Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1140

'reducing Autism' as edit symmary

Is an edit summary like this one ("reducing Autism") acceptible? This comes about an hour after they acknowledged a warning about personal attacks. MrOllie (talk) 20:04, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

This is User:Old Guard - have you told them you posted this here? Secretlondon (talk) 20:14, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

Yes. MrOllie (talk) 20:15, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

Not going to lie, that's kind of funny. I say that as an autistic person. But no, that's super rude and inappropriate. It's not ok to use autism as an insult. Pecopteris (talk) 20:21, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

The only time that sort of edit summary would be even remotely acceptable would be coming from an autistic person using self-deprecating humour while cleaning up their own edits. Even then, it would be a bad idea as it would be very prone to being misunderstood. That's not what we have here. The edit also removed all but one of the sources and then tagged the section for only having one source, like that is anybody else's fault. Removing the bit about the robbery is arguable but the rest of it looks bad all round. --DanielRigal (talk) 20:33, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

I wrote it and I don't find it acceptable, that is the point. And I am somewhat Autistic like most editors Old Guard (talk) 03:36, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

No, does this need discussion? Even in the case of self-deprecating humour it would be a very bad idea, as other editors may not be aware of that circumstance and take offence. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 21:15, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

Of course it doesn't need discussion, he's just whining because he isn't getting his way! Old Guard (talk) 03:38, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

I'm unimpressed with your edit-summary, and I'm unimpressed with the edit-warring after protection. So, like Anachronist did on September 14, I've restored the article to the state before the edit-warring and protected it again, for 2 weeks this time. If when that runs out the nonsense starts again, there will almost certainly be blocks. Black Kite (talk) 12:36, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Adding to the obvious, and to what Black Kite said, equally unimpressed by "he's just whining because he isn't getting his way!" ... as a response to a legitimate ANI query. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:53, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

As someone in the spectrum I'm totally fine with this self deprecating humor as long as the parties involved find it funny. However, I don't think this edit summary makes a collaborative environment in this context. --Lenticel ^(talk) 05:30, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

• Not appropriate per Lenticel. In isolation possibly a small oversight, but the timing isn't great given the PA warning mentioned by Mr. Ollie was followed by an expressed desire to fight microaggression with microagression. In addition to the warning about edit warring by Black Kite, some more care regarding wording choice is likely warranted. CMD (talk) 05:57, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Basher Six

Basher Six (talk · contribs) – new account whose only contributions have been to attack Jesswade88 on talk pages. Seems likely to be a WP:HAND but I have no idea of whom. Any reason to let them continue poking? —David Eppstein (talk) 22:06, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

No. Indef'd.CU wouldn't hurt but if it's anyone with anh experience they either don't care or they know how to evade it. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:12, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

A quick CU check didn't turn up anything. Solid block however. RickinBaltimore (talk) 22:29, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

AttackTheMoonNow (talk · contribs) is WMF-banned for doing this, it's probably a new incarnation. Acroterion (talk) 00:08, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Is it worth reporting this person to AIV instead of ANI? I know AIV is supposed to be for stuff that can be evaluated in about ten seconds, but the socks are just that obvious. — SamX [talk · contribs] 02:47, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

I'm not so sure that talk-page needling constitutes the sort of vandalism that AIV focuses on. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:57, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

AIV is perfectly fine to report obvious socks of banned users. Acroterion (talk) 11:06, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

ATMN was stirred up again by this profile in the Observer [1] Acroterion (talk) 12:24, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

KJD-45 (talk · contribs) blocked for the same thing on this noticeboard. Please block on sight, this user has expressed violent ideation in the past, and they tend to create sockfarms. Acroterion (talk) 00:48, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Blablubbs, you caught a few of these already. I don't know if a harder/longer block is acceptable (I'd be fine with it). Their account names are very haha funny so cute. Drmies (talk) 01:29, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

If they stick to the pattern a filter might be helpful? We could set it to take no action but report to AIV so there's no adverse effects on false positives but true positives get admin eyes quickly. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:24, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

User:GeekWriter

Sons of Confederate Veterans (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

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

Having failed to remove sourced content from the Sons of Confederate Veterans article, or to discuss the disputed content, User:GeekWriter has blanked the entire thing as 'propaganda'. [2] WP:NOTHERE would seem to apply. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:40, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Discussions of disputed content has actually taken place, but you keep re-adding unsourced content. As much as I agree with what is written, I maintain that we, as editors, look immature and stupid if we are taking editor privilege without properly sourcing, and thus distrupting the entire core of Wikipedia. MRJ 13:43, 1 October 2023 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by GeekWriter (talk • contribs)

Where had these supposed discussions taken place? I see absolutely nothing in your brief editing history to indicate this. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:45, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

The content you removed [3] all looks to be properly sourced, and you replaced secondary sources with primary ones. In general Wikipedia is more interested in what secondary sources say about a subject, than what a subject says about themselves. Either way discussing the matter on the articles talk page is more appropriate than blanking the article. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 16:29, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Imho fully replacing an article with the text "this article is propoganda" warrants a ban from that article, if not a t-ban from the area, if not a short block. Googleguy007 (talk) 13:46, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

RobertsullivanIII

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/RobertsullivanIII

WP:NOTHERE, WP:SPA, every edit this user has ever made is related to making Tripp Eisen appear in a better light and lots of edits focus on removing his criminal past. doesnt resond to talk page entries --FMSky (talk) 22:54, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

I have indefinitely pageblocked RobertsullivanIII from editing Tripp Eisen. The editor is free to make edit requests at Talk: Tripp Eisen. Cullen328 (talk) 23:25, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

Should I RPP? Seems like a good idea. I like Astatine (Talk to me) 17:32, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

History of wikihounding

@Fdom5997 has a history of wikihounding me. It happened in 2021 (incident reported here) and again a year later in 2022 (incident reported here). I just got a notification that Fdom5997 has once again undone an edit of mine (see here). This particular edit is unimportant, and I wouldn't call it any sort of issue on it's own. But it shows that Fdom5997 is apparently still stalking my edit log or something. Given the track record, I'm no longer inclined to give any sort of benefit of the doubt. Eievie (talk) 21:19, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

It looks like Fdom5997 has been editing that article for the last few months, and today was your first edit. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 21:23, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

The last half-dozen edits on that article before yours were Fdom5997's. It seems likely it was on their watchlist, rather than deliberately following you. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:24, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Also, you failed to notify them of this discussion. A ping doesn't count. See the rules at the top. I went ahead and did it for you. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 21:25, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Ok, glad to hear it. After what happened before, I just assumed it was more of the same. I'm glad this time was different. The prospect of round 3 was making me exhausted just thinking about it. Eievie (talk) 21:40, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

User:Squared.Circle.Boxing edit warring/personal attacks

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Edit warring on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conor_Benn. They keep reverting my edits where I state that conor benn was suspended from boxing for failing drug tests, he is currently unable to box in the UK (and the whole world until last saturday, for 525 days) and this was a massive story in boxing and in the UK due to the chris eubank fight being cancelled. They got angry and personally attacked me "YDKSAB" means "you don't know shit about boxing" (https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=YDKSAB) They also told me "it really is not gonna happen, get over it" I believe they think they own the article, as they do a lot of editting of boxing articles. I pointed out to this user that professional athletes failing drug tests and being suspended is very important is shown in the lead of other articles such as Lance Armstrong, and Jarrel Miller (another boxer in the same situation)- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jarrell_Miller Thanks, I would also like to point out going through his talk page history it seems he frequently gets into edit wars and has also told users to "jog the fuck on". 165.120.252.95 (talk) 08:49, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

I can not help to notice that the talk page of that article is still empty. IMHO, there was little effort in discussing the matter. The Banner talk 09:04, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

I have protected Conor Benn for 24 hours. Sort out your differences on the talk page. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:05, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Where the IP should have gone after the first editor reverted them. That'll be all, enjoy ze echo chamber. – ².O.^Boxing 09:08, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Also, IP, when you say "they got angry and personally attacked me", do you think accusing them of being on Conor Benn's payroll might have something to do with it? DeCausa (talk) 09:10, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

I consider fault on both sides. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:18, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

I can't think of any other reason why he's so desperately trying to protect a drug cheat's name ? 165.120.252.95 (talk) 09:18, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

I tried to resolve this on the users talk page. 165.120.252.95 (talk) 09:18, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

I just tried respectfully to resolve this with squared circle on his talk page. I was told to "jog the fuck on" and that he guarantees it will be reverted. This is a bit more than asking him if he was on conor benns payroll ? 165.120.252.95 (talk) 09:20, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

I suspect SCB removed it from the lead because he thought it gave the most appropriate balance to the article. Please assume good faith that other editors are trying to do the right thing. Accusing them of having a conflict of interest without evidence is not acceptable. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:39, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

The IP has the excuse of being new. 2CB has been here about as long as I have. Dronebogus (talk) 22:49, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

You protected the WP:WRONGVERSION. How dare you. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:00, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

• I'd just point out that the IP user went to the talk page as instructed and started a discussion. They posted on SCB's talk page ... and this was the reply they got (note the edit summary) [4]. Given that we're only a few weeks away from this, and SCB previously received two blocks in 2022 (for 1 and 2 weeks) for the same thing (indeed, the one week block was for personal attacks in edit-summaries), I wonder how long we're going to let this go for? Black Kite (talk) 13:21, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

  There was a fair bit of support for an outright site ban a few weeks ago, too. I admit that if I'd just received a broadly construed TBAN from a major area, and there was sentiment to CBAN me completely, and I already had six blocks for edit warring and incivility, I couldn't imagine having any motive for tossing "That'll do, pig, that'll do" into an edit summary less than three weeks later other than calling the community's bluff. To paraphrase from a famous sports incident, whether Squared.Circle.Boxing's antics are the result of temperamental instability or willful defiance of civility policies does not matter; the repeated conduct is unacceptable. It's time for a community ban on Squared.Circle.Boxing. Ravenswing 14:10, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

  As you say, Floquenbeam blocked SCB in April 2022 for personal attacks in the edit summaries of your edits, and commented that I am assuming that this will not recur upon the expiration of the block. This assumption may not, in fact, have been two-way. Jogging on seems a particular favourite: Dec 2022, May 2023, July 2023 and that's not counting the three examples already provided. Fuck off, and variants are liberally represented: Aug 2023, May 2022 and December 2021, etc. Advising others they DKSA things: August 2023, July 2023 and March 2022 is also not uncommon. HTH. SN54129 14:27, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

I have told SCB in no uncertain terms that if I see any other intemperate language like that today, there will be a block. As for wider sanctions - discuss away. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:31, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Today — lol. El_C 14:44, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Although it's a quote from Babe, it's easily open to misinterpretation and probably not the best reply to use when you're the subject of a ANI discussion Nthep (talk) 15:51, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Given their long history of doing so, it's a safe to interpret that when Squared.Circle says something insulting, they're doing so with the intent to insult. Trying to pass it off as a random movie quote is in the same camp as "Canchu take a joke?" Ravenswing 16:51, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Tomorrow's fine. Next week too. But no more "fuck offs" today, you've hit your daily community-mandated "fuck off" quota. _{Duly signed,} ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 15:58, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Support community ban per Ravenswing. It looks like there's a pattern of personal attacks here and belittling other editors that doesn't seem to be going away despite several prior blocks for the same. I don't think this is just a bit of intemperate language which they should not repeat today, it's more long term than that. Even their user talk page has a banner at the top informing those who might find issue with anything that they're already wrong. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 15:26, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Despite Ritchie's desire for compromise, I align with Amakuru; I support community ban, or an indef block for incivility at minimum. _{Duly signed,} ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 15:59, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

As SCB isn't interested in discussing how to improve their behaviour, I have blocked them for 48 hours. This doesn't preclude any further community ban being discussed here. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:07, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, I like how his response to your warning was "It's a very well-known quote from a film, but sure." As if there aren't thousands of well-known film quotes that are offensive to use towards other editors, all the same. Ravenswing 16:15, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

• I'm not sure if a community ban is necessary. Per Serial# this is an editor who has been blocked, sanctioned, and warned on and off for a while. I think a simple disruptive editing/no personal attacks indef block under recidivisim might be for the best. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 16:09, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
• Support C-ban per my links above and the sheer number before that that previous blocks were intended to address but did not. Also per SCB's own WP:IDHT as shown in his smirking, bird-flipping edit summaries. But also not averse to Money's suggestion re the plain old indef. Would that be appealable only to the community though? SN54129 18:52, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Minor distraction, apologies
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I'd also support Ritchie333, taking this and SCB's page off their watchlist, as so far everything you've done here has gone Bristols up. First, you blame an IP for their being sworn at. Then you warn a user who has previously been warned before. (Which you call 'advice'!) Then you block that user for the same behaviour that you just warned them for without them having even edited in the meantime! Stone me. SN54129 16:18, 26 September 2023 (UTC) To be fair, they did edit in the meantime, giving a flippant reply to R333's warning as they removed it. No sign of anything even remotely like "OK yeah, I'll tone it down a bit"... Black Kite (talk) 16:25, 26 September 2023 (UTC) True, but they hadn't continued the behaviour for which they had been warned. And if flippant edit summaries were blockable, I'd be c-banned too by now... I've just realised I'm defending SCB *facepalm* SN54129 16:30, 26 September 2023 (UTC) Kinda agree with SN54129 on this one, I'm afraid. The block made no sense in context and just gives him more ammunition to be outraged, as he has indeed done by lashing out on his Talk Page. Questionable judgment. Duly signed, ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 17:38, 26 September 2023 (UTC) To be honest, if I hadn't had previous history with SCB - I have final-warned them before for something they are now topic-banned from - I would have probably indeffed them given their long history of merrily insulting all and sundry. Black Kite (talk) 17:50, 26 September 2023 (UTC) Apologies @Black Kite and WaltCip:, I've kinda derailed this a bit; mind if I hat it? And I'm regretting the size of font now; my eyes have gone funny. SN54129 18:00, 26 September 2023 (UTC) Yep, no worries. Black Kite (talk) 18:06, 26 September 2023 (UTC) Well I suppose I could have followed the advice of the Wise Woman who said "block everyone in the whole woooorld", but an admin shouldn't trust anyone who gives their professional address at 53 Dunghill Mansions, Putney..... Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:07, 26 September 2023 (UTC) Ritchie: Here is a purse of monies. SN54129 18:52, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

• Support CBAN. Reasons [5], SN54129 diffs, and Ravenswing's reasoning. I can understand a momentary lapse of self control, (I've personally come one publish click from a fast CBAN on numerous threads, so I know its difficult), but this is a pattern that has to stop. Don't have a quote from Babe, maybe a sad quote from Old Yeller because SCB has a lot of add, I hope someone finds a way out of this remedy. 19:54, 26 September 2023 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by TimothyBlue (talk • contribs)
• Support community ban Unless SCB can commit to knocking it off with the petty personal remarks, they're a timesink and we've c-banned for much less, and the other issues are well beyond the pale. Some time off, an attitude adjustment and a WP:SO are the bare minimum here, and I do feel the block was appropriate (if you can't stop snarking once the feet are on the fire, that does not seem like an issue with the block issuer). Nate • (chatter) 21:20, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
• Support CBAN. It's a shame, but this editor has a long history of personal attacks. CLYDE ^{TALK TO ME}/_{STUFF DONE} 21:32, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
• Support CBAN we were literally just here earlier this month for very similar reasons i.e. this user being obnoxious for the sake of it. That isn’t even pretending to care about coming within inches of a CBAN, so the only way they’re going to get the message is to just do it. Dronebogus (talk) 22:44, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
• Support CBAN. haven't been involved in any of this discussion or the 1 month prior one, but looking through the things, it's starting to seem like SCB needs a lot of time to think about their actions. DrowssapSMM (say hello) 23:34, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
• Support CBAN the user has made it perfectly clear they don't care about collaboration; I don't see why any should care about not collaborating with them. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:46, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
• Support CBAN They do not have the temperament to be able to edit here. Scorpions1325 (talk) 00:22, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
• Support CBAN Enough is enough. Sometimes people can lose their temper but when it happens again and again it becomes our fault for allowing it. Time to fix that problem. - Who is John Galt? ✉ 02:19, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
• Support CBAN or an indef block, whatever will let people move on from this time sink. WindTempos ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:29, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
• Support CBAN They have made it clear they really don't want to collaberate with others. It probably won't happen in the near future either.Seawolf35 (talk) 18:58, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
• Support CBAN - this user is clearly not capable of interacting in a collaborative environment. Looking at their most recent contributions, it seems like they're just intentionally violating WP:JERK for no good reason. It really isn't hard to not be rude. --Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 02:18, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Just for the purposes of logging it for thread reference, SCB went offensively salted/scorched earth in their response, which has been rightfully hatted. I've struck my call for a standard offer in six months; I don't want them back at all. Good riddance to their rubbish. Nate • (chatter) 21:17, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Diff instead of oldid, for easier viewing. –Novem Linguae (talk) 18:48, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

It was very much a "well, there goes your chances" edit. Good block. We support trans friends here. SWinxy (talk) 01:53, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

I noticed it was deleted too. Which I think is warranted for in this case. _{Duly signed,} ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 13:21, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

I do not think this is true. For one, it is a user's comment on their own talk page, and for two, it is a comment that was a direct component of an administrative process, and for three, it was the specific comment for which they were community-banned and had their talk page access revoked. The reason we keep this type of user talk page around is so that, after the fact, it's possible for other editors to examine the rationale for a ban, determine what the consensus was, and understand how it was formed. This is made extremely difficult if it's censored from the record — in a few months there will probably be a bunch of AfD notices and newsletters and random junk clogging up the edit history of the talk page, making it require multiple minutes of bisecting the history to understand what happened. If his edit had someone's dox in it or a link to child pornography then sure, revdel it or oversight it, but in this case I think we gain very little (who is reading this talk page? it's not indexed anywhere) in return for destroying the auditability and accountability of Wikipedia. jp×g 17:39, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

TPO is still subject to BANREVERT. SCB had been indefinitely GENSEX topic banned on 6 September, and the comment that lead to the revocation of SCB's ability to edit his talk page was unquestionably a violation of that TBAN. Removal of the comment is perfectly within the spirit and letter of policy, whereas restoration of it is questionable at best. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:01, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

I was one of the editors who reverted the removal. I have just self-reverted; my apologies for my misunderstanding. Sideswipe's argument is much more persuasive than an appeal to WP:DENY. I don't see what's to be gained by removing a hatted discussion, but the policy argument seems clear enough. Perhaps a post with a diff would alleviate @JPxG's concern of leaving a record? EducatedRedneck (talk) 18:16, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

You could leave a note saying that talk page access was removed after making those comments. However looking at the history of that talk page, I'm not sure jpxg's concern about newsletters and random junk clogging up the edit history is particularly strong. While AfD notices might appear as SCB has created 263 mainspace articles, I'm not seeing any evidence in the talk page history that SCB had actively subscribed to any newsletters. The only automated edits I can see are from SineBot signing a bunch of unsigned comments.

Honestly, with the comment removed it'd probably just be best to move on and edit elsewhere. Outside of a UTRS appeal, there's very little else that's going to happen here. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:25, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

What was posted was inexcusable and serves no purpose being on a live page. AN/I threads are archived and searchable, and with any luck this will be the latest thread mentioning the user forever. If the information really needs to be found in 10 years, this thread has timestamps aplenty, and page histories can be filtered by date. Unless the revision is REVDEL'd it will always be there for someone with just a bit of patience. Lets move on folks, please. GabberFlasted (talk) 18:33, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

A ban issued based on somebody's statements regarding a hot-button political issue seems like one of the most likely things to be referenced in the future. I realize it's important to a lot of people that they express their opposition to these statements. However, the practice of banning somebody for saying something, and then attempting to remove our record of what the thing was, seems to go rather far beyond the pale. It's already in an autocollapse template. What is the benefit of further expunging it, and not even bothering to leave a note in the section that SCB's comment was removed? jp×g 19:10, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

For the same reason we allow any other removal per BANREVERT, the contributions are disruptive and were made in violation of a ban.

However we aren't discussing removing the record of what the removed contribution was. No one has suggested we revdel or oversight it, and the content itself still remains accessible through the page history. It is still recorded, it's just not currently visible in the live version of the page. Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:17, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It's not removed from the record, it's in the history should a ban review ever take place,a nd has now been discussed here at length. The diffs will be easy enough to find; there is no need to leave blatant anti-tans attacks in plain view because it may (possibly) make it slightly harder to find the diffs in the future if (possibly) an appeal is made. It hasn't been expunged and the harm in leaving the comments there far outweigh a hypothetical and unlikely future event (i.e. being unable to find the information should an appeal be made).-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 19:21, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Also, to clarify things for JPxG, SCB was not "banned for this post". The ban was enacted based on other comments SCB made, as well as just overall behavior. The comment in question, in fact, was made about four hours after the ban was closed and enacted. (It is, however, the reason for TPA removal; that being said, it should still remain removed and accessible only from the talk page history). SkyWarrior 21:19, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Oh, damn it. I had originally typed that out in the note, but when I went to double-check I saw it wasn't the case and removed it. I guess it was still in the edit summary. Well, whatever. I will make a null follow-up edit. Thank you for pointing this out. jp×g 21:21, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Justinw303 - disruptive editing and egregious personal attacks

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

In my view, something needs to be done about the editing and serious incivility of Justinw303. I first remember interacting with them when they made this edit, which changed info that accorded with the given source to info that didn't. I restored the info and posted on their talk page to advise as to why I did so. They responded aggressively defending WP:OR as a reason for the change, here. Eventually it made its way to ANI and a compromise was made by an admin, here.

Justinw303's response was to change their user page to a personal attack against me, which the admin reverted here. They then continued making unsourced changes to sourced info, which they usually mark an minor, such as here and here. More worryingly, they also reverted the admin's compromise edit (again marking as minor) and restored their preferred version of the edit that we disputed here. I then posted on their TP asking them ti stop, here. Their response was to issue another (quite serious) personal attack, here. They then edited the attack to be marginally less offensive, here.

This user's talk page contains multiple examples of very nasty personal attacks not directed at me, like this one. It seems to me that this editor is here to provoke and insult, but plainly NOTHERE to build an encyclopaedia. They also quite clearly enjoy making personal attacks, as their editing pattern quite clearly shows.NEDOCHAN (talk) 12:31, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Although some of those diffs are very old, the recent ones are bad enough and show no interest in following our policies. Indef'd. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:39, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Əhməd Qurbanov and User:EloquentEditor

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Əhməd Qurbanov (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

These two non-ec users are continuing to edit material related to political issues on Nagorno-Karabakh articles [6] [7] despite me letting them know of WP:GS/AA and its restrictions twice. AntonSamuel (talk) 12:27, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

As I mentioned in AntonSamuel's profile, and in my profile, my edits are with explanation. In the light of recent events, Azerbaijan is controlling whole of Nagorno Karabakh. Now it is de-facto and de-jure part of Azerbaijan. That's why I am editing the places that are currently under control in Azerbaijan. But AntonSamuel always revert my changes, and as a result, all of these articles remain out of date. However, I informed AntonSamuel that, these articles should be edited, and I told that if I can't edit, so edit instead of me. But he is insisting of reverting them wrongfully. I think my edits are pretty reasonable. But, if you think i am wrong, please explain reasons to me. Əhməd Qurbanov (talk) 12:42, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

I do not think I have made any serious mistake regarding these articles. I have just added facts to the respective articles, which is Azerbaijan has captured the entire conflict zone. In addition, I do not believe I have done anything against Wikipedia rules. If you think I made serious mistakes, please let me know since I am new to this platform. EloquentEditor (talk) 12:35, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

EloquentEditor, are you aware you are not permitted to directly edit articles about "politics, ethnic relations, and conflicts involving Armenia, Azerbaijan, or both—broadly construed and explicitly including the Armenian genocide"? --Yamla (talk) 12:50, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Moreover, while I cite reliable sources and facts, AntonSamuel reverts my edits without a valid reason and only says we are violating Wikipedia rules. However, I think we, the new editors, are here to add points missing and enhance the quality of the articles. EloquentEditor (talk) 12:51, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

That doesn't answer the question. Regardless, you must immediately cease directly editing these articles. It was inappropriate of you to continue doing so after you were warned. --Yamla (talk) 12:53, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

I did not know that I was not permitted to edit the articles regarding Armenia and Azerbaijan, but can you tell me how I can be eligible to do that? Starting from today, I will discuss in the talk pages of the respective articles before editing them. EloquentEditor (talk) 12:55, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

WP:GS/AA is very clear in this matter. Əhməd Qurbanov and EloquentEditor would do well to read it, and to understand what extended-confirmed means. Looks like we have some rollbacking and page protecting to do. WaggersTALK 12:52, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

I am new to Wikipedia regarding learning this type of policies. I just think that most of my edits are reasonable and with explanation. That's why I can edit them. I didn't think that it is violation. I thought outdated articles were much worse than the current situation. Since today, firstly I will discuss edits in talk pages of respective articles. I'll not edit articles immediately. Əhməd Qurbanov (talk) 13:03, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

I've rollbacked the offending edits and XC-protected the affected articles. Given the statements above it looks like the lesson has been learned so I don't think any additional sanctions are necessary. WaggersTALK 13:14, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Talk:Yaroslav Hunka

Not sure of this is the right place for this but Talk:Yaroslav Hunka is full of material that violates policy, mainly from IPs but also from some registered editors. Specifically, there are very strong allegations against other editors (e.g. of Holocaust revisionism) and description of a living person as a war criminal. I'm not sure what to do, if it requires admin action. Bobfrombrockley (talk) 16:45, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

User:Bgsu98

Yet again, this user has shown disregard for behaviour "branding" edits idiotic here [8]. User:Bgsu98 has been reported to this noticeboard on numerous occasions but nothing is ever done, no warnings are ever given. The way this account continues to get away with ransacking articles and edit summaries that border on harassment.2A00:23EE:19E0:8088:F103:6825:D453:5EC9 (talk) 02:20, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Please note that you're supposed to notify users in their talk page whenever you start a discussion about them here. I've already gone ahead done so. - HotMAN0199 (talk) 02:40, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

More harassment from my stalker in the U.K. @Ponyo, this is the same sockpuppet whose edits you reverted earlier today. Bgsu98 (Talk) 02:49, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

OP Blocked – for a period of 2 weeks (/64): clearly bad faith report. El_C 05:54, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

That’s an understatement. This IP has a long history of disruptive editing, edit-warring, sockpuppetry, and harassment. They have a set of brass ones to label anything I’ve done as “harassment” considering the heinous death threat they left on my talk page, which Wikipedia’s trust and safety office felt was severe enough to contact my local police department in order to verify my safety, and their attempts to call me on the phone. Like I’m about to answer a call from an unknown U.K. phone number in the middle of the workday. And the kicker? It’s over a flipping TV dance program. Seriously, I kid you not. Recommend casting a wider net as they have continued editing this morning on Dancing on Ice (series 16). Bgsu98 (Talk) 12:46, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Yes, this is an LTA. Just block the newest range when they pop up and semi-protect anything they touch.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 15:32, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

@Ponyo, please add protection to Dancing on Ice (series 16) and Dancing with the Stars (American season 32) when you have a chance. Thank you! Bgsu98 (Talk) 15:36, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

I've protected Dancing on Ice (series 16), but why Dancing with the Stars (American season 32)? It seems to be mostly US IPs editing.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 15:41, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

If it’s not the same IP, then I apologize for the confusion. Bgsu98 (Talk) 15:43, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

User has engaged in a personal attack by calling my actions "bullcrap" and called me Cotton, which is not my name. Xoruz (talk) 20:43, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

Just so you know, the phrase raised in your latter diff isn't speaking to you directly, it's a paraphrase of a line from the movie Dodgeball. That line or a similar paraphrasing is generally mentioned as a sort of aside to indicate the speaker views a course of action as risky or questionable. Yes I know thats not exactly an aside but I don't know a better term for a statement directed to nobody. GabberFlasted (talk) 12:01, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

@GabberFlasted Talking to yourself? ‍ ‍ Relativity ‍ ‍ 01:08, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Regardless of the OP's intentions for opening this, the user has been engaged in behaviour on the Strictly Come Dancing articles which basically amounts to we are doing it their way whether we like it or not. They had a extensive discussion with me on the Series 21 talk page where they refused to accept that calculating the mean of some numbers fell under WP:CALC. After concensus went against them, although there wasn't an extensive discussion as they timed their edits for a quiet period for the articles in question, they described the keeping of an average score table as being "idiotic" in an edit summary referred to by the OP

This is a civility violation surely

Looking at this ANI discussion, they seem to have an issue with UK based editors too in which case they may be best remaining off UK based articles such as the Strictly Come Dancing ones Davethorp (talk) 14:28, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

User:Camal2015

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Camal2015 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I let this non-ec user know of WP:GS/AA and its restrictions, and the user responded with "I do not listen to a man, who have got a medal from Armenian side and behaving like a pro-Armenian. Be neutral. Your reverted edits had also been deleted". The user is now continuing with editing material related to political issues on Nagorno-Karabakh articles [9] AntonSamuel (talk) 17:04, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

I have blocked Camal2015 for one week for violating Remedy A of WP:GS/AA at Malibeyli and other pages. Cullen328 (talk) 22:35, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Removal of RS at Mosin–Nagant

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

IP address 202.28.62.75 is continuously blanking a section at Mosin–Nagant, referring to "non-reliable" sourcing. The sourcing in question in Reuters. Unsure if this one can go to WP:AIV or not since it's not technically vandalism. Tessaract2^Hi! 01:57, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

YaleianKing

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

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

I'm also including OxfordianKing, since it's clearly the same person, as demonstrated by their edits and name similarity. YaleianKing also didn't dismiss this when I mentioned it in their talk page [10]

Khalaj people: Removed sourced information and added unsourced info multiple times, starting from August 2022 till now [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19]

SUMKA: Altered sourced info [20] [21] [22] --HistoryofIran (talk) 18:57, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

OxfordianKing is the older of the 2 accounts, however that's blatant socking to be involved in an edit war. Both accounts indeffed. RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:10, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Thanks! --HistoryofIran (talk) 19:17, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Brandmeister

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Logged warning. Seeing as more than 80 percent of Nagorno-Karabakh's population is reported to have fled, I think a nominal degree of sensitivity is called for, at the Flight of Nagorno-Karabakh Armenians page, at the least. And while robust debate is allowed, which includes whether to define that exodus as ethnic cleansing, tone and tenor matter.

A second component to this logged warning is WP:FORUMSHOPPING, considering that Brandmeister has filed a complaint against the OP (KhndzorUtogh) at WP:AE (live report, permalink), having done so without their AE report pointing out the existence of this ANI complaint (i.e. to my surprise). El_C 20:18, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

---

Brandmeister has compared Armenian victims of ethnic cleansing to economic migrants. Furthermore, Brandmeister claimed that only Armenians are referring to this as ethnic cleansing and that no third parties are, when there were several third parties named in the article describing this as ethnic cleansing or genocide, with Luis Moreno Ocampo probably being the most noteworthy example. When another user pointed out how disrespectful the analogy was, Brandmeister still tried justifying the comparison. Is this kind of behavior acceptable for a Wikipedia editor? --KhndzorUtogh (talk) 02:41, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

In have had some concerns recently about the behavior of Brandmeister in this topic area, both in terms of the comments they make and how they use use and represent sources, particularly primary sources. Most notably, they have been misrepresenting what a primary source says, repeatedly claiming that a line they added is "verbatim wording of the resolutions", despite it being easily provable that it is not. In addition, they have been pushing for their interpretation of those sources, despite reliable secondary sources having a different interpretation; see this RSN discussion that I opened after being unable to help Brandmeister understand why we can't preference our own interpretation.

As for the comment it shouldn't have been made, and Brandmeister should have struck it when Super Dromaeosaurus pointed out that it was inappropriate, rather than trying to justify it. BilledMammal (talk) 02:53, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

This would probably be better sorted at WP:AE, but since it's already here...
I'd argue that it is pretty disqualifying. Doubling down was not the right response either. I don't know where we go from here, though. Maybe a final warning? I'm a bit reluctant to suggest a T-Ban out of the gate, but we're definitely heading towards that territory if nothing is done to correct this kind of conduct. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 05:19, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

My initial thought was for a final warning, however they have already received topic bans twice in the past ([23] and [24]). Because of this, I am in favour of a TBAN for Brandmeister on the Armenia-Azerbaijan conflict, broadly construed. JML1148 ^{(talk | contribs)} 06:51, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

What I mean was that they were emigrating due to conditions caused by armed conflict which is also the case in some African countries. I made that clear in the diff above: migration due to war or armed hostilities has been a well-known issue and some areas, like Karabakh, Libya, Sudan or Syria are more prone to it than others. For the record, the United Nations Refugee Agency representative in Armenia said there were no recorded incidents or cases of mistreatment against people on the move, and said they viewed it as a refugee situation. As such, I don't think I've breached Wikipedia etiquette in a sanctionable way. Brandmeister^talk 07:33, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

I see that some of Brandmeister's conduct is frustrating to other editors. I'd note in particular that his use of the word "verbatim" is incorrect, and potentially misleading to those who don't bother to read the primary documents. It's also true that he's received two topic bans in the past, 1 week and then 1 month.

However, I think it's also worth noting that none of the above discussion is about serious behavioral issues. I think the "verbatim" case is probably the worst thing presented here. One could certainly debate the validity of his analogy, but being offended by his good faith perspective on the world doesn't make it sanctionable. I also noticed that his most recent topic ban was over a decade ago. If he's managed to edit unsanctioned for over a decade, and now there are minor concerns about an uncomfortable analogy or poor choice of words, I don't think a TBAN would be in order, certainly not a permanent one. I think he could be given some rope here, and if he's really being destructive to the encyclopedia, I'm sure he'll be back here soon, in which case a ban might make more sense. Pecopteris (talk) 08:04, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes. I've been editing this WP:AA2/WP:AA3 area for over 10 years now, genuinely trying to make it more balanced. Here, with regard to the ethnic cleansing allegation, some reliable sources disagree or don't support that, while Azerbaijani government allowed free passage for all those who wanted to leave. Super Dromaeosaurus, mentioned above, agreed with me: "Categories should reflect the article, and currently all it says about ethnic cleansing is that Pashinyan and Haaretz consider this as such and that Armenians are leaving due to fears over genocide and ethnic cleansing. The article does not convincingly justify the presence of the category. For that, a more nuanced analysis from a variety of sources will need to be added in the article". Still, back then we agreed to disagree with other editors and two ethnic cleansing categories currently stay in the article, editing-wise I've not been reverting it over their inclusion. Brandmeister^talk 10:27, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

I would advice Brandmeister not to keep elaborating on their slip of words over this sensitive issue because it makes it worse. In the article about the Armenians' flight (much of what is being mentioned here happened on its talk page) are mentioned cases of violence used by Azerbaijani soldiers against Armenian civilians, that UN report is irrelevant. However, I am not convinced, yet at least, that we could argue there's a systematic effort of ethnic cleansing, but some individual cases do exist.

Still I don't think there's anything sanctionable here. This is a hot topic and it is normal some people may get on their nerves. I've seen several users with a quite overreactive behaviour. What I also believe is that some users are inflaming each other rather than using being delicate and understanding of the situation of the other. But rarely are things perfect. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 12:01, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Brandmeister I think I was too quick to respond without properly reading into what happened regarding the Flight from Nagorno-Karabakh. This is really a content dispute about whether to consider it ethnic cleansing or now. Obviously, anything involving the Republic of Artsakh is going to be contentious, and I think that's what has happened here. JML1148 ^{(talk | contribs)} 06:04, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Thank you anyway for understanding, JML1148. Brandmeister^talk 06:56, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Sounds just like a difference of opinion, being amplified by KhndzorUtogh's use of inflammatory language. Best just to calm down, stop complaining, and keep editing. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:35, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Agree with Graeme Bartlett; a difference of opinion/content dispute that shouldn't be discussed at AN/I. (Non-administrator comment) Edward-Woodrow • talk 19:48, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, while I have some tone concerns, the original complaint here makes it sound far worse than it actually is and this appears to be a run-of-the-mill difference of opinion. In fact, the original complaint basically does the same thing that Brandmeister is accused of: sanitizing ethnic cleansing as economic migration. Many refugees from Tigray or from the Central African Republic's civil war or from Sudan would, I'm sure, strongly object to having their situations referred to as economic migration.

I'd ask anyone involved in that discussion to do their part to turn down the heat, not crank up the furnace. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 14:59, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

• I am concerned about Brandmeister's participation in this topic. Brandmeister had previously mis-attributed the words of a UNHCR source that stated it "could not comment on whether it constituted ethnic cleansing" to make it appear UNHCR did not consider the flight to be ethnic cleansing.[25] One would think that this allegory incident would've been a wake up call to Brandmeister to stop disrespecting ethnic cleansing victims, but since this report has been made Brandmeister tried removing the prevalent and expert Ocampo source for "balance" reasons while also adding undue expressions of doubt.[26] Brandmeister also misquoted another source to read that it came across no incidents of violence against civilians, when it only reads to have no reports.[27] And on Ocampo's own article, Brandmeister has cited an opinion piece by Rodney Dixon, a lawyer that Azerbaijan directly hired to help rejecting the Ocampo report,[28] to attack Ocampo's views.[29] This seems to be a WP:LIBEL violation. - Kevo³²⁷ (talk) 21:20, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

  Brandmeister's changes in the first diff were factually true, as the source backs up the changes he made. Stating that Brandmeister tried "to make it appear UNHCR did not consider the flight to be ethnic cleansing," is a stretch at best. JML1148 ^{(talk | contribs)} 04:15, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

  I disagree; in this edit, they claimed that The UNHCR, having noted no incidents of mistreatment, viewed the flight as a refugee situation rather than ethnic cleansing. However, what the source says is that the UNHCR viewed this as a refugee situation and could not comment on whether it constituted ethnic cleansing. The first suggests the UNHRC had ruled out the possibility of ethnic cleansing, while the second emphasizes the inability or unwillingness of the UNHRC to comment on the possibility of ethnic cleansing.

  I also agree with Kevo327's claim about the UN source; in this edit Brandmeister claimed that a UN mission reported no incidences of violence against civilians following the ceasefire agreement, but the source says that the mission did not come across any reports of incidences of violence against civilians following the latest ceasefire. The difference is subtle, but significant; the first is a definitive declaration regarding the absence of violent incidents, while the second leaves room for potential incidents that were not reported.

