even if you're trying to give the impression that I didn't.
You only accept sources that support the Iranian origin of ice cream. Remember when Spudlace tried to remove the history section and export it into frozen desserts, you simply reverted him (without seeking concensus). CABF45 (talk) 02:23, 6 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I reverted Spudlace and i stand for that by WP:ONUS, the onus is on the editor who makes new edits to achieve consensus (in other words, Spudlace) and i did so because they did a terrible job, leaving the section without historical informations and with many cites errors, i told them that and i feel like they got me, but this report is not about Spudlace, it's about you.---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 02:53, 6 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And another editor also had problems with the history section, there's still Template:Self-contradictory placed on the history section for a reason. So "concensus" seems more and more like the will of User:Wikaviani. CABF45 (talk) 03:01, 6 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The template has nothing to do with my edits or Spudlace's edits, Andy explained the reason for it on the article's talk page, your comment sounds like a nonsense. Also, that editor had a clash with you and your edits, you seem to ignore that, once more.---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 03:12, 6 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I do agree with Andy on the usage of the Template:Self-contradictory at the history section even if we had an unrelated "clash". I don't know what you consider nonsense, just read Andy's explanation of why he thinks much of the history section should be redone.
Again: the present "concensus" version means the will of User:Wikaviani, neither AndytheGrump nor Spudlace wanted to keep it as it is. CABF45 (talk) 04:04, 6 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

When User:Wikaviani is warned (and again) that the Gil Marks source he pushes is not exactly relevant, he simply ignores it and forces it into the article anyway.
He also tries to create above the impression that I didn't listen to the discussion and just went on editing. I abandoned several above mentioned references even when I considered them reliable and relevant.
User:Spudlace effectively begged User:Wikaviani to stop guarding this article. CABF45 (talk) 14:08, 5 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've had disagreements with User:Wikaviani on this article but not pertaining to this new dispute. I did mention on the talk page that I think some of these sources pass reliability, but I don't support inclusion of CABF45's contested edit, as it is currently written. CABF45 has chosen to ignore my input, which I don't take personally. From what I can see, the content about China is still in article. So far, I think all the editors are sincere by trying to improve the article. Spudlace (talk) 14:59, 5 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment : at the end of the day, Spudlace recognised the relevance of the source and my edits [116].---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 14:26, 5 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dear Spudlace and Wikaviani, as to the solution of the content dispute, could you live with this proposal per WP:Balance:

Multiple sources claim the ice cream is of Chinese origin, while multiple other references suggest an Iranian origin.

