Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Non-autoconfirmed posts
| If you are blocked | If you cannot post to a noticeboard because you are a new editor, post to this page |
|---|---|
|
|
| See also |
|---|
Violation of Neutral Point of View (WP:NPOV), Civility (WP:CIVIL), and Editorial Conduct (WP:EDUC) Policies by user:duffbeerforme
“When the other editor needs to be stopped in their tracks to avoid causing serious disruption or needs a fast and strong wake-up call, file a report at the administrators' "Incidents" noticeboard”
I’m sharing my concerns regarding the editorial behavior of @Duffbeerforme in relation to the article on Roman Miroshnichenko (link). After reviewing the users (@92.243.182.120 and @Duffbeerforme) actions (like yesterday (link)) over the past year, I believe that user: duffbeerforme has violated several of Wikipedia's core principles. These include neutrality, collaborative editing, and good faith editing.
I would like to request the community’s attention on this matter.
Here’s my summary of the findings:
1) Impolite and uncollaborative intentions to delete the article rather than help improve it:
The user: duffbeerforme initiated two deletion nominations for the article (link to the article history): the first in October 2023, and the second in October 2024. The explanation behind the nominations was substantially the same.
Here I will outline the phrases that caused some concerns about whether these align with Wikipedia's standards:
“There is no policy-based justification for keeping self-nominated, pay-for-play award farm suckers. duffbeerforme (talk) 23:40, 25 October 2023 (UTC)” (link to the first AFD)
“And both of those MUSICBIO criteria say MAJOR. Which of the competitions or "awards" are you calling major? duffbeerforme (talk) 13:02, 11 November 2023 (UTC)” (link to the first AFD)
“Refbombed spam for non-notable individual. Has a massive primary-sourced laundry list of so-called awards, but they are not major awards (or for the most part remotely credible). … Curated by a single SPA who, despite being blocked, is still updating this PR. duffbeerforme (talk) 14:17, 28 October 2024 (UTC)”. (link to the second AFD)
I believe that the principles, policies, and guidelines of Wikipedia require that editors help improve articles, making them rich in resources and representing diverse viewpoints. These Wikipedia standards shall apply even if some sources may seem unreliable, some awards and achievements may not appear major, or some individuals may not seem notable enough for inclusion.
The behavior of duffbeerforme, in my opinion, contradicts my understanding of the editorial behavior expected on Wikipedia.
While I do not expect any editor to contribute excessive efforts to the article they decided to edit, in the case of duffbeerforme, who twice initiated deletion nominations, additional research into the article’s topic would have been helpful. Providing more substantial arguments in support of their position that the article should be deleted, especially after a year since the first deletion nomination, would have shown a more thoughtful approach. Furthermore, even just communicating with ‘a single SPA who, despite being blocked, is still updating this PR’ would have demonstrated an effort to contribute positively to Wikipedia as an encyclopedia
2) Malicious acts of deleting almost complete content of the article without true explanation of reasons for such activities:
The next action of user: duffbeerforme (link to the history section) in relation to the article was the deletion of 34,699 characters of the article on December 18, followed by the deletion of 30,243 characters (on January 6, January 8, and January 9). Why did they do that? Here are the explanations given:
- December 18: “Stubify based on the single good source identified in the last AFD” (link)
- December 18: “Molgav, you're blocked” (link)
- January 6: “Molgav, you're blocked” (link)
- January 8: “Revert blocked editor who is restoring badly sourced promotional content” (link)
- January 9: “Revert blocked editor who is restoring badly sourced promotional content” (link)
Although the edits after December 18 can be explained as a lack of agreement between editors, it can be seen that the key argument behind the deletions is the reliability of “the single good source identified in the last AFD” and “badly sourced promotional content.”
However, this does not seem to correspond to the actual actions of edits. Here is my argument based on the comparison of two last versions of the article (one from 92.243.182.120 (link) and another from Duffbeerforme (link)):
The key drawback of the "Duffbeerforme" version (link):
The reference list in the "Duffbeerforme" version (link) consists of 6 sources.
Considering that this version was the result of a critical edition of the “92.243.182.120” version (link), with the deletion of about 80% of the original text, it seems intentional to leave only these references. But why these references?