  Combined with their claim that their edits were verbatim quotes from the UN Security Council resolutions there does appear to be an issue with source misrepresentation that needs to be addressed. BilledMammal (talk) 06:20, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

  Somehow I managed to miss the second change that Brandmeister made in this edit. The first is factually correct (in fact it verbatim quotes the source) , however that second part regarding the UNHCR's view on whether the Flight was ethnic cleansing is definitely misinterpreting the source. Same goes for the second edit you linked to. JML1148 ^{(talk | contribs)} 05:44, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

  It's unclear how we can address this at the moment, given that Brandmeister hasn't even acknowledged that they have misrepresented sources, much less presented a commitment to not to do so in the future. BilledMammal (talk) 08:51, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

  I'd say a formal warning, followed by an immediate topic ban if they misrepresent a source in this topic area again. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:48, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Prolific IP vandalism

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

Over a hundred disruptive edits in five hours reverted by several editors. Disruption consists of nonexistent highways, nonexistent intersections, and nonexistent cities (there are no such places as "Duluth Lea" or "Jamesport" in Minnesota). The report made by another editor and expanded upon by me was declined at AIV. --Sable232 (talk) 21:49, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

I've blocked for 31 hours. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:52, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

That's the same IP who did the same nonsense on my Minecraft roads wiki of all things. Seems like they get around. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 22:30, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The IP has continued to vandalize Ohio road articles after the expiry of their block. See for example this diff; OpenStreetMap says SR 61 crosses I-80/I-90 without interchange, rather than interchanging with I-90/SR 2 as stated by the ip (which aren't concurrent here). – dudhhr ^talk_contribs^she_her 21:54, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

User:Vif12vf

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The user called Vif12vf has been hounding me and reverting some of the good-faith edits I made in Wikipedia. I have provided very clear rationale for my edit but the said user persists on reverting my edits without providing a reason. I have even tried to talk to them on their user talk page but the user just deleted my message. They also keep treating my edits as disruptive although they clearly are not. 103.196.139.76 (talk) 06:22, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

You should try to get consensus among everyone else before you try to make massive changes to change "Roman Catholic Church" to "Catholic Church" in a bunch of articles. You should stop here and start discussing it. You're not being hounded. I agree your edits appear to be good faith, but that doesn't make them not disruptive. To edit one article and make the change you wanted, sure, try it. But you're trying to make these changes across a bunch of articles - that requires consensus.--v/r - TP 06:45, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Don't pretend to be neutral, you believe North Korea is a "left-wing" state and want nobody to change this profile. I just personally consider this belief ridiculous and I am not surprise given your education background 安多撒兰 (talk) 07:51, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

you should register an account and we can together make a case against this guy along with many other victims of his abusive edits 安多撒兰 (talk) 08:16, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Figbiscuits

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

User Figbiscuits is publishing declined or rejected drafts – or in the case of 2023 Isabela Cessna 206 crash, a draft which the author had just moved back to drafts saying it's not ready! – which don't demonstrate notability and/or otherwise aren't fit to publish. I've requested speedy on a couple of them, but Figbiscuits reverted these straight away (as is indeed their right, technically, not being the article creator) without any explanation, so they are now clogging up AfD. Trying to address this on their talk page hasn't proven fruitful. Could anything be done to calm this down a bit? Thanks, --DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:54, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

WP:HELPDESK#Photo and User talk:Steel Chambers are also of relevance, when I told them that promotional userpages aren't allowed, they responded that my userpage was promotional, before promptly reverting it. This editor is clearly not editing constructively. JML1148 ^{(talk | contribs)} 09:08, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

I've also come across this user this morning, and agree they need to desist from moving drafts. I've reverted or enacted speedy deletion requests on a few of them, but they're creating a lot of unnecessary work. The moving of drafts seems to be quite indiscriminate - some like the Cessna crash are OK, but others are not in a fit stage at all. Suggest at minimum a topic ban on page moves until they can demonstrate competence in that area, but maybe also a site block for WP:CIR issues.  — Amakuru (talk) 09:10, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Relax. 2023 Isabela Cessna 206 crash is fine. If you disagree, you know where AFD is. Happy to discuss it there. Wikipedia:Don't demolish the house while it's still being built

"as is indeed their right" - thanks for acknowledging that - so why are we here?

The way that Steel Chambers was treated is awful - a new user who simply wanted to put his picture on his page, and got severely bitten. Figbiscuits (talk) 09:11, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

When you move the Cessna article into the main space, and the creator moves it back to drafts indicating that it's not yet finished, what superior right do you have to overrule that? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:15, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

WP:OWN Figbiscuits (talk) 09:16, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

WP:RMUM Tollens (talk) 09:17, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Look, let's forget about the Cessna crash. The article is in a decent state and can remain in main space. The draft creator doesn't have special rights to block its publication, and that's not even a RMUM issue. The bigger concern is the other draft moves this user has made, some of which are woefully inadequate.  — Amakuru (talk) 09:21, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

The Cessna article has a section called "Dump", it's obviously incomplete. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 10:37, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Assuming that they're a new editor not familiar with Wikipedia norms and just how common userpage spam is, can someone provide other examples of problematic edits? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 10:47, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

@HJ Mitchell: Yes, I can. There's this, where they're basically saying that my userpage is promotional. There's this, where they blanked somebody's userpage for seemingly no reason. They told Tenryuu that they were biting the newcomers for a comment towards a user that had a very promotional userpage and was relatively polite. There's more if you look through their contribs. JML1148 ^{(talk | contribs)} 10:58, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

They don't appear to have a good grasp on notability or sourcing, which is why they're getting these moves wrong. Draft:Aidan Finnegan isn't a notable footballer (and is hardly sourced), and was moved to mainspace. So was Draft:Callum Wood, which I've just moved back to draft, who doesn't pass NSPORTS either. Neither has ever played a fully professional game. I haven't even looked at the many other articles they've moved today. No doubt some are fine are some are not, but they don't have the competence to be doing this. Black Kite (talk) 11:14, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Regarding the state of the Cessna article, the article was contested for an AfD previously (and as of the moment, majority of the text hasn't been changed since it was nominated for an AfD). When I asked for a copy of this article from an admin (discussion), I was specifically told that I should not move it to mainspace unless it had gone through WP:AfC. – Abacusada (t • c) 10:53, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Oh right yeah, I missed the AFD apologies. I've re-draftified it then.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:59, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

@Figbiscuits: Could you explain why you said that my userpage was promotional? Additionally, Steel Chambers wasn't a 'new user who...got severely bitten', they were here solely to promote themselves, which we have very clear rules against. JML1148 ^{(talk | contribs)} 10:31, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

• Am I the only one getting WP:DUCK feelz?--v/r - TP 10:35, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

  I didn't want to be the person to say it, but yes, I actually am. JML1148 ^{(talk | contribs)} 10:37, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

  Ditto. Either that or they've learned a heckuvalot more about Wikipedia in 13 days than I did in 13 years. (Then again, I am a slow learner.) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:40, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

  Not too familiar with the checkuser policy... but could we run a WP:CHECK on Figbiscuits? JML1148 ^{(talk | contribs)} 10:42, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

  I think WP:SPI is probably the place to start, assuming this is a non-urgent issue...  — Amakuru (talk) 10:53, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

  You're likely to get an answer along the lines of  CheckUser is not for fishing. And without a master to compare to, anything a checkuser could see is unlikely to be of much use. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:04, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

  I don't think it even needs an SPI. They are aware of this discussion; if they continue to cause problems and waste other editor's time as they have here, they can be blocked. If not, then fine. Black Kite (talk) 11:18, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

  Have you considered the possibility that steel chambers and figbiscuts could be the same editor? We’ve had good hand bad hand accounts on here before, and if anyone cares to look the most recent ani log has a few entries for draft and promotional based new users who could be your part of a sock farm. I got work tonight, but if the spirit moves me I may look at this closer Friday/Saturday - assuming no one beats me to it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1011:B326:48D4:ED48:AA9B:E89F:3CAE (talk) 12:32, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

  yeah... anyone who links to wikipedia:don't demolish the house while it's still being built is not a newbie. ltbdl (talk) 14:16, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

@Figbiscuits I don't recommend moving drafts when this ANI thread is still ongoing. Ca ^{talk to me!} 13:11, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

• sigh*. I've pblocked them for the time being. It's a shame there isn't a function to only block moves but I've blocked them from draftspace.

HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:21, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Maybe we could resurrect the whole "being able to remove autoconfirmed" proposal as another more granular function since people find useful. That would remove the ability to do moves. edited Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:59, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

For admins, Special:Permalink/1178685520 may be of interest, as well as the rest of Figbiscuits's edits to that now deleted page. Folly Mox (talk) 13:59, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

The history of Figbiscuits's talkpage is also illustrative. Removing warnings with the edit summary do i look like i give a fuck?, feigning total ignorance, baby sealioning, page blanking, etc. Add this to the draft move nonsense, trolling at the Help desk, the deleted page linked above, pointy comments on other people's talkpages.

Also they managed to find WP:RM/TR and WP:DR? Their contributions can all fit on a single page for those wanting to inspect all the diffs, but this is blatantly not a new account, and used solely for disruption apart from a single legit COI cleanup. SPI isn't necessary for these kind of cases. Just block and move on. Folly Mox (talk) 14:16, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

I first ran into this user on IRC, where they were asking a question about how many drafts total existed. (Not how many drafts are awaiting review, but how many pages total were in draftspace.) I refused to answer his question as not germane to the channel, and I wasn't the first one to decline doing so; it turned out he had a draft but for whatever reason he had buried the lede. When he did find his answer I pointedly asked him how knowing this information would be any help to him what-so-ever, and he got on a high horse about the number of drafts total rather than answer the question. I'm not surprised to find that he's been pulling this stunt, as he seems more concerned about there being less drafts in draftspace than he is actually imrpoving those pages to bring them up to par. Support topic-ban from the Draft: namespace in lieu of a technical solution to stop Willy-on-Wheels-style behaviour. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{Source assessment notes} 15:58, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

• Indeffed. AGF is not a suicide pact. They're welcome to file an unblock and if someone believes they can be a productive editor, no objection to an admin unblocking. Star Mississippi 17:29, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
• I discussed this user with a few other admins last night. This edit's summary, attached to an edit which originally created a new page (before I history merged it with the respective draft), is indicative of someone with much more experience than the 300 some-odd edits this user has. Never mind someone with 3000 edits or more. It indicates someone who not only read the rules as we might expect of a bright and chipper new editor but someone who knew the specific rules with copying before they created this account. Throw my hat in for "this account is a sock" and they should attempt to explain their knowledge accordingly. Star Mississippi only beat me to blocking the user after I woke up to find this ANI started. Izno (talk) 18:09, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:TheFriendlyFas2

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

@TheFriendlyFas2

Potential Wikipedia:No Nazis case. Used to identify as a fascist on their userpage before changing it to third positionist.

Most of their edits have been religion-oriented and not endorsing of far-right beliefs but they have attempted to mass-change fascist parties from "far-right" to "third position."

Relevant examples:

Special:Diff/1058885918 Special:Diff/1058886551 Special:Diff/1177265016

HadesTTW (he/him • talk) 00:08, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Identifying with third positionism on their userpage should be grounds for a WP:NAZI block. CJ-Moki (talk) 01:04, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

I understand that what I had done with regard to attempting to change the political positions of certain articles was erroneous and I accept that they were wrong of me. However those edits were made 2 years ago and after being reprimanded I never attempted to change anything again. TheFriendlyFas2 (talk) 02:51, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

It looks like there are similar edits done more recently; specifically [30][31][32][33]. While they are from five months ago, when combined with the diffs provided by OP they do make it seem like there's a long-term POV-pushing issue here. Hatman31 (talk) 15:22, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Yikes. I know NONAZIS is an essay, but come on. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 09:22, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

I just realized their username is quite literally "the friendly fascist". Double yikes. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 11:39, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Edits like this diff seem to show them cynically probing our defences to see which specific euphemisms and synonyms for fascism we will allow. I suggest that the answer is none of them! They are clearly WP:NOTHERE. --DanielRigal (talk) 15:36, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, this seems like a clear NOTHERE block. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:17, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Manually unarchiving this so a proper admin decision can be made. This user is a self-identified fascist, even if there's little POV-pushing edits. ICurrently, no admin has clarified if this is permitted or considered grounds for a block. HadesTTW (he/him • talk) 16:04, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

NONAZIS is just an essay as we all know but absent any real problematic behavior we have to be careful with reasons for a ban. If I wanted to make a martyr for an extremist online community, making a 'friendly' account somewhere notable and getting it banned just for the ideology would be a pretty good start at letting the community consider themselves victims. GabberFlasted (talk) 17:01, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

"We might make a martyr of him by not letting him edit Wikipedia as a self-identified fascist" I personally am willing to take the risk. --JBL (talk) 18:47, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

I am not. NONAZIS Is. An. Essay. It is under no circumstances whatsoever valid grounds for a block. Show us some real grounds for a block -- grounds that would impeach an admitted communist, or an admitted monarchist, or an admitted Social Democrat -- and that's another thing. The diffs people are posting would not suffice for that. The easiest way to keep Wikipedia from being smeared as a bunch of people eager to dive into knee-jerk witch hunts is not to have them. Ravenswing 22:43, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Their username is "the friendly fascist". Come on. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 22:55, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

It might be an essay, but we should not, must not, and have an ethical obligation to not, allow Nazis or fascists in any form. Wikipedia ought to treat them like we treat pedophiles and block them on sight. It's astonishing that you're trying to allow self-identified fascists to remain here. -- Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 06:18, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

At this point it's hard to say. It depends on whether they are still continuing to engage in disruptive activity, and their last edit was on 9/27 here at WP:ANI. I think there is definitely a pattern of undesirable behavior here, but there's also an opportunity to course-correct. Were I in this scenario, I would warn them that future behavior of this kind would result in an indef block. _{Duly signed,} ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 17:02, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

• There are essays and there are essays. BRD is an essay, but the vast majority of the community (and, more importantly, our admins) acknowledge that not following it can be DISRUPTIVE and therefore a reason for blocking. It's the same for NONAZIS. If someone wants to hold fascist ideas in their heart of hearts, there's nothing we can or should do about that. But if they start to express their views in their editing, that's destructive to the encyclopedia, and disruptive to the community, and a damn good reason to block. Saying "NONAZIS" is just shorthand for "this editor can't keep their views in their head and off the page, so away they go for violating NPOV and DISRUPTION". So please, no one should get hung up on "it's just an essay".
  In this case NONAZIS, NPOV, DISRUPTION and the username policy are all pointing in the NOTHERE direction, screaming "Block this person, please". A block is most certainly called called for. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:34, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

• And BTW "we have to be careful with reasons for a ban." No, no we don't. When the community decides an editor is not welcome, the reason for blocking them indefinitely is much, much less important then that they get blocked and shown the door. Blocks are to protect the encyclopedia and the community, not should not be a matter of bureaucratic pigeon-holing. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:37, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

  @Beyond My Ken I'm having trouble reconciling this with your previous post. You said it yourself, its their disruptive, POV editing that gives a very good reason for a block. My point was never to say we should allow people to promote their fascist ideals through editing, just that we ban them for an actual reason, not just for their beliefs, as you yourself said there's nothing we [...] should do about that. Am I missing something in your position or policy? GabberFlasted (talk) 15:19, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

• I'm seeing a pretty clear pattern here: TheFriendlyFas2 makes an unsourced edit that downplays a party's far-right position, gets reverted, reverts back without making any attempt to communicate, gets reverted again. Waits a while, then sometimes goes back to try out a different unsourced label to replace "far-right". (For one example, see here.) In this thread, they say they've gotten their act together and are immediately refuted by the next reply. I've indeffed for a pattern of disruptive editing across multiple articles. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 06:30, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
• Very cool guys. When do we start blocking this other kind [34] [35]? Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 15:24, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

  If that first editor were recently making pro-Stalin-POV edits I'd be likely to indef. I'm not willing to read all the userboxes of the second to know what the issue is exactly.

  In general, I don't think it's helpful to play "what about" with blocks like these. If there's something wrong with the merits of this block, there must be a better reason. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:35, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

This user made a series of harmful edits and they were blocked for it. However some people here were asking for them to be blocked due to their ideology specifically. I just wanted to say that if we're going to start hunting people for their political views we should do it right. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 16:40, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Shashwad Basavaraj Babalgaon

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This account is being used only for promotional purposes after being told to stop at least 3 times by virtue of his user page being deleted 3 times over the past few months. Their last edit was to add themselves to a notable people list on Alliance University with google, Spotify and LinkedIn as sources. The account has been promoting the person who is the namesake of the account. It is not prolific and active enough to bring to AIV. I feel it needs to be addressed though. Seawolf35 (talk) 14:41, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. Only edit I see that wasn't promotional appears to have been a test edit. Blocked indef'--v/r - TP 23:10, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Apphistorian

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This account has shown aggression, hostility, and made threats against me on Talk:American Sugarbush Harlequin Draft. They also engaged in what appears to be either page vandalism or an edit war due their personal and conflicting interests with me, a third party editor. Quote: "I am the Executive Director of the American Sugarbush Harlequin Draft Horse Association and I can attest that no one contacted the registry for information. Our breed name is COPYRIGHTED and cannot be used without our express written permission. I will be reviewing everything on this page and reporting any misinformation, as well as any ue of our copyrighted material." However, this appears to be major conflict-of-interest editing, as well as possible user harassment. See: Conflict-of-interest editing on Wikipedia. Due to this, The page has been nominated for deletion by User:Grorp: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/American Sugarbush Harlequin Draft. However, page deletion does not sufficiently address User:Apphistorian making false claims about my violating Wikipedia policy by using "copyrighted material". All of the text written on the page is not the result of plagiarism, as User:Apphistorian claims, but largely written by me, and any publicly available material taken from the American Sugarbush Harlequin Draft Horse Association's website was properly cited and attributed to the ASHDHA using quotations and proper citations. This constitutes Wikipedia:WikiProject Fair use/Fair use rationale, under the rationale that the Wikipedia page I contributed was meant to be for nonprofit educational purposes. Obversa (talk) 15:53, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Per https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Wikipedia#Commandeering_or_sanitizing_articles

User:Apphistorian also appears to be engaging in the "commandeering and sanitizing" of the American Sugarbush Harlequin Draft page.

Per Wikipedia:Conflict of interest

Quote: "A Wikipedia conflict of interest (COI) is when an editor wants to do something which does not help Wikipedia's goal, which is to produce a neutral, reliably sourced encyclopedia. Changing pages to promote your own interests or those of other people, companies, or groups, is a COI. Where outside goals are more important to a user than building Wikipedia, that person has a conflict of interest. COI is not wanted in Wikipedia. When a user's changes harm the encyclopedia by breaking policies such as neutral point of view, what Wikipedia is not, and notability, the user's account may be blocked. COI editing can also make the person or group look bad outside of Wikipedia. It is best if users who have COIs say so, both on their user pages and on the talk page of any article they change. This is especially important if other users may disagree with the change that they make. Most Wikipedians will appreciate your honesty. Editors who try to hide their COIs are often exposed. This gives other users the feeling that they, and perhaps their employer, are secretly trying to change Wikipedia articles to support them. If you think a user has a COI, you must be careful not to out them. Wikipedia's policy against harassment is more important than this guideline. COI situations are often discovered when the editor themselves says how they are linked to the subject of the article they are changing. In cases where the user does not say they have a COI, biased editing can be changed back to follow the neutral point of view policy."

Furthermore, per the second source: "Conflict of interest is not a reason to delete an article, although other problems with the article arising from a conflict of interest may be valid criteria for deletion." See in relation to this case: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/American Sugarbush Harlequin Draft

I have no affiliation with either the American Sugarbush Harlequin Draft Horse Association (ASHDHA) or the Sendera Draft Horse Registry (SDHR). I am a third party editor who originally wrote the article based on publicly available information and citations, as well as the notability of the horse breed in relation to other breeds, such as the Appaloosa, the Percheron, and other draft horses. However, User:Apphistorian, who has a self-noted conflict of interest as the Executive Director of the former organization, edited the page I wrote and contributed to reflect a biased point of view based on their personal objection to my unbiased inclusion of the American Sugarbush Harlequin Draft Horse Association (ASHDHA)'s dispute with the Sendera Draft Horse Registry (SDHR), which was also based on publicly available information.

Lastly, please see: https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Ownership_of_articles

I do not "own" the American Sugarbush Harlequin Draft page, but neither does User:Apphistorian. Obversa (talk) 16:29, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Lastly: Wikipedia's Law of Unintended Consequences, citing https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest

"If you write in Wikipedia about yourself, your group, your company, or your pet idea, once the article is created, you have no right to control its content, and no right to delete it outside our normal channels. Content is not deleted just because somebody doesn't like it. Any editor may add material to or remove material from the article within the terms of our content policies. If there is anything publicly available on a topic that you would not want included in an article, it will probably find its way there eventually. More than one user has created an article only to find himself presented in a poor light long-term by other editors. If you engage in an edit war in an attempt to obtain a version of your liking you may have your editing access removed, perhaps permanently." Obversa (talk) 16:32, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Just some advice, please see WP:TLDR. You do not need to copy-paste large portions of pages like WP:COI here, editors are either familiar with its contents or can click the link to read it. The more concise you can be, the more likely it is that someone will read and address the issue, but if you're posting walls of text it's hard to find the pertinent information. - Aoidh (talk) 16:43, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

• Indeffed for the legal threat. AfD is handling the article. Star Mississippi 17:36, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

97.124.150.107 - disruptive edits

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

97.124.150.107 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

This editor has engaged in persistent disruption and addition of unsourced content (inaccurate dates). Vandalism started on 23 September and has continued ever since. Please consider a lengthy block, as warnings on their talkpage have not deterred their behavior. Thanks. 172.56.153.66 (talk) 03:42, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

I've reported it on WP:AIV, as it's recent, obvious vandalism, and it's more likely to get a fast response from there. JML1148 ^{(talk | contribs)} 05:46, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Dashboard

There is a major issue with the admin dashboard, when I access it, some vulgar imagery is displayed covering all the menus. 331dot (talk) 14:50, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

This user also attacked my talk page. User is Special:Contribs/176.103.89.45. MaximumCruiser2 🚢 (talk) 15:00, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Can someone please help get rid of it from my talk page history? It's obscene. MaximumCruiser2 🚢 (talk) 15:02, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

I've removed it from public view. 331dot (talk) 15:05, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Thanks! MaximumCruiser2 🚢 (talk) 15:06, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Might need to revdel every revision from that IP. Hole pics aren't fun to stumble upon on heavily used pages. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 16:32, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

There seem to be quite a few other edits that need revdelling in the contributions listed above. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:17, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

I went ahead and revdel'd the lot of them. RickinBaltimore (talk) 16:51, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Thanks! MaximumCruiser2 🚢 (talk) 14:26, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

This is happening again(though with imagery that isn't vulgar). 331dot (talk) 08:38, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

@331dot: Looks like it's Special:Contributions/Wikia7831 doing it. – 2804:F14:80BB:7801:2895:7C8F:A546:2D27 (talk) 08:43, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

I'm guessing those last few images were the vulgar ones?(edit: turns out, no) People would probably appreciate some revdels for those as well (lest they go check what vandalism was reverted unaware).

– 2804:F14:80BB:7801:2895:7C8F:A546:2D27 (talk) 09:15, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

I've revldel'ed them. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 13:38, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Over the top rhetoric when discussing the Wikimedia Foundation

Vanisaac (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) While discussing an RfC on potential language to be added to the top of WP:VPWMF, Vanisaac seems to be blinded by rage is using over the top rehetoric towards the foundation and is lashing out at other volunteers and foundation employees alike (posts as of this submission Special:Diff/1, 2, 3). A request to tone down the rhetoric and strike incorrect statements led to striking that replaced a false accusation towards me with hostile rhetoric towards other editors. While I share this editors concerns about the proposed language, and did not support it being proposed in the first place, this editor's conduct feels over the line in ways that are not going to help anyone have a productive conversation. I post this in hope feedback from other members of the community might help this editor rethink some of their writing which appears to violate our behavioral guidelines. Barkeep49 (talk) 05:20, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Their language is certainly caustic and warrants a finger waggling, but to categorize the editor as "blinded by rage" is hyperbole that likewise could stand to be toned down, and taking this straight to ANI without so much as hitting their talk page with a "WTH dude?" feels to me over the line. Ravenswing 05:32, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Given the doubling down that occurred in the conversation I did have I'm not sure what a talk page discussion would have accomplished. As for the blinded phrasing I will reword. Barkeep49 (talk) 05:41, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

I was replying similarly to Ravenswing (two conflicts now!). It is language that I would describe as aggressive and uncollegial (and unproductive as stated), but I don't see it as blind rage, and it falls within the zone of language that the community has found difficult to find a way forward on even outside of WMF discussions. (My first time to see Special:Diff/1! I take it as an optimistic reminder of a community looking to move forward.) CMD (talk) 05:44, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

It is my hope that editors understanding when they are being aggressive and uncollegial and otherwise violating behavioral expectations through community feedback is a way forward. Barkeep49 (talk) 05:53, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Uninvolved, arrived post-rewording. One linked diff shows the editor saying "If you have a problem with an editor's conduct, go to ANI like everyone else." which suggests coming straight here was at least somewhat prudent to avoid accidentally escalating the situation. Given the quick rewording, I don't see any wp:boomerang in this specific case. —siroχo 06:55, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

A formal warning is likely most appropriate here unless Vanisaac continues to be uncivil. I don't think it's worth going any further, and hopefully it will remind him to be more civil in future. JML1148 ^{(talk | contribs)} 06:17, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

I agree with a formal written warning to Vanisaac for being unhelpfully brusque. They also ought to be aware now that their rhetoric is being watched, and should take heart that the best way to proceed from hereon out without a block is to comply dutifully with the law of holes. _{Duly signed,} ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 12:50, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

@Barkeep49: I think you posted that first link without piping it properly, it literally goes to Special:Diff/1 (which, I've just learned, is somehow Luis Oliveira adding himself to Wikipedia:Wikipedians in January 2002). I was really scratching my head over this for a minute until I realized that the actual revision ID was 1. jp×g 19:16, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

User:Dragoni 2009

This report concerns the various edits of Dragoni 2009. My first time noticing Dragoni 2009 was in the Kosovo (1RR) article, in which the following incidents happened:

• Dragoni 2009 attempted to undermine the status of the Serbian language in Kosovo. He let Albanian language be considered "official", yet changed Serbian to be "co-official". This edit was done in various part of the article[36][37]. The edits was reverted by another editor, Griboski, and in which the editor explained the reason for the revert: [38]

• Within 24 hours in the same 1RR article, Dragoni 2009 would not only revert Griboski's revert but also expand his disruption. [39][40][41]. This was also done without any contribution to the TP. As a result, I would revert these edits of him and take it to the article's TP.[42]. I would also give him a warning on his user TP.[43]. The user never replied to any of them.

Let me make it clear to the ones reading this report that Serbian- and Albanian language has the exact same political status in Kosovo. Dragoni 2009 was, without a doubt, aware of it when he ignored these explanations by me and the other editor from the start. It became even more clear to me that his POV edits was done on purpose when these following edits happened:

• Dragoni 2009 would continue to undermine the status of the Serbian language by this edit [44] on the. Changing order and native name in Community of Serb Municipalities without any logical reason.

• And this edit [45], in which he removed all of the Serbian name variants of the Municipalities of Kosovo.

• In the Minority languages of Kosovo article, Dragoni 2009 would continue his rampage of listing Albanian as "official" and Serbian as "co-official".[46] This was later reverted by another user[47].

A big motive behind this report is the fact that there are multiple editors who have had issues with the user's edits. In recent weeks, Dragoni 2009 has received multiple warnings and concerns on his TP by various editors.[48][49][50][51][52][53] And the last one, mine [54]. Still visible on his TP, he would write "Wikepedia admins are so propagandistic and rascist. thank you".

Me or other editors have clearly had no impact on this user, so I was left no choice than to file this report. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AzorzaI (talk • contribs)

• This edit appears to show the user edits with a nationalist point of view and intends to "fix" what they perceive to be offenses against their people. I've blocked indefinitely for disruptive editing as they aren't here to build an encyclopedia.--v/r - TP 02:49, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

  @TParis: It looks like you indeffed them, then changed the block duration to 31 hours about a minute later, immediately before commenting in this thread. — SamX [talk · contribs] 04:00, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

  Dang it, lol. I use Twinkle for block notices. I forgot to uncheck the "Block user" box after I manually blocked. Thanks for the heads up. Returning it to an indef.--v/r - TP 04:06, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

  @TParis Thank you for your time. Btw you might have forgot to change the block duration of the template on the user's TP --Azor (talk). 05:17, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

  Got it, thanks. More twinkle mishaps.--v/r - TP 05:21, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

PaxDominiVobiscum and WP:CIR

Going through this user's contributions leads to some bizarre findings. There's an edit such as this, which appears vandalistic or at least careless, or a number of strange edits to short descriptions that add emojis or country flags or descriptions that do not at all describe what the article is about, like this, this, this, and this. There's also this, which is almost constructive, but contains a typo.

I'm not a fan of blocking new users or somewhat more experienced users for CIR issues without giving a warning and a chance to improve, but this user's editing behavior seems to be getting worse from their initial (but still problematic) edits to the encyclopedia. The use of emojis seems to be a new thing from the past several months and the apparent careless/vandalistic edit is the user's most recent edit. After discovering this user today, I feel like I will be needing to keep an eye on them to revert or fix their changes. Uhai (talk) 19:35, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

This editor is certainly weird. Some of the edits make me believe that they are editing in good faith, but don't understand that emojis aren't used. This edit could just be put down to a butt dial midway through editing. I've left a comment explaining to them what they've done wrong. I don't think anything else needs to happen for the time being unless they continue to be unconstructive. JML1148 ^{(talk | contribs)} 04:41, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Possibly severely disabled, using a special word processor (predicts words and emojis).... Lourdes 08:26, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

They have stated on their userpage that they are severely disabled. JML1148 ^{(talk | contribs)} 05:52, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

• They only edit once every few weeks or months. Might need a indefinite block with a talk page message, and then let them appeal the block from there to discuss their editing. I don't see how else this disruptive editing gets addressed before archivebot sends this to the back.--v/r - TP 13:11, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

  Or just a final warning that any further unconstructive edits or edits involving emojis will lead to a block. Blocking them now feels like trying to pre-empt any further edits. JML1148 ^{(talk | contribs)} 05:54, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

  All blocks are pre-emptive. We block to prevent future bad behavior, not for poor past behavior. All blocks are to prevent disruption to the encyclopedia. WP:Blocking policy second paragraph said "Blocks are used to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, not to punish users" (emphasis mine).--v/r - TP 06:13, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Request for range block

I'm not sure how I'd write down one of these, nor which IP to notify (I'm guessing the most recently used one?), but I'll give this a shot anyway since I was advised to file one here on WP:SPI.

An editor with a dynamic IP in the IP range 2001:448a::/32 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has made four bolded recommendations on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Skibidi Toilet (2nd nomination) and has ignored two requests to follow WP:DISCUSSAFD and append their first recommendation. IPs I believe the editor edited under include:

2001:448a:11a3:16ea:65d5:d7bb:91a9:5d03 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
2001:448a:11a2:1e4b:3db0:383d:f205:3b64 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
2001:448a:11a2:1e4b:6969:9ba8:149d:c97a (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
2001:448a:11a2:1e4b:a1ec:400e:a8f5:f38b (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

Jurta talk 15:25, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

What? You asking me at ANI? 2001:448A:11A3:16EA:65D5:D7BB:91A9:5D03 (talk) 15:33, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

I'd like to provide the following links to the admins: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/2001:448a:11a6:1b76:d15b:60dd:5e62:aa13 (failed due; "There is no indication that I can see that this person abused multiple accounts. This is because they are logged-out and on dynamic IPs which means that the IP address they are using could change frequently"), [55] User has blocks on certain pages for similar disruption, [56] this as well. Conyo14 (talk) 16:31, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Ping @Ohnoitsjamie: who had already p-blocked that range. El_C 23:59, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

I just added the target Cendol to an existing partial block since that (very large) range was disrupting Cendol with tiresome nationalist crap. Probably not the same individual, but it's easy enough to add the AfD to the list of pblock targets, which I've now done. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 00:09, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

What? You just added the target cendol? It's my favorite Sundanese dessert. 2001:448A:11A3:1307:944C:E87:591:DBB6 (talk) 07:20, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Esomeonee7 account used for POV/vandalism only

Esomeonee7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Clearly WP:NOTHERE. I initially reverted one new disruptive edit by this user and gave them a fresh warning ([57]), but after looking at their other edits it's clear that they're only here to vandalize and push a POV. They already received multiple direct warnings in August 2023 (see user talk page), by which point they had vandalized many times (e.g. [58], [59], [60]). They have given zero responses and since August they've continued to vandalize without interruption (e.g. [61], [62], [63], [64], [65], [66]). R Prazeres (talk) 07:31, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Potential vandalism in a photo at Bergmann–Bayard pistol history

Hi, I'm a relatively new editor here but I found an issue here that I'm not sure how to proceed with so I will describe it here:

The Bergmann–Bayard pistol article had a questionable photo in it from the commons from User:Triden123 placed in the mainspace on wikipedia 5 February 2023 by 2600:1700:DA1:5600:14B:536B:59F:8384 until it was recently caught by another editor. The changes as described by the editor in the edit summary were: Removed the picture for what looked to be a scrotum in the lower frame of the image.

The change was quickly reverted (most likely because it removed the photo and someone just quickly repaired the infobox). In reviewing the change log, I think I have to agree with the editor that removed it; I replaced the image with the original one prior to the questionable image's inclusion. I just wanted to flag the admins in here because of the content and ask for next steps and guidance. I'm not sure if this can be solved entirely here, or if there is an issue, to be raised at the commons as well. Thanks MicrobiologyMarcus (talk) 23:33, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Yup, looks like balls to me. Well we can keep it out of the article here via the usual editorial processes, but if you want it to be deleted from commons you will need to start a discussion there. Uploader only has one contribution, so really its checking if the pic is in use on any other wiki, replacing the photo, then nominating it for deletion on commons. Commons is much better these days at getting rid of obvious crap. Only in death does duty end (talk) 23:59, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Okay, I think I've created a speedy deletion tag over there on the image properly, but I'm unfamiliar with the process on the commons. Thanks for your help! MicrobiologyMarcus (talk) 00:10, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

It was deleted on Commons as a Reddit copvio so I'd say this is all taken care of now (except please don't ever use or feature weapons in your birthday suit and check your images before uploading, but that seems to be more of a 'them' issue on Reddit than for any of us). Nate • (chatter) 16:52, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

WP:BOLLOCKS may or may not apply. Narky Blert (talk) 15:40, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

User:Catyahill and User:41.198.133.82 at Coloureds

• Catyahill (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 41.198.133.82 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• Coloureds (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Catyahill and the IP user (one and the same person, I believe, based on these edits, have been vandalizing and edit-warring at Coloureds, insisting on rewriting the history of this minority group of South Africa. Despite multiple warnings, they continue to insist on their version without discussion. Because multiple violations are involved here (WP:3RR, WP:SOCK), I've brought the matter here rather than one of the other notice boards. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 13:29, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

@WikiDan61 I've partially blocked both the account and the IP from that one article, hopefully to encourage them to the talk page. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:01, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

@2601:447:c781:c920:5cbd:782c:f383:4392 Hate speech, personal attacks on Ethiopia

This user has vandalized the page of Ethiopia, also promoting hate speech through their comments seen in this revision off of what they added in this revision: [67]

The revisions include changing the common name to "Raw Meat Eaters" The long name name to "Aidsthopia" The leader to "Negro Zoothopian" and vandalism of the religious numbers.

The edit summary is "Idk I hate ethiopia" clearly showing this user has no intent toward working on an encyclopedia based off their edits and this edit summary. Noorullah (talk) 18:41, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

I see that the edit in question has been reverted. What further action do you think should be taken now, given that the edit was unregistered and no further edits seem to have been made from this IP address? Phil Bridger (talk) 18:55, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

@Phil Bridger Maybe a temporary IP block? Noorullah (talk) 18:59, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Specifically a Range block. @Phil Bridger Noorullah (talk) 19:00, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

In my view, when vandalism is combined with racist hate speech, action is called for. I've blocked the IP editor for 31 hours. Cullen328 (talk) 19:08, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

User:Bayreuth0115

Bayreuth0115 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has repeatedly reverted edits with the edit summary "vandalism" or "undoing vandalism" (ex: "recover the page from vandalism" or "vandalism"). This latter edit simply removed a maintenance template that I added to the article. My edits provide clear explanations with links to the relevant Wikipedia policies: MOS:DTAB, MOS:COLOR, etc. Many of these edits were to properly format tables in compliance with the MOS, to remove inappropriate uses of color and bold, and to meet the requirements of MOS:ACCESS. @Bayreuth0115 has ignored repeated warnings on their talk page User talk:Bayreuth0115#September 2023 (as well as earlier this year, User talk:Bayreuth0115#February 2023). They have ignored requests to visit the talk page where discussions are on-going regarding this article (Talk:2023–24 figure skating season), ex: "Again, see the article's talk page". The bottom line: this user refuses to communicate. Any help would be appreciated. Bgsu98 (Talk) 14:14, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

@Bayreuth0115 has continued to ignore all avenues of communication, but did drop a warning template on my talk page and then requested full protection of 2023–24 figure skating season. Any administrator willing to impart the importance of communication on this user would be appreciated. Bgsu98 (Talk) 12:51, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

On 7 February 2023, @Bgsu98 has ignored and then deleted my warning of their 3RR behavior on their talk page. With users having serious behaviors like that, for a couple of days I did not think communication would help solve the situation. Bayreuth0115 (talk) 13:54, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

"AI" generated inanity
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Here’s what I think, and you can choose to take or not take the advice given: You could seek formal intervention by reporting the user to Wikipedia’s appropriate dispute resolution forum, emphasizing the user’s persistent revert of edits, refusal to communicate, and disregard for warnings and Wikipedia guidelines. While framing your report, meticulously document each instance of the said behavior, referencing specific edits, ignored warnings, and neglected talk page discussions, to substantiate your claims. This will allow the administrators to impartially evaluate the situation, based on the evidence provided, and decide on a suitable course of corrective action, such as a warning, temporary block, or other sanctions, in accordance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Hope that helps, TheAlienMan2002 (talk) 15:55, 1 October 2023 (UTC) This is a behavioral issue that doesn't appear to come under any of the more specialized noticeboards, so this is the appropriate dispute resolution forum. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:27, 1 October 2023 (UTC) This sounds like it was written by ChatGPT (which would help explain its uselessness). --JBL (talk) 17:16, 1 October 2023 (UTC) This, too. Not encouraging. --JBL (talk) 17:20, 1 October 2023 (UTC) Hmm, yes, it does. I don't think we have anything to fear from AI that is so obvious. We may have something to fear from AI that is not detected. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:26, 1 October 2023 (UTC) In any case I am hatting this to increase the likelihood someone has something useful to say to the OP. --JBL (talk) 19:03, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

• @Bayreuth0115: I don't see a single edit to any talk page at all with the exception of the very recent 3RR warning to Bgsu98's talk page after this report was opened and one other vague edit war warning in February also directed at Bgsu98. You refuse to talk. This is a colalborative project. Start using talk pages to discuss changes, quit labeling good faith edits as vandalism, or find yourself uninvited from this project for ownership issues.--v/r - TP 15:45, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

  I took back any words of mine regarding "vandalism". My mistakes. Bayreuth0115 (talk) 16:05, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

This is getting out of hand, frankly. As of today, Bayreuth0015 persists in adding back WP:FANCRUFT well beyond the reasonable scope of this article. The editor is clearly aware of the concerns of the community regarding their edits, given the post above, but refuses to engage on the article talk page. Instead, they persist in reverting, most recently in the last couple hours. I think we need an administrator who will contact Bayreuth0015 and make it clear their edits are disruptive, and may soon result in a block (it's really past time for one already.) Otherwise nothing it going to get any better because Bayreuth0015 has made it clear they decline to stop trying to force a very large edit on an already bloated article. ----Dr.Margi ✉ 18:06, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

34K worth of unsourced fancruft, at that. Bgsu98 (Talk) 19:14, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Gangster1232231

Gangster1232231 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

See edit summaries at Simko Shikak revolt (1918–1922)[68], as well as editor contributions as a whole. Vand, RGWs, NOTHERE, take your pick. Also compare to previously blocked user:Ash20055.  // Timothy :: talk  23:28, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Blocked per WP:DUCK, protected the page as well, this may be worth reporting at WP:SPI for future reference, they seem pretty persistent. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:37, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Extra Eyes Please on James Gordon Meek

Experienced editors and/or admins are kindly asked to keep an eye on the above linked article where there has been some very heavy editing that may touch on BLP issues. See also this discussion at BLPN. Any discussion of the issues should probably stay there in order to avoid any unnecessary forking. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:12, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

I've applied WP:ECP, invoking WP:ARBBLP. The version up at the time of my writing this is not acceptable. Excessive WP:REFBOMB in nearly every paragraph makes the piece challenging to read—and challenging verify, because the first ref following a quote, didn't contain that quote, in the 2 times I checked. Meaning, that one would need to potentially go through double digits refs to verify a quoted excerpt. More problematic still are the unreliable sources that are mixed in with reliable one. I notice a similar problem happening in March with another non-WP:XC user (LauraIngallsEvenWilder, who seem to have left over it; the user edit warring the problematic version now is Virginia Courtsesan). I realize two (?) users in the course of a few months usually isn't enough to apply WP:SEMI, not to mention ECP. But this is an extremely sensitive subject matter with WP:CHILDPROTECT issues, and crimes, being featured front and centre. El_C 01:36, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Like -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:27, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

So Virginia Courtsesan posted the following to my talk page (diff), but I want to keep the discussion focused in one (wider) forum, so I moved it here (see hatted content directly below).