Adding references respectively, and done. CABF45 (talk) 02:41, 6 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No, because ice cream is not either Chinese or Iranian, it's the result of a long and multicultural process that is quite well explained in the article (at least, before your last edit). This noticeboard is not the article's talk page, thus, not the relevant place for this discussion.---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 02:57, 6 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The problem is that for you "this long and multicultural process" always starts with Iran even when multiple reliable sources claim it started in China. That's why I cited WP:Balance. CABF45 (talk) 03:15, 6 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No, the problem is that so far, not a single editor has agreed with any of your edits at Ice cream, yet you keep pushing your POV with unreliable sources, refuse to listen to what other editors say, ignore Wikipedia guidelines even when other editors remind you about that. I rest my case. Goodnight.---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 03:31, 6 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I used more reliable sources than the ones you're pushing. Spudlace agreed with using the ABC-CLIO source, it was you who went against concensus, but I didn't want an edit war.
I would agree with Spudlace's proposal to completely remove most of the history section, and only deal with the modern history of ice cream, I just didn't want to start an edit war with you.
I also perfectly understand why Andy placed the Template:Self-contradictory on the history section, it was you who wanted to remove that template. CABF45 (talk) 03:38, 6 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@ Closing admin: Please read Talk:Ice_cream carefully as some of the diffs provided by User:Wikaviani are quite misleading. Thank you. CABF45 (talk) 18:58, 5 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Since my brief involvement in this nonsense has been brought up here, I might as well express an opinion on the problems with this article. And start by repeating what I wrote earlier on my talk page: ...I don't think that we should necessarily hold one contributor solely responsible for the mess in the ice cream article history section. Sadly, content concerning the history of food tends to attract all sorts of POV-pushers (often motivated by nationalism), and to be based around questionable sources written more for entertainment than accuracy... It seems to me that contributors to the article are working under a false premise: that it is possible to state who 'invented ice cream' in any definitive manner. One can certainly find sources that make such definitive claims, but them doing so does little to inspire confidence in their validity as sources. When does 'frozen dessert' (which presumably dates back to when some enterprising, or possibly lost, hominid first gathered fruit in frozen regions) become 'ice cream'? And even if there was a single agreed definition of exactly what constitutes ice cream (I've not seen one), how likely is it that such an event would be recorded for posterity? The most that credible historians can say about the subject is that frozen desserts of one form or another were reported in place X or Y at date Z. And maybe suggest that some such descriptions seem to match what would now resemble 'ice cream'. That isn't an assertion that said dessert was 'invented' anywhere in particular, merely that it was described. Wikipedia contributors shouldn't engage themselves in trying to provide definitive answers to 'historical questions' that actual historians should know better than to try to answer. Trying to do so so is not only a disservice to readers, but a fool's errand, since it inevitably results in the sort of ongoing disagreements we see here, usually only 'resolved' by seeing who can make the most stubborn pig-headed and repetitive arguments, and drive anyone else away from the debate. If 'winning' that way is what matters, frankly Wikipedia could do better without such contributors. And said contributors might do well to ask themselves whether they could find better things to do with their lives... AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:17, 6 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That's a mature comment, my 2 cents...
I offered a compromise per WP:Balance, I also offered the removal of the "ancient history of ice cream" like Spudlace did earlier.
User:Wikaviani rejected both of those solutions in the name of the Iranian origin narrative... CABF45 (talk) 14:34, 6 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have explained my reasons above and they have nothing to do with "the Iranian origin narrative" ... ---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 02:35, 8 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Then why don't you support the compromise?
The Chinese origin is supported by Encyclopædia Britannica, an ABC-CLIO, a Royal Society of Chemistry and a John Wiley & Sons reference.
The Iranian origin is supported by an RW Press source and Gil Marks.
(Yes, I know, Gil Marks is a "food historian", who mostly wrote cookbooks. However, Christopher Cumo (ABC-CLIO) is a historian of agriculture, and Maguelonne Toussaint-Samat did write A History of Food, which John Wiley & Sons decided to publish. That's good enough for me. I also think that natural sciences - including chemistry - have been crucial in the development of the ice cream, so I would also keep the Royal Society of Chemistry source.)
We could also remove the ancient history section and start with the discovery of the endothermic effect as AndytheGrump suggested. CABF45 (talk) 03:00, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
All this has been discussed already and the current version of the article is the result of a consensus, your insistance to bring back the same tired unreliable sources for this topic is for the least disruptive. @Admins : you can close this without action, at your discretion. I am not interested to discuss this matter with a user who fails to get the point.---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 23:05, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The "concensus" is you agreeing with User:Spudlace. (For now. As pointed out above, Spudlace had very different plans for this article originally.) User:AndytheGrump is also in disagreement with your "concensus", just read his take above.
So we are throwing out Encyclopædia Britannica, an ABC-CLIO, a Royal Society of Chemistry and a John Wiley & Sons reference, while we are keeping RW Press and Gil Marks.
I agree: Admins, please close this without action, this has been a content dispute masquerading as an ANI Report. CABF45 (talk) 04:35, 10 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not sure where to take this, but Ip is adding “political ideologies” to cats and articles inappropriately[edit]

