萤火虫为什么发光

Your opinion on User:?????? ????????

百度 怎样长长的人生，终归都是一蓑烟雨。

Creating a fake AfD is an entirely new sort of disruption in my experience. Looking at all their recent edits, it's hard to see why they are still allowed to continue to edit at all. I've temporarily blocked, but it's possible we'll need to escalate this if disruption resumes. What do you think? BusterD (talk) 16:25, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

It's not something I've ever seen before either. Their other recent edits seem a mix of being overly enthusiastic and a slight lack of competence. Faking other editors signatures is obviously deeply unacceptable, but hopefully a week off will give them time to rethink their approach. I honestly don't hold out much hope of that, but it doesn't hurt to try. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ?@? °?t° 16:41, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

I do think the fake AfD needs to be deleted, as it gives a false impression of uninvolved editors. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ?@? °?t° 16:42, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

And indef'd for more nonsense with AfDs. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ?@? °?t° 16:20, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

Thank you

Clearly I missed it. Buffs (talk) 15:38, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

No worries. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ?@? °?t° 16:15, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

Question about order of content

I just noticed your edit summary here and wondered if that is a PAG? I hadn't thought of it before. What is the reasoning? -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:04, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

It's comes from MOS:SECTIONLOC, I should have put it in my summary. It causes certain formatting issues for some readers. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ?@? °?t° 16:22, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

Thanks. There is constantly something to learn here, no matter how many years one edits. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 17:25, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

Asad Ullah

Will ask for a filter for these tomorrow. Doug Weller talk 20:43, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

Good idea. They're posting from an IPv6 range as well, so blocks aren't going to be that helpful. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ?@? °?t° 11:52, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

ANE

The citation bot code requires an update, apparently. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 13:02, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

Yeah I'm betting it's making the same mistake in many places. In five years someone will be looking through the history and wonder what all the reverts where about :). -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ?@? °?t° 13:09, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

Conflict between consensus and verifiability?

It seems to me there is a conflict between WP:Verify and WP:Consensus. I agree that material that "needs" verification should be tagged and that tagged material that is not verified "may be" removed. On the other hand, removal of material without justification is vandalism, isn't it? The way the policy is written any one editor, well informed or not, may place in one edit of an article, one or multiple instances of the many CN tags. Furthermore, any one editor, well informed or not, may then remove any or all of the tagged material if their POV is that the tag is stale. It doesn't matter how many editors disagree; the only recourse is to find an RS! That may be reasonable for one tag but the burden becomes insurmountable when one un-informed editor places a large number of tags at one time in an article.

My research shows that the vast majority (at least 4 out of 5) of the tags have been applied to material that is referenceable. My experience is that it is likely closer to 95/100 that can be referenced, those of tag bombers seem particularly unreliable. It is no wonder that experienced editors ignore citation tags, they know the material is referenceable, but what about the ordinary readers, what do they conclude when they see every paragraph of an article tagged?

Shouldn't consensus be the means to resolve a dispute that material "needs" verification or that material "may be" removed? I would go as far as making tag bombing de jure disruptive editing which could be immediately removed. I have tried discussing this with such editors and their response is Policy trumps Essays. So, I think policy improvement is in order. Your thoughts? Tom94022 (talk) 19:01, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) removal of material without justification is vandalism - the justification is the material is unsourced. Especially if it has sat with a citation needed tag for some considerable time, removing it is not vandalism as the justification is removing unsourced material. As soon as there’s a source to back up the statement, then it can be reinstated. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 19:03, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

That's exactly a policy conflict resolved by making tag bombing de jure disruptive editing which could be immediately removed if you agree the evidence shows that tag bombing is vandalism. Tom94022 (talk) 19:31, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

Where did I say anything about tag bombing? Please don't take my words out of context. I said "a citation needed tag" - singular. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 19:36, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

I tried to make it clear that I am talking about tag bombing resulting in the unneeded removal of material and it is allowed by one policy which is apparently in conflict with another policy. Tom94022 (talk) 16:54, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

OK - so if content is unsourced... why is it on Wikipedia? Simple question, right? Danners430 _{tweaks made} 16:59, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

And responding to the rest of your points - if content tagged with Citation Needed is referenceable, then why isn't it referenced? If you know where to find the references, add them - other editors may not know. Don't make it out that the people adding maintenance tags are at fault when they're following policy. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 19:38, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

Sure if in fact tags are removed, but it appears to me they are not. I'm working on statistics but based on my experience it appears that tags remain forever like barnacles on a ship. It's a lot of work to remove one tag, it appears that dissuades most editors and is particularly burdensome to deal with the residue of a tag bomber. 16:54, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

If you believe WP:VANDALISM has taken place then the place to discuss it would be WP:ANI not my talk page. Another editor disagreeing with you in good faith is WP:NOTVANDALISM, and as I said if you believe an editor is acting in bad faith take it to ANI otherwise you may be considered to be casting WP:ASPERSIONS.
Experienced editors should be adding citations if another editor marks content as {{citation needed}}, especially if they believe the bulk of it is sourcable. Articles are meant to be written based on sources, so sources should exist for all content. The only exception would be WP:BLUESKY details, but I'm always careful with that as readers from different cultures or countries may not have the same common knowledge. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ?@? °?t° 20:03, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