Extended content
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Hello, I saw you edit-protected James Gordon Meek which made partial sense given the sudden flare of interest and dispute - but you oddly chose to preserve a "version" that did not exist before S...quite frankly, large-scale almost-vandalism that does not contain even basic widely-reported never-disputed facts to which he's plead guilty and it's widely reported, etc. It seems to be hiding important contextul information that he was raided by the FBI, that wild speculation arose including a scandal involving the Rolling Stone which then flared into articles of its own about how RS covered Meek's prosecution, removed the portions of him boasting of raping a toddler, removed essentially all information even where it was clearly sourced to reliable sources. Is it getting added back in, or can it at least be edit-protected to a version that contained the information that had always been there until the day of his sentencing sudden attention flared up? (Doesn't have to be my version, just a version by Fallengray or another user who didn't just mass-delete everything about the case). Virginia Courtsesan (talk) 01:56, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

It's especially important to do so (narrowing the venue), because I feel like there are WP:IDHT problems that are exhibited elsewhere, too. Problems that need to be tackled head-on. For example, the problem of having a quoted excerpt alongside double digits refrs, but we don't know which of those refs actually attributes said quote (if it does at all); that, alongside the mix of reliable and unreliable sources, were all explained to this editor multiple times. The latest being just yesterday, in an edit summary by SparklyNights in which they write (in part): Removes poorly sourced content from this BLP (including content that cannot realistically be verified due to citation overkill). However, Virginia Courtsesan reverts the whole thing back in, those problems and all, with an unresponsive edit summary that simply reads: Undid revision 1178103964 , see talk page.

But there is no talk to be had while the problematic version is left standing, counter to the ethos of WP:ONUS, and there is no wholesale reverting of content that was pointed out to be in violation of the WP:BLP policy and WP:RS guideline. All key tenets and imperatives that I suspect Virginia Courtsesan only has limited familiarity with. Which is especially pressing for contentious topics and pages. And, if similar such behaviour were to occur outside this one page, these may lead to editing restrictions (in this case under the WP:ARBBLP sanctions regime). I think it's best to be straightforward and blunt on that. El_C 03:09, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

As I wrote in the WP:BLPN thread, I considered the article as then under discussion to be in violation of WP:BLP policy. The sourcing was clearly sometimes inappropriate (e.g. a YouTube channel of no obvious merit, a Ghanaian tabloid website being cited for an article with no connection to Ghana...) and it was clear that there was some synthesis going on (see this brief discussion on Talk James Gordon Meek regarding one such example [69]). Furthermore the shear density of the content combined with the citation overkill made it nearly impossible to properly verify. The best advice I could offer to Virginia Courtsesan would be (a) that articles are supposed to summarise the important details regarding a topic, rather than list everything, and (b) that biographies aren't supposed to be narratives on evil, counters to conspiracy theories, or dense multilayered detective stories modelled on Umburto Eco's The Name of the Rose. Less words is good. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:54, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

I'm seriously considering the possibility of @Virginian Courtsesan being the same person as @LauraIngallsEvenWilder (the disruptive editor that @El C just mentioned above). The latter user created their account in 2022 and only became active on Wikipedia after they started editing Meek's page in March 2023. In that same month, one topic was created at the BLP noticeboard about his BLP-violating edits (here). LauraIngalls then panicked and left Wikipedia without even responding to that thread (his last edit). About 3 weeks later, Virginia Courtsesan created his account on Wikipedia and immediatelly (on the same day) started editing Meek's page (diff), still also using a primary source (an affidavit) to edit the article (diff), which hints at the exact same pattern of behavior that editors from the BLP noticeboard were complaining that LauraIngalls was doing in the first place. Even the edit summaries of these two users read very similar.

The primary purpose of both of those accounts is to edit the James Gordan Meek page, both users are fond of using legal documents as sources to the article, both don't seem to understand wikipedia's BLP policies, both have similar edit summaries. Even when they are not editing Meek's page, both users like to insert information about him on non-related articles (diff, diff; diff, diff). Either way, I think Virginia Courtsesan should be restricted from James Meek's page, at least until he shows some understanding on what he did wrong. SparklyNights 15:57, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Also relevant: a possible sock of LauraIngallsEvenWilder (Checknfax). Revengeful username, only edits Meek's page, contribs tagged with BLP issues, account created 17 days after LauraIngall left. Also, this account started editing Meek's page just 2 days before the @Virginia Courtsesan account was created and started editing the same article. I believe both Virginia Courtsesan and @Checknfax are socks of LauraIngallsEvenWilder. LauraIngallsEvenWilder seems to be unrelated to @LauraIngalli. SparklyNights 17:25, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Confirmed, @SparklyNights is right in that I am not this person. Thank you! 138.51.42.131 (talk) 18:01, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

In fairness, SparklyNights, you are also a non-WP:XC user, seeing as you joined in July and only been actively editing for several weeks. This, like the above possible connection you draw between the two users, may well be indicative of nothing, or WP:SPI-something. I've no idea, but unless I'm missing something (likely), your own brief tenure here is also a fact. Again, this isn't a claim of any wrongdoing, but I just noticed that, so am noting it for the record. El_C 23:23, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

My chief concern is that one user (Sparkly) showed up the day of Meek's sentencing, essentially blanking the entire section dealing with the crime which had 100+ footnotes, then went to other pages that talk about Meek to do the same, then when I objected that user stalked other Virginia criminals I'd edited and added spurious tags such as here, and he gets reverte by other editors for similar blanking of crime articles claiming CNN is "fringe", etc here and here again removing information about highly notable and undisputed facts in major outlets about Meek's pedophilia, etc. I have engaged with good-faith complaints on the Meek talk page, and even where I disagree with the removal of information such as Meek's writing to a Virginia paper to offer his (professional) support for who should become the Chief Judge over his district at the time he's engaged in child grooming, original offender in creation of CSAM images and possession/trafficking of those images - even where I've disagreed with the removal, I haven't reverted it but just noted on the talk page that I disagree and leave it to others. My concern now is that the copy of the page that got "protected" is the copy that was essentially blanked - I had assumed over the next 24-48 hours the facts would slowly be added back in as they were verified, but there's been no effort to do so. There are 114,000 google hits for James Gordon Meek + Toddler, the fact he boasted of having raped a female toddler and twice followed that up and shared a video depicting the rape of a screaming toddler is widely reported in every major news outlet and he has given no denial publicly or in trial of that fact. Yet Wiki has just removed it, because a drive-by editor decided to blank the article, call it all a Pizzagate conspiracy and throw it on a bunch of these messageboards. So I'm asking that someone take the time to go through the entire section that was essentially deleted it, and restore it (other than any parts they feel are objectionable which they can leave off - and we can all agree to calmly discuss on the talk page). Virginia Courtsesan (talk) 16:39, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

The above yet again fails to respond to the repeated concerns of WP:REFBOMBs that failed verification and mixed reliable and unreliable sources. As the editor who re/introduced those changes, that is your WP:BURDEN, Virginia Courtsesan, not that of others. The WP:ONUS there is on you. I suspect that if you had tried introducing some of these in increments, rather than wholesale reverting everything, and if you were to do do so using only reliable sources and only using one or two refs per attributed excerpt rather than refs in the double digits — many of these additions may well be kept (i.e. it doesn't need to be an all-or-nothing-right-away). But are you even interested in that? In doing the actual work? Or is it about you grandstanding? I'd like to assume good faith, but this has been increasingly strained by your constant WP:IDHT replies that never address the crux of the objections, but go on at length on everything but that. El_C 20:43, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

I literally cannot edit the page, it's protected or whatever. I've clicked all the various acronyms people are linking and I still don't understand what's being referenced...where are/were there double-digit references to anything? What fact is not supported? I don't mind "doing the work" but I don't see what question I'm actually supposed to answer - if you say "We'll restore this paragraph when you show us X, or else we'll restore it without this portion if you can't show us X" then I can go find X for you. But just mass-deleting and I'm unable to edit, I'm at a loss. Virginia Courtsesan (talk) 03:46, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

If you don't bother following links to pertinent documentation, you are not doing the work, Virginia Courtsesan. You fail both WP:ONUS and WP:BURDEN (←click), but I'm not sure you even reviewed those pages, which I linked to multiple times above, in light of your above reply. Either way, I submit to you that editing contentious topics is a poor way to learn the basics. Yes, you "literally cannot edit the page" — that's the point of the WP:ECP / WP:XC tenure (←click). My concern, as mentioned, is that you'd bring this approach of loosened verifiability to the pages of other living persons. Which places Wikipedia at potential legal jeopardy. As for "where are/were there double-digit references to anything?" — quoting: ...and was alleged to impersonate a female child himself online to win their trust.^{[99][123][2][25][121][97][18][126][92][12][127]} ←that's 11 refs. Anyway, you're free to make proposals on the article talk page. El_C 05:04, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

Disruptive editing by IP at History of Taiwan

184.145.61.182 has been repeatedly changing the section title on the period of Taiwan during Japanese rule at History of Taiwan from Japanese Empire to Japanese Taiwan ([70] [71] [72] [73]). No other section does this (ex. Dutch and Spanish colonies, Kingdom of Tungning, Qing dynasty, Republic of China). Their repeated edit summary reason is Improve vocabulary accuracy. After two warnings at User talk:184.145.61.182 for disruptive editing and opening a talk section at the article, they have not responded and persisted in making the change. They also made a nonsensical talk section asking for edit protection and to lock the page because it can be controversial, and for another talk page to be created for discussion regarding the history of the island, which is ridiculous because the page is about the history of Taiwan. Qiushufang (talk) 06:39, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

@Qiushufang: I haven't looked fully into what's actually happening here, but a reminder for next time: please don't jump straight to a level 3 warning when reverting an editor. I know it's tempting, but we have to start with a level 1 warning unless it's particularly egregious. JML1148 ^{(talk | contribs)} 06:55, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Qiushufang I am concerned that you may be assuming bad faith with the IP. I don't see a reason to believe that the IP isn't acting in good faith. Both of you are also edit warring, and close to violating WP:3RR. JML1148 ^{(talk | contribs)} 07:02, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

The IP has made only one change and one topic, and then immediately reverted, asked for the page to be locked, and for another page to be created to discuss the topic the page was created for. I warned them. They did not respond. I made a talk page for discussion.They did not respond. The edit is also not universal and restricted only one section, which does not seem to match their edit reason. At what point do I assume bad faith? JML1148 Qiushufang (talk) 07:15, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

The IP is definitely veering into WP:ICHY territory. However, WP:AGF is a thing, and immediately calling it disruptive editing is definitely not good faith. JML1148 ^{(talk | contribs)} 07:23, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

@JML1148: I also don't believe the first instinct of a new user is to immediately ask for a page lock upon reversion. How do they know what a page lock, edit protection is? They immediately asked for a lock after reverting once ([74] [75]). It's not impossible that they're new but combined with their single issue and tendentious reversion, this seems unlikely. Qiushufang (talk) 07:22, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Another example of assuming bad faith. It's equally possible that they tried to edit a page but couldn't because of page protection. I certainly knew what page protection was before I was an editor after wondering what the blue lock was in the corner of the page. JML1148 ^{(talk | contribs)} 07:27, 4 October 2023 (UTC) I've struck out part of my comment. I went too far there, assuming bad faith myself. JML1148 ^{(talk | contribs)} 10:39, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

That's why I mentioned it was not impossible and took into consideration their tendentious one topic editing as well. And in any case, asking for a lock as their first response right after reverting is the strange part. My first warning was after they had already reverted twice, the second time without any reason, and requested the lock. Their reason for the change is also nonsensical and a standard edit summary for pushing through changes. It did not improve vocabulary as they said. In one reversion they also damaged the article link. When taking all this into account, I'm unsure what to think of this other than targeted disruptive editing. Qiushufang (talk) 07:39, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Note that regardless of good faith, they have made no attempt at communication and ignored any requests for it. Qiushufang (talk) 07:47, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Qiushufang I've struck out part of my comment above. I went too far immediately saying you had shown bad faith again. Apologies. JML1148 ^{(talk | contribs)} 10:41, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

JML1148 Thank you for your reconsideration. I've started noticing a trend of IPs with similar interests (Taiwan, China, Taiwan-Japan relations, anime) geolocating to the same place that have been abandoned after a few days or months of use that could possibly be linked to this IP. Not sure if they're breaking any rules but collectively they've accrued a substantial number of warnings. See the following if you're interested:

Special:Contributions/184.145.61.182

Special:Contributions/184.145.53.53

Special:Contributions/184.148.109.174

Special:Contributions/184.148.109.63

Special:Contributions/174.89.100.221

Special:Contributions/184.146.37.152

Special:Contributions/142.113.184.227

Special:Contributions/174.95.137.59

Special:Contributions/142.113.169.32

Special:Contributions/174.89.100.7

Qiushufang (talk) 11:15, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

It's definitely possible. They share the same ISP and come from an area around Toronto, Canada. All but two have warnings, and about half of the IPs have a final warning. JML1148 ^{(talk | contribs)} 06:24, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

• Blocked for disruptive editing. I don't see a reason to waste more editor time trying to get through to the user.--v/r - TP 13:04, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

  Thanks. Their refusal to acknowledge any warning, but showing that they can make comments on talk pages, is just plain WP:ICHY. Good block. JML1148 ^{(talk | contribs)} 05:47, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Cherfan 15!!

User was warned in the past for repeated attempts to add poorly sourced information to List of 2023 albums, and was previously reported for edit warring but let off for no violation (both warning and report by me). Today, they've come back to the list with this edit making the same violation of adding an album with a social media source, despite there being reliable sources available in this case. They also created Draft:DJ Play a Christmas Song (song) and DJ Play a Christmas Song, the former with no sources and the latter with just the same social media post as the list. It has been explained before that social media posts do not convey notability, and the editor has acknowledged these warnings so it seems reasonable to say they should understand the problem, but they've continued to make the same violation. I haven't looked through the rest of their edits, but I wouldn't be surprised if the same violation could be found even more often than this. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 00:15, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

Worth noting that User:Cherfan101 may be the same editor's prior account (the writing style of their edit summaries reads as similar to me), so any violations made through that account may also apply to this report. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 00:20, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

Definitely passes the duck test. Similar username, similar edits, similar writing style. If one account is blocked, than the other also should be. JML1148 ^{(talk | contribs)} 05:51, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

• I have an unrelated question. Why does List of 2023 albums exist? It's obviously incomplete (I've just looked for the last two albums I bought and neither is on there despite both having articles), and is always going to be; it clearly suffers from systemic bias (it might as well be called "List of Anglophone 2023 albums") and one could argue that it's spurious to the category 2023 albums. I simply don't see the point of it. Black Kite (talk) 07:16, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

  @Black Kite It provides more information on a single page than any category could which is an immediate, obvious advantage. There's a much larger point to be made about systemic bias and how all of Wikipedia suffers from it, as does all of everything in society, but let me just leave that there for now. I could also point to at least a dozen Spanish and Korean-language albums on that list. As for incompleteness, so is the rest of this site; there's a reason {{dynamic list}} exists and is currently applied to nearly 10,000 pages. If there's something you don't see on any given list which you believe should be there, you can either add it yourself or put in an edit request for it. In fact, you can just tell me right here what those two albums you're specifically thinking of are, and I'll look into it for you. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 07:23, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

86.28.234.5

They're repeating harmful edits and reverts with invalid reasons. UA0Volodymyr (talk) 11:38, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

You've provided no evidence of this. But even if true, why is this a matter for WP:ANI instead of WP:AIV? --Yamla (talk) 11:41, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

Evidence is all their contributions since the end of previous block. That's not actually a vandalism, that's non-consensus edits with an unwillingness to seek consensus, personal attacks and assumptions of bad faith. UA0Volodymyr (talk) 11:49, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

Additionally, this seems to be in retaliation to the above thread, User:UA0Volodymyr. No need for a new thread. --Yamla (talk) 11:43, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

Great, in that case @Ymblanter already accepted the possibility of new and longer block. UA0Volodymyr (talk) 11:51, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

Chronic BLP violations by JP IP

• 2400:2413:8340:BA12::/64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · block user · block log)

This IP has been inserting BLP violations into Momoiro Clover Z: adding Nanako Fujita as an "orange" member (when Nanako Fujita is a horse racer, a completely different occupation), and (twice) merging the former members table into the current members table to imply that the two former members have not quit. I have undone these edits all under WP:3RRBLP, notwithstanding the 1RR restriction on that article.

I just issued some warnings, but then had a look at their Japanese Wikipedia contribution history and see they are blocked for 3 months for trolling, and block evading ja:Special:Contribs/2400:2413:9483:7B00::/64 which was doing the same antics on the Japanese Momoiro Clover Z article. In light of that, it's clear that they are WP:NOTHERE and should be blocked here as well accordingly. It is not possible to cover both IPv6 ranges with less than a /39 block, so just block them separately if the need to block both arises.Jasper Deng (talk) 12:30, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

2A02:908:4E3:9520:DD40:507C:B7CE:F490

Multiple personal attacks against me in talk page while trying to explain WP:SYNTH and WP:RSP. "add new sources to support your claims, otherwise do not simply revert because it confirms how incompetent you are to say the least! "[76] "It is funny that this Ecrusized consider SOHR is reliable meanwhile Mayadeen is deprecated! Anyway, AP News should be the source to keep, does not matter what SOHR and their fan boys want to maintain here."[77] Ecrusized (talk) 10:34, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

For everyone's reference, these are the relevant logs:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2023_Homs_drone_strike&action=history
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2023_Homs_drone_strike

Borgenland (talk) 10:58, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

Instead of finding a solution to maintain a mutual-consent version, they came here to complain, like the saying he hit me first then crawled away crying. We only edit here to provide a correct version to readers, I do not care about others' feelings. You can take into consideration that complaining user aimed to maintain an outdated unreliable version and kept reverting back to it. After several attempts, I tried reason with them by initiating a discussion on the relevant talkpage, yet they were only concerned to enforce their own version. I would not have written any remarks, unless they tried to ignore my warnings even in the edit summary. Their behaviour is unacceptable, and if you try to discuss something here, do not forget that they initiated the edit conflict in the first place. 2A02:908:4E3:9520:DD40:507C:B7CE:F490 (talk) 11:13, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

I don't think this needs to be here but your comments on the talk page are definitely uncivil. It doesn't matter whether you "care about others' feelings". You need to obey our policies and guidelines which means civilly discussing disputes with other editors. If you're unable or unwilling to do that, then you can desist from editing Wikipedia. Nil Einne (talk) 11:23, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

@Nil Einne: Uncivil! Like what? writing them they were incompetent, I was not rude, I was giving an honest opinion! plus I do not have to obey anything, I am not your slave here. Choose your words wisely next time or desist from using a keyboard. 2A02:908:4E3:9520:DD40:507C:B7CE:F490 (talk) 11:32, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

Unfortunately that's the exact language that is landing you in this problem. No one verbatim said that you were a slave. I've had several run-ins honestly and regardless of whether one is right any namecalling or explicitly deprecatory language is quite unbecoming of an editor. Borgenland (talk) 11:48, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

I admit I could have phrased that better but the point is that while you don't have to obey anyone, you do have to follow our rules and guidelines if you want to edit here. If you refuse to follow our policies and guidelines you have only two choices. The far better choice for everyone is if just voluntarily stop editing. The alternative is we forcefully stop you from editing here via blocks etc. Nil Einne (talk) 15:08, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

As Borgenland said your response was over the top no matter that my initial reply was phrased poorly. And for examples from that discussion, your very first comment to that talk page is uncivil [78] "If you want to contribute positively here" ... "it confirms how incompetent you are to say the lest!". Later you said [79] "does not matter what SOHR and their fan boys want to maintain here". The first time I read this I misunderstood and thought SOHR was referring to an editor not a source but it doesn't matter much because "fan boys want to maintain here" is clearly referring to editors. A source cannot maintain anything here/on Wikipedia. If you want to insult a source, whatever. But don't insult your fellow editors. Then there's the "it is funny" comment highlighted by the OP above. Nil Einne (talk) 15:20, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

User:Jhingur Mahan Chand

Jhingur Mahan Chand (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

An allegedly new contributor, who in the space of two days has been spamming Wikipedia with endless badly-sourced and grossly promotional articles, along with at least one blatant hoax (the now-deleted Draft:Maximo Group Network which claimed that an obscure or possibly non-existent Brazilian music company owned DHL Group). The user has repeatedly moved content from draft space into main after being told it is unacceptable. The user has also blatantly misrepresented sources as supporting content they say nothing about.

There are also strong grounds to suspect sockpuppetry and paid editing, given the apparent familiarity with article creation process if not Wikipedia policy on appropriate content, and given the intersections with other contributors, which suggest a sockfarm (see threads on User talk:Sphilbrick[80] and User talk:Bbb23[81])

Please forgive me if I don't provide diffs - they are in my opinion redundant, since selecting more or less any edit of Jhingur Mahan Chand's at random will lead directly to content that is contrary to Wikipedia policy in one way or another. The user is pumping out promotional garbage faster than it is possible to properly check and needs stopping immediately. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:28, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

• Deleting a PROD notice with the ES "Paid fluff removed" isn't an encouraging sign (diff1). Nor is this ES "Reference added" (-256 bytes) (diff2). Narky Blert (talk) 13:34, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

  Support block. User is clearly WP:NOT HERE. Creating unnecessary burden on volunteer editors by their Useless contributions. Maliner (talk) 13:42, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

  Support block.--S Philbrick(Talk) 15:41, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

Just as a note, I've indef'd the user. They can find somewhere else to promote. RickinBaltimore (talk) 15:43, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Someone with the necessary tools might well find a checkuser SPI productive, per earlier discussions linked above. I have a suspicion this might have been a sock of sockmaster User:KibangaWiki, or at least connected in some way, and there may well be other accounts about. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:55, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

125.164.1.164 false edits

This IP-based account has been active for ~2 days, and in that time has not made a single fact-based edit. The edits have primarily been in favor of the New Zealand national futsal team, and have consisted almost exclusively of incorrect scores. The incident that made me aware of this was the most recent on, where they edited the 2023 OFC Futsal Nations Cup to show New Zealand winning the final by a score of 7-0. The final has not yet taken place. This user is not here to help Wikipedia and expand it as an encyclopedia, only to make random edits. Yoblyblob (talk) 12:26, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

Have you tried reporting it to AIV for disruptive edits? Borgenland (talk) 16:07, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

User Death Editor 2 on SpaceX Starship Flight Tests

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

We're done here, go to WP:DRN and request support.--v/r - TP 05:21, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

---

On the SpaceX Starship Flight Test article, there was a debate regarding the Launch Outcome table. Death Editor 2 wanted to remove the second planned flight, with their reasoning being that since the second flight hasn't been approved, the third flight cannot be for 2023. 3 other editors commented (including myself), two of which sided against him, and one of them was indifferent.

Death Editor 2, instead of accepting defeat, removed the second planned flight from the chart. I reverted this edit 3 times, but did not continue to a fourth revert. I then warned them on their talk page, which quickly became another debate.

They have a history of disruptive editing, and have been warned by other users on their talk page before. Redacted II (talk) 20:34, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

the THIRD planned flight. Death Editor 2 (talk) 20:40, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

and the three editors shit is bullshit, one of the editors was indifferent towards it. Death Editor 2 (talk) 20:40, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

I stated second planned flight as that is the second in that category.

Me: Against.

Lklundin: Against

mfb: Indifferent (which I noted in the third line of the first paragraph) Redacted II (talk) 20:48, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

Lklundin's vote was against in august rather than September therefore they didn't have the information relating to the wildlife agency. Death Editor 2 (talk) 20:52, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

Death Editor 2 is unhelpfully misrepresenting my September contribution to Talk:SpaceX Starship flight tests. Lklundin (talk) 02:36, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

@Redacted II and @Death Editor 2 - take this to the dispute resolution noticeboard first, not to this noticeboard. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 21:14, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

Got it. Redacted II (talk) 21:25, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

The WP:DRN "request dispute resolution" is redirecting me to here. What do I do? Redacted II (talk) 23:09, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

User:Redacted II - Please enter the dispute at DRN using the template for the purpose. I removed your copy of the case from here, because the bot that archives our cases relies on the formatting provided by the template. So please enter it using the template. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:09, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

Is your dispute about what should be in the article? If so, say that the dispute is about the article. Then, if the article content issue can be mediated, any editor conduct issues may resolve themselves. So say that it is about the article. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:14, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

Maybe I should review the wording of question 2. But in the meantime, please go ahead and report it as an article content dispute. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:16, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

It's an issue about Death Editor 2's behavior on Wikipedia, the content dispute is just the example I'm familiar with. Redacted II (talk) 23:24, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

I think your issue is with the content, not the behavior. Death Editor 2 (talk) 23:42, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

My issue is with your failure to accept defeat in any discussion you enter.

Despite that out of the 4 people to comment, one was undecided, 1 was you, and the other two were against you, you added the change you wanted to see, and then removed the source in the SpaceX Super Heavy I used as an example in one of my arguments for no reason at all. Redacted II (talk) 01:03, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

one indifferent response and one response from August, so it's just you. And I removed it because elon musk is not a reliable source. Death Editor 2 (talk) 01:07, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

It's his company. In that regard, he's reliable (though other sources are preferred).

Don't let your bias against Elon (I have the same issue) affect your editing.

A response from August still counts as a response.

And even if it was just you and me, the status quo would be maintained, which would be the graph before you changed it. Redacted II (talk) 01:11, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

@Death Editor 2 and @Redacted II, trust me, this is a poor place to resolve any dispute except as a last resort. They don’t call this the “drama board” for nothing. It’s for ”intractable” behavioural disputes. All parties’ editing histories are reviewed, including the complainant’s. Sometimes, both sides get sanctioned.

You owe it to yourselves to work this out elsewhere, with friendly, neutral help if needed.

Good luck and thanks for editing.

—A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 01:33, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Please lock ARBPIA article

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Several IPs are editing the new October 2023 Gaza−Israel conflict article, can some admin please lock it so that only registered users can edit it? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 11:29, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

Looks like @El C took care of it. v/r - TP 12:11, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

El C rocks! -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 12:24, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Inappropriate edit summary

Editors have been asked not to restore a bundled collage of images at 2001 as consensus has leaned against its inclusion. User:Wikieism decided to ignore this consensus and restored it anyway with this gem of an edit summary. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 19:21, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

@Thebiguglyalien: Can you please explain why this warranted hauling them here before giving them any sort of warning or attempt to discuss? There seems to be no such occurrence in their previous edits.--Jasper Deng (talk) 20:05, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

They've had at least one previous civility warning. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 20:07, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

It's still only two instances. A firmer, more detailed warning is probably what's needed. I think potentially more pressing instead would be the fact that they're restoring an edit of Celebration99 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) which is blocked as a sock of 망고소녀 (talk · contribs).--Jasper Deng (talk) 20:12, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

I've filed Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/망고소녀.--Jasper Deng (talk) 20:17, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

Brooke hater

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Brooke hater (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Based on the account name and their first and only edit, this is NOTHERE.  // Timothy :: talk  17:48, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

 Done. GiantSnowman 17:55, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Special:Contributions/2001:448A:0:0:0:0:0:0/32

There appears to be a single person who is making changes using this range in Indonesia. This person has been warned multiple times, but continues to make disruptive changes, which range from outright vandalism (e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Windows_8&diff=prev&oldid=1177147146) to subtle changes of numbers and figures in articles without citation (e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Locana&diff=prev&oldid=1178409750). They switch from IP addresses within this range making it difficult to warn them consistently. This range appears to already be partially blocked, I would recommend considering a more thorough block. I am leaving notification at User talk:2001:448A:50E1:EFCC:DDCB:A531:43C5:B2DF. Vt320 (talk) 16:45, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

@Vt320: Can you have a comprehensive list of the IP's involved? I doubt a full /32 range is needed; the two IP's in these diffs can be covered by a single /47. A full block of a /32 needs CheckUser involvement to clear it of collateral damage.--Jasper Deng (talk) 18:26, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

There are slightly different patterns within the range. None of it helpful, but possibly different people. I've blocked 2001:448A:5070:3656:0:0:0:0/64 for a week; they've been disrupting Michelin star articles for the last couple of days. And I've blocked 2001:448A:50E1:EFCC:0:0:0:0/64 for six months; their interest seems to mainly football and they've been on that /64 since August. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:27, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

Hi, some of the IPs involved are:

* Special:Contributions/2001:448A:11A3:1754:B03C:959:89CB:7DFD

* Special:Contributions/2001:448A:11A2:1972:748F:59AA:F5ED:5592

* Special:Contributions/2001:448A:11A4:1821:8C9:FAF4:1C87:79D0

* Special:Contributions/2001:448A:11A2:1E4B:6969:9BA8:149D:C97A

* Special:Contributions/2001:448A:11A3:1307:448F:1D50:FD72:E9E

* Special:Contributions/2001:448A:3030:42B1:2898:F675:D13E:E6AE

This is a non exhaustive list - the user in question seems to switch between multiple IPs per day.

Edits involve a pattern of changes with explanation to articles, particularly relating to Indonesia, France and sports, and often undoing reverts done by other users. Vt320 (talk) 19:09, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/2001:448A:11A4:1821:A507:FAD2:C869:A1D9 is another example which has arisen today. Another edit made by a similar user with a similar style of unexplained edits shows that the person in question is familiar with wiki's rules, perhaps this is someone who has been previously banned? https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Wikisurfer1234&diff=prev&oldid=1179137185 Vt320 (talk) 11:23, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

User HKGBIGHAM on Pava LaPere

User:HKGBIGHAM appears to be WP:NOTHERE, as they're continuously adding unsourced material to Pava LaPere, despite being warned on their talk page and having their edits reverted by me and Annwfwn. Isi96 (talk) 02:34, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

This is a new editor with just 10 edits. They’ve gotten 2 warnings about “disruptive edits” but no explanation about what was disruptive about them. I suggest you nicely explain the idea of citing reliable sources to them before escalating further.

Thanks for caring about our articles.

—A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 04:02, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

I have blocked HKGBIGHAM for edit warring and persistently adding unreferenced contentious material to the biography of a recent murder victim. Welcoming new editors is well and good, but we cannot allow overt and unreferenced POV pushing in an article that the murder victim's family and friends are likely to read. Cullen328 (talk) 05:26, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

I think the block was correct, and I truly thank @Isi96 for patrolling the article. I also agree with @A. B. here. Isi96 initially added a warning about reliable sources, but then removed it after adding a disruptive editing warning, likely before the user saw it. I think the {{subst:Uw-unsourced1}} approach would be a softer escalation without reducing our ability to protect Wikipedia and its readers.

And to be clear I believe Isi96's actions were entirely good faith and within policy, even the 4 reverts were within WP:3RRNO, so this is just a retrospective look to suggest where editors can do a bit better next time. —siroχo 05:34, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

Seconded. There's a difference between a good faith editor getting lost - and someone using Wikipedia to push their politics on a recently deceased person because they want to get their kicks at some perceived irony that makes them squeamishly happy about being such a fucking racist. We need to spend 0 effort "welcoming" racist assholes.--v/r - TP 05:37, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

Looking at User talk:HKGBIGHAM, is 72 hours enough? User is offering threats that were repeated at UTRS. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 12:14, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

Definitely time for a WP:NOTHERE block. I'll go do the honours. --Yamla (talk) 12:17, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

I have revdel'd the BLP violations. Feel free to undo if you so desire. @Yamla: thanks -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 12:19, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

FWIW, I think the disruptive editing warnings and blocks are--- suboptimal. They convey no meaningful information. We should use descriptive warnings and blocks-- unsourced content, edit warring, etc. with perhaps an unsourced welcome. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 12:23, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

User received "unsourced" welcome in 2016. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 12:32, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

When I first looked at HKGBIGHAM’s edits, I naively thought “that’s nice, Ms. LaPere was a supporter of racial justice”. After the comments above about racism, I went and checked online —there’s an awful meme going around racist websites about Ms. LaPere. I stand corrected — y’all were absolutely right about coming down hard on HKGBIGHAM. This was vicious disruptive editing, not ignorance. I’m fine with a triple-indef superblock. —A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 14:14, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

I find it interesting that this account made edits on a random soccer player 7 years ago, never edited since, then all of sudden makes these edits. Almost would guarantee this was WP:COMPROMISED. (Side note: Ms. LaPere's death is a HUGE story here. Not surprised that the trolls are pulling this.) RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:27, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

There's a certain, je ne sais quoi about this. An LTA sort of feel. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:37, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

Sadly, I've seen this on other sites where admins confirmed it was not a case of a user being compromised, just the same person (apparently radicalized) remembering they had an account somewhere & deciding to go on a crusade. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:47, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

The gripping hand is this user was marginal years ago and is unlikely to appeal their block in a convincing way. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:20, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

User:TrimbakeshwarbestPandit

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

User appears to be spamming their own website https://pandittrimbakeshwar.com/ to articles as references which appear to not be related or only marginally related to the info the website is being used as references for. e.g. here the cite added is a link to an about page on himself. User is obvious WP:NOTHERE and is only here to WP:ADVERT WP:PROMO himself and his website. Lavalizard101 (talk) 10:23, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely. El_C 11:26, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

193.173.216.77

Unconstructive edits with personal attacks and assumptions of bad faith. UA0Volodymyr (talk) 23:05, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Blocked per WP:BKFIP.--v/r - TP 23:31, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Mrrsnhtl

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

Can an admin take a look at Mrrsnhtl for their edits at Ardıçlı, Pülümür? A discussion did take place on their talkpage and I've presented many references to back the content they are removing, but they ignore it and keep reverting. Also, there seem to be some off-Twitter threats here (last sentence). [82] Semsûrî (talk) 20:31, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

I reported this under edit-warring also. The user Semsuri fails to notice that he's gatekeeping this page of a particular village (that he has no relations to) against the actual people from this village. So this is, in fact, an interesting "the book vs the people" dispute. Mrrsnhtl (talk) 20:42, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

@Mrrsnhtl You have failed to notify Semsûrî (talk · contribs) of the report at the edit warring noticeboard, despite the fact that they correctly notified you of this report. The notification must be delivered to their talk page, not as a reply on yours. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). 22:56, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Blocked for the legal threat even if it is on behalf of someone else. Other users tried to get through to User:Mrrsnhtl and they chose to persist. v/r - TP 23:35, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

User:PollGoal77

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Please see the userpage User:PollGoal77. I think the issues are quite obvious, I don't really want to expand on them in gory detail. That said, my apologies if I am posting this in the wrong place. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 18:33, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Deleted and indefinitely blocked. — Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 18:36, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Self-revert disuption with birthdates

• 2600:1700:10E1:1D20:0:0:0:0/64 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))

Someone from Redmond, Washington, has been fiddling with birthdates and then self-reverting.[83][84] Let's temporarily stop this person at Special:Contributions/2600:1700:10E1:1D20:0:0:0:0/64. Thanks in advance. Binksternet (talk) 04:25, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) I've dropped the editor a warning for self-reverted tests. This is generally a good place to start with such cases: {{subst:Template:Uw-selfrevert}} —siroχo 06:46, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

No useful edits; long term disruptive editing pattern. Trying 6mo from article space for now. Lourdes 09:02, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Long term messing with surname articles

• Sonny Andrean Mamu (talk · contribs) has been adding scores of what appear to be inappropriate names and unlinked persons to multiple articles, despite warnings going back several months. Ma (surname) is the most recent example--imagine my surprise to find Elon Musk there, but if there's a good rationale, I'll defer to wiser editors. See also lengthy histories at Mahmud, Chinese Indonesian surname, and Mu (surname) (which includes Steve Aoki). Mass reversion?
• IP, thanks for bringing this up here. I just cleaned up a few, removing a whole bunch of Matildas from Ma--for the life of me, I don't know how the editor justifies that. On top of that, their entries are not clean: punctuation and grammar problems, excessive content, addition of non-notables--and addition of a whole bunch of non-notable people with weird Guinness records. Drmies (talk) 01:42, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
  • I've indeffed the user.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:44, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
    • Thank you, both. Always surprises me to stumble upon such prolific long term disruption. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 01:50, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
      • This may be the weirdest one. Drmies (talk) 02:37, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Wow. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 10:33, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Competence is required

Hi. I'm at loss here. Over a month ago I made multiple edits with sources to the article Rurik. They were almost immediately undone under pretence of existing consensus. We had a 3RR dispute and I refrained from making any other changes until discussion is complete.

Unfortunately despite me starting discussion as opposing editor had asked and despite me providing both sources and pointing to wiki rules, other editor continued to point to "existing consensus" (note there weren't any prior discussions about edited parts and I didn't remove any information in the article that wasn't there already) and rules that despite me asking were never provided. After we had restarted our discussion, opposing editor had abandoned it just after a few messages. I checked English wiki from time to time and patiently waited for a reply. Unfortunately there wasn't any and today saw that it had been almost 4 weeks since I got no response. Given that I had assumed that discussion is basically over as opposing editor had refrained from it. And I have returned my prior edits since no one else objected them. As you may have guessed, he undid them and pointed me to WP:CON.

At this point:

1. Discussion? He says he doesn't want it. Even when we did discuss the topic all I got was generic pointing to Wiki rules and mixed questions and decisions. Like for example current article in the lead mentions only Rurik's descendant Tsar of Russia:

• Me: After split of Kievan Rus there was not one but two Russia's: Eastern and Western. Since we're including info about Eastern counterparts, we need to include info on Western counterparts
  
• Him: quote: "Tsardom of Russia is mentioned because the last Rurikid monarch"
  
• Me: Provides him with sources that he in fact wasn't and saying so that means that we will have to remove Tsar of Russia from the lead
  
• Him: full reverse. Let's add all important heads of states-descendants of Rurik

2. Consensus? The thing is that for him "existing consensus" exists only for me. For some reason it doesn't exist for him himself. He doesn't see a problem himself making new edits. Not only that, after undoing my todays edit he went on to return one of the "not consensus" edits just in his own phrasing. And when I had asked him this info violated WP:CON when I had added and his didn't, he just removed my question without answering.

3. Interpretation of Wikipedia's guidelines? Current lead of the article includes 4 variations of the name Rurik. Two of them are "English" and two are Russian transliterations with a separate footnote for Slavic language transliterations including Russian one with that is already in the lead. As I see no reason to keep redundant info in the lead so I had moved Russian transliterations into single footnote with other Slavic transliterations. But yet again I was denied with quote "see WP:ALTNAMES". I open that guideline and it says: "Do not include foreign equivalents in the text of the lead sentence for alternative names or for particularly lengthy names, as this clutters the lead sentence and impairs readability. Do not include foreign equivalents in the lead sentence just to show etymology. Foreign-language names should be moved to a footnote or elsewhere in the article if they would otherwise clutter the first sentence.". When I had pointed that these guidelines including ones from Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Biography are being violated all I got was quote: "OK, thanks for confirming what I originally said about the alt names.". Like what?

Please advise on how to proceed? I don't want to start another edit war and at the same time with such behaviour or approach discussion leads nowhere. The only option he had offered is WP:3PO, but the thing is that he had said he doesn't want to discuss and also that we almost have no argument about the facts itself. The issue is with his interpretation of Wikipedia's guidelines and wanting to exclude me adding any non-Eastern Russia-related info. I mean I twice asked if he wants to remove all "descendants" and "legacy" parts from the article for that matter altogether to drop this, but its always silence until we go back about adding info about descendants from Western Russia.