[117]. Doug Weller talk 17:31, 5 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've blocked the IP for 48 hours and reverted all their edits that hadn't already been reverted.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:36, 5 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Bbb23 Thanks. Doug Weller talk 18:06, 5 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I gave the IP a welcome warning message, should they return. All stick and no carrot can't be ideal. WP:NOBITING! --Animalparty! (talk) 02:21, 6 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And I was reverted. @Bbb23: Are we supposed to tell newbies to piss off for not knowing the rules, and not even give them a manual? Why would anyone contribute to Wikipedia if they get instantly blocked or banned? --Animalparty! (talk) 04:41, 6 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
He might have seen your message as an attempt to gravedance, perhaps. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). 08:27, 6 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I did not think it was gravedancing. There were a couple of problems with the Welcome message. First, it did not give the IP any further information than the block notice. If Animalparty wished to provide the IP with specific advice, that would have been okay. Second, regardless of the timestamp, Ap placed the Welcome message at the top of the IP's Talk page before the block notice, making it look like the IP was welcomed and then blocked instead of the other way around.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:40, 6 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Bbb23 And this has been done again by User:Malerooster. This seems totally inappropriate, especially as it was done two hours after you posted with no attempt to suggest anything but that their contributions were welcome.. Doug Weller talk 14:15, 6 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, at least it's at the bottom of the page after the block notice; I'm certainly not going to edit-war over something like this. Thanks for the ping, Doug.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:58, 6 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, it's not worth it unless it becomes a regular thing. Doug Weller talk 16:02, 6 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment. I was a little disappointed when I looked at the edits Doug Weller, I was imagining something more like “The tabby cat is known for Marxism”.—Ermenrich (talk) 12:46, 6 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Ditto. I was imagining more along the lines of "The Siamese cat is known for anarchy". Padgriffin Griffin's Nest 16:01, 6 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    All cats are libertarians. Completely dependent on others, but fully convinced of their own independence. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 17:30, 7 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • @Bbb23 and Doug Weller: Far from gravedancing, I only think that WP:DONTBITE is being completely ignored, while you two apparently object to the person even being welcomed? This is all bite, with no effort to credibly inform the offending IP as to the malfeasance they were found guilty of (remember, IPs are people who might become productive contributors with account names, not lesser people who should be shunned). I think {{Welcome-anon-unconstructive}} has plenty of helpful information. As for the top of the Talk page placement, that's where Wikipedia:Twinkle deposited it, and I think it's makes more senses there, even if it irks some time-stamp purists. I have no more to say on this. Please make sure that your actions do not create (or exacerbate) a toxic environment for newcomers. --Animalparty! (talk) 22:04, 6 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I will try to use that template instead of the generic one but due not guarantee that action. Cheers, --Malerooster (talk) 17:27, 7 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Povfork article[edit]

Continuation of [118]. Kaghassi went on to create Assyrian Mastiff which was a povfork of Kurdish Mastiff. I went on to clean the article as the Assyrian Mastiff refers to an ancient dog but all my edits were reverted and I was called a vandal.[119]. Kaghassi has previously been disruptive on Kurdish Mastiff and kept reverted consensus versions of the article. Semsûrî (talk) 18:32, 5 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The article can stay but it should be clear that the Assyrian dog is an ancient dog as discussed here[120] and there should be no attempt to link the two dog species. Semsûrî (talk) 18:37, 5 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Kaghassi is ignoring the consensus reached at Talk:Kurdish_Mastiff#RfC_on_Assyrian_mastiff_vs_Kurdish_mastiff, and is accusing people of vandalism who are trying to fix Assyrian Mastiff to comply with consensus (e.g., [121]). The only person in that RFC who !voted for Assyrian mastiff was Kaghassi. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 19:05, 5 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There are prominent sources for an Assyrian Mastiff. It was me who suggested Kaghassi to create the Assyrian article as they were reverted when they tried to include info concerning the Assyrian Mastiff in the article. Semsuri created the Assyrian mastiff redirect with the edit summary nothing substantial on google. Assyrian relics and statues depicting the Assyrian Mastiff or Dog have prominent hits on google, I guess google must have updated their algorithm regarding the Assyrian mastiff since the 8 May. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 01:19, 6 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Right, but that’s for the historical animal. The problem is not the existence of the article, rather it is Kahhassi’s insistence that it is also the current dog in the region. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 01:38, 6 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ok, I have just adverted them on the DS on Kurds and Kurdistan on which they have not been notified before. Kaghassi has 25 edits, give them some time before opening an ANI thread. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 09:06, 6 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The editor has been warned on their talkpage more than once but continued to disrupt. Semsûrî (talk) 11:17, 6 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Semsûrî, you need to provide the clickable userename of the person you are reporting. And since the name you referred to is not mentioned in the old ANI thread you linked to, you need to explain how these issues are related. Softlavender (talk) 01:31, 6 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Kaghassi is mentioned briefly in the old ANI thread. Semsûrî (talk) 07:26, 6 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Now we have potential sockpuppetry (based on the accusations of vandalism)[122]. Semsûrî (talk) 10:13, 7 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I filed the SPI investigation. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 17:42, 7 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Blocked as sockpuppeteeer/puppet combo. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 18:35, 7 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:Trade is falsely accusing me for an LTA and User:Slywriter is requesting rather unnecessary full create protection[edit]