As I said at the talk page I see no reason the content can't be restored and then fixed, there's no deadline in fixing issues as long as they are being fixed. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ?@? °?t° 20:05, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

My disagreement is with policy so I came here looking for a dialog with an editor who professes experience and interest in WP:Verify. This is my second experience with massive removal of substantial material likely to be referenceable by a drive-by-editor. I believe the evidence supports this is misbehavior but rather than go to ANI I would rather spend my time trying to improve the policy that provides cover for the misbehavior. I think I have proven that the vast majority of all tags are applied to material that is referenceable. Is policy that allows a fly-by-editor to remove vast amounts of valid material from an article because in the editor's opinion the tag is old beyond discussion? Particularly since in such cases almost all the material is likely to be referenceable. I hope not. BTW, I got to your talk page because of yr comment on an article talk page, I am now 6 hours into restoring massive amounts of material removed by a fly-by-editor whose POV is that 27 tags were too old (~1 year old) - so far 19 tags have been referenced and one tagged sentence has been removed. I will bring my results to the VP when done. I suggest it is unrealistic to expect well-informed editors to devote such effort in removing tags that should never have been placed so the policy needs improvement. Tom94022 (talk) 16:54, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

If you feel content is referenceable... then reference it. It's really that simple. If you can find references, then that's great - but how do we know the other editor also knows how to find those same references? Content should NOT be sitting without references, especially if the sources are out there. If editors don't make an effort to put those references that they know (per your own admission) in the article... then of course it's going to be deleted. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 16:56, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

Another way to look at it...

Oh, this content has sat here without references for 1 year.

Oh now it's been deleted and suddenly there are sources? Danners430 _{tweaks made} 16:57, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

I think the thing is you have to prove bad faith, editors can in good faith disagree with each other. Vandalism is a loaded word, as it's has a specific meaning (WP:VANDALISM) and that requires that the editor believes they are causing harm to the encyclopedia, that they are doing so deliberately. Using language that has a very particular meaning can derail discussions, as they become about whether the term is being correctly used rather than the original subject
Per the talk page of the Floppy disk article you can see I'm more interested in having verifiable content than removing contested content, but I can understand both sides. Noone wants to have hard work gutted, but equally noone wants an issue they see left and ignored.
I doubt you new statistics will be anymore warnly received than your original post to the Village Pump. The community seems to have a much stronger opinion about referencing material (with clicky blue numbers as a colleague might say) than they did in the past. BURDEN is well supported and I don't see an argument against it going well.
I hope that even if we disagree we can work on good terms. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ?@? °?t° 21:11, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

I'm gonna step back here.

Content should not be getting added to Wikipedia if it is unsourced. Period. We don't make assumptions about the competence of the reader to "find their own sources" - what goes on Wikipedia has a source.

There is plenty of content being added on a daily basis that is unsourced. That shouldn't be happening, but the project isn't perfect, and most articles aren't being watched like a hawk. So what happens three years down the line with an editor happens across an article with content that's unsourced? They could add the source in themselves, yes... but what if that editor has no knowledge of the subject matter? They know that a source is needed, but not where to find it. So instead of just wholesale removing the content (which they would be entitled to do), they place a CN tag to alert editors that a citation is needed, and to add the article to the relevant categories for attention by another editor with more expertise on the subject matter.

So tell me - what would you rather... we simply remove unsourced information on sight, or tag the content for a period of time to encourage the addition of sources? Danners430 _{tweaks made} 17:06, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

WP:FALSEBALANCE

Your spurious content/behaviour distinction is too clever by half and you should think about retiring it from your repertoire. As for the rest, fine. Utilisateur19911 (talk) 17:58, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

I'm sorry I just thought there was ambiguities in your addition (this edit for reference), such ambiguity tends to lead to disagreement. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ?@? °?t° 22:21, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

Temporary account IP viewer granted

Hello, ActivelyDisinterested. Per your request, your account has been granted temporary account IP viewer rights. You are now able to reveal the IP addresses of individuals using temporary accounts that are not visible to the general public. This is very sensitive information that is only to be used to aid in anti-abuse workflows. Please take a moment to review Wikipedia:Temporary account IP viewer for more information on this user right. It is important to remember:

• You must not share IP address data with someone who does not have the same access permissions unless disclosure is permissible as per guidelines listed at Foundation:Policy:Wikimedia Access to Temporary Account IP Addresses Policy.
• Access should not be used for political control, to apply pressure on editors, or as a threat against another editor in a content dispute. There must be a valid reason to investigate a temporary user. Note that using multiple temporary accounts is not forbidden, so long as they are not used in violation of policies (for example, block or ban evasion).

It is also important to note that the following actions are logged for others to see:

• When a user accepts the preference that enables or disables IP reveal for their account.
• Revealing an IP address of a temporary account.
• Listing the temporary accounts that are associated with an IP address or CIDR range.

Remember, even if a user is violating policy, avoid revealing personal information if possible. Use temporary account usernames rather than disclosing IP addresses directly, or give information such as same network/not same network or similar. If you do not want the user right anymore then please ask me or another administrator and it will be removed for you. Happy editing! — rsjaffe ??? 22:06, 3 August 2025 (UTC)