Korwinski (talk) 07:22, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

This editor made changes to the article then was blocked for violating 3RR after which they made a retaliatory WP:AN3 report (where no action was taken) and proceeded to launch personal attacks on me and called me a coward. They were warned about this but still doubled down on it (I am not sure how many warnings they got). After the 3RR report, where they were suggested to go through WP:3PO, they decided to open an arbitration request, which, unsurprisingly was declined. Of course, I lost interest in trying to have a discussion in them and suggested to them again to go through 3PO. I will note again that this kind of long-term edit warring is nothing new for them. Mellk (talk) 14:10, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

We both violated edit warring rules and it was acknowledged by reviewing admin. The only difference is that I did three reverts within 24 hours and you had waited for it to be a bit over 24 hours and while I was still blocked. As I had mentioned I stepped down and refrained from making any further accusations or edits on that page until issue will be resolved in discussion. Which wasn't as opposing editor abandoned discussion without saying a word. As for the rest, I can point to bad faith actions made by him, the misinterpritation regarding arbitration request as it was not regarding directly about Mellk but about two other admins actions (see here), intimidation warning messages that he sends to all editors he has any kind conflict or the fact that he points to edits made over a year ago about another topic that had Dispute resolution that didn't find me guilty of anything. But to be honest, I don't see the reason to.

It is all irrelevant, because this request is not about that but about current edits. You point to WP:3PO and that same time you neither participate in the discussion (like what exactly third editor should consider or review? You left without any summary and any position) nor read what the guidelines you point to say: For more complex disputes that involve more than two editors, or that cannot be resolved through talk page discussion, editors should follow the other steps in the dispute resolution process such as the dispute resolution noticeboard or request for comment. As it cannot be resolved on the talk page, I had started this topic on dispute resolution noticeboard.

That said, your position is yet again to attack me personally regarding my past actions instead of sticking with the topic of discussion and providing actual answers to your actions. Can we finally hear your position as to:

• Why is it a violation of WP:CON when I add info to the topic, but its not when you add the same information to the same article but in your own phrasing?
• Why despite guidelines of WP:ALTNAMES you insist on ignoring them? And not only keeping 4 versions of the same name but with also one of them already duplicated in footnotes?
• Why do you oppose adding information regarding Western Russia with comments like "its not topic of the article", but at the same insist on keeping "not topic of the article" information about Eastern Russia? Korwinski (talk) 19:56, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

UPD. Upon looking into Wikipedia guidelines, I stumbled upon Wikipedia:Silence and consensus and it says:

Consensus arising from silence evaporates when an editor changes existing content or objects to it.

As there was no prior discussion of the parts of the article that I had edited, currently in fact there isn't a consensus on these part. And a silent consensus that was there had evaporated the moment I started editing them. So claim that I had violated WP:CON is not true. Latter one says:

Consensus on Wikipedia does not require unanimity

As there's no one else objecting to my edits and opposing editor doesn't want to take part in the discussion, that leaves only me and my vote. So reverts in this case are obviously a case of Wikipedia:Disruptive editing.

Korwinski (talk) 14:48, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

• this looks distinctly like a content dispute that got out of hand. I think neither of you will benefit from bringing it here at this stage. For content disputes, a relevant noticeboard or wikiproject (such as one of the many listed at the top of the article talk page) will be a more productive use of both of your times. And cut it out with the edit warring, both of you. The article will stay at the wrong version it's at right now, and until some more editors weigh in to establish an actual consensus, It'll stay that way. _{this non-admin advice was brought to you free of charge by:} --Licks-rocks (talk) 12:39, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Sunnyediting99 constantly harassing editors and spreading misinformation

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

User:Sunnyediting99 has violated WP:NPOV, WP:3RR, WP:PA, and WP:LOUTSOCK

Sunnyediting99 been creating unimaginable disturbance in Wikipedia for continuously arguing with an anonymous source on Wikipedia and for falsely claiming others as "sockpuppets" and making wild accusations that others are personally attacking him. Also his page "Korean Imperial Titles" lacks a lot of evidence through inspection, falsely claiming that Korean monarchs were titled "Sons of Heaven" and falsely claiming that the title Chanyu is an Imperial title and equivalent to Emperor when there is no evidence for it. MrHan2626 (talk) 10:06, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

MrHan2626 is an obvious sock of User:ChineseMan26. Lavalizard101 (talk) 10:18, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

So what if I'm a sockpuppet account? I've been on Wikipedia for 6 years and have been with good terms all throughout. These corrupt Wikipedians are banning me without proper explanation. I just want to discuss this with you please don't ban me, I won't edit anything for now, we can make a compromise. MrHan2626 (talk) 10:21, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

In fact I've made edits on Genghis Khan, most of the Yuan emperors and Chinese history, they had no right to ban me because I did contribute to Wikipedia. We can compromise, I don't want to argue with you. MrHan2626 (talk) 10:23, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

I guess it's absolutely no surprise also that MrHan2626 (talk · contribs) has (intentionally?) failed to notify Sunnyediting99 (talk · contribs) of this report. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). 11:45, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Yea thanks @TheDragonFire300 for notifying me, when I had issued my report I had notified ChineseMan26. This is so clearly a sock it's a bit funny how obvious it was.

Also I don't know why this person thinks I created/own the page Korean Imperial Titles, I only infrequently edited it. I've actually never even created a page before, and I'm not sure why they think I had the power to ban person. I'm not an admin, Wikipedia's admins decided to ban them especially in light of their behavior. Sunnyediting99 (talk) 12:18, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Continuous disruptive editing without engaging in Talk pages by User Vectorodyssey

User Vectorodyssey (talk · contribs) engages in continuous disruptive editing and does not engage in the talk page.

• Continuously re-adds the deprecated "supported by" of the {{Infobox military conflict}} in the Sri Lankan Civil War with poor sources to bloat the infobox. No engagement in the talkpage which agreed to remove the section.: 1 2 3
• Continuously reverts to add WP:OR and ignores other users who point out the content added does not match the content of sources: 1

I had already warned the user for ignoring talk pages but even that was entirely ignored as the user began reverting again. Simply put the user ignores all attempts of communication, ignores talk page discussions and decisions, and continually disruptively edits and reverts in pages to force their content. -UtoD 17:39, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

• 600 edits and not a single one to talk pages. I have blocked them indefinitely until they communicate. Black Kite (talk) 17:50, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Philomathes2357 et al

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

User:Philomathes2357 is back to their disruptive behavior, suggesting patently non-usable sources on Talk:The Grayzone mere months after being topic banned for this exact sort of Wikipedia:SEALION behavior:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:The_Grayzone#New_potential_sources

They have also filed a sockpuppet investigation against me which seems purely vexatious given the utter lack of credible evidence presented:

• Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Dronebogus

Not only that, but multiple users have come to me with claims and evidence of off-site coordination, administrative corruption, attempted doxxing, offsite defamation, and an undisclosed COI with The Grayzone:

• User talk:73.206.160.3#Note to someone who needs to know this
• User talk:Dronebogus#Offsite coordination
• [85]
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:ScottishFinnishRadish&diff=prev&oldid=1176803401
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:ScottishFinnishRadish&diff=prev&oldid=1176968442
• https://docs.google.com/document/d/e/2P
• [86]
• [87]
• [88]
• [89]
• [90]

Pinging @Valjean, Bishonen, Ponyo, Doug Weller, Bbb23, and Malibu Sapphire: as other relevant parties

Dronebogus (talk) 15:19, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Just to clarify: I don't go to parties, relevant or irrelevant ones. I'd prefer not to be called a "party" (or a "dude" - dudes go to parties).--Bbb23 (talk) 16:26, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

I saw problems finding screenshots for some of the references in linked talk pages. I found this in Google cache and that might help people see what was posted about trying to write for Grayzone

Other pages are in Google at philomath site:wikipediasucks.co but I dont know if Google cache is stable so if you want screenshots make them now Softlem (talk) 15:50, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

That looks like WP:CANVASSING and an admission of WP:RGW to me, my only question is how do you know that its the same person behind both accounts? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:57, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

I find it more difficult to believe it isn’t the same person. Even if it wasn’t, Philo here is clearly editing disruptively. Dronebogus (talk) 16:00, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Agreed, there is enough actionable stuff here on wiki but I am extremely wary of Joe Jobs on wiki sucks and similar sites (even if in this case it seems highly likely that they are the same actor). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:06, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Compare the below highlighted image with the remarks made by philo on SFR’s talk page. It’s a dead match. Dronebogus (talk) 16:22, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

It does appear to be... I still think a healthy skepticism is required until such a time as Philomathes2357 and ScottishFinnishRadish either confirm or deny that these off-wiki accounts belong to them. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:24, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

You’re assuming too much good faith. My stupid Wikipe-tan doodle is the smoking gun here. Dronebogus (talk) 16:26, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

I understand that for you this is personal and must be deeply hurtful. Please do not take my professional detachment for a lack of empathy. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:28, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

I understand. However I do think Philo should be blocked without bothering to wait around and ask him if this is his account (he’s apparently out of town). Dronebogus (talk) 16:31, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

I've read a lot of it. There's no doubt, the language is the same, the detailed analyses, etc. Doug Weller talk 16:59, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

my only question is how do you know that its the same person behind both accounts? To clarify I found it after the ANI opened. I clicked links Dronebogus gave and saw other discussions and tried to verify what they said about the website. I posted what I found but I dont know the website and I dont know if its the same person Softlem (talk) 17:10, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

For some reason pings are not working, only when my talk page is used. This essay by Philomathes2357 leads with enough damaging attitudes toward Wikipedia to deserve a permaban:

Wikipedia is the world’s most influential psyop. Here’s a broad overview of how it works and what you can do about it.

By Philomath

Wikipedia is the most widely-disseminated medium of government and corporate propaganda in human history. It is, in my view, one of the most dangerous threats to freedom of thought, and it is also one of the least discussed. In this article, I will pose, and try to answer the following four questions: Why does Wikipedia matter? What, exactly, has happened to Wikipedia? Why has this happened? And what can be done about it?[91]

Also their agenda to take down Wikipedia:

Re: Dronebogus BUTTON_REPORT_POST Quote Thanks Post by Philomath » Fri Sep 01, 2023 2:55 pm I have not, although I intend to. I'm in touch with a couple of publications that are interested in this topic. One of them said they wanted to "help me take down Wikipedia" , so that's encouraging. If anything I write gets published, I will post it on this forum.

That's a huge assumption of bad faith we cannot tolerate. I don't think that they are an evil person, just too fringe to be suited for editing here, and their agenda, to take down Wikipedia, seals the matter for me. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:02, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

I’d also like to add that there’s a screenshot (of a screenshot) showing someone who appears to be ScottishFinnishRaddish (an admin) posting abusive messages offsite directed at me, by name. “Unbecoming conduct”, I would say. Dronebogus (talk) 16:10, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Courtesy ping to @ScottishFinnishRadish: (only one d) Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:21, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

I don't think commentary on your artistic rendition of a BDSM situation has much to do with my conduct as an admin. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:31, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

I don’t think highly of admins who like to go offsite to insult other users behind their backs. Dronebogus (talk) 16:35, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

sock LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 17:51, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
::::@ScottishFinnishRadish and Firefangledfeathers: You need to be taken to arbcom and desysoped. 72.143.210.142 (talk) 16:40, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with the general attitude or the beliefs (I would for example have a hard time arguing that "Wikipedia is the most widely-disseminated medium of government and corporate propaganda in human history" wasn't true, I think it needs context and balance but its more or less accurate)... I have a problem when attitudes and beliefs get in the way of collegial editing. There are plenty of people who believe similar things to Philomath without being terribly disruptive or unreasonable. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:14, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

• We're really letting the currently blocked IP sock of an LTA get away with a lot here. I wish people with evidence of misconduct against Philo would post it sometime without us all having to take the word of a harasser. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:30, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

  This is presumably not what blocked users are meant to use their talk page access for. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:31, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

  I’m honestly a bit dubious of the sourcing but the screenshots seem damning. Dronebogus (talk) 16:33, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

  Damning of what exactly? Please filter it out for us. You've given a mudslinger a clear line of fire and you've front-paged one of the most toxic hate-sites that focuses on this project and its volunteers. What's the payoff? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:46, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

  Damning that Philo is very likely part of that site and using it to coordinate his harassment campaign against me. Dronebogus (talk) 16:48, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

  And I'm supposed to click through a bunch of screenshots from a sock to prove it to myself? What's the evidence?

  For the record, I don't know about "harassment campaign", but I do think the SPI filed against you was disruptively bad, and I'm sorry it's still open. The idea that we should wait days for some more forthcoming evidence is dumb, but there's such a long SPI backlog that most cases aren't closed that fast anyway. There are plenty of on-wiki reasons to be concerned about Philo's conduct. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:54, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

  If there IS something going on off-wiki, I wanted to make sure everyone knows about it. Better safe than sorry. Dronebogus (talk) 16:56, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

  Honestly, a reasonable take. I hate seeing so many editors I trust dancing when I can see it's a devil doing the fiddling. I should have expressed earlier that I'm sorry this is happening to you. Whoever it is, there are are people out there messing with you and it sucks. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:00, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

  Because this rankles you I am going to assume that you like me are an American... Something I've had to come to accept editing wikipedia is that the vast majority of the world rejects the fruit of the poison tree doctrine and are perfectly happy to accept evidence from questionable parties. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:36, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

socking resumes LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 17:51, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
*:Strong support full ban for Philomathes2357. I also support an Arbcom and WMF ban. 72.143.210.142 (talk) 16:37, 8 October 2023 (UTC) @Firefangledfeathers: Do you happen to know Philo on offwiki hate forums? 72.143.210.142 (talk) 16:37, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

• I've blocked the IP.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:42, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
• Ya'll are being played by that IP, it seems pretty obvious to any outside observer. The attempt to draw in SFR as an abusive admin is particualrly pathetic. I have also criticized Dronebobus' terrible Wiki-tan bondage porn, because it deserves to be criticized. It's laughably bad and I'm astonished that even Wikiquote would allow it to be used in a public-facing article, but it seems the real issue here is that plotting and planning against others is perfectly ok so long as you do it on-wiki, as the OP has been doing with the now-blocked IP and others, and the absolute worst thing anyone can do if you do it off-wiki. WikipediaSucks is a terrible dumpster fire of lonely, angry people and not a place one can find valid criticism of Wikipedia. That point is broadly acknowledged. The supposed evidence, on the other hand, is weak at best. Screenshots gathered by an abusive IP editor? If that's all you got I would not expect the community to follow your lead here. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:58, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

  @Beeblebrox@Firefangledfeathers I've managed to read quite a bit of it. WSucks is indeed a dumpster fire, and associating with it and asking for help there is not something an editor who is here to improve Wikipedia should be doing (although his question about destroying or taking over Wikipedia suggests he might want to improve it by making basic changes. Doug Weller talk 17:03, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

  I say all sorts of things on Wikipediocracy that I would never say here. That's kind of the point. WP:BADSITES died a long time ago. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:07, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

  Given how you talk here I’d hate to see what wonderful things you write over there. Dronebogus (talk) 17:08, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

  I'm sure your IP friend can provide you with the necessary screenshots. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:13, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

  I can guess. Your comments here are cruel enough, thanks. Dronebogus (talk) 17:18, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

  I'm not the one who brought this all up. You're being handled by that IP, who is almost certainly some troll or other who finds this all hilarious. They don't care about you, or Philomath, this is about the lulz. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:24, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

  A troll who conveniently dumped a crap-ton of evidence that Philomath is probably attempting to use a third party site for disruption. Dronebogus (talk) 17:28, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

  I'm on a working vacation and I'm just now seeing this. So, here's how this looks to me: I accused Dronebogus of being a sockmaster, and, as I privately predicted, a bunch of sockpuppets and IPs are defending Dronebogus and trying to boomerang this back on me. Surprise! It's equally unsurprising that nobody seems even a little bit suspicious as to why all of the IPs and sockpuppets are defending Dronebogus and trying to get me globally banned before Tuesday, when I said I would update the SPI. Hmm...if a bunch of new IPs showed up to defend me, would people be equally incurious? To ask the question is to answer it.

  For the record, I do believe that the way we handle sources in political articles is very broken, to the extent that I would, admittedly, like to "take down" the way we do things in that regard - not to leave a trail of destruction, but to replace the current system with a more functional one, which will lead to a healthier Wikipedia in the long run. In the same way that we have MEDRS, a separate sourcing standard for medical articles, I think we need to have a separate standard for "NEWSRS" or "POLRS", for political articles. I've focused on specific examples, across the political spectrum, but I've recently started to see that trying to fix those articles is like taking an Advil to treat cancer - it has no effect, and the problem will continue to get worse until it's addressed at a more system-wide level.

  In real life, I'm an international relations lecturer and two-time Bernie Sanders voter, so the accusations that I am "right-wing", "fringe", or "don't know what I'm talking about" are off-base. I definitely know what I'm talking about. The way political articles are written here is genuinely disturbing and upsetting to me, and I've expressed my frustration here and off-Wiki, sometimes in ways that were not productive. I've taken a step back to study policy more carefully and formulate concrete ideas for how our treatment of political articles can be improved. It's easy to be upset about some exceptionally shitty articles, but not as easy (but more worthwhile) to identify exactly what's going wrong in our policies and procedures that leads to those articles taking that form in the first place.

  One thing that's gradually dawned on me is that, while I stand by my statement that Wikipedia disseminates more political disinformation than any other medium in human history, only a very small number of editors are doing so consciously. I've assumed bad faith when, in reality, most people are just trying to follow the policies and procedures rigorously and rigidly, which leads to the unintentional side-effect of creating very bad political articles. This is a problem with policy, not a problem with editors, and my future conduct will reflect this understanding. I have nothing else to say for now. Philomathes2357 (talk) 19:00, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

  I must have missed the non-IP sock puppets, which ones were those? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:17, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

  Looks like the latest one is "Alan Blechter" and "Booming Boom", but this is a pattern of LTA that's been going on for almost a year. Oddly, the socks and IPs have increased their activity significantly since I submitted an SPI against Dronebogus. You can reach your own conclusions about why that might be. Philomathes2357 (talk) 20:58, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

  Instead of engaging in silly conspiracy theories and insinuations ("nobody seems even a little bit suspicious as to why all of the IPs and sockpuppets are defending Dronebogus and trying to get me globally banned before Tuesday, when I said I would update the SPI", "Oddly, the socks and IPs have increased their activity significantly since I submitted an SPI against Dronebogus. You can reach your own conclusions about why that might be"), you could release your supposed bombshell evidence of Dronebogus' sockpuppetry now and fuck up all of his plans. 93.72.49.123 (talk) 13:43, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

  So none of the non-IP accounts whose comments are in this discussion? I just want to be clear on the allegations here, how extensive is the alleged coordination against you? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:07, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

  Several have been blocked in the last few hours for posts here and elsewhere, it's an LTA getting their lulz, just as I suspected. @Philomathes2357:, I think the question foremost on everyone's mind is probably not whether you voted for Bernie Sanders, it is probably the validity of the allegations that you are actively proxying for banned users you are co-ordinating with over at Sucks, which is known as a troll playground and not a serious Wikipedia criticism site. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:00, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

  The answer is no. All of my edits are the product of my own original thought, and I have never made an edit per someone else's request, at an off-Wiki forum or elsewhere. I'm as much of a proxy for the people at Sucks as you are a proxy for the people at WPO. Philomathes2357 (talk) 22:24, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

  "All of my edits are the product of my own original thought" - pray tell, then who is this "we" who have analyzed Dronebogus' supposed sockpuppetry? 93.72.49.123 (talk) 13:46, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

  I don't see any non-IP socks which have been blocked for posts here in this discussion. I understand that there is an active LTA but they only appear to have participated in this discussion as an IP. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:07, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

  @Beeblebrox I saw some of this myself with a throwaway account. It’s genuine. I hope you will believe me. Doug Weller talk 19:05, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

  If a user is a problem, it should be demonstrable that the problem is here on Wikipedia. If the problem is off-wiki it should be reported privately to the Arbitration Committee. Obviously I would be recused on that, but that is the proper channel for reporting severe off-wiki commentary. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:26, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

  Off-wiki commentary and harassment can have an even more chilling effect on an editor's ability to edit than self-censored on-wiki commentary, so Wikipedia editors' off-wiki behavior should be circumspect and not side with or encourage trolls and blocked editors, IOW not aiding the trolls who make other editors' lives miserable. I hope you keep that in mind and will fight against any attempts to dox and otherwise harass me. I would welcome an email if you see such things happening. I suspect that Dronebogus would share my sentiments. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 21:32, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

  I say this knowing that I'll likely get accused of being one of the group of IP socks (though I'm not the same person), ignored, and subsequently blocked, but I feel it's important to point out.

  Philo was indeffed back in January for pushing the same POV that he is not and that the IPsock is trying to get him banned for (e.g. trying to whitewash the Grayzone's article, trying to remove the phrase "anti-government activist" from Cliven Bundy's page), and received an 6 month topic ban from American politics as a condition of his unblock.

  During that 6 month period, he made less than a half-dozen edits; upon the expiry of his topic ban, he returned abd began the same POV pushing. What you have here is an editor who holds a strong anti-American government POV, and is working tirelessly to push it, even if it means circumventing Wikipedia rules. 2603:7080:8F00:49F1:41BB:C608:C30A:AA5D (talk) 21:47, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

  Nah, you're obviously not one of the socks. The socks all have the same attitude and tone, which you don't share.

  A lot of people have speculated about my "POV" and accused me of pushing various POVs - all of them wildly off base. I am a US citizen. I've served the US. I'm not right-wing, or anti-USA, or pro-Kremlin, or any of that. I do find the accusations interesting, because they tell me a lot about the political beliefs of the accusers.

  My POV is simple and consistent: when a political article has a sneering, condescending tone and uses phrases and innuendo that are common propagandistic tropes, I think that's a problem, even when the article follows the letter of policy. This is compounded by the fact that the people who edit those articles are in ideological alignment with the propaganda.

  What I've realized is that the problem isn't a problem with editors per se, it's a problem with Wikipedia's RS policies being applied in a formulaic way to very different topics topics (like science and politics) which leads to bad results. I think the solution is something akin to MEDRS for politics and current events. Maybe I should be hanging out at the village pump ideas lab, rather than individual broken articles. Philomathes2357 (talk) 22:39, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

  The point is that when you received a temporary topic ban, you disappeared and made no constructive edits while you waited it out, then returned with the exact same behavior. Thats not the action of a good-faith editor, thats someone with an axe to grind. 2603:7080:8F00:49F1:C100:4041:A009:756A (talk) 13:16, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Philomathes, regardless of being harassed by this IP (which I do not support in any way), is a genuinely problematic user. It's extremely unfortunate that this IPs harassment campaign has delegitimized valid criticism of them. Just like with VolunteerMarek being harassed by Icewhiz, it does not mean that they should not face consequences for their editing conduct. Over at Talk:The Grayzone, Philomathes has shown a tendentious WP:IDHT atitude, blugeoning the discussion with huge walls of text. He called a RFC earlier this year about whether The Grayzone should be called "far left" in the lead of the article, which found in favour of including it (personally I don't favour including it, but ultimately that's not what the consensus is). He has refused to accept this result and has repeatedly complained about it. He has shown zero inclination to collaborate people, or behave in a cordial manner, in one edit stating that debating on the talkpage makes me feel like an evolutionary biologist debating a room full of fervent young-earth creationists and that Folks with no knowledge of epistemology should, respectfully, take a step back, listen to those who do have such an expertise, and learn. [92]. It's obvious that he sees himself as some kind of "expert" who's opinion is more important than those of other editors, which is fundamentally incompatible with how Wikipedia editing works. The google doc linked by Valjean I think clearly shows that Philomathes is WP:NOTHERE. I feel that at minimum, a topic ban from The Grayzone is necessary, but I do not honestly think it would be a great loss if he was indefinitely blocked. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:41, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

I think we should do the obvious thing and permablock philo. That would kill two birds with one stone— both the core problem and this incredibly annoying problem of sock after sock jumping on this thread as a vehicle proxy harassment of the accused. Dronebogus (talk) 04:53, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

You brought this here, so I'm not surprised you think that --Licks-rocks (talk) 14:51, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

I don’t think that makes it unreasonable. After a “parole” unblock after an indef (not an expired temporary block), acting like this is a sure sign of WP:IDHT/I’m untouchable”. Dronebogus (talk) 14:58, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

I'm just saying, you're taking this to ANI to get imput from other editors, and you taking this here already comes with the implication that you think administrators should take action. I do not think commenting several times exactly what you think should happen without adding anything else is a productive way to have a discussion. Which is why I called you out on it. For my own two cents, I think this should have been taken to ARBCOM. --Licks-rocks (talk) 15:29, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

@HemiaucheniaTopic ban unless Philomathes2357 agrees that due to his conflict of interest, ie writing an article for submission to The Grayzone, he will not edit the article. I'd still worry about disruptive editing on the talk page. Doug Weller talk 10:06, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Why not a full ban? Dronebogus (talk) 10:08, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

An indefinite American Politics topic ban at the very least. 2603:7080:8F00:49F1:C100:4041:A009:756A (talk) 13:16, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

I agree that an indefinite American politics topic ban is needed. The previous topic ban was clearly unsuccessful in deterring disruptive behavior, as Philomathes simply waited it out. I also agree with Hemiauchenia's assessment of Philomathes' editing: "It's obvious that he sees himself as some kind of "expert" who's opinion is more important than those of other editors, which is fundamentally incompatible with how Wikipedia editing works." This is evident, for example, in this edit from yesterday, where he concludes that editors who disagree with him are either "operating in bad faith" or rigidly and misguidedly "following bureaucratic norms". Or take a look at Talk:The Grayzone#New potential sources: editors who haven't read his favorite books are incompetent, editors who disagree with him do not "have an interest in improving the article" and are wikilawyers, etc. 93.72.49.123 (talk) 14:00, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

• A few things: I do think Dronebogus is right to call his treatment here harassment. There's a couple edits in there that make it impossible to interpret any other way. Especially this edit makes that really clear, and also crosses a line from off-wiki (and harder to prove) harassment into real, provable, on-wiki behaviour, from philomanes, but also from Scottishfinnishradish. I definitely explored other possibilities*, but based on this, I'm prepared to call for both to be Cbanned. There's just no way to explain that sequence of edits in any other way._{*= the image quality is really low, which you don't really see on in-browser image viewers but becomes really obvious when you load it into actual drawing software.}. ----Licks-rocks (talk) 16:24, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

  You want to community ban an admin for a single comment? Is that right? Beeblebrox (talk) 16:53, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

  Not sure thats an accurate interpretation of what Licks-rocks said, "Especially" appears to clearly mean not based just on what follows in this context. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:17, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

  @Licks-rocks: You may find it interesting that Beeblebrox has posted similar attacks as ScottishFinnishRadish on the same off-wiki forum. link Mike von Ike (talk) 17:57, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

  I've blocked Mike von Ike. Y'all can go back to this interminable, chaotic melodrama now.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:07, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

  IMO they should both be de-mopped at minimum. Admins shouldn’t go talking about how much they despise other contributors on third-party websites. And Beeblebrox can be just plain cruel. Dronebogus (talk) 18:08, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:UA0Volodymyr

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• UA0Volodymyr (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user does not seem to be here to build an encyclopaedia. They added a massive amount of biased and badly-written text to Kira Rudyk ([93]), falsely claiming that its previous removal was vandalism. I re-removed it, as did another editor ([94]), but the user keeps restoring it (latest revert earlier today [95]). Today they attempted to get the page protected, in a bad-faith attempt to prevent their harmful changes from being removed ([96]).

Additionally, they have now begun to stalk my other edits, undoing them indiscriminately. Today, they have gone on another revert-spree: [97], [98], [99].

The account was created just three weeks ago, and only started actually editing on 22 September, but these actions do not seem like those of a new editor, so I wonder if they are a sockpuppet of some kind. 86.28.234.5 (talk) 19:12, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

Since the article was subject to edit-warring of two non-extended-confirmed users, I protected it according to WP:RUSUKR on a random version. Someone must evaluate whether a revert is needed, or, even better, discuss at the talk page.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:17, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Obviously not in any way "random". You have evidently decided to encourage and support the disruptive editor and likely sockpuppet I reported, by protecting badly written, extremely biased crap that multiple editors have previously removed. "Someone must evaluate whether a revert is needed"? Multiple people already did. You obviously didn't bother to look at the article history. And you have also ignored the disruptive behaviour at multiple other articles that I pointed out. 86.28.234.5 (talk) 17:53, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

No, the WP:RUSUKR sanctions regime dictates this page must be protected at that level, period. It is entirely conceivable that Ymblanter didn't have time to evaluate whether a revert is needed. So you assuming the worst, reflects poorly on you rather than him, I'd challenge. Anyway, I see that the article has already been edited heavily on the side of content removal. I did not review those changes, or the article itself closely, but I did see that Ymblanter made a mistake in assigning a lower protection level than is required, so I fixed that. El_C 02:39, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Amazing. This is a topic which is subject to general sanctions because of its contentiousness, but you think it's OK for someone to have protected an article in the state favoured by a new, suspicious and disruptive user, because (you assume) they "didn't have time" to evaluate whether a revert was needed. The user I reported had already been reverted by multiple people. I reported further disruptive and suspicious behaviour as well. But Ymblanter just ignored all of that and protected the article in the state that the disruptive user wanted. And all you could be bothered to do was increase the protection.

Well, you could have nipped this in the bud, but the disruptive user - who I do not doubt is a sockpuppet - continues to behave problematically, including by ignoring this discussion, though I'm sure they enjoyed the endorsement of their behaviour. The article is in a state which anyone who understands neutrality and quality will be disgusted by, but evidently doesn't trouble you in the slightest. 86.28.234.5 (talk) 07:20, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

The user continues to behave highly disruptively, making contentious edits to Ukraine-related topics, and (in their sole interest outside Ukraine) reverting edits I have made, in a sustained campaign of hounding. No doubt they were absolutely thrilled when User:Ymblanter supported them once again by blocking me with the outrageous claim that I was the one doing the hounding. It is quite extraordinary that this disruptive and highly suspicious editor has been treated with such deference by an administrator. 86.28.234.5 (talk) 07:57, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

Several administrators tried to explain to the IP (at their talk page) that mass-reverting contribution of a registered user calling them a sockpuppet without being able even point out whose sockpuppet it was was not ok, but without any success. May be we need a longer block. Ymblanter (talk) 09:24, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

@Ymblanter 86.28.234.5 is the latest incarnation of WP:LTA/BKFIP. It's fairly obvious from the focus on copyediting, the aggressive and rude edit summaries and the filing of ANI reports on people who they deem to lack English proficiency. I filed at SPI a couple of days ago, but no-one has had a chance to look at it yet. @Ponyo I noticed you responded to their unblock requests on their talk page, perhaps you'd take a look? 86.23.109.101 (talk) 09:55, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

I've closed the SPI as the IP is now blocked.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 15:47, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:MaranoFan chronic incivility, conspiracy theories

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I am tired of having my edits construed by User:MaranoFan as "sabotage". At Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Get Him Back!, which was about an article they created, I supported a redirect as there was no reliable indication of future notability at the time. The closer found a consensus to redirect. At Wikipedia talk:Did you know#Help requested, MaranoFan now says that the "Get Him Back!" deletion discussion "saw multiple votes influenced by Four Award rivalries" and called the votes "blatant bad-faith sabotage". I cited policy; the redirect vote had nothing to do with them personally. If they disagree with the outcome of a deletion discussion, MaranoFan should appeal the decision at Deletion review, not malign a consensus as "sabotage".

Based on their comments, I am asking for MaranoFan to be blocked for a time due to personal attacks. Claiming multiple editors acted to "sabotage" them is extremely offensive. I spend most of my time doing research and writing articles with occasional steps into deletion discussions and page moves, not sabotaging other editors. I continue to abide by an informal interaction ban with MaranoFan, as per their wishes, after a previous ANI in May 2023. I do not edit any of the topics they frequent, nor have I commented on one of their FACs or DYKs, and I have not referred to their edits or actions anywhere aside from the ANI page since. With their comments at Talk:DYK, MaranoFan has not done the same. I would have not opened another ANI if they were just referring to me because it's not worth it, but saying "multiple votes" were sabotage and influenced by "Four Award rivalries"? No—this conspiracy nonsense needs to be stopped now. Heartfox (talk) 17:11, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

"I continue to abide by an informal interaction ban with MaranoFan" What??? It must be a funny type of interaction ban that allows someone to vote to redirect an article created by the other person. This is the same user who harrassed me with a 9kb essay a few hours after being asked to stop bothering me. When my unanimously supported IBAN request with this person was archived without action, they again decided to get involved in a discussion about deleting an article created by me. I briefly raised this at AN but got no response. Last month, they created an article over my redirect, so sorry, but no, they have not "abided by an informal interaction ban" with me. For context, this user and I both nominate music articles at FAC which often compete for attention from same or similar reviewers. They have apparently had problems with me since my very first FAC more than two years ago, but have still involved themselves with five of my other nominations. As for this user's Four Awards-influenced grudge being "conspiracy nonsense", they have nominated two articles for the award this year and are creating more, usually over redirects for Mariah Carey songs created by me. This is the same award I would have been eligible for with the article whose AfD they commented on (and am now disqualified), and their previous derailment of one of my nominations was also on an article nominated for the process.

This user's constant witchhunt to get rid of me (clearly proved by them asking for me to be blocked again and again but opposing an IBAN) has gotten extremely tiring and I reiterate my request for an IBAN so they can stop wasting my and the community's time. A block for this user is also something I am now willing to consider supporting. This is not the first time they have tried to take out FAC nominators they don't like. At some point we have to say enough is enough.--NØ 17:54, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Neutral comment My redirect vote! at the AfD was not canvassed or influenced by anyone, but based on my common voting pattern where individual songs on an unreleased album should not have articles until the album is released or the song is released as a single. Nate • (chatter) 19:17, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

"My redirect"? A user doesn't get to reserve creation and own editing of an article because they made a redirect five years prior. I created "Outside" and "Clown" because new sources were published this year, e.g. Chan book. It had absolutely nothing to do with MaranoFan. This is yet another example of MaranoFan's ridiculous ownership and their baseless conspiracy charges against other editors. Claiming me creating an article out of a redirect five years later to be a "witchhunt against competition" is just ridiculous. Heartfox (talk) 19:18, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Again, it's a funny kind of an "informal interaction ban" being "abided", where one can vote to redirect the other party's article and characterize their edits as "conspiracy nonsense", "ridiculous ownership", and "baseless conspiracy charges". I just bust out laughing. Now let's do a real, formalized one so I don't have to deal with this ridiculous attention-seeking nonsense every few months.--NØ 19:23, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

• Comment: Here's Heartfox hiding comments from me and two admins on my FAC, several days after when they claim they have been "abiding by an informal interaction ban" with me. Something they seem to be asking me to get blocked for.--NØ 19:37, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Proposal

I think we're getting a little off track. Here's what I think we oughtta do:

1. Heartfox and MaranoFan are subject to a two-way involuntary interaction ban.
2. MaranoFan is warned about casting aspersions.
3. Heartfox is reminded that de-escalation of conflict is preferable wherever possible.

• Support as proposer – it's pretty clear that we got bad blood, but a block doesn't seem like the best remedy for either party. Let's get them out of each other's hair so they can do what they're good at. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 20:10, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
• Support as what I had proposed five months ago when I already foresaw more drama incoming. I am not satisfied with how the supposed "informal interaction ban" has been selectively obeyed by others involved, formalization is necessary. Heartfox had a problem with me since my very first FAC, but kept forcing interactions with me. Then said they’ll ”be certain to avoid me in the future” and returned to cast an aspersion on my FAC. After a few hours of being asked to stay away from me, they posted a 9kb essay about me to ANI. And after a virtually unanimously supported IBAN proposal, thought it was a good idea to vote about the prospective deletion of my work. So, holy mother of escalation, I oppose any “voluntary” solution to this problem. The fact that they have posted several essays to ANI trashing my conduct but beg not to have an interaction ban is absolutely mortifying and should tell everyone what they need to know. They seem to want to have some avenue left to set up another trap in the future in an attempt to "get rid" of me. Sorry, but I will not be taken out and will continue writing more of the best articles Wikipedia has to offer, as I have been doing the past three years. It's time to put the community headache to bed.--NØ 20:30, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose. MaranoFan cited an online forum as their source to justify the imminent notability of an article, which, predictably, turned out to be false in any case. Citing unreliable material even though they know how to determine source reliability demonstrates that they are obsessive regarding Four Awards. It has gotten out of control to the point where they have dragged in "multiple editors" (not just me) into a sabotage conspiracy theory regarding the deletion discussion. I don't know what to do when an editor thinks everything is a personal attack against them. MaranoFan should either withdraw their comment about "multiple editors" sabotaging them or submit Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Get Him Back! to Deletion review. If not, they should be blocked for casting aspersions.

I have been editing for over 8 years and never received an interaction ban or a temporary block, so I oppose a two-way involuntary interaction ban. To have my name dragged into the muck of someone who has been site-banned in the past does not seem appropriate. In addition to not commenting on their FACs and DYKs since May 2023, I will commit to not commenting in deletion discussions or page moves regarding articles MaranoFan created in the future. Heartfox (talk) 21:13, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Neutral comment Why would we or they take an article that's now been created and properly sourced to DR? It was redirected and now is a full article (as I expected to occur); there's no deletion to review. Nate • (chatter) 22:39, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

If MaranoFan believes that multiple votes were sabotage/only added on the basis of "Four Award rivalries" they should bring it to deletion review and state some evidence rather than cast aspersions at Talk:DYK. If overturned from redirect to keep, it might ease their concerns about whether the article is eligible for a Four Award. Heartfox (talk) 23:27, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Per WP:BURO...no. That's not the purpose of DR. The article isn't in danger of deletion at all. We're not going to force someone to do a pointless exercise like you want them to in what I think is a pretty blatant attempt at forcing a proxy block. Move on already, and with that, support IBAN because I cannot take you at your word that you'll just keep dragging them into the muck and the other subject just wants to move on themselves. Nate • (chatter) 23:53, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

• Support. It's patently obvious that these two editors don't, and can't, get along. Short of just blocking these two, a two-way IBAN (involuntary, at that; I do not believe a voluntary IBAN will work here) seems like the optimal solution. Also consider that a two-way IBAN was already supported but not formalized. SkyWarrior 22:01, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
• Support. I think this is the best option for this situation and for both editors. I agree with SkyWarrior's rationale. I do not see the situation between these two editors improving in the future and this kind of two-way ban seems to be the only way forward in my opinion. Aoba47 (talk) 00:02, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
• Support: two editors with 40,000 edits and 28 featured articles between them surely have better things to do on wikipedia than the sniping that we're seeing here. If Heartfox is as they say in fact already voluntarily abiding by an informal IBAN this will not affect them in any way; if MaranoFan wants Heartfox to stop engaging with them then casting aspersions about "bad-faith sabotage" is not helping their cause. I would further suggest that though Heartfox voting in the "Get Him Back!" AfD might not be explicitly prohibited by the text of WP:IBAN, participating in an AfD about an article created by MaranoFan and which MaranoFan has already participated in is at best A Bad Idea. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 09:42, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Noting for the record that I have indef'd MaranoFan ‎because, on reading this thread and the links given in it, I find his battleground mentality utterly appalling and completely corrosive to good-faith collaboration and this appears to be a much more widespread issue than an running feud with Heartfox. The block is explicitly intended to be indefinite, not infinite, and blocking long-term contributors is not something I take any pleasure in but we cannot allow one editor to undermine community processes by labelling a consensus they don't with "sabotage". My detailed rationale can be found at the diff above and I welcome review of my actions. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 10:29, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

I'm sorry for reopening this discussion but I believe there still needs to be a two-way IBAN enacted despite the indef on one of the parties. SkyWarrior 13:42, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

• Support as needed to stop the bickering between these two editors. Also support unblock of MaranoFan, an indefinite block seems overly zealous in my view. Isaidnoway (talk) 15:29, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
• Support - thanks for reopening this, it seems like something we should conclude once and for all, after it was parked without conclusion on May. And most likely MaranoFan will be back at some point in the coming days or weeks, once the dust has settled. Since the two appear unable to work collaboratively together, the 2-way IBAN seems sensible, along with the other two notes leeky has made. It's not a punishment, just a recognition that they can both be productive of they don't have anything to do with each other.  — Amakuru (talk) 15:33, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
• Support IBAN but also support unblock MaranoFan. I also support the unblock of MaranoFan because it seems like an excessive block and in violation of policy WP:BLOCK. Lightburst (talk) 15:47, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
• Support IB, with the caveat that I have unblocked MaranoFan per the discussion on their Talk. Both editors' behavior cannot continue and while I'm optimistic we won't be back here, a mutual IB is the only way to help ensure it. Star Mississippi 17:23, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

  @Star Mississippi I'm very disappointed that you've decided to impose your judgement over mine and Amakuru's without any discussion whatsoever. The block was well within the bounds of policy and admin discretion and you even note in on MF's talk page that you agree with it. It had not yet served its purpose, being barely seven hours old, and discussion was ongoing on the talk page. Furthermore, your unblock summary of "per talk page" makes it sound as though you were acting with some sort of consensus when not a single uninvolved admin had seen anything wrong with the block. It's exactly these sorts of shoddy unblocks that make long-term user conduct issues so difficult to deal with. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:50, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

  I believe I was correct in my action and there was consensus for it among other uninvolved editors, although you may have disagreed, but do not have the stamina nor interest in protracted dispute or this progressing where other admin actions have. I will undo my unblock.