As the title suggests, the first user was falsely accusing me of a sockpuppet of User:LiliaMiller2002 and the latter one was overzealously requesting salting of Draft:Bobik Platz, which is to me unnecessary. 36.74.40.153 (talk) 20:04, 5 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't think it's a good idea for the IP to be starting this thread, but for some context, see the first section at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2022 August 4.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:08, 5 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I'm pretty sure you're the same as User:180.252.25.15. This thread is just forum shopping / trolling, since it is being delete reviewed, and there is fair evidence this is indeed a hoax. In fact, this kinda makes you look like an LTA. Dennis Brown - 20:31, 5 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Your IP address 36.74.40.153 is flagging up for me as a proxy. Are you using a proxy? -- Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:33, 5 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • You beat me to it. I just scanned and found it is a proxy. I didn't see that for the 180 address, which was down. That may explain why the geo is different than the LiliaMiller2002 socks (spain). Dennis Brown - 20:36, 5 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      The IP 36.74.42.66 (the OP at DRV) is also flagging as a proxy. -- Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:41, 5 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      I don't use proxies, therefore it is a false-positive but it doesn't excuse that I created two draft pages, which was deleted under G3 criterion and the latter one has additional G5, which indicates the page was created by a banned user. 36.74.40.153 (talk) 20:53, 5 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Both IPs claim same junk link as a reference 180:Special:Diff/1099375119 vs current ip: Special:Diff/1102374706. Other similarities in first post to DR and TEA. Slywriter (talk) 20:42, 5 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    The very first edit this IP makes is to defend being a sock? WP:BOOMERANG incoming. RickinBaltimore (talk) 20:52, 5 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Whenever we are tired of wasting our time, please delete and salt Draft:SM_Billiards which uses the same non-existent IGN links and archive.org confirms never existed as anything other than 404. Slywriter (talk) 21:02, 5 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Well, it doesn't excuse the fact that all three pages only belongs to Fanon Wiki. Oh well, sorry for being WP:POINTy but at least hope that it serves as a lesson for not misrepresenting fanon pages as a real one, even if the page is not originated from main fanon wiki. 36.74.40.153 (talk) 21:21, 5 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • This needs a range block for proxy, and that is getting a little over my head. The 180 needs to be monitored or blocked, it was just completely down after an intensive no ping scan, but it is obviously the same person, same geolocation, same edits. May need a range block as well. Very likely, the person is in spain, and bouncing through here, ie: LiliaMiller2002 sock. Will get that draft in a sec. EDIT: RickinB was showing off and beat me to it. Dennis Brown - 21:04, 5 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Took care of that draft for you. RickinBaltimore (talk) 21:05, 5 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Please make him leave my talk page alone in this nonsense @Bbb23:--Trade (talk) 23:00, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
(edit conflict)I've blocked 36.74.40.153 and 36.74.42.211 for one week.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:53, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Trade: Your revert on my warnings are vandalism because I told you that I'm not a sock of User:LiliaMiller2002. 36.74.42.211 (talk) 23:33, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
An editor is allowed by Wiki policyguidelines to remove comments from their own talk pages, they are under no circumstances required to keep your warning public on their talk page, and in fact, you should not be restoring removed talk page comments FrederalBacon (talk) 23:37, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I would have to agree with FrederalBacon that Wiki guidelines allows Editors to remove comments from their own talkpages, even through archiving is preferred. Chip3004 (talk) 23:47, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Also, are we gonna ignore the fact this is clearly an IP evading a block here? "I'm not a sock" is the same accusation against the original IP, which is now blocked. FrederalBacon (talk) 23:50, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Airport disruption by IP[edit]