We turn to the “last AFD” (link to the second AFD) (as requested in the first of the edit actions—link). There is a rich discussion on the reliability of the resources.
As “the single good source” can only be understood as Yanow, Scott (2013). The Great Jazz Guitarists, with the following comments in favor:
- “Weak keep… the article in The Great Jazz Guitarists certainly helps, although not too well known…” GoldMiner24 Talk 02:00, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
- “Keep. An article about Roman Miroshnichenko is included in The Great Jazz Guitarists encyclopedia, edited by Scott Yanow.” —Yakudza (talk) 17:34, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
Regarding AllAboutJazz and Jazzcorner, the community of editors stated (link to the AFD):
- “Delete … The Jazz Corner is a crowd-sourced fan site. … AllAboutJazz site (cited multiple times but not named in citation) allows artists to pay to advertise or have articles about them, for $$.” Lamona (talk) 20:19, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
- “Very weak keep … All About Jazz - the largest jazz portal in the world…” DiscursivePraxis (talk) 20:30, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
So, it is very controversial that 2 links to AllAboutJazz and 2 links to Jazzcorner were used in the edited version. This is unexplained and raises concerns.
I do not have an opinion on the use of any resources as I believe that experienced editors will have their say and be more argumentative than me.
However, I do have an opinion about not using already used materials from the same media, such as AllAboutJazz and Jazzcorner.
As I see in the “92.243.182.120” version (link), the following references from AllAboutJazz and Jazzcorner, were intentionally deleted by user: duffbeerforme:
[1], [2], [6], [8], [10], [14], [16], [19], [26].
that alone are about 2,000 symbols, i.e. 1/3 of the Duffbeerforme version of the article. There was no explanation for the deletion of it.
3. Concerns about possible bias in editing the article on Roman Miroshnichenko
The actions of the user "duffbeerforme" raise concerns regarding possible bias and a disregard for Wikipedia's core principles, including neutrality, verifiability, and civility. The user's deletion requests were consistently aggressive, using hostile language, such as referring to awards as "pay-for-play" and dismissing reputable sources without valid justification. This behavior could potentially violate several Wikipedia guidelines, including the Neutral Point of View (NPOV), Verifiability, Notability (specifically regarding the music industry), and Editing Policy.
The question arises: Was this merely casual editing behavior, or do deeper personal biases explain these actions? I will present my observations and reference the relevant Wikipedia policies.
3.1. Persistent deletions and unwarranted cuts
Two unsuccessful nominations for deletion were followed by significant cuts to the article's content. This pattern raises questions about the user's intent—was it an attempt to delete the article completely on a third attempt? A comparison between the last two versions of the article (one by IP 92.243.182.120 and the other by duffbeerforme) reveals several key deletions:
- Early Life and Musical Development The “92.243.182.120” version (link) provides essential context about Miroshnichenko's early life, such as his birth in Dniprodzerzhynsk, his family's Cossack heritage, and his father, Maxim Miroshnichenko, a bandleader and saxophonist. These details are crucial for understanding his musical upbringing.
The “Duffbeerforme” version (link) removes all references to his early life, including his father’s influence and educational background, significantly diminishing the article's depth and context. This deletion contravenes Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View and Verifiability policies, as omitting important biographical details distorts the reader’s understanding of his career development.
- Collaboration with Renowned Musicians The “92.243.182.120” version (link) highlights Miroshnichenko’s collaborations with major figures in the international jazz scene, such as Larry Coryell, Al Di Meola, and Simon Phillips. These collaborations are central to establishing his notability within the global music community.
The “Duffbeerforme” version (link) omits details of these collaborations, including the significant period Miroshnichenko spent touring with Larry Coryell. Instead, it highlights a collaboration with Herman Romero, a relatively obscure figure, without providing context. This selective omission undermines the article’s Neutral Point of View and misrepresents the extent of Miroshnichenko's professional network, violating Wikipedia’s Notability guidelines and Editing Policy.