  Where I believed you were OK with it being temporary was your own wording that you did not intend for it to be infinite, but rather to stop the problematic editing and address it, which I believe it did and MF addressed the issues. Perhaps that was my misreading and I apologize. Star Mississippi 18:04, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

  I'm not sure if that makes the situation better or worse, which is exactly why a knee-jerk unblock was a bad idea. I fully intend(ed?) for the block to be temporary, though perhaps a bit less temporary than seven hours. A temporary block of a few days would have been in order. I've given my reasons for making it indef on MF's talk page at some length but I feel he needs to reflect on his approach to editing and especially to discussions and disagreements and that a few hours is not enough time for that. There was a discussion ongoing on the talk page where several other editors had reached out with advice and I do think MF was beginning to "get it". An unblock may have been on the horizon somewhere but your action caused more problems than it solved. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:57, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

  I believe you were correct as well. It didn't appear to be a "knee-jerk" or "shoddy" unblock, as you clearly stated your reasons for the unblock, and it was within admin discretion. HJM clearly stated that they would "butt out and let another admin evaluate the request", which is exactly what happened. If the block was meant to be temporary to begin with, as implied by both HJM and Amakuru, then the original block should have had a set date for it to expire, instead of a wishy-washy indefinite. Isaidnoway (talk) 21:18, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

  not a single uninvolved admin Are you implying that SM is involved? GMG^talk 18:50, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

  For the avoidance of doubt, zero interaction outside of project spaces, third party editor Talks although not on any related subjects that I am able to see. Log for anyone to assess as I do not have anything to hide.

  @HJ Mitchell I believe the editor's reaction to my reblock shows they are continuing to get it and understand how they should proceed. MY personal belief as an admin is that x hours v. y days doesn't particulary matter if the editor shows they understand what led to the block. This is part of the issue with preventative v. punitive blocks that I think is a broader issue than you and I disagreeing here. If they end up back here despite an interaction ban, I'll happily eat crow. (Happy to take this to your Talk if you prefer). Star Mississippi 19:17, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

@HJ Mitchell and Star Mississippi: I find it astonishing to see an administrator unilaterally unblocking without discussion when there is another administrator, apart from the blocking administrator, who has said on the user talk page "I'd recommend that it [the unblock request] continue to be declined". Shouldn't it go without saying that in that situation one explains one's view and waits for discussion, rather than just going ahead with one's personal preference without regard for consensus? Administrators aren't somehow exempt from normal Wikipedia policies, such as Wikipedia:Consensus; on the contrary, there is a widespread consensus that administrators should be if anything more careful to abide by policies than other editors. JBW (talk) 10:51, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

@JBW I reblocked almost 20 hours ago and immediately after @HJ Mitchell's comment essentially requesting that I do so I'm not quite sure of the timing of your note. The unblock has nothing to do with "personal preference". I have had no interaction with this editor prior to this discussion and their talk related specifically to this issue and don't edit in musical areas unless it's AfC/AFD draft or article that I'm processing so I resent the implication that it's personal or that I'm somehow not uninvolved. I disagree that it was unilateral as there are other folks who supported the unblock including another admin who thought the unblock would be granted, but am happy to wait out consensus. FWIW, there doesn't appear to be support here for the continued block (separate from the IBAN).

I saw a block, which was needed at the time, that an admin specifically said they didn't intend to be infinite, an unblock request and discussion, which included a comment from HJM that they were going to let another admin assess- that I believed addressed the reasons for which the editor was blocked. Admins are allowed to unblock in that situation, but no one has time or interest in this escalating so I reinstated the original block. I'll be online for the next few hours and then offline until Sunday so pardon any delayed further response. Star Mississippi 13:35, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

• I supported the block, mainly because it looked like MaranoFan needed the vacation, and it would break the tension. But now the block looks likely to be lifted (and MF's current FAC looks likely to get promoted soon, courtesy of the good folk @FAC coordinators: ) and we can start again. MF seems to have appreciated the issues that led to the block, and HJ Mitchell has done a fine job, as expected, at shepherding them to that end. See, I don't know where this really came from, but I was surprised. They always seemed to get on OK whenever I passed them there (their mutual topic of interest isn't really my bag, so it wasn't often, admittedly). But they regularly reviewed each other's articles—February 2021, May 2021, November 2022, November 2021, March 2023, April 2023, April 2023, etc—often accompanied by smilies and notes of congratulation. So I'd hope that both parties can do what they do best—keep the FAC coordinators and reviewers busy—rather than getting into these scrapes. I guess, what I want, is to not only oppose a mutual IBan, but any Iban. I mean, as I've said before, It's ironic that, while Wikipedia has a reputation for being full of fancruft and pop-culture trivia, it's actually pretty hard to get that kind of thing [that Marano Fan and Heartfox work on] to FA status, so, to put in the very vernanacular, what's best for the project is having both inside the tent... looking out. If you get my drift. Is it asking too much at this stage of the game? Serial 14:43, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

  I think I agree with you. MF and I are in conversation off-wiki and an unblock is on the horizon. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:38, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

• I'm not sure I find it entirely appropriate to issue an indef when there is an ongoing community discussion regarding implementing a less restrictive alternative resolution. It seems a little off base to claim that "not a single uninvolved admin" disagreed, when this exact section starts with an uninvolved admin saying "a block doesn't seem like the best remedy for either party." GMG^talk 10:57, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

  @GreenMeansGo, Not entirely sure why we're still having this conversation; I was hoping that a completely fresh admin would have closed this by now. But the block was near-unanimously endorsed at AN and even MF now understands the necessity of it. The issues with MF's conduct went beyond the spat with Heartfox, but the issue is now resolved and while I'm happy to fulfil my admin accountability obligations, I'm not sure more words in this thread benefits anyone. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:50, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

  Just not my style I guess. Stick dropped. GMG^talk 19:10, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

  Not my style either, and until an admin decides to close this section (or not), editors are free to opine. And honestly, what choice did MF have to "understand the necessity of it" in order to get unblocked. Generally speaking, that's just the way indefinite blocks work, that is, if they want to get unblocked. Isaidnoway (talk) 19:24, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

  Of course you are free to opine, as you have done. I'm not sure I see the use in opining on a matter that has been resolved between the affected parties, but there is nothing preventing you from doing so. As for what choice he had, he had the choice to request review by the wider community. This he did, and the community decided that the block was appropriate. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:35, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

  Right, but my point is that once the community decided the block was appropriate, he had no other choice left but to "understand the necessity of it" in order to get unblocked. I guess he could have remained blocked though, as that is a choice as well. But as GMG said: stick dropped. Thanks for the reply Isaidnoway (talk) 03:12, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

• @HJ Mitchell: might you do me the honor of implementing a close before this is archived without action again? Happy to leave this open a little longer, but given that this is basically an afterthought now, I don't think further discussion adds much. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 17:04, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

  I was really hoping that a completely fresh admin would step in to to close and implement the consensus. I don't consider myself involved but it would be better for appearance's sake. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:09, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

ChineseMan26 with multiple violations and insulting users

User:ChineseMan26

ChineseMan26 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 113.197.13.148 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 118.102.87.42 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

ChineseMan26 has violated WP:NPOV, WP:3RR, WP:PA, and possibly WP:LOUTSOCK.

He has pushed his POV on several articles, personally deciding who was actually an emperor and arbitrarily deciding what constitutes an empire. There is clearly significant bias here. Here are some examples (please read his edit summaries): [100][101][102][103][104]

He has repeatedly deleted properly sourced content, simply ignoring what others say. For example, here I explained to him that what he's deleting is sourced and valid.[105] He totally disregards WP:RS. Now he has performed more than three series of reverts on Korean imperial titles within a 24-hour period.[106][107][108][109]

He has now accused others of being "ultranationalists". He said "Lol, Korean ultranationalists got mad by my edits". This is in response to my response, where I simply asked had he read the article because it mentions why Korean Kings were called Son of Heaven domestically. [110]

I think he possibly edited while logged out. The first IP I posted has edited several of the same pages shortly after ChineseMan26 in the same manner. And the second IP I posted has done the exact same edit as ChineseMan26.[111][112] [113]

He stubbornly engages in denialism about Tibet. August: [114][115][116][117] October: [118][119] He clearly has an agenda, this has clearly been proven by academics that there Tibet has been sinicized regardless of our opinions and beliefs on it.

I mentioned that because he claims he is a neutral party[120] while accusing OTHERS of being "ultranationalists". I want to emphasize I myself am NOT a Korean ultranationalist and do not support the territorial expansion or any ethnic/cultural superiority of Korea. Meanwhile however, he has labeled himself a Chinese nationalist on what I'm assuming was a draft of his Wikipedia profile.[121] (see the categories)

I think they also did WP:NOTHERE.Sunnyediting99 (talk) 12:20, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) I looked into his editing histories for a bit. I think @ChineseMan26 is at least *confused* or *unaware*, for they are quite strict on the usage of the "emperor" title and on whether some states would be classified an empire. I suppose that the user is not fully aware on how English Wikipedia works, as what they have done can be more described as a selective clean-up regarding their own criteria. If a state has proclaimed itself to be an empire, or if someone uses the title "Son of Heaven", as long as there are reliable sources supporting the information, Wikipedia can include it. Applying a selective criteria of emperorship is a type of POV. I hope the user becomes aware of this. -- TheLonelyPather (talk) 14:27, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

• I've blocked ChineseMan26 for 31 hours for the personal attack and incivility exhibited in the edit summary of this edit. I haven't looked into the other matters here, but any repeat of an edit summary like that will be met with a substantially longer block. Girth Summit _(blether) 15:24, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

  I just blocked them for a week for this. I also haven't had time to dig in to this situation, but now we have a week to do so, and to let a consensus develop. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:56, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

  @ScottishFinnishRadish thank you for doing so, I just read the reply they had sent and it was disappointing to read them continue their personal attacks. They resorted to attacking my character rather than address any of the points I had raised here. Sunnyediting99 (talk) 01:23, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

  @ScottishFinnishRadish or @Girth Summit or any other admin, could you please investigate and if found true, block @129.127.113.244 for sock puppetry?

  It seems to be a sock puppet of ChineseMan26, it is reverting all the edits I had made back into those ChineseMan had made (Following up on the threat to make more accounts). Sunnyediting99 (talk) 02:08, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

  I had reversed the edits by @129.127.113.244 because their edits were following patterns similar to the previous user, and because they were attempting to change categories so that non-Chinese states with Emperors for their titles. At least based off their very negative comments of me, there is a high likelihood that they were indeed a sock puppet.

  [1] "Stop calling others sockpuppets when you are one yourself. Chanyu is not an imperial title. Go study history before making things up Sunnyediting, and stop harassing people"

  [2] "Go study history, instead of making it up. Chanyu was a monarch that existed in antiquity. And stop harassing editors"

  [3] "Stop calling people sockpuppets for harmless editing of history, its harassment" Sunnyediting99 (talk) 05:24, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

• I've increased it to an indef block for the obvious LOUTSOCK block evasion. Feel free to report any more IPs doing this to AIV. Girth Summit _(blether) 07:40, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
• and another IP 193.115.98.77 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) edit summary: "Sunnyedit99 stop vandalizing my edits please". Lavalizard101 (talk) 10:08, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

  And another user MrHan2626 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (see section below WP:ANI#Sunnyediting99 constantly harassing editors and spreading misinformation). Lavalizard101 (talk) 10:36, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

• 115.64.38.105 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Bamnamu (talk) 10:29, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

  Thank you everyone, the comments/edits they left were uncivil, I think it's important to stop this type of behavior on Wikipedia. Sunnyediting99 (talk) 12:26, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

And another IP sock 115.166.24.194 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). pinging @Zzuuzz: who blocked the last lot. Lavalizard101 (talk) 23:12, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Blocked, and protected a few pages. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:21, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Disruptive editing, Personal attack, severe policy violation by User:DeadGrandma12

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

User:DeadGrandma12 has made defamatory edits here and here to the page Vaush, and upon being requested to stop disruptive editing on their talkpage, responded with "abomination, rope." (insinuating I should kill myself via hanging). A Socialist Trans Girl 10:21, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Indef... but have asked them what went wrong. Will continue on their talk. Lourdes 11:12, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

@Lourdes: Thanks for handling. I appreciate that we sometimes want to give an editor the benefit of "maybe you're just having a bad day; would you like to talk about it?", but this group of edits is way, way past that point. Also, not that this person is ever getting unblocked anyway, but the username also seems unacceptable. Newyorkbrad (talk) 11:57, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

The majority of their previous edits are them adjusting the height of baseballers only to be immediately reverted. Are we sure anything changed? --Licks-rocks (talk) 12:05, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

IP sockpuppetry/ Long term abuse by HaughtonBrit

Sorry if this is the wrong avenue - but HaughtonBrit's IP is being disruptive on the Battle of Rahon. I posted this here as SPIs tend to take a while to be looked at and Requests for Page Protection typically only succeed if an edit war is occuring (his current tactics are to goad me into an edit war and then hope an admin unaware of his sockpuppetry/LTA takes action against me).

It's definitely HaughtonBrit as he has been hampering my edits logged out since his account Ralx888 was banned earlier this year- [122] + [123] + [124] + [125] + [126] + [127]. Just a few of numerous examples. This time he's using a VPN (like he has done so in the past) and he is remarkably disruptive and often employs WP:IDHT to get his way as noted by other editors on the page Battle of Jalalabad. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 12:22, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

I have submitted a request for page protection as the IP/VPN has continued to revert and disrupt the page since this submission. Thank you. - was declined- [128] Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 13:08, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

The edit here sealed it.

 Blocked without tags based on last length to stop the current disruption. No issue with CU upgrading it as needed, of course. Star Mississippi 14:58, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Isn't publicly linking a user to an IP address considered to be a form of WP:OUTING? Checkusers are instructed not to do so, but I'm not sure about the rules for everyone else. 216.126.35.137 (talk) 00:33, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

The only prohibition is on using the use of the checkuser tool to connect an IP address with an account. There is no problem observing that you believe an IP to be controlled by the same person as a particular account based on behaviour, past occurrences, etc. Girth Summit _(blether) 09:37, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

User:Cewbot is malfunctioning

In Special:Diff/1179370883 User:Cewbot added a {{Broken anchors}} template to Talk:PureGym which relates to changes in Aerobic exercise, so it seems to be malplaced belonging to Talk:Aerobic exercise instead.

Kirkgaard (talk) 09:34, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

@Kirkgaard The bot is functioning exactly as intended. The broken link is in the article PureGym, so the notice was placed on that article's talk page. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 10:24, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

I change the words to "the main article", maybe that will make it a little clearer? Kanashimi (talk) 10:54, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Topic ban for Sbelknap on saturated fat and related topics

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

Sbelknap was blocked from editing the red meat article back in December 2022 due to his repeated disruption of the article and talk-page and WP:POV editing. The blocking reason was "for persistent tendentious editing and edit warring against consensus". The same user disrupted other articles related to saturated fat in which he wanted to use various articles and talk-pages to promote his WP:Fringe views and conspiracy theories about diet.

The same user has now returned on the saturated fat [129] and taurine talk-pages and is again making the same edits that resulted in their block before. Sbelknap argues against the medical consensus, and claims "that high saturated fat consumption does not increase risk of atherosclerotic vascular disease" [130]. He also says that all of the dietary guidelines are "flawed". It must be noted that his view is in direct opposition to the American Medical Association, World Health Organization, European Society of Cardiology and all the other leading medical organizations in the world that are telling people to limit saturated fat, not increase it.

Sbelknap is a noted carnivore diet advocate who claims that all plant-foods are "candy" [131]. I filed a complaint last year about his conflict of interest editing on red meat and saturated fat [132]. Sbelknap has connections with Nina Teicholz and her research-tank that opposes scientific consensus on saturated fat.

After his block from the red meat article last year, the admin Bishonen wrote to Sbelknap "you can still edit the rest of Wikipedia, though I'm also extending a warning for your only-too-similar editing of Saturated fat and its talkpage. Please demonstrate that you can edit collaborately at Saturated fat and you will have a better chance of being unblocked at Red meat also" [133]. The problem here is that Sbelknap has returned to the saturated fat talk-page and is doing exactly the same disruptive and tendentious editing that he did before. He has not edited collaborately, he deliberately ignores scientific consensus and Wikipedia policy on Fringe views and NPOV.

Sbelknap started editing the saturated fat talk-page again on the 9 September 2023‎. There are now two extremely long talk-page discussions involving Sbelknap on the talk-page [134]. The user ignores consensus and what other experienced users have written, then he claims many times "Something is very wrong here" and "Something is very wrong here. What is going on?" [135], [136], [137]. I would go as far as calling this repetitive behavior trolling. This sort of behaviour is not good faith and as the admin wrote to him about his previous block [138] he is ignoring advice from experienced Wikipedia users.

The same behaviour can be seen on the taurine talk-page [139], it is disruptive. Sbelknap's behaviour is totally unacceptable and is continuous of what he was doing before. I believe a topic-ban is appropriate here. Psychologist Guy (talk) 14:22, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

The purpose of the talk page is to arrive at a consensus. I am not the only editor making these points. Other engaged editors have raised the same issues that I am raising.

According to NPOV, "to be neutral is to describe debates rather than engage in them" The saturated fat article suppresses an alternate POV that is presented in high quality secondary sources from peer-reviewed medical literature. sbelknap (talk) 14:29, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

I have no connections of any kind with Nina Teicholzsbelknap (talk) 14:31, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

The complaint above contains misstatements. I have made no recent edits to the content of the saturated fat article. Today, I added a POV tag to the saturated fat article, reflecting the discussion on the talk page. I have acted in good faith, have worked to achieve consensus on presenting the important POVs on saturated fat in the talk page. There is something very wrong here.sbelknap (talk) 14:36, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Your behaviour this and last month on the saturated fat talk-page is exactly the same as you did last December on the red meat article and talk-page that resulted in your block, saying the same stuff over and over. You do not have consensus to be putting this template on the article [140]. This was noted to you regarding your previous block on the red meat article [141]. Nothing has changed here. You are not listening to other users. You ignore all advice from other users and continue to use talk-pages as a place to promote your WP:Fringe material. After you are told why you are wrong and why the sources you are suggesting are unreliable you ignore that then suggest they should be included anyway.

You have made it clear that you reject all advice from medical organizations on saturated fat and you believe all the guidelines are "flawed". It is not our fault that you reject medical consensus on this topic, we are not going to promote fringe views on saturated fat just to please you. You have disrupted the red meat, saturated fat and taurine talk-pages. There is a serious pattern here of disruption, ignoring medical and Wikipedia consensus. You are seriously wasting other users editing time... This is just a repeat of what happened last December. Psychologist Guy (talk) 14:53, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

I have made no edits to the content of the saturated fat wikipedia article. I have added a POV tag to the head of the article as per discussion on the talk page. I have engaged in good faith discussion on the talk page for this article. I am not saying the same stuff over and over. There is a disagreement among engaged editors on whether alternate POVs regarding healthfulness of saturated fat are to be included in the saturated fat article.

Here at wikipedia, we rely on secondary sources. There are many high-quality secondary sources regarding the healthfulness of saturated fat that are being omitted from mention on the saturated fat article on wikipedia.

There is a failure of good stewardship of wikipedia evident on this article. sbelknap (talk) 15:49, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Just to be clear, since editing the saturated talk-page since September 9. You have only pushed at length to put one fringe paper onto the article. So after dozens of comments and writing 1000s of words you have not suggested anything productive for the article, just suggested one fringe source from Hamley.

• I am puzzled by the claim that the Hamley article is unreliable. No engaged editor has presented any plausible reason why they hold this opinion. Each objection raised has been shown to be wrong. What is going on here? [142]
• So far, the objections raised to inclusion of Hamley in this wikipedia article range from specious to laughable. I've countered each one fully. Enough of this. Lets craft some text on the Hamley article to put in the article. [143]
• These objections to inclusion of Hamley's meta-analysis in this wikipedia article on saturated fat are without merit. [144]
• This article could be improved by including the points made by Hamley. [145]

You kept making comments like this despite being told that the Hamley source is not reliable for Wikipedia, so this is not good faith editing or cooperating with other Wikipedia users. This type of repetitive and persistent tendentious editing on talk-pages is not helpful and it has happened on more than one. As for typing the same comment, yes you have done that.

• There is something wrong here. This is not good stewardship of wikipedia. [146]
• There is a serious problem with this article. Something is wrong here. [147]
• Something is very wrong here. What is going on? [148]
• Something here is rotten. [149]

This is disruptive repetitive behaviour that is soaking up other users editing time. Like I said I believe a topic ban is appropriate here. You have not learned anything from your previous block. Wikipedia is not the place to argue against medical consensus but you seem to be using talk-pages to do that. Psychologist Guy (talk) 16:38, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

You have mischaracterized the discussion.

Other editors have made similar attempts to bring balance to the saturated fat article.

Prior to September 9, I presented several other high-quality secondary sources for mention in the saturated fat article.

Some editors prefer to omit mention of high-quality secondary sources that present an alternate view on the healthfulness of saturated fat while other editors prefer to include mention of these sources.

It's not just one article and its not just one editor.

Why are you threatening me with a topic ban for posting an informed suggestion to a talk page? sbelknap (talk) 17:12, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Based on this user's behavior, historical issues with WP:ANI, disruptive editing, and a general vibe of WP:NOTHERE, I propose an SBAN. This user's refusal to accept scientific consensus on a wide variety of issues also gives me doubts regarding their competency to contribute to the site. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 18:14, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

• Support topic ban Belknap has been relentless in promoting a fringe viewpoint regarding the health effects of saturated fat, to the detriment of Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, a core Wikipedia policy. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:29, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
  • Support broader biomedical information/medical topics ban per previous issues regarding Finasteride. Hemiauchenia (talk) 08:16, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
• Support indef WP:NOTHERE block. What is to be gained from keeping this account around? How is it improving Wikipedia? jps (talk) 02:22, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
• Support topic ban. Wikipedia, per core policies, reflects current scientific consensus on such matters, and continued refusal to accept this has clearly become a time-sink. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:40, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
• Support indefinite topic ban, broadly construed – Clearly their behaviour in the saturated fats topic area hasn't improved since December 2022, still failing to achieve consensus and continuing to push fringe theories essentially bludgeoning by spamming the same point of view over and over again. Definitely a waste of other editors' precious time, this needs to stop. — AP 499D25 (talk) 02:42, 6 October 2023 (UTC) edited by AP 499D25 on 10:06, 9 October 2023 (UTC), looking back at this I don't think this is really a fringe theory. But there is a bit of a behavioural issue here.
• I would support a TBAN with the scope being WP:Biomedical information (but not "broadly construed" as that would pretty much cover everything). Those of us with long memories will remember this editor as causing similar problems around Finasteride[150] so it seems the issue here has deeper roots. Bon courage (talk) 05:13, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
• Support indefinite ban from medicine topics. Evident not only from the saturated fat history, but also this example from taurine, sbelknap does not acknowledge WP:MEDRS guidelines for sourcing, choosing instead fringe or primary research positions. This requires attention to each article edit and repeated rebuttals on talk pages. There has been no evidence of collaboration, but rather a preference to oppose mainstream science. Zefr (talk) 05:31, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
• Support indef WP:NOTHERE block. As jps said, what reason do we have to keep Sbelknap around? There's very little evidence to show that they can edit constructively. However, a TBAN is better than no sanctions at all. JML1148 ^{(talk | contribs)} 05:38, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
• Support indef WP:NOTHERE block Sbelknap was blocked on 2022-12-29 for persistent edit warring and tendentious editing against consensus; at the talkpage, bludgeoning the discussion and refusal ever to drop the stick. That description pretty much defines their ongoing editing behavior, and there is no evidence that it will ever improve. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 10:51, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
• Support indef WP:NOTHERE and WP:ADVOCACY block, with a topic ban being my second option. This user is clearly here to push for their preferred diet regardless of source quality & WP:DUE weight. If they've continued in other articles after their first topic ban, I am not confident they will be able to meaningfully contribute anywhere else in the encyclopedia. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 15:32, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
• Support WP:NOTHERE block, not seeing any indication the this party is willing or able to contribute productively to other topic areas. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:48, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
• Support topic ban the user is not interested in improving articles. Mostly pushes fringe theories. He does not seem willing to contribute in a neutral way. CarlFromVienna (talk) 16:39, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
• Comment I've not analyzed the particulars but vaguely speaking from the description above, some of Sbelknap's views (e.g. on saturated fat) are emerging science which is gradually overtaking widespread un-scientific folklore which is assumed to be science, not fringe view vs. science. On nutritional science, much of which has been widely accepted as being "science" has turned out to be baseless folklore. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 17:04, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

  Correct.

  The controversy regarding the toxicity of dietary saturated fat is discussed in current textbooks.

  For example, here is a quote from Clinical Lipidology, 3rd Edition (2023) by Christie M. Ballantyne in the Chapter titled "Saturated Fat Intake and the Prevention and Management of Cardiovascular Disease in Adults: An Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics Evidence-based Nutrition Practice Guideline"

  "Recently, a debate has emerged about whether SFA intake should be reduced for CVD prevention, which has contributed to confusion among health care professionals, including registered dietitian nutritionists (RDNs), and the general public, and necessitates the critical evaluation of the evidence."

  The pile-on here on this noticeboard is remarkable. I note that, in deference to prior complaints about controversial edits, I have not made *any* recent content edits to the saturated fat article. Instead, I have engaged in respectful discussion on the talk page. I've provided citations. I've explained where the science actually is. After doing this for more than a month, I added the POV tag to the saturated fat article, as it was evident that engaged editors were not interested in including a balanced discussion of where the science is now.

  Blocking high-quality content on a controversy in an area of science is *not* consistent with good stewardship of wikipedia. Something is wrong here. sbelknap (talk) 17:47, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

This is just another example of Sbelknap ignoring consensus and misrepresenting sources. The paper he is talking about is a recently published review paper by the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics Expert Panel. What is the point in cherry-picking a few lines from the abstract but not cite the conclusion of the Expert Panel? As explained on the article talk-page, this is a good source that could be used on the article (published in full online [151]), so there is no conspiracy theory to block the source.

The conclusion of the paper supports the scientific consensus on saturated fat consumption and CVD but did not come to a recommendation about intake level, "Based on the highest-quality available evidence, the Expert Panel found moderate certainty evidence to support reducing SFA intake for reduced risk of CVD and CVD". Yes you read that right, reduced risk. The review paper does not support Sbelknap's claim that "that high saturated fat consumption does not increase risk of atherosclerotic vascular disease", it argues the opposite and it also concluded "Based on this evidence, the Expert Panel concludes that health care professionals may prioritize reducing the amount of SFA intake over specific food sources of SFA within an individualized healthy dietary pattern". Like all good medical sources on this topic, they are recommending the reduction of SFA, not an increase.

As a side note, I am in regular email communication with many nutritional researchers from the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics, I have even written a Wikipedia article for one of their former presidents (In total I think I have written about 10 articles for some of their dietitians). The Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics do not support Sbelknap's carnivore diet and wouldn't approve of him misrepresenting their review paper. No user is trying to block high-quality content on the SF article. Several users including myself have had to put up with Sbelknap's conspiracy theories and fringe claims for 2 months on the saturated fat talk-page. It is a repeat of what happened last year. Psychologist Guy (talk) 18:34, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

There is a *controversy* within science about saturated fat. That is the point made in the quote from the "Clinical Lipidology" textbook. The existence of a controversy is different from the development of a conclusion. There are several competing views, one of which is dominant. The saturated fat article would be improved by presenting the controversy.

Here is what WP:NPOV has to say about representing significant views on a topic:

"All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic."

Let's do that. sbelknap (talk) 18:52, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

The viewpoint you are talking about is a minority fringe view, it does not challenge the guidelines. The medical consensus and guidelines are very clear on saturated fat. For example American Medical Association [152], British Dietetic Association [153], World Health Organization [154], NHS [155], Dietary Guidelines for Americans [156], Nordic Nutrition Recommendations 2023 [157] etc are all recommending people to limit consumption of saturated fat and replace it with monounsaturated and polyunsaturated fatty acids as high saturated fat consumption increases risk of CVD and other chronic diseases. This is not disputed by any medical organizations, I am in contact with many dietitians, it is commonly accepted and well-confirmed medical advice. There is a strong consensus on this. You have said you believe all the guidelines are flawed and the medical consensus is wrong but Wikipedia is not the place to promote your fringe view. We have been over this too many times, I will not waste anymore time on this as you are never going to listen. Psychologist Guy (talk) 19:38, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

• Comment I'm astonished by what I'm reading here. Studies that challenge the received wisdom that a reduction in dietary saturated fat improves cardiovascular health are not "fringe theories". Has no one seen the Lancet article "Associations of fats and carbohydrate intake with cardiovascular disease and mortality in 18 countries from five continents (PURE): a prospective cohort study" which interpreted its findings as:

  High carbohydrate intake was associated with higher risk of total mortality, whereas total fat and individual types of fat were related to lower total mortality. Total fat and types of fat were not associated with cardiovascular disease, myocardial infarction, or cardiovascular disease mortality, whereas saturated fat had an inverse association with stroke. Global dietary guidelines should be reconsidered in light of these findings.

Or the PubMed article "Meta-analysis of prospective cohort studies evaluating the association of saturated fat with cardiovascular disease" that concluded:

A meta-analysis of prospective epidemiologic studies showed that there is no significant evidence for concluding that dietary saturated fat is associated with an increased risk of CHD or CVD.

Or the BMJ article "Re-evaluation of the traditional diet-heart hypothesis: analysis of recovered data from Minnesota Coronary Experiment (1968-73)" that concluded:

Available evidence from randomized controlled trials shows that replacement of saturated fat in the diet with linoleic acid effectively lowers serum cholesterol but does not support the hypothesis that this translates to a lower risk of death from coronary heart disease or all causes. Findings from the Minnesota Coronary Experiment add to growing evidence that incomplete publication has contributed to overestimation of the benefits of replacing saturated fat with vegetable oils rich in linoleic acid.

Carlstak (talk) 20:04, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

I think you're missing the point a bit... Sbelknap is being disruptive regardless of whether they're right or not, being right is not a get out of jail free card. This is not the place to discus underlying disputes in the literature, we're talking about user conduct so all parties should limit themselves to that as much as possible. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:08, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

Maybe the user is disruptive, but editors here keep referring to his views on saturated fats as "fringe", trying to cast the discussion that way. That seems prejudicial and unfounded to me. Carlstak (talk) 20:21, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

Carlstak thanks for citing those but those studies have already been cited on the SF talk-page going back 5 years, none of that is new, nor is it good evidence. One of those papers was written by low-carb advocate Ronald Krauss who is funded by the beef industry. We do not cite industry funded research. The Re-evaluation of the Minnesota Coronary Experiment (1968-73) you cited is actually reliable if you wanted to create an article on that experiment (maybe I will create it one day) but it is looking at old data from the 1960s. It is not relevant to the saturated fat Wikipedia article, but maybe in a history section somewhere. If you look carefully at the control diet that experiment used it consisted of liquid coin oil poured onto "numerous food items (for example, salad dressings, filled beef (lean ground beef with added oil), filled milk, and filled cheeses)". That is laughable, we have come a long way since the 1960s. It's not surprising there was no CVD reduction. No control diet now will include some oil poured onto filled beef to reduce CVD risk.

If you had a valid case, the modern guidelines would have changed to support your view (yes it is a fringe view) and the AMA and all the medical organizations around the world would have changed their guidelines if you were really onto something but you are not. The real issue here is about Sbelknap's disruptive talk-page behaviour, I will not comment about SF here again. Psychologist Guy (talk) 21:01, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

Ah, thanks for your reply, Psychologist Guy, but it's not my view, I'm still trying to formulate one because my doctor gives me no information. ;-). I was pointing to what sources had said that seemed to contradict some of your statements, and the frequent mention of the word "fringe" that way. Carlstak (talk) 21:29, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

Some engaged editors have dismissed high-quality secondary sources for specious reasons — ad hominem attacks on authors of meta-analyses or absurd claims that a journal was not a reliable source when it clearly is. The thing is, a meta-analysis is done in the open. Readers of a meta-analysis have access to the primary sources. There are high-quality meta-analyses of RCTs that used PRISMA guidelines and formed conclusions that are contrary to the consensus. These deserve consideration for inclusion in the saturated fat article; dismissing these for specious reasons is *not* good stewardship of wikipedia.

Some engaged editors dismiss these contrary articles because they contradict the consensus. How does that make any sense? Our goal is to write medical wikipedia articles that reflect the medical literature, including dissenting views. This is an essential point made in WP:NPOV. (and above by Carlstak and North8000)

It is worth noting that some people have ideological or religious worldviews that disapprove of meat-eating (veganism, social justice, global warming, animal rights, etc). Whether this applies to the saturated fat article is hard to say, as some engaged editors are anonymous and haven't disclosed their biases. But it is a concern that an editors worldview might affect his/her ability to maintain NPOV.

Regardless, I have used the talk page to conduct a respectful dialogue with other engaged editors on an important issue with the goal of improving the saturated fat article. Is that not what the talk page is for? How else do we make progress?

There is something very wrong about this. sbelknap (talk) 22:31, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

I may not agree with some of Sbelknap's actions, but a reevaluation of the role of saturated fats in cardiovascular health is being misrepresented here as "fringe" by a vegan enthusiast and that label is being wielded as a club against the editor. The Journal of the American College of Cardiology has published a fairly recent (2020) paper, "Saturated Fats and Health: A Reassessment and Proposal for Food-Based Recommendations: JACC State-of-the-Art Review" which is summarized in its abstract as:

The recommendation to limit dietary saturated fatty acid (SFA) intake has persisted despite mounting evidence to the contrary. Most recent meta-analyses of randomized trials and observational studies found no beneficial effects of reducing SFA intake on cardiovascular disease (CVD) and total mortality, and instead found protective effects against stroke.

It is true that one of the article's authors, Ronald Krauss, has admitted that he has received grants from the National Cattlemen's Beef Association and National Dairy Council, but he has also said in a 2019 interview: "Diets should be limited as much as possible in simple sugars and highly processed grain products. And diets that are rich in plant-based food sources are desirable. A third recommendation would be to avoid high intake of red meat and substitute fish, which has been associated with reduced heart disease risk." Carlstak (talk) 01:43, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

What is the obsession with spamming in abstracts here? Is it an attempt to drown out the voting? That workshop paper is the very definition of WP:Fringe, it has been discussed before on WikiProject Medicine [158] in 2021, there was a strong consensus not to include it. "The workshop was funded by the Nutrition Coalition—a nonprofit nonpartisan educational organization". Nutrition Coalition is owned by Nina Teicholz and run by Mark Hyman. It receives funding from the beef industry. This thread has been advertised on various low-carb forums. I am concerned there may be an issue of meat-puppetry here. Psychologist Guy (talk) 03:11, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

Meat-puppetry? Good lord, good luck with that. Nice pun, though. Carlstak (talk) 03:23, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

PS: Evidence, diffs for an insinuation of meat-puppetry? This appears to be concern-trolling to establish a pretext for flinging baseless insinuations. Carlstak (talk) 04:33, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

@Psychologist Guy: Would it be possible to name and shame these threads? (A permanent archive of them using the internet archive or archive.is would be good as well). Hemiauchenia (talk) 04:13, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

There are at least 5 Reddit boards advertising this discussion, it may also be on Twitter (I do not have a Reddit account so do not have full access) but here are just two examples [159], [160]. We had this sort of sad behaviour before a few years ago regarding the carnivore diet and saturated fat articles and a couple of accounts were blocked. Psychologist Guy (talk) 14:33, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up.

I did a search on reddit and found this [[161]]

I responded with facts, as is my way. Facts are stubborn things.

Is the pile-on against me on this TBAN thread coordinated? (Can't prove it but sure seems fishy.) My understanding is that this sort of behavior is contrary to wikipedia policy.

There is something very wrong here. sbelknap (talk) 20:12, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

How do you mean it "seems coordinated" and "fishy", User:Sbelknap? Please explain with examples before you make any other edits, or I will block you for egregious aspersions and assumptions of bad faith. Bishonen | tålk 21:07, 7 October 2023 (UTC).

• Some have accused me of promoting fringe science when I clearly am not, as other posters on the saturated fat talk page have presented similar points and as other posters this thread have noted. There is a legitimate dispute regarding the toxicity of saturated fat in the medical literature.

• The reasons for rejecting my high-quality citations on the saturated fat talk page seem specious to me: ad hominem attacks on one of the authors of a meta-analysis, Steven Hemley.

• This attack on me on Reddit, which seems to be pointing people to come here to this noticeboard and pile on:

https://www.reddit.com/r/ketoduped/comments/1728juk/carnivore_diet_doctor_stephen_m_belknap/

• (Striken, as per suggestion from Schazjmd.)

@Sbelknap, I suggest striking that last bullet as your link fails to support your claim. Hemiauchenia actively and frequently edits in many areas; your link to the history of Hemiauchenia's user page doesn't mean anything, many editors seldom edit their own user page. Schazjmd (talk) 23:13, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

OK, thanks. Didn't realize that. sbelknap (talk) 00:37, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

That's not "striking", User:Sbelknap. You are an experienced user; you should know better than to simply remove a point by yourself that has been criticized. Striking means to put a line through the text, like this. Since Hemiauchenia of course posted above in this thread - that was part of your point - it's an enigma how you could think that a history showing them not posting since May 2022 was relevant, and that example of illogic ought to have been left on this page. Bishonen | tålk 08:13, 8 October 2023 (UTC).

OK. I didn't know that striking means to put a line through the text. I apologize for that. Regardless, I misinterpreted the user log for Hemiauchenia as a more general record and was wrong about Hemiauchenia's infrequent posting. My point is that I withdraw that claim. sbelknap (talk) 14:52, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

In your response you claim to be someone who would appear to have a series of COIs with this topic, is your claim accurate and if so what is your understanding of your COI in this situation? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:24, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

@Psychologist Guy: Seems to me that the appropriate place to have this discussion is at WP:AE. Sbelknap has been made aware of the discretionary sanctions in this topic area and that gives admins quite a bit more leeway at nipping disruptiveness in the bud. jps (talk) 20:30, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

Does diet stuff count as a WP:CT? I've often thought it a problem that is doesn't. Am I wrong? Bon courage (talk) 20:35, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

What, User:Bon courage? That's a link to Wikipedia:Citation templates. If you're referring to contentious topics, here's a list of those topics (scroll down). Diet stuff isn't on the list, but pseudoscience is. Bishonen | tålk 21:07, 7 October 2023 (UTC).