2607:FEA8:6999:AA00:BC4E:3CAD:A538:9039 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) seem to be the current IP of an editor that continually causes disruption to airport and airline articles, making changes that go against consensus. They are editing from this IP today, and ignoring warnings on their TP, which they have seen because they put a sarcastic comment there. They add strikeout text contrary to MOS:NOSTRIKE, overlink contrary to MOS:SEAOFBLUE. Today, they are mostly adding clutter to infoboxes by changing {{start date}} to {{start date and age}} - the documentation for {{infobox airport}} says to just use start date - but this IP just doesn't care. MB 02:22, 6 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Here is a discussion with BilCat from just over a week ago about a series of edits from 2607:FEA8:6999:AA00:749C:292:561A:144C (talk · contribs · WHOIS) that appear similar. MB 03:17, 6 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've blocked Special:Contributions/2607:FEA8:6999:AA00::/64 for one week. Let me know if the problem continues. EdJohnston (talk) 21:01, 7 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

97.116. IPs[edit]

There has been persistent vandalism since 2018 from the Twin Cities IP range 97.116.0.0/16 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)), which sadly has a bit of collateral. The edits vandalize song track lengths, altering them to arbitrary lengths which typically contradict all verifiable primary sources. User also occasionally edits animation articles, and never communicates when warned on their talk page. I estimate there to be at least 50 IPs I have witnessed over time which appear to be connected to this vandal. Their most recent IP is 97.116.184.236 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) whih has been warned 3 times for vandalism, with their third warning being ignored and them again vandalizing the same article within ten minutes of first being reverted and given a final warning. Οἶδα (talk) 05:00, 6 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

And a new one at 97.116.185.184 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). Οἶδα (talk) 02:45, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Kosovo at the Olympics[edit]

POV editing. Milutin Šoškić, Fahrudin Jusufi, and Vladimir Durković, those soccer players and other mentioned athletes were born in the Kingdom of Yugoslavia and took part as Yugoslav citizens. They had nothing to do with the Olympic Committee of Kosovo. What does Kosovan descent even mean?--Kozarac (talk) 17:06, 6 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This seems like a content dispute. Have you raised it on the article talk page? Follow the steps at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. -- Malcolmxl5 (talk) 17:24, 6 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't know anything about the content dispute, but the IP is evading a block. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:47, 6 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes indeed this is our friend @Xoni98 I'm guessing semi expired recently but someone else can figure out whether there's a range block that would help Star Mississippi 19:08, 7 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've chimed in on the content dispute, but I find it very curious that Kozarac -- an editor with precisely seven articlespace edits outside of this nationalist dispute (and his recent edits are in a dispute over the nationality of a German referee -- somehow found his way to ANI. Ravenswing 02:53, 7 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
They’ve been active on de.wiki for 10 years so it’s not really surprising that they know of the existence of drama boards (even if they've mistakenly brought a content issue here). -- Malcolmxl5 (talk) 06:07, 7 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:Yae4, brought by 84.250.14.116 (talk)[edit]

Yae4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I did not want to bring up User:Yae4 to ANI here because I have been an involved editor and User:Yae4 assumes good faith in many things for the best of a well referenced encyclopedia, but occasionally their chronic behaviors, requests for administrative actions and maintenance tagging upsets and frustrates many (involved) editors. What finally prompted me to start this ANI case was an uninvolved editor 1's comment about User:Yae4's behaviors, about an article I have never edited. Below is an excerpt.