- Awards and Recognition The “92.243.182.120” version (link) mentions Miroshnichenko’s numerous accolades, including multiple Independent Music Awards and nominations at the Hollywood Music in Media Awards, all supported by reputable sources such as AllAboutJazz and Jazzcorner.
The “Duffbeerforme” version (link), however, removes many of these awards, including key achievements like his victories at the Global Music Awards.
This selective reduction of Miroshnichenko’s recognition undermines his established Notability and may be considered vandalism under Wikipedia’s Vandalism policy, as it intentionally distorts the subject’s career achievements.
3.2. The emergence of Herman Romero
One notable change in the “Duffbeerforme” version (link) is the introduction of Herman Romero, whose name appeared for the first time in the history of the article (link to the history section) on December 18, 2024 (link). Given that Romero is relatively unknown, this emphasis seems arbitrary and unbalanced, further skewing the article’s portrayal of Miroshnichenko’s career.
The inclusion of Romero over more prominent collaborations violates Wikipedia’s Neutral Point of View and misrepresents the subject’s significance in the jazz world.
3.3. Selective use of information
The patterns of deletion and selective emphasis in the article suggest potential personal bias on the part of the user: duffbeerforme, as well as a disregard for Wikipedia’s Editing Policy, which encourages neutral, collaborative editing aimed at improving the encyclopedia.
4. Request for Action
Given the consistent disruptive editing behavior and selective removal of verifiable and notable information, I request that the Wikipedia community do something about it.
I look forward to the community’s input on the best course of action to ensure the integrity and neutrality of the article, while fostering a collaborative editing environment.
~~~~ Casesolved (talk) 09:47, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- A tip: if you can boil this down to just a few sentences – and not use ChatGTP at all – more people will be willing to help you out. At the moment, this is very wordy so it won't get priority. 81.2.123.64 (talk) 16:21, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- Another tip: while you are blocked for sockpuppetry you shouldn't create a new sockpuppet to complain about another editor's behavior. duffbeerforme (talk) 05:09, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
False accusations of attempted vandalism
On the talk page for my IP, there has appeared three times the tag "possible BLP issue or vandalism". The thing is that that tag has appeared once on an edit that was not about any person and was certainly not attempted vandalism, and the other two times it has appeared on a request for an edit on the talk page of a protected article, meaning no vandalism is even possible. Please can you control the editor or bot that keeps putting up this incorrect and potentially defamatory information?
80.193.98.150 (talk) 11:27, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- Don't worry about, 80: it's nothing personal and it's not a black mark against your edits or editing or anything. These edit filters are pretty broadly written in order to catch more actual vandalism, but that does mean false positives now and again. It's fine, honestly! 81.2.123.64 (talk) 16:19, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
Bulk revert request
Shidou nonomari (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is new and probably misguided. They have been through a run of articles removing a single space from each one, created sentences that look.Like this
The edit filter will get antsy if I go through reverting each one, so can someone here click the "nuke" button above? 81.2.123.64 (talk) 16:13, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
Done. JJPMaster (she/they) 16:22, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- Many thanks, JJP! :-) 81.2.123.64 (talk) 16:41, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
Editor "Tuscan Ant" targeted Wikipedia page, and then reported it for deletion.
It’s evident that Joanna Modes Wikipedia page has been systematically targeted by a group of malicious editors, including "Tuscan Ant" whom created profile 24 days ago and four other accounts. First they removed links and then Tuscan Ant reported my page for delation These individuals appear to have worked together to discredit my page by removing key references more than 63, leavening only 17 and labelling them as unreliable, and nominating the page for deletion. This deliberate and coordinated attack suggests they may be associated with a hacker or have malicious intended and there there are proves of provoked hacking attacks on other pages that contained those references. Please review the case 2A00:F41:B84D:915D:EDC8:4379:B89E:1CC1 (talk) 16:53, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
User:Uneyque
Uneyque (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) keeps on adding flagicon and small text on infobox. The Manual of Style (MOS:INFOBOXFLAG) and (MOS:SMALLTEXT) specifically discourages both these practices as they can affect readability and create undue emphasis. 2001:E68:5471:6B8F:C8C9:9809:C902:26F5 (talk) 04:34, 25 January 2025 (UTC)