That's what I was thinking. Fad diet, of course, is covered under such restrictions, but I think it's pretty clear that this WP:ADVOCACY being described is in the service of fad diets whether the account at issue denies that this is their POV or not. On the other hand, I realize that the notices given to this account were for American politics and gender/sexuality and not pseudoscience. So... maybe someone should warn them about this other area subject to discretionary sanctions? Sometimes here I feel like I'm at the DMV. jps (talk) 21:18, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

And on that note, I notified them of the coverage of their edits under the contentious topics umbrella. Now I guess the clock is started for proper WP:AE involvement in this area? But I guess this thread is still here (though perhaps it should have been opened at WP:AN instead). Have fun everyone! This has been a real joy to slog through. jps (talk) 21:56, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure diets do fall under ps, even arguments about macronutrient ratios. I've long-thought human nutrition should be explicitly a CTOP as it's a locus of just so much trouble. Bon courage (talk) 02:59, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Well, I think it is only arbcom that can declare a new CTOP. But you could try asking at WP:AN to get consensus to add a new category because, what the hell, the rules here are just made up by whomever shows up. jps (talk) 11:58, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Whoops, I meant WP:CTOP ! Bon courage (talk) 01:32, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

• Support topic ban from saturated fat, broadly construed. Sbelknap keeps missing the point that this ban is proposed over his conduct and not whether he is right or not.--Jasper Deng (talk) 23:55, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

  You are correct. This is because I am unaware of any conduct that is inappropriate.

  I've conducted a respectful discussion on the saturated fat talk page. I have not made controversial edits to the saturated fat article. (except for adding the NPOV tag, which seemed appropriate given the situation). I've presented high-quality peer-reviewed citations supporting my claim that there is a *controversy* on the toxicity of saturated fat and that this controversy is not reflected in the article.

  What is the conduct to which you refer? sbelknap (talk) 00:44, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

  "You are correct. This is because I am unaware of any conduct that is inappropriate." is just about the worst thing one can say in this sort of situation... Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:15, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

  OK. I'm being honest.

  I listen to feedback. I've been respectful. When it became clear that there was not a consensus, I've engaged in discussions on this matter on the talk pages.

  Isn't that what the talk pages are for?

  Can somebody explain what I've done wrong? sbelknap (talk) 16:40, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

  WP:BLUDGEON and WP:CPUSH to start. jps (talk) 16:47, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose In this thread I see nothing but vague aspersions and no concrete accusations or diffs to support it. When they asked what they did wrong. somebody linked 2 essays. The core points of what they seem to be arguing are IMO emerging science which is overtaking widely accepted folklore which has been presumed to be science but which is not based on science. The noted "no plants' comment is more fringish, but appears to be an offhand sidebar comment ginned up here rather than a central tenet that they have been arguing. @Sbelknap:....some practical Wikipedia advice....regardless of the merits of the situation, if you argue on the talk page too strongly and voluminously/persistently, that can get you in trouble. Can you agree to significantly dial back and proceed per that commitment? North8000 (talk) 23:22, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

@North8000: I genuinely thought is was weird that you used the generic "somebody" when the message you find problematic was directly above yours. Really and truly, was it difficult to name who you were calling out? I'm sure you didn't do that just to avoid a response so I'll help you out: jps, North8000 is not impressed that you called for an indefinite block per, apparently, two essays. Do you have anything to add? CityOfSilver 03:35, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

I was going to ignore the entire screed on the basis of IMO emerging science which is overtaking widely accepted folklore which I view simultaneously as evidence that WP:CIR may be at issue here and, more to the point, a complete missing of the actual substance of the complaints. A simple search of the archives of this page will show plenty of accounts being sanctioned for bludgeoning and civil POV-pushing. Why? Because these are both explanatory essays that describe tropes we've seen over the years as a feature of WP:DE. Is that WP:PAGgy enough now? Do I get a cookie? jps (talk) 11:25, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

@ජපස: (jps) I deliberately didn't mention a name because I was referring to it generically as being the closest thing in this thread to citing something specific as to what they did wrong that was bad enough to merit a sanction. So I did NOT mean it as a criticism of you....so you get 2 cookies,  :-) one for each post for your efforts in both of them to make this more specific. :-) And BTW, I don't have depth of knowledge of this situation; I was commenting on what is / isn't here in this discussion. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 13:21, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Sure, I can dial back on my comments on talk pages. What I've done over the years is to listen to feedback & respond by changing my behavior. One of the things I've been told is to not continue editing content where it is contentious and to "take it to the talk page". That's what I did here.

I've seen many lengthy exchanges on talk pages. This seems to be a way of working out matters on wikipedia. If I've misunderstood the rules and culture, then that's on me. sbelknap (talk) 16:40, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

So maybe "see how that goes" is a solution to try. This being a learning experience in an unclear area could be a fundamental to a genuine change. Whether such a process is right or wrong and whether you are right or wrong or somewhere in between, if you are too (combination of) active+persistent on the talk page, that can be seen as a problem in Wikipedia. When I run into one of those I just try to contribute enough to try to be helpful and not be disingenuous, but then not worry too much about the outcome. Life isn't perfect including here. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 20:58, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Disruptive reversions by new user

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Recently, I have been improving the article "religion in Hungary" with tables of data from the 2022 census and content from WP:RS. I have completed about half of the work.

A newly created account keeps deleting much of my recent improvements, including sources, tables and large chunks of text: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Renatones

I ask the intervention of administrators. Æo (talk) 12:57, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

I retained the vast majority of your edits, but following the extensive number of changes you made to the article, it became unbalanced, leaning heavily toward irreligion and paganism. However, this is not reflective of the 2022 census data where, although 40.1% of the population did not respond, a substantial 81.96% of those that responded identified as Christian. Additionally, whilst I understand the assertion that your edits were incomplete, the article remained in this condition for more than a week, with the pie chart showing 2022 census data while the lead still mentioned 2011 census data. Renatones (talk) 13:14, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Dear Renatones,

Regarding the article remained in this condition for more than a week: I have been working on the article for more than a week; reading WP:RS and reporting their content in Wikipedia, with precise references to the precise pages, requires a lot of time and mental effort. The article is not skewed towards irreligion and paganism. I had just begun reworking the sections about specific religions, and I started from the section about Paganism; this is why my edits were concentrated there in the last few days. As for the rest, you have unjustifiably deleted everything: the 2022 census tables about religion by administrative regions, by age groups, by education groups, and the table with the precise list of religious organisations officially registered and recognised by the government, with precise references to government documents, are all gone. Æo (talk) 13:23, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

You're both in the wrong place. Why aren't you having this discussion at the article talk page (which hasn't been posted to since 2021)? I suggest you carry on over there. That's what it's for. DeCausa (talk) 13:32, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

@DeCausa: I think this is the right place for this case, since I think that the method used by user Renatones is wrong: they have deleted large chunks of textual material and tables which are correctly reported and precisely sourced. This is unjustifiable, and it seems that they have been doing the same thing on other articles. See for instance here and here (I am not an expert of the subject of these articles, but the information seems to be correctly sourced). Æo (talk) 13:37, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

You have been here for 10 years and 17k edits - you should know well that if you introduce changes which are reverted you should, per WP:ONUS and WP:BRD take it to the talk page to reach WP:CONSENSUS. That you've come directly here without even raising it on the talk page is poor. DeCausa (talk) 13:40, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

And I see you've been unsuccessfully forum-shopping. DeCausa (talk) 13:48, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

@DeCausa: I simply saw a wrong methodology in Renatones' editing methods from the beginning. See for instance, this recent deletion. It is completely random and dictated by personal preference. Æo (talk) 13:52, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

The edit in question is not ‘random’. It's essential to maintain accuracy in a table under the heading ‘Main other religious organisations (churches) in Hungary’, of which the Association of Hungarian Witches (Magyar Boszorkányszövetség) is not a part of. I do not delete large chunks of accurate and well-sourced information, as you claim. The example you provided to support this claim was the removal of a sentence which had been copied and pasted across multiple articles, and was inaccurate, as the Carolingian Renaissance focused on the Carolingian Empire in Western Europe. Whilst the Carolingian Empire ruled a large portion of Western Europe, the Carolingian Renaissance by nature excluded the majority of Europe. Renatones (talk) 14:06, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

The Association of Hungarian Witches (Magyar Boszorkányszövetség) is mentioned in the source, Pete 2006, and therefore it should stay in the table regardless of what your personal opinion on the subject is. This is what accuracy should be. Æo (talk) 14:16, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

And to the surprise of no one Renatones has been blocked as a sock of Evlekis. RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:39, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

MeltingDistrict

I think we have an issue with MeltingDistrict. This is an editor who has clear issues with Richard Gill. ANI has already seen this edit of theirs [162], placed on his talk page but already discussed in a case they brought here on 26 August against Richard Gill. They were censured, but per WP:BITE given the benefit of their inexperience. Nevertheless, they did say in that thread that they would leave Gill alone [163]. That promise was not kept.

On 25 September it was MeltingDistrict who alerted Structuralists to Gill’s canvasing for support on Twitter: [164]. 23 minutes later Structuralist alerted El_C to this canvassing. [165] and Richard Gill was indefinitely blocked as a result. Now, there is no doubt that Richard Gill was canvassing unwisely, and I have and had no criticism of El_C’s block, but it had already been noted that Gill was in a difficult position owing to attacks on him including tirades on his talk page. Yngvadottir stated at ANI that Gill was over a barrel here, and also, among others, was very concerned about the overt hostility from MeltingDistrict.

But having continued to act on what is evidently a personal grudge, and having hounded Gill from Wikipedia (helped by Gill’s own rash comments on Twitter), MeltingDistrict proceeded to target all the articles Gill had touched and edited them in line with the prejudice that he displayed in that message on Gill’s talk page. These are the only pages MeltingDistrict edits.

This is most egregious on the page of Lucia De Berk, a nurse who spent years in jail for murders that, it later transpired, almost certainly never happened (there is no remaining evidence any murder was committed) and that she could not have committed if they did happen. It is covered in several books that discuss miscarriages of justice, particularly from a statistical perspective, and is discussed as one of the worst miscarriages of justice in the Netherlands. Now, if you take a look at this version of the page,[166] and the background section up front you will see what amounts to a character assassination of the page subject. In fact the edits on that page have been expunging all the information describing why De Berk was exonerated whilst adding in the portrait the prosecution painted of her in 2003 uncritically. Details on Talk:Lucia de Berk#Background

I removed the background and opened that talk section. MeltingDistrict restored it and I reminded them of ONUS and BLPRESTORE. At this point they removed all the information I added about the case, rewritten over two days and sourced to a book discussing the case, without specifying any objection to the material, and with edsum: Various neutrality problems, per ONUS please take your opinions on whether this should be included to talk to try and get a consensus. This then was WP:POINTy and, I think, tendentious. I attempted informal resolution on their user talk page, but got nowhere.

Now, the De Berk issue is a content issue, and this will be resolved when we have more eyes on it. Although it is illustrative of the problem, that problem is not content. The problem is that MeltingDistrict does not seem to be here to build an encyclopaedia. All of their edits appear to be related to their clearly stated and expressed grudge against Richard Gill. I do not believe they should be editing any of these pages. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 13:45, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

MeltingDistrict made their hostility towards Gill very clear when they posted a gross PA on Gill's user talk page here, attacking Gill not as an editor but for their RL activities: you fruitcake ... so embarrassing for you ... your boring life ... epic failure for you ... pitiful record ... You've spent all these years trying to do something with your life and your beloved statistics before you die so they mean something, but as you can see, no-one will remember you for anything over here. You've failed. On your headstone it will read "Richard Gill, boring statistics nerd who tried to not be boring and change the world; 100% failure rate". That's the only statistic of your life that anyone will remember in 10 years time. ... You're nearly 72, hopefully you'll die soon ... sexually aroused by percentages ... your crusade has made you lose all sense of reality ... the last few years of your life with the fading hope that people will appreciate you after you've gone.

MeltingDistrict's editing since has been as an SPA focused on articles about people whose convictions for murder Gill has proposed were miscarriages of justice, one of them a UK nurse recently convicted for killing seven infants, another the case of a convicted but then exonerated nurse, all of them WP:BLPs.

Sirfurboy has worked hard to make Richard D. Gill and other articles NPOV-compliant and remove Gill's own COI material from them, and to continue civil discussion with MeltingDistrict, receiving non-AGF responses such as lo and behold you arrived and started editing on this page for the first time, making edits in his interest. I'm not saying that you are editing on behalf of him[167] and I don't think you are neutral.[168] MeltingDistrict has continued with their disruptive and tendentious editing regarding Gill and criminal cases; a topic ban from Gill and from criminal cases, broadly construed, is the least that would be appropriate. NebY (talk) 14:33, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

I think I should be entitled to a response to this. Firstly, I openly admit that this edit [169] of mine was totally inappropriate and unacceptable, and I said so long ago at the time on the original ANI thread I created which Sirfurboy refers to where I had (rightly, it turns out) raised a COI concern. I still am regretful of making that post and if it is not already clear to editors, I would like to emphasize that I was, and am still, sorry for it. But in fairness, that is an issue I have already been sanctioned for, has already been discussed here, happened six weeks ago now, and was committed in any case against an editor who has now been indefinitely blocked for various egregious infringements of WP guidelines and policies. Sirfurboy rightly says that I said I would "leave Gill alone" - what I meant was that I would no longer involve myself in edit wars and back and forths with him. Which I didn't. I did not do so after that and also did not edit his article (which, btw, it turns out he created of himself and edited on for years, contravening COI guidelines). This was until the facts on the ground changed - @El C: blocked Gill, firstly partially including from the Richard D. Gill article (which he should not have been editing anyway due to COI) [170], and then [171] indefinitely when he did not stop his behaviour and actually started canvassing on his social media for editors to come and support him. Which rather vindicated me for raising the COI concerns on the ANI thread originally (I know does not justify my personal attack on him, but still worth saying I think).

Other editors then placed a COI tag on the Richard D. Gill page, asking for editors to review it for neutral point of view etc since the article creator and an active editor on it was the subject of the article [172]. With Gill having been indefinitely blocked for various violations of policies, and it turns out having created and edited on a number of pages on which he had a COI such as his own page(!) and at Lucia de Berk, I felt it would be helpful to collaborate with other editors who had already started trying to to redress the balance of his article. I hadn't been blocked from contributing to the page, did not need to avoid getting into edit wars or arguments with Gill anymore since he was no longer editing here, and saw the state that the article self-written by the subject(!) had been in, with a load of unreferenced content and a lot of self-promotion: [173]. But my edits were motivated by the sole desire to help clean-up on pages which had been edited and written by a COI editor, that's all. Sirfurboy appeared and has constantly attacked me and made his assumptions about me known, such as today saying "I am trying to potray an innocent person as being guilty" [174]. I never had such intention. As I said, I only intend to help clean up articles on which it is has been found to have egregious COI editing on them. MeltingDistrict (talk) 14:35, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

I also think it should be noted - perhaps by @El C: who is already aware of the canvassing and blocking of Gill - that with Richard Gill being blocked from editing for canvassing for support from editors on social media, it is curious that User:Sirfurboy suddenly only appeared and started editing on the Richard D. Gill page at this point, having never edited it before [175]. A warning had already been placed on the Richard D. Gill page of this possibility of new editors coming to the page to edit on Gill's behalf, potentially as proxies, as a result of his canvassing requests on social media and elsewhere [176]. I do not think it is unreasonable, therefore, to question how and why Sirfurboy came to be involved on starting editing on the page that he'd never been interested in until this point. If Sirfurboy's explanation is that he came to Gill's aid after seeing Gill's canvassing posts, then that is surely a concern. If Sirfurboy's explanation is that he was following me as an editor as he didn't like me as an editor, then this could constitute WP:WIKIHOUNDING. This can also be highlighted as a possibility by the fact that he then followed me to the Lucia de Berk page, which, again, he had never edited before [177]. Likewise, he came over to Talk:Lucy Letby [[178]], and Lucy Letby [179], again having never edited them before, attempting to add positive content about Richard Gill. One other thing that I think ought to be noted which may or may not be relevant: Sirfurboy's account was created around the same time as the now-blocked Richard Gill's was, in 2006.

NebY also makes it sound like Sirfurboy has always been conducting himself civilly and that it is only me who's been making 'non-AGF responses'! Well hold on, how about the fact that Sirfurboy has been making plenty of assumptions on me like responding to me in an edit summary today saying "Edits on this page are not being carried out with neutral point of view. Material is being refashioned to make an innocent person look guilty" [180]. Because this is sooo AGF right? As I've said, this is not my motive, I am trying to redress the balance against all the previous content included by COI editor who'd been involved on the campaign to free her, if that means that it made her sound guilty then that was inadvertent and just comes with the fact that the content I had included and researched hard on was, quite intentionally, not the same as the way Gill had pitched it. I had to ask Sirfurboy to comment on the content not the contributor here and invite him to redact his personal attacks on me (which he hasn't, nor apologised for) [181]. NebY also includes this comment [182] from me, claiming that it shows that I am the one not AGF. Well that's funny, because that was in response to Sirfurboy coming on my talk and saying that I was the one not "approaching pages that have a connection with Richard Gill from a neutral point of view" [183]. I did not have anything "to offer" on these articles, apparently: "you could have a lot to offer, but not on these articles". And this is supposed to be assuming good faith, is it? And what about the fact that Sirfurboy was the one who started it off by coming onto my talk to declare that I was not neutral? I was then generous enough, having been told/attacked that I did not have anything to offer on these articles and that I was not neutral, by agreeing to Sirfurboy's request to self-revert some content: [184]. To be honest, I think that I showed there not only admirable restraint after essentially being told I was useless, but fairness too. Meanwhile, when I asked Sirfurboy on Talk:Lucia de Berk#Background whether he even wanted to come to amiable talk page agreements with me, I curiously did not get a response! And yet Sirfurboy says here that he "attempted informal resolution on their user talk page, but got nowhere"? Perhaps that's because he was never intending to incorporate my views in the first place? In any case, I really must put on record my disputing of this claim that I was trying to "make a point" by reverting some of what Sirfurboy had added to the BLP and asking him to gain a consensus first on talk. I wasn't making any point, and I clarified my very reasons for doing so: [185]. "You reinstated content that was worded just as it was when COI editors had written it, with the same brash tone. For example: "Without the initial misinterpretation of the autopsy blood digoxin levels, there would not have been any consideration of digoxin poisoning, and no criminal investigation would have occurred". That is speculation and hypothetical. This line doesn't even clarify that this is their conclusions, just makes it sound like a hypothetical prediction is pure facts. It is my right as an editor to question and challenge content and ask that you seek a consensus for it's inclusion".

And also, there should be concerns about Sirfurboy potentially canvassing today, just as Gill got blocked for. Today he was at the Lucy Letby talk page asking for editors to come to his aid in his dealings with me [186]. But he was challenged on this, because this was not just him notifying other editors of a discussion taking place, this was telling other editors who had backed him previously (including, btw, NebY!) that they should come and edit because "De Berk was a nurse wrongly sent to prison on the back of statistical evidence that was clearly refuted, and she was exonerated. Richard Gill did some of the statistical analysis, and also added much to the page well over a decade ago". As @Snugglewasp: responded to him:

"clearly refuted"

and that Gill only edited the page

"well over a decade ago".

... this is an unneeded spin and implies that there are only certain edits that need to be made, with the implication being that any edits concerning Gill's contributions are not necessary and that the article should in fact be focused on how the evidence was "clearly refuted". Furthermore, saying that de Berk was

"a nurse wrongly sent to prison on the back of statistical evidence"

is POV. The article itself makes it clear that statistics were only one part of the various pieces of evidence against her, and indeed these two contemporary sources [187], [188] make it clear that it was the unrelated diary entry evidence that was key in initially convicting her. So the point I'm trying to make is that it was not necessary or proper to include these personal case summaries and views when you informed editors of the discussion, as that could be perceived as being done with the intention of influencing the outcome of a discussion in a particular way. So anyways, I really don't think Sirfurboy can be seen as entirely blameless here.

I, therefore, don't think it would be unreasonable to say that a topic ban from editing these pages could apply to both me and Sirfurboy. Sirfurboy thinks I have certain interests here, and I think he has his own. If it would help remedy the belligerence on these pages, then I think that that would not be an adverse compromise. It's something I would be happy to agree to. Trying to find neutral solutions to these articles' problems would then be the responsibility of unconnected others. MeltingDistrict (talk) 15:14, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

"that is an issue I have already been sanctioned for" No, MeltingDistrict received no block or ban; as they described it, I was already given a 'level 2 warning' for that [189] as I'm a dumb fresh editor.[190] For all that they now say it was an inappropriate edit, it reveals their attitude to Gill very clearly: hopefully you'll die soon.

"what I meant was that I would no longer involve myself in edit wars and back and forths with him" No, ScottishFinnishRadish told MeltingDistrict, quite rightly, If you have an axe to grind with a BLP subject you absolutely should not be editing their article, to which they responded Fair enough I won't then. They have, repeatedly.[191] NebY (talk) 16:28, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

I indeed didn't edit Gill's page until things changed and it turned out that he had got indefinitely blocked for various egregious guideline infringements. This changed things. I did not realise that if the editor who I (then) had an 'axe to grind' with was now blocked site-wide for concerns which I had been the first to raise, I was not allowed to edit anything to do with them. I may have missed that policy. To me, it seemed to vindicate me for bringing concerns about him in the first place. Also, you say "repeatedly". Well, I've done nine edits, two of which are pretty minor. It's hardly like I'm overloading everything, and it's nothing that other editors cannot challenge if they wish. MeltingDistrict (talk) 16:56, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

NebY, I perceive being reprimanded and then given a level 2 warning as a sanction, apologies if that does not come under that word's definition. In any case, I don't know what you want me to say if you just want to dig up the post I made weeks ago and has already been discussed here. It was wrong, inappropriate and obnoxious, I admit that. But what else do you want me to say at this point? I didn't realise we were here to just 're-open the case', so to speak. MeltingDistrict (talk) 17:17, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Additionally, saying I "hounded Gill from Wikipedia" is rather a personal attack. I did nothing of the sort, he got initially partially blocked from pages which he had been consciously editing in contravention of COI guidelines (such as the biography of he himself, which he created... of himself!) see: User talk:Gill110951#Partial blocks. El_C gave him a very strong final warning, but then Gill chose himself to ignore this and go and canvass for other editors to aid him, so earned himself a indefinite block: User talk:Gill110951#Indefinite block. How is it my fault that he got himself blocked? It's almost as if Sirfurboy is saying that Gill had no choice but to get blocked because of me? (His only crime, according to Sirfurboy, being that he made a "rash comment" on social media). He literally spent years creating and editing articles on subjects which he had a personal connection to, long before I ever even came to Wikipedia. How is that my fault? If I'm non-neutral, then the fact that Sirfurboy almost seems to take the block of Gill personally and so comes to his aid to protect this rightly indef-blocked editor is illustrative of his lack of neutrality, is it not? MeltingDistrict (talk) 18:22, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

It's not a personal attack, it's an accurate description of your very poor behavior. --JBL (talk) 20:49, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

So you think it's accurate that I hounded an editor into being blocked, do you? MeltingDistrict (talk) 21:40, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

From what I've read here, I would agree with JBL that it's an accurate assessment: you hounded Gill into lashing out in a way that got him blocked. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:01, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

No, that's not what happened. The TBAN for MeltingDistrict was undoubtedly appropriate. There was, quite separately, long term problematic and egregious behaviour from Gill that pre-dated MeltingDistrict by a decade. To quote from the final indef notice, Gill was indeffed for WP:CANVASSING in continued pursuit of your real world WP:ADVOCACY and in violation of the conflict of interest guideline (WP:COI) yet again. A perennial problem spanning many years... DeCausa (talk) 17:46, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

MeltingDistrict displayed their hatred of a WP:BLP subject with an extreme personal attack on the subject's user talk page. They were told they absolutely should not edit that BLP and promised not to. After the subject's editing privileges here were removed, MeltingDistrict returned to editing that BLP and other articles connected with them, despite their promise and despite having "an axe to grind" with the subject of the BLP. And now they plead "I must have missed that policy" and "what else do you want me to say"? They cannot or will not understand that with so much hatred for the subject and for the subject's claims of miscarriages of justice, they should not be editing those BLPs. They are clearly demonstrating why we need at least a formal topic ban. NebY (talk) 21:05, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Quite surprised that they weren't indeffed after that outrageous post on Gill's talk page. I suspect they and WP benefit benefit from a topic ban from Gill and related topics with a first review at 6 months. They could then edit other topics in which they are less emotionally invested. It would enable them to demonstrate that they are not here to WP:RGW plus it would give them the space to learn how to edit within policy. Or they would loose interest because they can't pursue their hobby horse. Either way it's a needed result. DeCausa (talk) 21:24, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

I wasn't blocked because I was given leniency for being a fresh editor and for it being a first offence. But fine, if you want to just re-open the case six weeks later when it had already been closed, on the grounds that you don't agree with that prior decision (is that even allowed?), I'd potentially refer you to Wikipedia:Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. Why don't we just turn this discussion into a space where we can just constantly discuss how my first edit (I'd done some years ago but hadn't come back) was truly outrageous and should be brought up again and again to get the right result, even when it's already been acted upon? MeltingDistrict (talk) 21:49, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Just to be clear, I think a TBAN would be beneficial to you as well as to WP because of your recent editing - not because of what you said to Gill. That was just an expression of surprise on how much leniency you got on that as I only just saw what you said for the first time on reading this thread tonight. It's past history - except that you don't seem to have responded to the leniency as much as you should have. DeCausa (talk) 22:53, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

I have placed MeltingDistrict under an indefinite WP:AE topic ban from Richard D. Gill and BLPs that he has been mentioned in, used as a source in, or commented on. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:34, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Thank you, SFR. I was considering suggesting a broader topic ban, from BLP; let's see whether this more focused restriction is enough. I have made a sweeping revert-based edit at Lucia de Berk and after checking the history of Richard D. Gill, re-removed the tag that MeltingDistrict had added. Yngvadottir (talk) 01:41, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Issue on Re'im music festival massacre

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I'm not sure if this is best taken to the arbitration committee; the specifics of reporting to them, frankly, confuse me, but willing to take advice if this is the wrong forum.

On the page Re'im music festival massacre, which is obviously a deeply contentious topic. The user Arminden has bypassed a bunch of discussion on that article's talk page and the main one of the conflict and made a unilateral decision about use of language (specifically the word "terrorist") on those pages. The bypassing of discussion on an extremely contentious topic (and continually reverting back to ensure this is maintained) is obviously an issue in itself, but even more so the edit summaries: "Not worth a discussion, unless with criminals or idiots masquerading as Wiki editors" and "So, are you a criminal or a complrte moron? No other option. Drop dead."

I don't think my getting caught in an edit war here would be good. Would appreciate some admin help. AntiDionysius (talk) 20:35, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Ah, someone has opened an arbitration enforcement request on this issue. AntiDionysius (talk) 20:39, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

User blocked for 48 hours for that edit summary. I saw this before I saw AE. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:43, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for your prompt response, much appreciated. AntiDionysius (talk) 20:53, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Endorse block -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:57, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Extra Eyes Please on RMS Republic (1903)

The page has been targeted by editors attempting to promote some kind of treasure hunting scheme based on speculative claims that the ship was carrying a fortune in bullion. I have already reverted these additions twice but they are continuing. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:24, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

P.S. I am obviously INVOLVED so I can't take administrative action or revert again. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:28, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, that's very obviously promotional. I have a suspicion that they also edited that page while logged out, but I can't confirm that unless a CU does. Deauthorized. ^(talk) 00:55, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

PP'd by Ed. Blocked by me. Lourdes 06:48, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

User:24.211.70.219

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

A picture of unjustified CSD tagging, reports to Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism for inappropriate reasons, and WP:CIR. Some(!) of their reports and tagging have been reasonable, but there is something very unusual about the editing pattern. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 20:06, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

The only problem I see is that you reverted an edit from me that was reverting vandalism and said edit you did was reverted 30 minutes later by another user (page in question: Cyrillic alphabets). I tend to quick with my AIV reports and CSD taggings and I sometimes make mistakes when doing so. 24.211.70.219 (talk) 20:16, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

I came here to say this, giving vandalism warnings for edits that are actually undoing vandalism. Maybe a "don't tag Drafts for CSD" talk but otherwise I don't see any issues. Canterbury Tail talk 20:17, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

I don't see a significant problem with the IP's edits. They sometimes overtag, and they sometimes report editors at AIV when they shouldn't, but, honestly, I see a lot of experienced editors doing the exact same thing. It seems like the IP is being unfairly picked on just because they're an IP, and that's me who isn't a big fan of IP editing and even less so of IP editing in project space, but... I also think the G11 that Tim reverted as vandalism was an absolutely spot-on tag (I've deleted the draft myself just a moment ago as a G11); it certainly was not vandalism.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:59, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

I actually noticed this a few hours ago, when the report was still at AIV, not here, and watchlisted 24.211.70.219's talkpage, because I did actually think the warnings were heavily misguided. Frankly it feels extremely bitey, even if 24.211.70.219 has seemingly been around for a little bit longer and seems to know processes a bit better than most IPs. Their tagging is still better than some newer users, and I really don't think WP:CIR is exactly applicable here, given that the only actual effort made to explain this to the IP seems to be snide remarks and automatic knee-jerk reactions of warnings about vandalism for tagging pages they thought qualified for CSD. On the times where someone has actually treated 24.211.70.219 as an editor, rather than as if they were a vandal, 24.211.70.219 has been responsive to questions and concerns about their editing, as is clearly seen on their talk page, and has even responded to this ANI thread in what is, frankly, a better response than the responses of some highly experienced users who have been brought here. The opener of this section, however, has not attempted actual communication, instead opting for templated messages, and did not respond to 24.211.70.219's comments about them truly believing they were correctly tagging. Instead, the opener chose to take this straight to WP:AIV, then to WP:AN/I, without responding to 24.211.70.219 at all. I would, in fact, suggest that the opener should not be engaging with IPs if they cannot give them the same level of respect they would give any other editor. As a bit of a closing note to my general rant here, I'll add that since the opener has decided to cite WP:CIR, here's a suggestion that page makes about dealing with repeated problems, that the user has not engaged in at all, In either case, use their talk page to introduce yourself, provide diffs while explaining the problems, and direct them to further readings or to forums such as Wikipedia:Teahouse or Wikipedia:Help desk. In the vast majority of cases, this will be sufficient and no further action will be needed. EggRoll97 ^(talk) 06:21, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

I obviously hit a flurry when they were not on form. They did engage with me on their talk page, but rather more abruptly than I felt was indicative of an ordinary editor just making errors. I withdraw the report. They should continue without a stain on their record. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 10:07, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Rhenyra (and Alex37m) edit-warring and unsourced edits after multiple warnings

• Rhenyra (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Alex37m (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Currently two accounts, most likely a case of WP:DUCK, are being used to edit-war on Tripolitanian Republic and another article (so far). They have been reported to WP:SPI already ([192]), but the edit-warring has continued in the meantime so I'm requesting a temporary block to stop further disruption to these articles and to give the SPI time to determine if further action is needed.

The first account, Rhenyra, has been making unexplained/unsourced changes or deletions of sourced material for months (e.g. [193], [194], [195], [196]) and has been warned several times by other editors ([197], [198], [199], [200]). They've continued to do this after the last warnings. Their latest edits include edit-warring over more unexplained changes and deletions at Tripolitanian Republic: repeating this after this was reverted, then going on to remove more sourced information and replacing it with more unsourced text ([201]). As soon as this was reverted again, the Alex37m account was created and continued the edit-warring at Tripolitanian Republic ([202], [203]) and began edit-warring at Italian invasion of Libya (this, reinstating these unsourced edits by Rhenyra).

Rhenyra has given zero responses on any talk pages, despite being reverted and warned by many editors, and has provided no edit summaries since they began editing. The new account Alex37m has included an Arabic edit summary in this edit that Google translates as "Deliberate vandalism from the same account for hate reasons", something which they roughly repeat in English in this edit. I think that makes it clear they're not ready to engage in building consensus at the moment. R Prazeres (talk) 17:45, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Rh indef'd. Alex is communicating in English in one edit summary; so may or may not be a sock. Fyb, ec-pp'd the page. Thx, Lourdes 07:00, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

They're a sock. Blocked. Courcelles (talk) 14:15, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Transnistrian POV-pusher

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Writing here because it would be too long for WP:AIV. EditorFromPMR (talk · contribs) wrote an article for the redirect Pridnestrovie [204] covering a geographical region in Europe. "Pridnestrovie" is the Russian name of Transnistria. First of all there was a discussion before and it was determined that the geographical region should not have an article [205].

The article this person wrote is full of POV and it is clear they're trying to push their own view points. Examples (from this version [206]): two thirds of the region's population are East Slavs (Russians). (it is in fact 1/3 Russian and 1/3 Ukrainian); Historically, as a political fragment of the Old Russian state, it has been a contender for the role of collector of Russian lands, It arose as a result the unification of the Russian principalities of Volhynia and Galicia (refers to old Eastern Slavic states including the Kievan Rus' as "Russian", these are just Russian nationalist talking points); Pridnestrovian state (Galicia and Volhynia) during the collapse of Rus'. (it is laughable to refer to these two states as Transnistrian and also unsourced); At the height of the Civil War in 1918, Romania, an ally of Russia in the First World War, took advantage of the chaos in the country to occupy Bessarabia, Further, it is Romania that will become the main source of problems and instability here, although this state itself first surfaced on the world stage in 1878 thanks to the Russian Imperial Army. (pure anti-Romanian bias); Romania attacked the USSR in alliance with Germany and committed large-scale terror and genocide in part of the Odessa region of the Ukrainian SSR, Pridnestrovie and Bessarabia, the number of victims was in the hundreds of thousands (so-called "Transnistria" crime). (made up anti-Romanian trash, one of the two sources is a Transnistrian government site); The Prut was crossed by Volokhs pastoral tribes migrating from the Balkans, who, mixing with part of the local Slavic population, gave rise to the future Moldavian ethnic group. (implies Romanians are actually not native to their country).

Most of this is unsourced and anyway there is a clear loaded use of language here. But there is more. The justification for the creation of such an article was Redirection to Romanian term is incorrect, a separate article is required. Started. (WP:IDONTLIKEIT) [207]. The article Transnistria has been often proposed to be moved to "Pridnestrovie" and this has always been rejected [208] [209] [210]. There is consensus both for "Pridnestrovie" not being the title for the political entity and for there not being an article for the geographical region. I restored the redirect and they reverted me calling it POV vandalism [211]. May I also note that in one of the past discussions I linked, an IP referred to the name Transnistria as a "Romanian Nazi" term [212]. I highly suspect they're the same person because someone proposing to use the name "Pridnestrovie" has recurrently come back to Wikipedia every few months and up until now it had been unregistered IPs, this account did not exist two days ago. On Wikidata there was an account with a similar name ("Pridnestrovian editor") and behaviour which ended up being blocked [213]. More on that "coming back" part, an IP already tried to give "Pridnestrovie" use as the title of an article before [214], which led to some edit-warring, just like right now.

I believe this person is WP:NOTHERE for building an encyclopedia. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 10:34, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

<redacted> There's nothing to discuss here, you can delete my account. EditorFromPMR (talk) 11:11, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

• WP:SPA indefinitely blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:59, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 14:52, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Minamoto Takahito article and involved duck accounts

• 田中まさこ (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Paddingston (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I'm bringing a problem here that I 1) would have handled myself, but I have already reverted the accounts involved on multiple occasions, and 2) would have brought to WP:SPI, but the problems go beyond sock- or meatpuppetry.

First, this year, I have been encountering the account User:田中まさこ (read as "Tanaka Masako"), mostly in relation to adding flags and a variety of categories to articles related to historical members of the Japanese Minamoto clan. Beginning with its second mainspace edit, the account also started working on the Japanese given name Takahito, eventually, in this edit, stealthily adding a bluelink to the name "Takahito Minamoto" by piping "Minamoto" so that it would not appear as a redlink. The userpage of the "Tanaka Masako" account claims to be an administrator on the English Wikipedia (but is not, and has only ~400 total edits) and also dubiously claims to be an assistant professor in a department at Keio University that does not list any assistant professors.

Second, I have recently noticed activity by the account User:Paddingston, with a userpage that claims the user is from Yorkshire and a native speaker of French and German, though it does not use what I would consider native English, such as here where we see the addition of the caption "Flag of the Japan". The account also lists a variety of barnstars and claims over 10 years of editing on Wikipedia. The account was created on September 25, and like User:田中まさこ, it has been extensively editing articles related to historical figures from the Minamoto clan, some of whom are quite obscure. A day after creation, it also edited the Takahito page to correct the link to Minamoto Takahito, and a week later it appeared on List of entrepreneurs to add the name "Minamoto Takahito" to the list. The editor interaction analysis for the two accounts involved is here and you can see the extensive overlap for the Paddingston account which has only ~100 edits to date.

Therefore I was looking into this as a WP:SPI issue, noting the similar edit summaries used between the accounts and the gap of under a day between edits to several relatively stable and inactive articles. Example edit summaries: Added minor information from Paddingston (this is addition of "Minamoto Takahito" to the London Business School article, by the way), Added minor related information from 田中まさこ; there are a lot of minor variations of these edit summaries, but they always start with capital letters and consist of some variety of "Added minor/more/additional/new/related information".

It turns out that the article Minamoto Takahito was created by User:田中まさこ on September 24, the day before the creation of User:Paddingston, including a variety of photos of the subject attributed to User:田中まさこ such as a photo of the subject at his university graduation ceremony and another that refers to him as "Dr. Minamoto" although the article does not note a PhD. The page lists routine coverage (but in Japanese, probably making it harder for many readers here to interpret, but I am happy to help), mostly noting the existence of "Mitaky High-Tech Corporation", of which Minamoto appears to be the CEO. Three other cites are used to support the claim that "His family name of Minamoto (源) is one of the ancient and noble surnames in Japan." It appears that a lot of the other previous edits of the User:田中まさこ account were also intended to lay the groundwork for creating this page, such as creation of Umeda Mikio ("Corporate Executive Advisor of MITAKY High-Tech Co., Ltd.") earlier in the summer, adding Minamoto to List of Kyoto University people here, and edits to the particular neighborhood in Kyoto that is listed as Minamoto's hometown.