1. Special:Diff/1102095113/1102120554
Editor 1, addressing User:Yae4: Your behaviour is contrary to assume good faith and I consider it direct attack against editors.
2. Special:Diff/1095874907/1096398509
IP editor 2, suspected undisclosed connections (COI) and Cyberduck icon.png IP sock of a stale Wikipedia account I can't disclose due to WP:OUTING. Not the most civil example of discussion in a dispute, but lays out problematic issues with User:Yae4's behaviors.
3. Special:Diff/975693856
Editor 3, but stale (August 2020). You're repeatedly making unsupported changes based on your incorrect interpretations and assumptions. You keep accusing others of doing what you are doing which is writing content not matching the sources.
4. Special:Diff/1096634558
Editor 4: I have zero intentions on "causing confusion" and suddenly jumping to such a conclusion doesn't really appear to be you trying to WP:AGF and assume I'm somehow trying to cause issues. It would be nice if you could come at me with a less demeaning tone.
5. Special:Diff/1101770944
IP editor 5: Disputed, though I agree as an involved editor with this comment and the consensus exists. What on Earth? No, interpretations of statements that may or may not have been made by the project lead are not "basic facts" in the vein layed out by WP:PRIMARY. Besides, I thought the broad consensus of this talk page, and particularly the "open source" label discussion, has been that you do not have WP:NPOV on this point.
6. Special:Diff/1102580184
IP editor 5 commenting on User:Yae4 derailing discussions: I find it strange you're so holed up on this point. This is entirely irrelevant to the discussion at hand.
7. Special:Diff/1101089878, Special:Diff/1101359618/1101443894
Editor 6 (SPA), while not the most civil, accuses of bias, WP:NPOV and hints WP:CIR.
8. Special:Diff/1094629670
IP editor 7: Dispute, but summarizing statements and sources given by User:Yae4: That's not what the three user-generated sources you added said.

Several administrative cases have been raised by User:Yae4 they've been in dispute with, but none with administrative action taken against the accused (the editors User:Yae4 has been in dispute with). These discussions also involve frustrated editors (some by nature), and greatly waste editors' (and administrators') time and attention away from improving articles.

I'm quite certain User:Yae4 is well versed and aware of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and should have been instructed several times how to behave, either on article talk namespaces or on their user talk page directly. I don't know what the most appropriate corrective action could be taken here to address User:Yae4 behavior.

As a side-mention, User:Yae4 has been previously banned from climate change topics in 2020, due to arbitration enforcement.

Reasons for arbitration included, invalid tags, Addition of synthesis, disruptive article edits and talk space activism promoting idiosyncratic and non-mainstream views which I concern is still happening to-date in other article(s) (which I've been involved in). The latest example of the "talk page activism" may be found at Talk:GrapheneOS, focusing their talk page discussions and views on "not to use sources" in several unrelated discussions, despite editors disagreeing with the view (although I think some of his points warrant some due weight, but better sourcing), although there are also several good examples of editing, discussion and criticism from User:Yae4.

Please keep comments on-topic and civil here. If you have a complaint about my behavior, please discuss it in a new section.

Pinging @Yae4 for awareness of ANI, because they have requested me to not personally leave messages or {{subst:AN-notice}} on their talk page. 84.250.14.116 (talk) 21:32, 6 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yae4 response[edit]