This post is already rather long so I'll stop here, but there is no actual coverage of "Minamoto Takahito" online in either English or Japanese. All available Google hits are for what appear to be Minamoto's social media, including one that links to the new English Wikipedia page. Therefore it appears clear that the article is promotional and is being supported by a few accounts with some degree of involvement. (There are also IPs involved, as you can see if you look at the page histories.) The overlap among the accounts could be dealt with through WP:SPI and the article could be dealt with through WP:AFD, but I would appreciate some outside input and/or action since I have reverted both accounts (mostly on MOS-related grounds) at various times. Dekimasuよ! 06:42, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

• Actually, I would do just that. If there are genuinely no reliable sources in that article I would simply send it straight to AfD, and create an SPI. I agree that Paddingston is not a native English speaker, a few of the edit-summaries show that quite clearly, so that's suspicious straight away even without the obvious overlap in editing which is clearly in WP:DUCK territory. Black Kite (talk) 07:05, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Honestly, I'd just delete this speedily straight off as blatant promotion. I do also note that the subject's last (and only second) post on their Facebook page was posted at the same time this was created. Suggests to me very strongly that this is part of a promotional campaign and not a lets just create an article. I've also removed their false claims of being an admin from their user page. If they're clearly lying about that (something so simple to verify and blatant), can we trust any of their other edits? Canterbury Tail talk 11:24, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

So thinking about this it has to be self-promotion or other kind of promotion. All the photos are uploaded and the creating editing claims they're their own work. So they're either very badly tagged copyright violations, or blatant promotional. Canterbury Tail talk 14:48, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

• I'm distinctly unimpressed by Paddingston's claim to be a WP:Grandmaster Editor First-Class (114,000 edits and 14 years of service; <250 edits, joined 25 September 2023). I suspect participation in earlier rodeos, or copying someone else's userpage. Narky Blert (talk) 14:08, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

• I've asked them. Bishonen | tålk 20:41, 10 October 2023 (UTC).
• Looking at the user pages more closely, it seems that User:田中まさこ is based on copying someone else's userpage... mine. This also explains most of the particular set of barnstars displayed there. In addition both pages link to barnstars in similar irregular ways (as file thumbs). I am not sure how soon I will have time to take this to WP:SPI per Black Kite so help would still be appreciated, but I will try when I can as it seems to be needed. And IP "evidence" (no outing, circumstantial, won't link) continues to suggest to me a different location for Paddingston from what is claimed. Dekimasuよ! 20:58, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
• It seems that most of the userpage for User:Paddingston is based on User:WhisperToMe. It seems both accounts have stopped editing since being notified of the discussion here. I think the correct course of action is to go to WP:SPI first and then WP:AFD. More edit summary evidence: Remove un-related parts by Paddingston on October 10, Removed an unnecessary part by 田中まさこ on October 9, Removed unnecessary part by 田中まさこ on October 9, Fix typo, removed the unnecessary part by Paddingston on October 5. Dekimasuよ! 06:08, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

For those interested, this is what remains of the Minamoto Takahito article after checking what is actually available in the cited sources, removing copyright problems, and performing cleanup. Dekimasuよ! 08:30, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

So basically nothing that meets any sort of notability criteria. Okay, definitely a speedy delete them. And since the user deleted my request for them to identify what their relationship with the article subject was I guess they're definitely not answering that so we go with the balance of probability and that the user is only here for promotional reasons especially given their obsession with Minamoto name pages. Canterbury Tail talk 13:01, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

It should be noted that the Paddingston account created this self same article on the French Wikipedia just a couple of days ago. It appears to be a copy and paste just run through a translation. Also adding entries and data to Wikidata around the inividual as well. Definitely much promotion around this non-notable individual and company. Canterbury Tail talk 15:22, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Can someone help me?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Look at Italy page and User:JamesOredan

I can't anymore. This guy is like the 31th sock o User:Venezia Friulano and User:JamesOredan, he gets blocked for his agenda-pushing,, vandalism, edit-warring, racism...then comes back with a new sock that I report...goes after all my edits because I have had him blocked...messages me to tell he will always edit despite being permanently blocked...wages edit wars everywhere, does not answer to the page in which he has been reported. Barjimoa (talk) 15:35, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:211.108.168.102 is adding promotional language on a single product

On pages Hancom and Hancom Office 211.108.168.102 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) has been adding promotional language. COI notice has been ignored and editing has continued. These pages have frequently targeted by promotional edits. DarmaniLink (talk) 09:49, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Ohnoitsjamie has pageblocked the IP from the relevant pages. Cullen328 (talk) 17:30, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

thanks, jamie DarmaniLink (talk) 17:47, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

User:Pehlivanmeydani

Despite explaining MOS:ETHNICITY, this user is reverting my edits en masse. User also has history of changing nationality to ethnicity 1, 2, 3. Nswix (talk) 18:31, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

U can t ignore all Caucasian peoples. Russia is not only the Russian nation. There is nothing wrong with the nationality of all the wrestlers I have written. Russian sources are available for all of them. Akhmed Tazhudinov and all other wrestlers now are participating for Bahrain, all of them AVAR, not Russian or Bahrain. Russia is only a geographical location, not a nation for them Pehlivanmeydani (talk) 18:53, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

It seems to me you are indeed confusing nationality with ethnicity. The terms you are sticking in are not nationalities. Stop. And don't go around calling people "Russian nationalists". Drmies (talk) 18:55, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Look and learn history/Geography with Caucasus Pehlivanmeydani (talk) 18:59, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Note: I filed a ANEW report for the user who is the subject of this report. I am uninvolved just stumbled across it. Seawolf35 (talk) 19:01, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Your belligerence here isn't likely to curry any favor. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 19:22, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Your nationalist attitude is not going to change the facts, even if you think you are right on the basis of clauses that are not fully understood here. Pehlivanmeydani (talk) 19:24, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

You do know you're about to be blocked right if you continue attacking other users and refuse to stop and listen to what is being said to you? Nationality and Ethnicity are not the same thing. Canterbury Tail talk 19:27, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Buddy, I really like a lot of the work you do on all the wrestling pages. Just stop reverting edits that are backed up with rules like MOS:ETHNICITY and don't get blocked... this isn't some conspiracy to attack the Caucasus. Nswix (talk) 19:30, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

I have reverted the edits that give false nationalities to WP:BLP subjects. Hopefully this will stop here. Black Kite (talk) 19:45, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Ha, you think I'm some kind of nationalist? I implore you to follow the advice you have received here multiple times to stop attacking everyone around you. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 21:04, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

User:Colin.r.neary, Paulina Alexis

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The user is refusing to engage a discussion at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Paulina Alexis, excessive detail and has continued to repeatedly edit the article in question, Paulina Alexis. He just added "Note: PLEASE DO NOT DELETE HEADINGS" in an edit summary. I hate to escalate so quickly, but Communication is required. There have been several attempts to point the user to the BLPN to address the concerns. He just, while I was writing this, reverted User:VQuakr's attempts to trim the page and User:ScottishFinnishRadish's removal of copyvio. He needs to answer. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 21:18, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

I've blocked them indefinitely from that article. They obviously aren't willing to collaborate with other editors, and are accusing other people of "censorship". — Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 21:34, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Very appreciated, @Ingenuity. Now editors can get to the task of cleaning up that trainwreck of an article. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 21:37, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

TheAlienMan2002

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

TheAlienMan2002 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a clear net negative to this project. Their contributions in main-space are of a trivial and inconsequential nature; their contributions in other spaces include

• multiple ChatGPT-generated contributions in WP space [215] [216] [217] (their deeply absurd responses when called out on this are recorded here) and
• giving very poor advice at the Teahouse, as recorded in the discussion here.

Their responses to helpful advice and guidance consist of defensive gibberish (see e.g. [218]). They've most recently moved on to incompetent harassment of User:Dialmayo: these two edits were followed by my warning to desist and then [219] [220]. It seems to me that the lack of competence / unwillingness to take on criticism and advice is sufficiently acute that an indefinite block is called for. --JBL (talk) 23:56, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

@JayBeeEll Hi, first of all, those responses are not "ChatGPT generated", which of course you have zero evidence of AI. AI in this present day is tricky to debunk especially if someone would be using it on Wikipedia. The first paragraph of the article "sun" which someone has tested on the website "CheckGPT", the paragraph is apparently AI generated. So, no evidence of the Ai Inanity.

Next, the very poor choice advice at the Teahouse, which has been already resolved, no reason for ANI for this if consensus has already been reached. And based on my edits, I haven't posted in Teahouse ever since. I have not harassed the user that you're pertaining to, other than just a little warning for the incivility of their comment when I've said "derogatory content".

TheAlienMan2002 (talk) 00:04, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Next, the very poor choice advice at the Teahouse, which has been already resolved, no reason for ANI for this if consensus has already been reached.

consensus was that you were using llms inappropriately.

oh, and we swear all the time here. ltbdl (talk) 00:13, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

My nuanced articulation on Wikipedia isn't a product of leveraging LLMS by the way. It's a manifestation of my personal writing style, devoiding of empirical substantiation.

Also, Wikipedians swear all the time? I've never seen that on this platform before. Perhaps WP:AGF would be presented here? TheAlienMan2002 (talk) 00:21, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Empirical substantiation besides (and rationalists would have something to say about that comment, I imagine), the other issues still stand. Edward-Woodrow • talk 00:32, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

There's little to no evidence to support the other issues. TheAlienMan2002 (talk) 01:08, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

I really find it hard to believe that someone with such an expansive vocabulary as yourself would keep making grammatical mistakes while using that vocabulary; unless, of course, the use of said vocabulary was just an attempt to cram long words into your writing and make it seem like you weren’t just using a LLM before. AryKun (talk) 05:39, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

WP:IDHT Q.E.D. --JBL (talk) 00:14, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

I've already heard your side of the table during my talk page discussion as well as others. But, you didn't even bother to respond to my messages but instead put out incivility instead of the LLM in the first place, which was your first message mention. It was most likely cause of no evidence to back up your statement.

I would like an explanation as to why you're not listening to any of my comments, and being demanding and grave about the discussion. You have neither assimilated nor perused my remarks. TheAlienMan2002 (talk) 00:27, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

if you keep talking like this i will lose my side of the table. ltbdl (talk) 00:44, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Pretty good accusing other editors of poor communication for someone who has archived his usertalk three times in the past two weeks, once within half an hour of the most recent comment by another editor. Please stop defending and begin listening. Folly Mox (talk) 03:37, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

• I was hovering over INDEFF but landed on a p-block from project space. TAM2002, comments such as You have neither assimilated nor perused my remarks. are not helping your cause. Please contribute to articles, or you risk a broader block. Star Mississippi 02:19, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
• I hold the belief that both parties possess valid arguments; nevertheless, the paramount issue herein lies in the necessity for the accused to provide a civil and respectful response. thanks chatgpt for writing this for me GeraldWL 05:45, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
• Since TheAlienMan is obviously unable to communicate intelligibly, someone please just block him. EEng 11:38, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

  I responded to their TP inquiry but will be offline today. If needed, revise block at will. Star Mississippi 12:10, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

I think a namespace ban is sufficient, and I'm still not entirely convinced this guy's using a LLM, rather just cramming big words into sentences; "My nuanced articulation on Wikipedia isn't a product of leveraging LLMS by the way. It's a manifestation of my personal writing style, devoiding of empirical substantiation." Dialmayo (talk) (Contribs) she/her 12:00, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

I believe that's exactly what they want you to believe. Comparing their suspected LLM-generated contributions to what they post after being accused, the difference is night and day. Take the following last paragraph of this diff for an example.

Familiar yourself with other people using vocabulary words that you, do not understand, please. Please be wise on your messages because the more i read them the more I think you're being an egotistical presumptuous human being."

Basic vocabulary issues, excess punctuation, missing punctuation, capitalization failures, they even fail to use the correct direct object. The more you look for in that diff the more you find. We don't crucify people for these mistakes here but when their clean diffs like those given by JBL suddenly become bad writing with extra verbosity crammed in immediately after an accusation of using LLMs, it's hard not to hear quacking. GabberFlasted (talk) 12:16, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

I've already heard your side of the table during my talk page discussion as well as others. But, you didn't even bother to respond to my messages but instead put out incivility instead of the LLM in the first place, which was your first message mention. It was most likely cause of no evidence to back up your statement. My eyeballs hurt. Narky Blert (talk) 14:13, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

To be clear, I think that they switched from what they were doing initially (unambiguously using an LLM) to something different but also stupid (probably doing word-by-word translation or a good old-fashioned thesaurus or something else along those lines). --JBL (talk) 23:32, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

• Star Mississippi - I'm uncomfortable about the concept of a Wikipedia-space block, for a couple of reasons. First off, if we're of the opinion that they're not capable of writing coherently, do we really want to leave them free to edit articles? Second, if someone who was subject to such a block were ever to be subjected to harassment or whatever while using this platform, they would be unable to ask for assistance in the appropriate venue, and would be forced to evade their block in order to post as an IP asking for help. I'd be a lot more comfortable with either a CIR sitewide block, or a final warning along the lines of 'if you post any more unintelligible gibberish to WP-space, I will block you from this website'. Just a thought. Girth Summit _(blether) 12:23, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

  I'm about to hop offline @Girth Summit so please do revise/reduce the block with my blessing as I don't fully disagree with you. I personally think they're trolling us, although the screen name + unclear text made me wonder briefly if it was a Google Translate issue, although that doesn't usually spit out $5 words.

  I think @Dialmayo's point is their mainspace edits are fine, which leads me to trolling. I think we can tolerate it here, but do we want them giving advice at the Teahouse? I'd also be fine with just a block from there and Help Desk. Star Mississippi 12:45, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

  @Star Mississippi I don't think I'd agree with their mainspace edits are fine, a lot of their edits seem to be terrible attempts at recent changes patrolling, at the minimum there seems to be WP:CIR issues at play there too.

  [221] demanding a reliable source for the addition of wikilinks?

  [222] How on earth was the IP's edit a test edit?

  [223] Reverting a massive amount of copyediting because it didn't include sources?

  [224] Adding a CN template to the lead of a featured article.

  [225] Do we really need to cite that a civil parish is governed by its parish council? This is seriously WP:Skyblue type information.

  They really need to do some content work of their own to gain an understanding of how things work, rather than just reverting other peoples edits [226] on the basis of policies that they clearly don't fully understand. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 14:50, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

  I agree with a sitewide CIR block, because their communication style has issues beyond comprehension. Their response to FollyMox posting advice on their archive is rather combative. Also, while I was willing to grant them leniency due to having five people telling them they were going to be blocked without explaining why, their selective reading of my attempt to answer their question and subsequent trouting of Dialmayo suggests they're incapable of collaboration CiphriusKane (talk) 14:09, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

  And in case there's doubt in anyone's mind that a CIR block is appropriate: When, in the discussion linked at the very top of this thread, he was told You are continuing to give bad advice in areas that you do not understand, his response was to ask that someone show him where it says that I am not allowed to give out bad advice to Wikipedians. Just how ridiculous do we allow people to be around here? EEng 14:36, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

  1 EEng (75.342 idi), last time I checked. I like Astatine (Talk to me) 15:07, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

  No disrespect to @Star Mississippi and their attempt to assume good faith but this guy is either messing with us or just doesn't get it. In either case the community's time is better spent on those who have something to contribute so I've upgraded the block to sitewide. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:14, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

  Still team messing with us, but absolutely no objection to this upgrade. I knew I wouldn't be back online until now and it couldn't wait this long to be resolved. Thanks @HJ Mitchell et al for handling. Star Mississippi 23:31, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

  I agree. Flush ‘em; nothing of value will be lost. Bgsu98 (Talk) 17:29, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

User has been blocked sitewide, somebody close the case please Dialmayo (talk) (Contribs) she/her 16:57, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Melbourne IP disruption followed by self-reverts for a year

• 1.152.104.0/21 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))
• 1.136.104.0/21 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))

Someone in Melbourne has been disrupting a great many articles and then self-reverting. Take a look at the editing history of Fleetwood Mac (disambiguation), or Leopold Stokowski, or Frederica von Stade. The disruption goes back for months, certainly active in April[227][228] and February 2023,[229] and going back further to October 2022.[230][231]

Can we get two appropriately lengthy rangeblocks? Binksternet (talk) 06:01, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

1yr article space. Lourdes 06:19, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Excellent! Thank you.

Looking a bit further back I found the same kind of activity from User:Carrie Underwood Chris Cagle who was indeffed in early 2022. Binksternet (talk) 06:33, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

And before that it was other Melbourne IPs such as Special:Contributions/2001:8004:CC3:983A:710F:BB38:3F8B:B855, Special:Contributions/2001:8004:CC0:E607:1480:66C1:E5E0:B81D and Special:Contributions/2001:8004:1201:E4E5:9BB:BE61:2028:F44A going back to 2021. Binksternet (talk) 06:46, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Editor removing sourced material for possible political reasons

I noticed a editor on Tank Man by the name of Tennaris has repeatedly removed sourced material without explanation. The material they are censoring relates to violent nature of the events so it looks to me like trying to whitewash the government's actions. 2001:8003:3FB4:CF00:D41A:85FD:329D:1AB0 (talk) 21:31, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

I didn't do any editing. I've reverted you vandalism that you did on IP 2001:8003:3FB4:CF00:1DD2:4AA7:4A55:D88C and many unidentified ones. And I wasn't the only one who reverted your edits. Tennaris (talk) 22:21, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

So you deny that you removed the paragraph sourced to The Times article cause your edit history says otherwise and given that paragraph was not added by an any IP that also falls flat2001:8003:3FB4:CF00:D41A:85FD:329D:1AB0 (talk) 22:30, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Here's a comprehensive list of all the times you've edited that same page, with the same changes

20 August 2023‎ 2001:8003:34a3:800:1d9e:424d:8631:aa2f

6 October 2023‎ 2001:8003:3fb4:cf00:a4fb:d3e3:c828:dd9d

10 October 2023‎ 2001:8003:3fb4:cf00:1dd2:4aa7:4a55:d88c

In fact you've vandalized several pages, repeatedly, all with anonymous IPs. Why are you hiding it? Tennaris (talk) 22:39, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

You are the one removing material in sources without a given reason like the words violent and even adding unsourced material here 2001:8003:3FB4:CF00:D41A:85FD:329D:1AB0 (talk) 22:52, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

My friend - you're vandalising different pages with different IP addresses - and when it's reverted you wanna discuss article by article?

Wouldn't it be easier if you were autoconfirmed instead of hiding your activities? Tennaris (talk) 22:59, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Comment the disputed paragraph begins It has been suggested that, so it is probably speculation that should be removed. The IP editor seems to be edit-warring to re-instate the material, which was removed by Special:Diff/1162529065 in June. The IP editor's edits don't appear to be vandalism, though their stated rationale in the edit summary is that the content cannot be removed because it is sourced -- which is obviously not an accurate representation of site policy. Walt Yoder (talk) 22:38, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Kindly refer to my message above - We've posted about the same time Tennaris (talk) 22:40, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

@Tennaris: People are allowed to remove bad and/or useless comments from article talk pages. Did you read those deleted comments at Talk:Lena Dunham before you restored them? Because you've got to be kidding me. CityOfSilver 22:50, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

While I agree, since he repeatedly edits several articles continuously with different IP addresses - and in many cases other users reverted them citing vandalism - I'd assume that's his goal Tennaris (talk) 22:55, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

@Tennaris: What do you agree with? If you agree that you shouldn't have restored those comments at Talk:Lena Dunham, please revert them. Walt Yoder (talk) 23:00, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

@Walt Yoder: The Dunham thing was just one of several apparently good (or at least harmless) edits User:Tennaris reverted today. Since they (seem to) agree that they were in the wrong, they really ought to go through their recent edits and restore all the anonymous editor's good work they undid for no reason. CityOfSilver 23:05, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

@CityOfSilver @Walt Yoder Idk. Guy anonymously vandalized several articles(it wasn't me to point out/revert, but other users) and I revert his edits. Maybe that's why this site is going downhill. I'll leave this mess for you nerds Tennaris (talk) 23:10, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

So Tennaris (talk · contribs) doesn't know what vandalism means and is blatantly trolling. Time for a block. Walt Yoder (talk) 23:13, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Support Walt Yoder's call for this user to be blocked. It would also help if a user with rollback rights restored all the anonymous user's edits from today because other than possibly Tank Man, Tennaris clearly didn't even look at anything they reverted. CityOfSilver 23:18, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

After reviewing their contribution history, I've indeffed per NOTHERE. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:20, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Yeah their June 2023 edits were def not OK. Reverting drmies to restore Pro-Putin propaganda, no idea why thy weren't blocked as nothere then. Lavalizard101 (talk) 23:50, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

I cannot see those "other users" reverting on those ips you provided that cite vandalism, the only reverts are you that don't claim vandalism and one other for "be looking stranding"

Looking at the edits it is the opposite you restored 96.59.109.178 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) edits despite them reverted multiple times for vandal 2001:8003:3FB4:CF00:D41A:85FD:329D:1AB0 (talk) 23:51, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Indeffed by an admin, IG this can be closed now. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 09:46, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

HORSEMAN843

Hi, HORSEMAN843 (talk · contribs) is probably a sock of Osamabinsaeed556 (talk · contribs). While Osamabinsaeed556 didn't edit here, he uploaded a personal image on Commons used on Draft:Osama Bin Saeed. HORSEMAN843 has only a history of vandalism. Yann (talk) 12:06, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

HORSEMAN843 is an account focused on creating an autobiography. It may be more accurate to label the editor as WP:NOTHERE than as a vandal, as the two mainspace edits were not necessarily vandalism but were conducted using ChatGPT. Uhai (talk) 12:15, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Sockdrawer cleaned, both accounts mentioned, plus Osamabinsaeed (talk⁺ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser). Courcelles (talk) 14:09, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Constantly being accused of vandalism despite using the edit summary and reaching out

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

On Punggol MRT/LRT station, I'm being constantly reverted by users such as Wesoree (talk · contribs) and Filmssssssssssss (talk · contribs) for "vandalism" despite me replying TWICE on my own talk page for further information. There is clearly being reasons being put out on the edit summary but they are being blatantly ignored while I'm being reverted as if I do not exist. Based on the tags they are clearly automatic anti-vandalism tools and while they are useful against ACTUAL vandalism, accusing me of doing it and including slapping threats of me having me blocked from editing for "disruptive editing" is extremely frustrating. 221.147.40.123 (talk) 15:06, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Incorrect and fake page

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Kfar Aza massacre This is created as fake and incorrect and it constitutes a terrorist zionist attack against Palestinians

please remove 92.99.12.212 (talk) 14:06, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

WP:ANI isn't for nonsense like this. --Yamla (talk) 14:14, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Lambshift

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

Couldn't make a SPI as the only thing I have are IPs.

A brand new user named Lambshift randomly wrote this bizarre allegation to me Take care of your baby that isn't yours..

This is the same type of random and rude allegations about my personal life that a person who uses IPs from Indonesia also made [232] [233] [234] (some deleted edit summaries here, dunno if you can see them [235] [236] [237] [238]). This is no doubt the same person.

--HistoryofIran (talk) 12:56, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

WP:NOTHERE Special:MobileDiff/1179805913 HistoryofIran (talk) 15:54, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

The connection between the IPs and the named user is a bit of a stretch. Now if the IPs edited the same articles, or the same topics, that might have more traction.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:04, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

• Indeffed. Clearly neither new nor here to build an encyclopedia.

Star Mississippi 17:13, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Nitishbgp NOTHERE, WP:OWN, WP:NPA, Edit warring

I was recently working on cleaning up Naugachhia as there were duplicate articles for the town spelled differently. As part of the merge, I also removed a large amount of original research which User:Nitishbgp has been edit warring to reinsert. If you look through the page's history, you'll see many cases of this user reinserting the same OR after it was removed. When I tried to bring it up with him on his talk page at User_talk:Nitishbgp, he wasn't very happy about it and didn't seem interested in talking about it either. Seems like a WP:NOTHERE block is in order. BrigadierG (talk) 14:53, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

• I've indeffed the user for disruptive editing and personal attacks. I almost reverted the last edit made by the user to the article it was so bad, but I guess someone else should probably do it. BTW, what is the correct spelling of the place?--Bbb23 (talk) 15:06, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

  It is Naugachhia. There was also an article spelled Naugachia (with one h) and I discovered the error while checking the 2011 Indian Census as a result of the latter article being nominated for deletion. My version of the article includes a citation to the 2011 Indian Census. Thank you for the swift action. BrigadierG (talk) 15:15, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

  (non-admin uninvolved comment) "chh" is such an odd-looking combination in English that it frequently gets misspelled. Chhattisgarh may be the commonest example. Narky Blert (talk) 17:55, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Phallic Vandalism Network

I have noticed that several IP addresses and accounts that have been posting pornographic imagery mostly involving phalluses for the past few months appear to have characteristics that suggest that they are based in Sweden and are the same person (same nature of images and threats of police action to impose their edits). Is there a possible way to pinpoint the exact location and to determine how extensive is this possible sockpuppet network? Borgenland (talk) 12:25, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

Off-topic, wrong forum Dronebogus (talk) 19:00, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

i really wish we could find a quick and easy way to stop this. it's not fun to have to open every page with the screen facing away from others just because of the possibility of someone who thinks they are funny putting a phallus where it doesn't belong. DrowssapSMM (say hello) 13:51, 6 October 2023 (UTC) Part of it is the photos should be deleted at Commons, but that's fighting a losing battle. RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:52, 6 October 2023 (UTC) maybe group the ability to add photos to articles as part of the extended-confirmed ability bundle? that could provide a temporary solution until we identify the sockmaster (might be overkill though) DrowssapSMM (say hello) 13:55, 6 October 2023 (UTC) It would also be nice if the right to self-blank a user talk page is made stricter. A lot of these accounts try to hide traces of their activity by blanking their warnings and pretending to be innocuous users. Borgenland (talk) 15:58, 6 October 2023 (UTC) For this sort of vandalism, just ignore the talk page; porn vandals can be blocked without any warning. Go straight to WP:AIV. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 20:09, 6 October 2023 (UTC) @Borgenland I agree. You find someone's talk page that looks like it's never been edited but if you look at teh history it's full of warnings. That's ridiculous. Doug Weller talk 12:53, 7 October 2023 (UTC) I do wonder if we should implement a Commons whitelist, i.e. everything from Commons is disallowed unless added to a list here at enwiki. It certainly might make the people at Commons who clearly don't give a shit about being a porn repository think again. Black Kite (talk) 22:40, 6 October 2023 (UTC) i feel like that would work very well, good idea DrowssapSMM (say hello) 00:15, 7 October 2023 (UTC) Isn't there the Bad Image List? Or am I missing something? --RockstoneSend me a message! 01:48, 7 October 2023 (UTC) You are. The Bad Image List forbids a very very few bad images, that were identified after already having been abused. A MediaWiki:Good Image List would forbid every image except for a very very few pre-vetted images. It's not workable, which I'd hope would be obvious; but if anyone needs convincing, enwiki currently uses close to 7 million different files from Commons, out of close to a hundred million total. Besides, people would just switch to overwriting images already in use instead of uploading new filenames. —Cryptic 02:17, 7 October 2023 (UTC) GPT-4, which of these images is not like the others? Suffusion of Yellow (talk) Are were seriously incapable in 2023 of using AI to analyze an image of a dick and require someone have more than 3 edits before adding it to an article?--v/r - TP 05:28, 7 October 2023 (UTC) Fwiw, here's a human analysis of an image of a dick:[239]. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:26, 7 October 2023 (UTC) Very much not my field, but I'd guess that analyzing image contents - even if only done when uploaded or overwritten - would be too expensive. And while you'd think we'd be able to use the abuse filter to easily prevent adding images the same way we can with external links, but there's no provision for it. We can go through the motions of wishlisting either or both, I guess. —Cryptic 16:24, 7 October 2023 (UTC) Tracked in Phabricator Task T214201 MusikAnimal was working on this a while ago. The idea was to make a "NSFW score" available to AbuseFilter with each edit that adds an image. The resource requirements would, I imagine, depend of the size of model being used. If we have a mechanism to manually tag images like this as "not porn", it doesn't need to be totally accurate. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 22:21, 7 October 2023 (UTC) Some of the comments at that bug and the linked discussion at Commons are depressing. And entirely predictable. —Cryptic 22:46, 7 October 2023 (UTC) Image content analysis like this is one of the single things computers are worst at; there's even an XKCD about it. --172.59.229.109 (talk) 15:23, 9 October 2023 (UTC) Yes, I wasn't entirely serious; any such idea would have to implemented at Commons, which isn't going to happen before the heat death of the universe. Black Kite (talk) 09:15, 7 October 2023 (UTC) That would stop most images and make it the project very dull. Secretlondon (talk) 10:34, 7 October 2023 (UTC) Well, no, because any image that obviously wasn't disruptive would be added to the theoretical whitelist. However, as mentioned above, it isn't really feasible due to the scale that would be required. So we'll just have to cope with Commons porn for a while yet. Black Kite (talk) 13:15, 7 October 2023 (UTC) Commons is too busy fighting Jimbo over keeping illustrated child porn for that. RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:39, 7 October 2023 (UTC) I'm sorry, what — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 17:36, 7 October 2023 (UTC) I'm trying to find the link, was brought up sometime back, about this whole issue with porn pics being used for vandalism. Apparently they were fighting w/ Jimbo for keeping "lolicon" basically. RickinBaltimore (talk) 22:41, 7 October 2023 (UTC) For starters, that's from 2010... And while some people at Commons wanted to keep anything no matter how problematic, JW wanted to delete e.g. 19th c. art he found objectionable, all in response (IIRC) to some faux-outrage from US right wing media (Fox, I think it was). He literally called for " immediate deletion of all pornographic images." and tried to force it through with threats, which basically ended his reign as god-king. So this wasn't about child porn but much, much more. All ancient history and not the best episode from either side, but hardly relevant for the issue at hand. Fram (talk) 08:44, 9 October 2023 (UTC) Ah, fair enough. Jimbo always makes things worse. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 16:40, 10 October 2023 (UTC) I feel like it might be workable by using a combination of the above suggestions. Run a bot that determines all commons images currently linked at Wikipedia. Additionally, have a list of existing "high-risk" images that are currently linked at Wikipedia (ie. images used on intrinsically sexual articles that might be used for spam elsewhere.) The bot then prevents non-extended-confirmed users from adding images to articles that aren't on the "currently used" list, or which are on the "high-risk" list. This might sound slightly convoluted but it would cover most cases with comparatively little effort and wouldn't get in the way of normal editing. New users would still be able to add images in two ways (reusing an existing image, provided it's not on the "danger" list; or uploading an image to Wikipedia directly) and in truth that's probably the main way they add images anyway. Since it doesn't affect extended-confirmed users, images would also continuously be vetted and added to the whitelist from commons by extended-confirmed users linking them, without having to maintain a whitelist manually. All we would have to do (once the bot is set up) is maintain the "danger list", which wouldn't be that hard. --Aquillion (talk) 01:53, 8 October 2023 (UTC) An easy way to address this would be to require registration to edit. TarnishedPathtalk 02:42, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

This is an incredibly strange discussion I just stumbled upon. Besides the inherent weirdness of talking about AI dick analysis it sounds like a Village Pump proposal, and a bad one at that. There’s no magic bullet for vandalism, be it mandatory registration, whitelisting, blacklisting, deletion of offending images, restricting image use to extended confirmed users, or anything else. A combination of some of these options is useful but we can’t turn Wikipedia into a top-down authoritarian project over some 12-year-old putting penis.jpg on the first article he sees. Dronebogus (talk) 05:12, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, this is clearly off-topic for ANI. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:41, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

I’m not supposed to close any discussions, especially not involved ones, but since this looks to have run its course you could probably just mark it as “closed, off-topic/no relation to original subject” Dronebogus (talk) 18:59, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Irregardless I’ve taken the liberty of collapsing the irrelevant thread so it’s clear what this was actually about for archival purposes Dronebogus (talk) 19:02, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Indian IP User: 49.37.249.99 has been consistently vandalizing articles.

User: 49.37.249.99 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:49.37.249.99) has been consistently vandalizing articles without reading the cited sources and presenting a collection of nonsensical and unfounded statements as legitimate edits. They tampered with the Toxic Cough Syrup article (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toxic_cough_syrup), which I subsequently corrected with the help of another editor. They also vandalized the Controversies section of the Zydus Lifesciences article (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zydus_Lifesciences#Controversies).

I reverted their malicious edits (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zydus_Lifesciences&action=history) on September 30, 2023, and advised them not to engage in such behavior on Wikipedia. Unfortunately, they have now returned, interspersing their malicious edits between a bunch of minor and nonsensical edits that they have concocted to mask their true intentions.

I take care to ensure that my contributions are supported by the cited sources, and this kind of malicious behavior is disturbing. I no longer have the time to fix their malicious edits, as it's become evident that their intention is to vandalize the Controversies section of the article. I hereby request admin to undo his edits and block his IP range.

(tl material... if someone is terribly interested...Lourdes)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Here are just a few of their malicious edits that I was able to quickly identify. The article cited is here, https://www.livemint.com/science/health/the-dangerous-failure-to-stop-tainted-remdesivir-11640197634967.html 1. I wrote, Zydus responded by saying they had not seen similar adverse reactions to their remdesivir elsewhere—a false statement. This is clearly supported by the source, as it says Cadila responded saying they had not seen similar adverse events elsewhere—an incorrect statement. 2. I wrote, Due to the lack of follow-up data from those who received Zydus' tainted remdesivir during the chaotic period of the COVID-19 pandemic, it may never be possible to determine the total death toll resulting from the use of Zydus' tainted Remdesivir. These stories played out in states all over India. This is also clearly supported by the source, as it says: 2a. Pal and his colleagues realized that some ingredient in this batch of the popular antiviral was triggering the reaction. But it was tough to say what. It was a chaotic period, Pal recalls. Hospital beds were full, and doctors had little time to investigate further. "Managing so many covid patients was already a challenge. So, when the drug-reaction occurred, all we could do was to report it and treat it." 2b But what happened in Jhansi was just the tip of the iceberg. Unknown to Pal, in May 2021, over a dozen hospitals across Uttar Pradesh, Rajasthan, Maharashtra, Gujarat and Bihar reported patients falling similarly sick after getting remdesivir. The batches and formulations overlapped, and the manufacturer was always Cadila.

Not everyone recovered from the seemingly-tainted drug. In 69 reports of adverse events from Uttar Pradesh that Mint reviewed, doctors recorded the death of one patient. This number is likely an underestimate, because the doctors filing these reports didn't always note whether the patient recovered fully from the symptoms. Turk185 (talk) 16:53, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

Turk185 You need to assume good faith with other editors. Saying such things as "interspersing their malicious edits between a bunch of minor and nonsensical edits that they have concocted to mask their true intentions," is not going to end well. Whatever this IP is doing, it's not vandalism. JML1148 ^{(talk | contribs)} 04:11, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

@Turk185: Regarding your examples above from the Zydus Lifesciences article, I'm pretty sure the IP was justified in making some of the changes they did. The second example is definitely WP:SYNTH, you interpreted "This number is likely an underestimate," as "it may never be possible to determine the total death toll". The first example is more marginal. Maybe they were concerned that saying it was a false statement would be editorialing? It would be good to hear the other side of the story. Anyway, I don't see any evidence that the IP has been editing disruptively. JML1148 ^{(talk | contribs)} 04:25, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

@JML1148: I am grateful for constructive edits to my articles, and I thank all such contributors. But malicious and disruptive edits are disturbing. The idea of spending time writing an article only to go through a reporting process that consumes much more time than the initial article writing doesn't make sense.

more tl material...Lourdes
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I'm familiar with how Indian companies manipulate Wikipedia entries to remove criticism in the guise of legitimate edits: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adani_Group#Manipulating_Wikipedia_entries. This person's first edits in the Zydus Lifesciences page with edit summaries like "rm BS unattributed claims..." completely butchered the Controversies section without even bothering to read the cited source. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zydus_Lifesciences&diff=1177914163&oldid=1177626250. This was not a constructive or factual edit, and it showed a lack of respect for other users. I only wrote this much here because the subject is related to medicine, specifically contaminated and adulterated medicine. This problem is widespread in this region and has a great impact on the health and well-being of people worldwide because Indian medicine is exported globally. Regardless of where you buy it, generic medicine is predominantly of Indian origin. I wouldn't care every much if the topic was about shoes. When people encounter tainted medicine, it's important to ACCURATELY record the incident. These pages may NOT be very popular, but they are essential. Given the billions of US$ at stake in global medicine sales, Indian companies have strong incentives to eliminate any criticism of them. Therefore, Wikipedia may or may not be the appropriate platform for recording such historical records. Assume Good Faith is a templated answer that's easy to drop after reading a few lines and without understanding the issue. It would be nice if a senior Wikipedia editor could kindly share their thoughts on this matter. Maybe I should have provided more examples to support my case, and maybe it's necessary to read the whole cited article to understand the malicious edit #2 that I outlined earlier. All of this is time-consuming; it took me a few days to compile this. It turns out that Brandolini's law is true. This person has never taken the time to research and write an article (new content); they haven't written anything longer than a few words (Their Toxic cough syrup edit https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Toxic_cough_syrup&diff=1178044776&oldid=1177727585 was the longest. It was messed up and had to be redone, and I'm unsure whether it belongs in that page because it's not about syrup containing toxic ingredients). From their edits in Zydus Lifesciences and Toxic Cough Syrup, it's obvious that they haven't even bothered to read the cited articles before making their edits. Their contributions are limited to minor edits, where they have consistently removed well-sourced content and replaced it with nonsensical information. I have provided seven examples of malicious edits below: 1. Zydus Lifesciences: (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zydus_Lifesciences&diff=prev&oldid=1177626250). They butchered the entire edit with a nasty comment. I undid this edit and warned them. 2. Zydus Lifesciences: (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zydus_Lifesciences&diff=prev&oldid=1178272575) They deleted something that is explicitly stated in the cited source. The source says, Cadila responded saying they had not seen similar adverse events elsewhere—an incorrect statement. (see malicious edit #1 that I described earlier) 3. Zydus Lifesciences: (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zydus_Lifesciences&diff=prev&oldid=1178272151). An Ahmedabad doctor stated that "in the confusion of the pandemic, it was hard to attribute the death to either underlying covid co-morbidities or to the medicine". Their edit is not a replacement for the death toll of the contaminated Remdesivir, which they deleted with a nonsense edit summary. It is explicitly stated in the article that the death toll of Zydus' conaminated Remdesivir is an underestimate because of the lack of follow-up data from those who received the tainted medicine during the chaotic period of the COVID-19 pandemic. (see malicious edit #2 that I described earlier) 4. Zydus Lifesciences: (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zydus_Lifesciences&diff=prev&oldid=1178273531). They removed an award for Cadila Pharmaceuticals as non-notable. The award has a Wikipedia Page: Welcome Trust. A simple Google provides multiple sources for the award, like this one: https://www.apnnews.com/cadila-pharmaceuticals-secures-wellcome-trust-award/. 5. Zydus Lifesciences: (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zydus_Lifesciences&diff=prev&oldid=1178273876). You can figure out that they made a bad edit here, and their edit summary is nonsense. Their other edits on the Zydus Lifesciences' page are similarly questionable, as they seem to disregard well-established and verifiable information. 6. Toxic Cough Syrup: (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Toxic_cough_syrup&diff=1178044776&oldid=1177727585). Their entire edit was messed up, as they didn't even bother to read the articles they cited. Part of their edit wasn't even related to Toxic Cough Syrups (they talked about contaminated heart medicine). I fixed it with the help of another editor—Most people can tell that this was not a good edit. 7. ETC: (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pakistan_at_the_2022_Asian_Games&diff=prev&oldid=1177153375). Most of this edit was good: The Pakistan Sports Board (PSB) confirmed that they are sending 222 athletes and 65 officials to the event. Unfortunately, the Pakistani gymnastics and baseball teams will not be able to participate in the tournament due to lack of funds which the sports board had refused to allocate. A simple Google search provides a source for the above information: https://www.bolnews.com/sports/2023/07/222-pakistani-athletes-set-to-compete-in-asian-games-2023/, but he removed the entire edit and the information about the athletes who will not be able to participate has been lost.