This complaint is because I politely informed

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

they appeared to be routinely violating WP:3RR at GrapheneOS. They not only made a joke of it,[123] but responded by bringing us here, again; falsely accusing me of "adding invalid information".[124], and only lastly discussing it at Talk:GrapheneOS where content discussion belongs. If you wish, I can add a list of sockpuppets blocked because I brought them to attention, or a list "difficulties" involved with 84.250.14.116 and their many claimed other IPs, but it seems like a waste of time. -- Yae4 (talk) 01:20, 7 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment: Usually I would completely WP:AGF and not even check your Diffs and summaries, but something smelled fishy by "IP editor 7", so I'm making an exception. "IP editor 7" is you, 84.250.14.116. That's misleading to call a "7th editor". If you don't mind, I'll add some notes and comments inline. Reminder: I have been editing GrapheneOS since before published, helped it get published and in WP:DYK. I miss the days of cooperative collaboration and polite disagreemnts with Newslinger. -- Yae4 (talk) 07:16, 7 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
1. GreatDer. I thank them for their less promotional approach, but on balance, they do seem to ignore obvious rules, most recently on Murena disambiguation where they wish to include "Murena" phones before there is an article. Please read the full exchange; this summary is very one-sided. As I responded there, Special:Diff/1102136403 "Great, you personal attack then you mention of WP:AGF. See WP:CYCLE. It is unfortunate the leaders of /e/ and associated shell companies have abused Wikipedia for many years: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Indidea/Archive and continue by recruiting." -- Yae4 (talk) 07:16, 7 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
2. 142.126.170.15: Another IP and likely sock, from Toronto, home of GrapheneOS. False accusations with zero basis should carry zero weight. Maybe their behavior deserves the sanctions, but Admins did not see it, or explain why not. -- Yae4 (talk) 07:16, 7 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
3. Pitchcurve: example of editors who "know" the truth for sure, but don't bring sources. -- Yae4 (talk) 07:16, 7 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
4. EndariV (see their comments below). I warned them for promotional edits and unhelpfully sticking Talk comments in a random place. They responded badly. Note: in Special:Diff/1099615786, you warned them for "Battlegrounding" changed to "Edit warring". -- Yae4 (talk) 07:16, 7 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
5. 98.97.32.199, and they said also 71.212.97.11 and 75.172.38.252, over short times, leading to confusion as they acknowledged at their Talk. I warned about WP:COI. They responded badly. You said to them: I too was about to ask if you have undisclosed connections to GrapheneOS (you seem to have a lot of knowledge from involvement or a device with GrapheneOS installed for expressing statements and deeper knowledge of the subject on the talk page" -- Yae4 (talk) 07:16, 7 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
6. Multiple IP user again: You again selectively quote to make it look worse. They also thanked me: "Thanks for catching the republishers, I've removed those sources."
6. There is an open, unresolved content dispute regarding what primary-source statements will be included, from GrapheneOS website, from GrapheneOS and Micay GitHub posts, and for completeness but little discussed, from GrapheneOS and Micay Twitter, with due respect to WP:RSPTWITTER requirements. GrapheneOS promoters want to include all the one-sided claims of excellence, but ignore all the difficulties with other projects, and statements that other projects are not welcome to use GrapheneOS sources. -- Yae4 (talk) 07:16, 7 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
7. Again, false accusations with zero basis from WP:COI SPAs should carry zero weight. Regarding WP:CIR: With all due respect, I've had a feeling English is not your first language, and is a potential source of our misunderstandings. -- Yae4 (talk) 07:16, 7 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
8. "7" 84.250.14.116 Were you trying to make this look like an additional, independent complaint? This is also, and a good, typical example of how you deal with content discussions - vaguely, leaving difficulty understanding what you really favor. -- Yae4 (talk) 07:16, 7 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
9. 2020 (Stale) -- Yae4 (talk) 17:18, 7 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
10. As discussed above, 84.250.14.116 continues reverting and otherwise undoing other editors with little restraint. Warning them was the immediate precursor to them coming here. -- Yae4 (talk) 17:18, 7 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
11. Really one recent Incident. -- Yae4 (talk) 17:18, 7 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
12. EndariV comment below also supports page protection for GrapheneOS (though not sure they understand what it means). -- Yae4 (talk) 17:18, 7 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
13. Two sockpuppets, Anonymous526 and Anonymous874 were blocked; one was unblocked after promising to stop puppeting. -- Yae4 (talk) 17:18, 7 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
14. 2020 (Stale), but also had admission of WP:COI by Anupritaisno1: Special:Diff/975735744, and Strcat (Micay alias) "abandoned" that account, noted by Admin. -- Yae4 (talk) 17:18, 7 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
15. I try to learn from the bad experiences and improve my sourcing. Yes, GrapheneOS had some poor sources, and I have accepted blame and tried to correct the mistakes. -- Yae4 (talk) 07:16, 7 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]


84.250.14.116[edit]

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

  • This IP became, in essence, a very active WP:SPA at GrapheneOS around the time Micay/GrapheneOS tweeted about Wikipedia.[125]
  • Looking at their global activities,[126] they also edited several GrapheneOS wikidata properties, including their other communication channels - IRC and Matrix.[127][128] On the one hand, it could be random coincidence, and a suddenly very interested editor digging into details. On the other hand, it is consistent with responding to "a call" recruiting editors to GrapheneOS. -- Yae4 (talk) 17:51, 7 Augus