Turk185 (talk) 07:06, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

• Turk185, this is a content dispute. ANI is not for content disputes. Just for your benefit, I have gone through all the edits. It seems the IP has a better editorial understanding of how articles should be written than you (or I) have. Leave them alone, is the best advise I can give you, and let good editors like them do their work without editors like us getting in their way. Thanks, Lourdes 09:31, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

  Same. I didnt check every link, but from my cursory overview I dont see anything egregious enough to be sanctionable. @Turk185 in future, if you are filing an ANI report, instead of a long story style format, give a short summary of the other persons edits and why each one is a bad edit (remember, disagreeing on content is not sanctionable, but reckless disregard for policy is). Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 09:39, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

  Their edits look good superficially. I won't dispute content, as I've wasted enough time here. I explained why I did it. Peace. Turk185 (talk) 19:20, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Daily ArbPia disruptions by user Makeandtoss

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

User:Makeandtoss keeps causing havoc across the ArbPia area, despite numerous warnings. In the past two days alone, Makeandtoss has repeatedly violated the strict 1RR at 2023 Israel-Hamas war 13:13 October 12, 13:02 October 12, 13:07 October 11, 12:16 October 11, 11:42 October 11, 01:26 October 11. To make matters worse, much of this happened after Makeandtoss had already been warned by BilledMammal about their breaches of 1RR [240]. I recognize that Makeandtoss once did a self-revert, but that doesn't excuse the numerous violations. Another user, Merlinsorca has also tried to warn Makeandtoss about their problematic editing [241]. Despite this, Makeandtoss just keeps making problematic and provocative edits across sensitive ArbPia articles. Just now, they deleted well-sourced facts about multiple killings in the Kfar Aza massacre without any attempt at consensus 18:45 12 October. In the same edits, they also replaced the well-referenced statements about the killings with an irrelevant strawman argument that "Despite contradictory statements by the Israeli military regarding the “decapitation of 40 babies,” no independent confirmation exists." The article never made that claim, so the addition (which Makeandtoss inserted several times in different parts of the articles) is just a strawman effort to deflect from the issue. As Makeandtoss keep edit-warring, despite several warnings, and keep ignoring talk pages discussions, a temporary topic-ban from ArbPia articles until the situation becomes a bit less heated would seem in place. Jeppiz (talk) 17:42, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

@Jeppiz This would be better evaluated at WP:AE. Having said that, there are so many edits to that article that it's very difficult to tell what is a revert, what has previously been reverted, etc. A certain amount of disruption is inevitable until the article stabilises. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:51, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Agreed, but every diff I posted is a revert. In their comments to Makeandtoss, BilledMammal helpfully detailed each one. The Kfar Aza massacre article is much more stable, and the edits by Makeandtoss clearly very close to outright vandalism as they replace sourced facts with pointless strawman arguments, and copy-paste the exact same line into different sections of the article (which would be poor editing even regardless of content). Jeppiz (talk) 17:55, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

I have been editing ArbPia articles for about a decade now and my adherence to Wikipedia guidelines has spared me any blocks, so I can certainly not be described as causing "havoc", especially after having spent countless hours on improving the 2023 Israel–Hamas war. That article is having a lot of editing traffic, and its impossible, as pointed out by @HJ Mitchell above, to keep an accurate track of everything .

I am obviously aware of 1RR and have largely avoided it. The edits linked above that were believed to be edit warring are in fact new formulations not reverts and are a result of new consensus forming from discussions on my talk page with @BilledMammal @Merlinsorca and on 7 discussions that I initiated on the article talk page; in all cases any misunderstandings were cleared. As soon as I realized in one single case that a revert was not in place, I self-reverted, as mentioned in the filing above.

As for the "beheading 40 babies" rumor that was portrayed in Wikipedia voice on Kfar Aza massacre, I have simply inserted (once only) what was established by reliable sources: "He had not in fact seen any images or had independent confirmation of child beheadings" Sky News and "CNN also visited the ransacked ruins of Kfar Aza on Tuesday and saw no evidence of beheaded youths." CNN. The lede is a summary of the body so naturally the change will affect both; that is good editing not "outright vandalism".

The lack of assumption of good faith and the incendiary accusations leveled against me are unpleasant to say the least. Makeandtoss (talk) 18:39, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Makeandtoss First, you did insert the same claim twice. It's evident from the edit history so no point in saying otherwise [242]. Second, if a dubious claim is made, it's fine to question it. In this case, you introduced the claim about "beheading 40 babies" into the lede. As I (and others) have made clear on the page, the article should not say there were 40 beheaded babies. But introducing a weak claim just to argue against it is the very definition of a strawman argument. What purpose does that serve. The more serious question, though, is your tendency to just press ahead with own preferred versions at very sensitive articles rather than engage in the (ongoing and active) talk page discussions to try to achieve a consensus. If you feel that that is "unpleasant", well I'm sorry you feel that way, but I don't see anything in it what I wrote that is inaccurate. Jeppiz (talk) 18:50, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

@Jeppiz: Inserting the same claim twice in the lede and in the body isn't problematic, as the lede is a summary of the body.

I have always engaged in talk page discussions. In this instance I was not aware of a talk page discussion as I was not tagged in it and it was my first edit on that article.

Yes, "havoc", "outright vandalism" and "edit warring" are unpleasant and could have been avoided by a simple tag on the article talk page (Consider first discussing the issue on the user's talk page is mentioned above); instead of the unnecessarily charged atmosphere we now find ourselves in. Actually, I just checked the talk page and it is more about my editing and the noticeboard filing, which seems to be inappropriate Wikipedia:Canvassing. I will now self-revert until consensus is formed. Makeandtoss (talk) 19:07, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

You make a valid point. I do think your edit was problematic, and should have been discussed. It was against the background of previous complaint as well that I took it here. I might very well have overreacted, apologies for that. A long day and charged atmosphere, but you are right that a more low-key approach from me would have been better. I have struck my suggestion for a topic ban, and recommend that this thread be closed. Apologies again for the over-reaction. Jeppiz (talk) 19:20, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

IP threatening to dox editors after being ranged blocked

2604:3D09:1585:7300:643B:77:61A2:3605 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user created an attack page on the founder of Wikipedia, which was deleted as an attack page, then creates another page attacking editors (even though the IP is rangedblocked) for deleting the page and then threatens to dox editors. 24.211.70.219 (talk) 18:43, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

IP has been range blocked for 31 hours. It's your run of the mill vandalism to be honest, and better suited for WP:AIV. RickinBaltimore (talk) 18:48, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

The IP range got blocked for 3 months after I reported it the individual IP to the AIV, and then the IP creates the page attacking editors for deleting the initial page. I am reporting it to the ANI due to said IP not having been blocked from editing their talk page yet. 24.211.70.219 (talk) 18:54, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Ignore it. It's some schoolkid. It's not someone who will "Dox you and hack this website". Canterbury Tail talk 20:47, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

IP rangeblock

Posting here as it's a bit complicated for AIV. This IP user has been making unconstructive edits to locomotive articles. They've been blocked on 221.153.58.187 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), 2001:2D8:E53B:73BF:0:0:182:C8EA (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), and 2001:2D8:E533:FC2E:0:0:2E6:C8EA (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Unfortunately, they seem to be on a dynamic IP and have continuing making these disruptive edits. I'm not sure which of the following ranges are best to minimize collateral damage. They've been active on both the /38 and /44 ranges today.

Extended content

Sorted 12 IPv6 addresses: 2001:2d8:e530:3b05::1c6:8ea 2001:2d8:e533:fc2e::2e6:c8ea 2001:2d8:e53b:1ead::16:88ea 2001:2d8:e53b:73bf::182:c8ea 2001:2d8:e713:408a::2a:8ea 2001:2d8:e713:6c74::cb:88ea 2001:2d8:e715:bf3::11d:8ea 2001:2d8:ef11:c47d::113:48ea 2001:2d8:ef1b:7529::b4:88ea 2001:2d8:ef1d:c099::49f:8ea 2001:2d8:ef1d:fa2e::b7:88ea 2001:2d8:ef1f:a134::42e:48ea Total affected Affected addresses Given addresses Range Contribs 256M /64 256M /64 12 2001:2d8:e000::/36 contribs 65M /64 64M /64 7 2001:2d8:e400::/38 contribs 1M /64 5 2001:2d8:ef10::/44 contribs 2M /64 1M /64 4 2001:2d8:e530::/44 contribs 512K /64 3 2001:2d8:e710::/45 contribs 1 /64 1 2001:2d8:ef11:c47d::/64 contribs 512K /64 4 2001:2d8:ef18::/45 contribs 560K /64 256K /64 2 2001:2d8:e530::/46 contribs 32768 /64 2 2001:2d8:e53b::/49 contribs 16384 /64 2 2001:2d8:e713:4000::/50 contribs 1 /64 1 2001:2d8:e715:bf3::/64 contribs 1 /64 1 2001:2d8:ef11:c47d::/64 contribs 1 /64 1 2001:2d8:ef1b:7529::/64 contribs 256K /64 3 2001:2d8:ef1c::/46 contribs 16K /64 1 /64 1 2001:2d8:e530:3b05::/64 contribs 1 /64 1 2001:2d8:e533:fc2e::/64 contribs 1 /64 1 2001:2d8:e53b:1ead::/64 contribs 1 /64 1 2001:2d8:e53b:73bf::/64 contribs 1 /64 1 2001:2d8:e713:408a::/64 contribs 1 /64 1 2001:2d8:e713:6c74::/64 contribs 1 /64 1 2001:2d8:e715:bf3::/64 contribs 1 /64 1 2001:2d8:ef11:c47d::/64 contribs 1 /64 1 2001:2d8:ef1b:7529::/64 contribs 16384 /64 2 2001:2d8:ef1d:c000::/50 contribs 1 /64 1 2001:2d8:ef1f:a134::/64 contribs 12 /64 1 /64 1 2001:2d8:e530:3b05::/64 contribs 1 /64 1 2001:2d8:e533:fc2e::/64 contribs 1 /64 1 2001:2d8:e53b:1ead::/64 contribs 1 /64 1 2001:2d8:e53b:73bf::/64 contribs 1 /64 1 2001:2d8:e713:408a::/64 contribs 1 /64 1 2001:2d8:e713:6c74::/64 contribs 1 /64 1 2001:2d8:e715:bf3::/64 contribs 1 /64 1 2001:2d8:ef11:c47d::/64 contribs 1 /64 1 2001:2d8:ef1b:7529::/64 contribs 1 /64 1 2001:2d8:ef1d:c099::/64 contribs 1 /64 1 2001:2d8:ef1d:fa2e::/64 contribs 1 /64 1 2001:2d8:ef1f:a134::/64 contribs

Courtesy ping @Daniel Case, Materialscientist, and ToBeFree: as previous blocking admins. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 18:22, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

I present exhibit A for the jury. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:06, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Nick Numbers and BITING the newbies.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Sadly, Nick Number has been Biting the newbies, like at this diff. Please do something about this. INeedOGVector (talk) 22:30, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

@INeedOGVector Any reason why you've made no other talk page edits to Nick Number's talk page than the required ANI notice? ANI is a last resort; conversing with the user about what exactly has been problematic with his behaviour is always preferable to opening a filing here. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). 22:35, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

COI editor Arbomhard

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

First, I’d just like to put my own potential COI in this as someone who nominated the article in question for a recent failed AfD and who has been trying to work with the wider Linguistics Wikiproject to make the status of this fringe theory clearer as a fringe theory, which did result in me removing most references to Bomhard's work from the Nostratic article (this was potentially heavy handed, but the sources given were clearly WP:PROFRINGE). As a result of that AfD, multiple editors worked on changing the long-static article to improve it so it didn't have the issues that got it AfD'd in the first place.

With regards to Nostratic, I’ve been trying to work with the larger wikiproject and building a consensus and I'm not the only editor working on this, and I don’t want to give the impression I was trying to Right Great Wrongs. To be clear, since this is an esoteric topic: Nostratic is a fringe theory and the subject of the article in question is one of the primary advocates of that fringe theory. That doesn't mean it hasn't seen real attention in academic press, just that it's viewed as a fringe theory regardless of that. If this is a difficult issue in particular to ascertain, I encourage any admin to go ahead and ask about its status on the Linguistics wikiproject.

I’ve been going back and forth with user Arbomhard for a while now who was attempting to unilaterally change an article which they readily self-identify as about themselves to remove anything negative. I’ve tried engaging with them but they’ve been blanking comments, engaging in personal attacks, accusing a few editors of having an agenda, and attempting to exert ownership of both the Allan R. Bomhard and Nostratic articles. I've tried maintaining civility throughout and asked for sources so I could help them work on the article.

I’ve also been trying to engage with them on both talk pages and a dispute noticeboard (where they reiterated their demand of “restore the article” and ignored multiple requests for citations until today, when they generally provided one in a reply that contained:

Sorry, Warren, I do not mean to be rude, but you do not appear to have the requisite academic or professional credentials to be making the edits to this and several other Wikipedia articles. If I am mistaken here, please provide proof to the contrary. Being an outsider, you do not have a clear understanding of the dynamics involved. Again, you are trying to throw up meaningless procedural roadblocks instead of approaching the matter objectively and cooperatively. The current version is both incomplete and contains errors. I am probably one of the few people in the world who is qualified to make this statement.

To be fair to Arbomhard, once their initial edits of a criticism-free un-cited article were reverted they engaged slightly more on the talk page and didn’t edit the articles further, and used the talk page to request their preferred version be restored, but the blanking of my own comments and a glance through their edit history reveals that almost all their edits on Wikipedia, ever, are to add their own research content to Wikipedia, typically from WP:PROFRINGE sources. I think this is a pretty cut and dry example of WP:NOTHERE and WP:ADVOCACY, and given their edit history I think there’s going to need to be fairly consistent vigilance from linguist Wikipedians to avoid WP:PROFRINGE material percolating back into the articles if they continue to edit. This is a particular concern given their leapfrog into a BLP dispute noticeboard post (yay!) which wholly ignored the good faith efforts of myself and another editor (and administrator, David Eppstein) to explain exactly what was going on (less yay) and reitterated demands for a criticism- and citation-free version of the article.

Apologies for the lack of brevity, this one felt like it took a bit of explaining. Warrenmck (talk) 19:52, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

A dispute was originally filed at DRN. I advised that it be moved to BLPN, and advised User:Warrenmck to wait to file a case here and see if the content dispute at BLPN would resolve the matter. One editor took my advice, and one didn't; that is typical. I agree that User:Arbomhard has insulted Warrenmck.

Are User:Warrenmck and User:Arbomhard willing to resolve the content dispute at BLPN first and hold off on this conduct matter? Our objective should be to improve the encyclopedia including the article on Allan R. Bomhard. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:46, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

I opted out of BLPN following the reply that got posted at Nostratic, and my issue isn’t specifically the content dispute, rather the behaviour underpinning it. I’ve not responded there, and my understanding was that this isn’t inappropriate, just perhaps not the best possible solution under normal circumstances (which clearly I don’t think these are). If I’m wrong about that, apologies, but I don’t see how a second dispute page repeating the exact same thing after editors have explained we need citations for weeks was anything other than an abuse of process at this point to attempt to exert ownership over the article, as highlighted by the abject refusal to engage but a perfect willingness to open a dispute (which would require that engagement). I genuinely believe the editor in question is not here to build an encyclopedia, and while I think it’s possible some good could come from the content dispute I’ve been just swallowing a lot of incivility in the name of trying to positively engage in good faith which I don’t see will ever be forthcoming from Arbomhard. Their literal entire edit history is adding their own content to fringe articles, and they’ve been asked for days to cite anything and have simply scattered “restore the original version” across, by my count, five pages now without substantively engaging anyone who has been trying to help.

if you genuinely believe it’s in the best interest of Wikipedia for this to be tabled until after, I’ll accept that. But this is why I responded to the first DRN post with “I’ve had an ANI ready to go about this situation” and only posted it when personal attacks were doubled down on after that DRN discussion and the reposted dispute to BLPN made it clear Arbomhard was not actually going to engage either civilly or in good faith. Warrenmck (talk) 21:05, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Since the locus of the behavioral issues involves Nostratic languages, its talk page, and related articles, and not just the BLP Allan R. Bomhard, I think discussion here is not redundant with the BLPN discussion and should continue. (My own position is that I am supportive of independent scholarship but not supportive of fringe-pushing nor of editors whose primary purpose is self-promotion, all of which are in evidence here.) —David Eppstein (talk) 23:42, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

I would just like to draw attention to the fact that @Arbomhard is responding to this ANI at the talk page for Nostratic Languages. Warrenmck (talk) 12:01, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

The comments don't appear to be a direct response to this ANI. That said, they also seem to be content-free complaints about Warrenmck, rather than actually explaining whatever problem they have with specific edits to the article. Arbomhard is leaning hard on claiming Warrenmck is not an "expert," which makes me wonder if Armobhard might be in a WP:EXPERT conflict. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:33, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

The comments don't appear to be a direct response to this ANI.

I could have misread

You have also quoted out of context.

but the discussion that was under was only ever quoted by me here, other than that I never quoted it. Did I misread a post-ANI comment about a thread a week ago? Sincere question, I don't want to accidentally be creating drama out of the ether here if I misread something.

Arbomhard is leaning hard on claiming Warrenmck is not an "expert," which makes me wonder if Armobhard might be in a WP:EXPERT conflict.

I've genuinely tried avoiding this specific discussion with him, which is why I haven't responded to it at any point. I don't want to get into a discussion of credentials on Wikipedia. Let me just leave it at "I generally disagree with his statements on this" and that I've been working carefully to build consensus where possible and cite my claims carefully instead. I think it's perhaps a bit risky to consider a page about a fringe theory a WP:EXPERT conflict, however. At least when considering the full context. Warrenmck (talk) 20:46, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Unfortunately, discussion at Talk:Allan R. Bomhard seems to be going downhill. The fact that Arbomhard goes back and forth between using their account and (apparently) using various IPs makes things a bit confusing (here the IP wisely removes a poorly-thought-out attack posted by the account, but less egregious attacks and IDHT behavior are continuing). 57.140.16.56 (talk) 18:53, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I am close to giving up on getting a useful response from Arbomhard there. What I would like: published sources for additional biographical details and an acknowledgement that published criticism of his work is legitimate content for an article largely centered on his work. What I am getting instead: walls of text and unusable links, offers to send primary documents privately but not to make them public, pointers to self-authored potted biographies in his works that appear to be carefully phrased to imply more than is actually the case (that is, not credible as self-published sources), and demands that all of the material on his work be moved to our articles on Nostratic (where it is fringe content and overdetailed). —David Eppstein (talk) 01:42, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

David: i use a software package (VPN) called Private Internet access that randomizes my IP addresses. Allan Arbomhard (talk) 19:30, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Proposal 1: Three-Part Caution

I have read the discourse on the article talk page and the other discussions, and think that a caution to User:Arbomhard is in order for several interrelated reasons:

• 1. Arbomhard is being rude and overbearing in asserting his own expert status on the subject of Nostratic languages against User:Warrenmck.
• 2. While Arbomhard is an expert on Nostratic languages, mainstream historical linguistics considers the Nostratic hypothesis to be a fringe theory that should be described in detail in Wikipedia as a fringe theory.
• 3. Arbomhard, like any active academic, has a conflict of interest in promoting his own scholarship and hypotheses.

For these reasons, User:Arbomhard should be formally cautioned.

• Support as proposer. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:01, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

I think it's worth pointing out that the behaviour that caused this ANI has been ongoing since the ANI was opened, even with me intentionally not engaging with any of the talk page drama. At the slight risk of WP:BLUDGEON, I'm not sure how a formal caution helps when this is clearly a single purpose self promotion account that refuses to engage in good faith and opens multiple noticeboard posts over a specific issue while refusing to engage with anyone. Right now his presence in various talk pages has wholly derailed the good faith attempts to clean up those articles and he's so avoidant of engaging in good faith that we can't actually make any progress, even when we're trying to work with him. It's very clear that @Arbomhard is attempting to skip consensus to get his preferred version of the article, and his preferred version is very weasel-y, with his insistence on certain statements about his status as a linguist or academic while refusing to provide sources for the meaning of that status (i.e., "retired linguist" or listing where his degrees were obtained but not what qualifications were obtained, something he has explicitly stated he won't provide information for in a verifiable way while still wanting mentioned). I think he's attempting to use Wikipedia to sanitize his own academic reputation as well of that of his theory, rather than anything even resembling building an encyclopedia. Warrenmck (talk) 19:33, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for the diffs, User:Warrenmck. User:Arbomhard - Editing your biography while logged out appears to be trying to conceal your conflict of interest. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:42, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

I'd say that escalates things into deserving a pageblock from his article, and potentially from Nostratic languages. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:21, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

I agree with User:HandThatFeeds, but it is probably also necessary to semi-protect the pages in question against logged-out edits. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:03, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

I'd actually suggest against that. If Arbomhard is pageblocked, then edits while logged out, that's effectively socking around a block & can result in a siteblock. Then semi-protection can be added to prevent further abuse. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 13:32, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

That seems reasonable. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:04, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

• Support P-block per THTFY. A caution might suffice if there was a single issue, but a cocktail of COI, LOUT and BLUDGEON demands something further. Basically, continuing the behaviour that takes one to ANI while one is at ANI demonstrates either incredibly poor judgment or a complete disregard for community behavioral expectations. Serial 18:10, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
• Support P-block per Serial and Warren - I agree that the only purpose of the account has been promotional, while their disruptive behaviour has been continious. Though Arbomhards apology is respected, I'm having a hard time seeing how a page block wouldn't be needed here. NotAGenious (talk) 13:29, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
• I am inclined to close this discussion as passing the proposed caution, but have first sought input from the editors at WP:FRINGEN who have dealt with this subject within the past few months. BD2412 T 17:58, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

  It doesn't look like the proposed caution has as much support following continued poor behaviour post-ANI? Again, I'm cautious of trying to avoid bludgeoning the process but given a single purpose account openly refusing to engage in good faith I'm not sure what the caution would achieve; Arbomhard's continued presence in those articles is providing very little of substance and is massively derailing efforts to improve them. While I understand the need to tread lightly when the subject of a BLP is involved, the behaviour in question seems systematic, egregious, and unchanging. They never even engaged with this ANI, though continued to engage in casting aspersions and personal attacks since it was posted. If it was a normal editor who had a stick in their craw about a very specific issue it'd seem sensible to me, but this account has one purpose and one purpose only as far as I and the other editor engaging him can tell at this point, which is to promote himself, his theory, and particularly himself as it pertains to that theory. (Also, you may have better luck seeking input from the Linguistics wikiproject, this one is a very niche topic and didn't get much traction at FTN when I brought it up there) Warrenmck (talk) 21:28, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Let me begin by offering sincerest apologies to Warren and David. I tend to call things as I see them -- not to be abrasive but to be as straightforward as possible. It was not my intention to be rude or disrespectful to either of you. However, it is and has been my on-going intention to express displeasure about the changes that had been made to my Wikipedia biographical entry and to press, as strongly as possible, for the restoration of an earlier version. That was the only Wikipedia entry I actually tried to edit, not the entry on Nostratic, though I did express my opinion on that entry. Trying to edit my own biographical entry was, indeed, a COI, but, in my own defense, I did not realize that I was violating Wikipedia policy at the time. I now know the rules a little better, and I should not have tried to edit the entry myself. And, yes, of course, I have a vested interest in seeing that both me and my work are portrayed fairly and accurately. That has been and remains my sole agenda. Thank you, at least, for allowing me to present my case. Allan R. Bomhard.— Preceding Arbomhard (talk) 04:43, 11 October 2023 (UTC)unsigned comment added by Arbomhard (talk • contribs) Arbomhard (talk) 16:02, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

• Considering the above response, I believe we can call the subject of this discussion appropriately admonished. As they appear to have recognized this, and the COI issues, this can now be closed. BD2412 T 19:09, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Category:Indian inventions

Someone has for several months been adding this category to hundreds of articles, mostly as an IP:

• July: Special:Contributions/111.88.219.166, Special:Contributions/111.88.208.184, Special:Contributions/111.88.214.99, Special:Contributions/111.88.212.149
• August: Special:Contributions/111.88.215.48
• September: Special:Contributions/Kazme1, Special:Contributions/111.88.221.239, Special:Contributions/111.88.220.8
• Yesterday: Special:Contributions/111.88.214.130

(Not at all guaranteed comprehensive.) Occasionally some of these have been blocked (e.g. Special:Contributions/111.88.215.27 by Materialscientist) but it doesn't seem to have discouraged the activity. Is there any hope of a more effective solution? --JBL (talk) 22:01, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Some more that I missed above: Special:Contributions/111.88.213.103 and Special:Contributions/111.88.216.26 in July/August. --JBL (talk) 22:15, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Does anybody else remember the comedy set, shown on TV, where a male standup comedian of Indian extraction talks about the way his dad is always insisting any invention, or anything useful at all from the last 5000 years, that comes up in conversation, is an Indian invention? It was pretty funny, but I don't remember who the comedian was. Maybe it's his dad adding the category all over the place. (Careful of outing, Bishonen!) Bishonen | tålk 11:07, 13 October 2023 (UTC).

Mr "Everything Comes From India" in Goodness Gracious Me, played by Sanjeev Bhaskar? Narky Blert (talk) 13:36, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Goodness Gracious Me was a great show. I still love the Going Out for an English sketch. Canterbury Tail talk 14:03, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes, it was. I thought what I saw was something newer, though. Perhaps it's a bit of a meme. Bishonen | tålk 16:33, 13 October 2023 (UTC).

PS: All the IPs mentioned fall in the range 111.88.208.0/20, a smallish range from which I don't see any useful contributions. Ingenuity blocked the range for a month on 4 August, and I have now reblocked it for three months. Bishonen | tålk 11:33, 13 October 2023 (UTC).

Thank you! --JBL (talk) 21:19, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Legal threats by Vicentemovil

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

@Vicentemovil: made the following legal threat in this edit:

You cannot dismiss any historian who refutes the black legend by labeling it as extreme right-wing Spanish nationalist (fascist). Be careful because these libels may be the subject of a criminal complaint.

I had never used the words "extreme" or "fascist", btw, only "right-wing Spanish nationalist".

Boynamedsue (talk) 20:35, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

• Indeffed.

Star Mississippi 21:14, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Belteshazzar

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• 138.219.250.5 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) is an obvious sockpuppet of WP:LTA/BTSZ. I did a SPI report at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Belteshazzar but it hasn't been picked up yet and he is popping back every few hours to try his luck again. Would anybody be so kind as to put an end to his reign of terror mild annoyance? Thanks. DanielRigal (talk) 00:28, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

  Blocked, and the SPI closed. Thanks for reporting. You can ping me in future SPI reports, if you'd like. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 00:59, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Korean dinosaur IP back again

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

As discussed here back in 2021 Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1075#Korean_dinosaur_IP there is a range-hopping IP user from South Korea who since 2019 persistently makes unsourced changes to the taxoboxes of animal articles, typically dinosaurs, without ever explaining themselves, and edit wars when people object and revert them. In the 2021 discussion, it was agreed to block their addresses for 6 months. The most recent address I can find, from June this year 2001:2D8:6905:8572:5B0C:4670:4ABD:9C84 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), was blocked for six months by JBW. I've reported the current IP 2001:2D8:F0AA:C3F:0:0:99B0:5060 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) at AIV, but I've not gotten a response. Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:47, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Notice given (for what that's worth) [243]. Hemiauchenia (talk) 02:03, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Inexperienced(?) single-purpose redirect account User:Alpha200807

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

User has been creating or altering a large number of redirects; some have been useful, a large number have been pointless contrivances, and many have been actively harmful.

They've already been warned about this repeatedly on their talk page, but it hasn't stopped them.

I've reversed some, but with redirect-moving edits like this- which were made without discussion- it's not so simple for a non-admin like myself to do so.

Another example; I just noticed that in response to this reversion of pointless bloat, they converted that dab page to a redirect then opened an entry on Redirects for Discussion(?!)). (That change was subsequently reverted by another user).

Virtually everything this user has done since they started editing in August has been redirect-related. Either this is a single purpose alt account, or- as I suspect- they've jumped straight in without having any significant experience of editing WP or how it works.

I think it's clear at this point that they're causing more problems than they're solving.

Ubcule (talk) 12:04, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

• Indefinitely blocked. The number of warnings on their Talk page (without responses from the user) is staggering. The user is a time sink and detriment to the project.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:11, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

@Bbb23: Thank you! Yes, that's pretty much how I felt- any useful edits they were making were far outweighed by the work required to deal with their nonsense, and they were lucky not to have been banned already.

Thanks again, Ubcule (talk) 13:26, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

I've deleted most of the user's redirects. Nine are left which may be useful. Cabayi (talk) 11:13, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Disinformation in the 2023 Israel–Hamas war

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Can this be ECP'd promptly. It's the target of massive ongoing vandalism. Thanks. Hemiauchenia (talk) 15:26, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

I see only one user vandalizing the article, and I've blocked them.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:30, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Sure, and thanks for blocking them, but per Arbitration enforcement guidelines, they shouldnt've been able to edit it in the first place, as the contentious topics restriction requires all Israel-Palestine conflict articles to be ECP'd. Hemiauchenia (talk) 15:33, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

I have ECP'd the article. Black Kite (talk) 15:41, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Persistent vandalism at Leonard Hofstadter

For the last few weeks, from a single IP range in Dayton, Ohio. Preadolescent homophobia and antisemitism. Requesting either a range block or page protection. Thanks, 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 02:20, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

I protected the article for six months and blocked the IP range mentioning BLP in the protection summary but later saw that the article concerns a fictional character. I'm not going to worry about that because such a persistent interest often needs a long absence to break the habit. Johnuniq (talk) 03:16, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. Cheers, 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 03:27, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

GENDERID issue

Democfest (talk · contribs) edited the Junlper article to use masculine pronouns (as Junlper is a transgender woman, this is against MOS:GENDERID) for and slur the subject of the article. CJ-Moki (talk) 23:01, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

And you reverted it. What is the administrator issue here? 331dot (talk) 23:04, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

@331dot: Democfest included a derogatory term for transgender people which I'd argue is a massive WP:BLP violation. If they didn't have more than 3 years of editing experience, this would normally be a solid report for WP:AIV. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 23:08, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

MOS:GENDERID is a manual of style; It doesn't dictate any policies or guidelines. _→AzaToth 23:18, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Not using slurs to refer to BLP subjects is pretty solid policy. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:21, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

That's beside the point. MOS:GENDERID shouldn't be used as a WP:BLP argument; It should only address manual of style. _→AzaToth 23:29, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Deliberate misgendering is BLPvio. That has very strong community consensus. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:32, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

@331dot and AzaToth: GENDERID isn't mandatory since, as part of the MOS, it's a guideline and not a policy. I know! That said, are we sure it's not mandatory? I could be wrong but I think that if someone makes an edit that isn't in compliance with GENDERID, the only way it won't also be a BLP violation is if it's about someone who's no longer living. User:CJ-Moki correctly reported that an edit about a living person was against GENDERID. Would you two have blocked had they cited BLP instead? CityOfSilver 19:22, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Do you not see the administrator issue involved in calling a BLP subject slurs in their article? Googleguy007 (talk) 18:30, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Looking at their timecard, and their recent editing times, this seems like an unusual time for them to edit. Any possibility of account compromise here? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:20, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

probably not so; user has received two previous blocks for WP:AE followed by one for personal attacks. I'd probably believe that this is them. —darling (talk) 23:24, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

slightly less recent editing times (September) also seem to include rather late editing times around that edit. —darling (talk) 23:25, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

also see this diff. —darling (talk) 23:32, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Looks like Patar knight has taken care of this for now. Izno (talk) 23:38, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

I blocked from the article history after I saw the post on the talk page by an IP on my watchlist (hence the manual block template on the user talk page). Inserting slurs into a BLP article is unacceptable, and paired with the less serious violations of MOS:GENDERID seemed to indicate deliberateness and malice, so I blocked at first instance. Any other admin should feel free to unblock if there's evidence that this was a compromised account that has been re-secured, upon a sufficient unblock request, or if there is consensus here against the block for whatever reason. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 23:42, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Can I just say that people dismissing adding attacks and misgendering to a BLP is kind of a problem, to the point of WP:Competence is required issues. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.5% of all FPs.} 23:45, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, I was wondering that myself. Did they even look at the diff in question? Oh well, it's irrelevant now. Black Kite (talk) 18:00, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

To be fair, the edit was revdel'd. I saw it, but a lot of people commenting after me who aren't admins wouldn't know what it said specifically (though that isn't an excuse for ignoring my comment where I explicitly stated there was a slur there). –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 06:27, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Not only did I revdel it because of the slur at 23:10 UTC, which is before everything but MJL's first comment here, I think the grammatical mistake in the initial post may have misled the first repliers. Taking out the parenthetical about JUNlPER being trans/MOS:GENDERID, the verb phase of the sentence is: "...edited the Junlper article to use masculine pronouns...for and slur the subject of the article. That could easily be interpreted as saying that the misgendering itself was meant to slur the subject and not that the editor had inserted a slur independent of the misgendering. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 12:11, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

That's a plausible explanation for 331dot, but not AzaToth, who was replying to a comment that said explicitly that Democfest included a derogatory term for transgender people. It even linked the specific term.

I also agree that this is pretty egregious and a WP:Competence is required issue. Loki (talk) 07:16, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Name disruption

Uzzwalkhanal (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) has been conducting mass name changes on several Nepalese articles (ex:[244]), redirecting substantial articles ([245], [246] and [247]) and has created duplications of these articles to match their spelling, all without any attempt at discussion. Their talk page is full of warnings from various users about this, yet they refuse to listen. I feel as though a block may be needed. 47.227.95.73 (talk) 12:30, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Given this diff, where the user basically states that they will edit war to get their way no matter what, this user needs an indef NOTHERE block. 47.227.95.73 (talk) 13:36, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

I do think a block is necessary, but maybe doesn't need to be indef. The edits seem good faith, if confrontational for their POV. OwainDavies ^(about)_(talk) edited at 13:39, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

• (Non-administrator comment): Evidence of @Uzzwalkhanal edit warring, currently at their 5th revert just within the past day at Nepalese rupee (link to page history). Discussion and consensus is needed for what they want changed. Fork99 (talk) 13:53, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

  Indefinitely blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:40, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Disruptive IP user

103.137.210.169 – clearly not here to build an encyclopedia, all edits are clear vandalism. User has been warned but has removed warning from user talk page. –GnocchiFan (talk) 13:20, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

• GnocchiFan, this is just a troll. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 15:12, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Deceased admin?

See [248]. tgeorgescu (talk) 18:47, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

The reports of my death have been greatly exaggerated. RickinBaltimore (talk) 18:51, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Thankfully so. --ARoseWolf 18:57, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

I don't think I could handle another one right now. BD2412 T 19:06, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

I think we all know who has the mental health issues, and it is not RickinBaltimore. Cullen328 (talk) 20:07, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

My friends would argue that. Seriously, it's an IP troll that's does this sort of thing from time to time. Unless, I'm writing this as a zombie... RickinBaltimore (talk) 20:13, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Well I guess that's your Halloween costume sorted then!-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:06, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

"This Wikipedian is undead." Narky Blert (talk) 00:52, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

@Narky Blert Have a quick and dirty userbox to celebrate. Feel free to create your own fork with much better programming than I am at these userboxen. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). 01:04, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

@TheDragonFire300: If you would like to try your hand at another - possibly more practical, and certainly usable by RickinBaltimore - the obvious "Reports of this Wikipedian's death have been greatly exaggerated". Narky Blert (talk) 01:28, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

@Narky Blert Here you go. I'm not really sure what image would work here; the usual candle pic would probably be too easily confused with an actual "This Wikipedian is deceased" userbox, but it'll do as a placeholder for now. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). 01:51, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

TheDragonFire300, surely a pic of Mark Twain ~ it's a misquote, i believe, but that is the source of the phrase. Happy days, ~ Lindsay^Hello 14:26, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

@LindsayH Good catch (and says a lot of how much I know of historical figures); I've added it, keeping the candle pic to set up the punchline. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). 23:28, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

I thought RickinBaltimore died in prison? Dronebogus (talk) 16:05, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

User:JAhf Reach Cabah – refspam-only account

JAhf Reach Cabah (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) is a refspam-only account, interested only in promoting their music. Five career edits. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 09:25, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

@Mathglot: For what it's worth, I tagged their userpage for speedy deletion under WP:G11, and it appears that it was deleted by User:Deepfriedokra as I was leaving the message informing them of this. JeffSpaceman (talk) 11:52, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

UPDATE: User has been blocked by User:Deepfriedokra. JeffSpaceman (talk) 11:54, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Not just refspam. Self promotion only account and blocked as such. Such can be reported at WP:SPI WP:AIV-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 11:56, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Thanks all; I think I'd heard about AIV before, but forgot. Thanks for the quick action, and the reminder. Mathglot (talk) 17:28, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Death editor2 and edit warring under WP:ARBPIA

Death Editor 2 seems to make it a daily habit to pass by Kfar Aza massacre to remove the same well-sourced content. For three days in a row, Death Editor 2 has removed references to decapitation from the infobox despite this being well sourced in the article 19:39 12 October, 06:04 13 October, 21:31 14 October. The edit yesterday was already a flagrant violation of the 1RR in place. Continuing the same edit warring (also close to vandalism as the content is well sourced) seems purely disruptive. Jeppiz (talk) 19:44, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

I had warned the user after their first round of removal [249]. Jeppiz (talk) 20:43, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

The article itself mentions that the beheadings of babies cannot be independently verified, so it does not make sense for it to be stated like a matter of fact. Death Editor 2 (talk) 21:10, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

I've pblocked DE2 from the article for a week. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:16, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

User Onesgje9g334

Onesgje9g334 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) had 390 one or two character edits to a draft on July 12 in apparent attempt to game autoconfirmed status and is now editing a CTOP article. O3000, Ret. (talk) 18:19, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

They have gamed the system clearly. Interestingly though, they are participating on talk pages, seeking consensus (at least on the surface it seems to be collaborative). Let us know if there are any diffs that are particularly egregious. Thank you, Lourdes 08:42, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Unconstructive edits

@Mr Tulva had been making unconstructive edits. Two notifications were given by @Pickersgill-Cunliffe. Unconstructive edits in the following articles:

• Tulu Nadu
• Tulu Nadu state movement
• Tulu language

After the notifications, the user made such edits. It needs to be undone. Pagers (talk) 09:39, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

• All edits rolled back (completely unconstructive, bordering on vandalism) and given this I have indeffed them as WP:NOTHERE. Black Kite (talk) 12:11, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

  Thank you Pagers (talk) 13:08, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Reporting User:SPECIFICO relating to ARBPIA

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

User:SPECIFICO notified

I opened a Request for Comment on the talk page of the 2023 Israel-Hamas war, which was immediately removed by user SPECIFICO, falsely claiming that I did not make an effort to discuss the issue first on the article talk page. Then when confronted about this unjustified removal on his talk page, user then proceeded to remove and archive my message without responding.

Over a decade of editing in Wikipedia, I have never seen such counterconstructive, disrespectful and disruptive behavior, which is borderline vandalism, to be taken very seriously especially in articles relating to WP:ARBPIA. A look at user's block log reveals numerous topic bans; a lengthy one would seem very appropriate in this situation. Makeandtoss (talk) 14:10, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

In what world does an involved editor think they have the right to wipe away an RFC? nableezy - 14:13, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Seems to be in a world where the objection message to the removal of an RFC was also removed and ignored without response! Makeandtoss (talk) 14:14, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Ill also say that the importing of the RGW editing style of AP2 editors in to a heated ARBPIA article that otherwise seems to be fairly collegially edited has been between mildly annoying and blatantly disruptive. Things like IDHT and ignoring sources that are inconvenient with incoherent Wikipedia jargon pretending to be a sentence (eg "adjudications or factual conclusions with demonstrable mainstream consensus") is one of things that Id put closer to the blatantly disruptive end of the spectrum. nableezy - 14:18, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Also, I restored the RFC, and if SPECIFICO is of the opinion that she is the arbiter of who may participate and how on talk page then I invite them her to justify that here. nableezy - 14:34, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Either you or OP could simply have restored it at any time instead of using it as a spear here and on my talk page for your annoyance at my meagre efforts toward NPOV content and talk page discussion. Sorry to have reverted some of your edits yesterday. It happens to the best of us. SPECIFICO talk 14:45, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Your apology is insincere and therefore I do not accept it. You didn’t revert edits, you removed my talk page discussion section, which is outright vandalism, and then you did it again. There was no use in restoring and edit warring, and that’s why we are here. Makeandtoss (talk) 14:58, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Apology? I did not apologize. I addressed a different editor who may be aggrieved at having had an edit reverted, not to you. Your statement then you did it again. is false. SPECIFICO talk 15:06, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Great so you’ve ignored again. I’ll be leaving this to the admins to handle, nothing more to say. Makeandtoss (talk) 15:35, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

RGW in spades lol, Im not aggrieved and this is not a player vs player thing. Id like you to not waste so much time with incoherent nonsense and editing based on personal opinion rather than reliable sources, but its not really more than an annoyance right now anyway. It would be great if you were able to argue your position with sources rather than attempting to shut down discussions you are worried will not go your way. nableezy - 15:09, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

OK, point taken. You are annoyed but not aggrieved. For this, I apologize. SPECIFICO talk 16:28, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

@Makeandtoss: Could you explain this recent edit of yoursto the top of the article lead? Why does your edit summary state that there is no source to verify that Hamas is the governing authority of Gaza? Is this what you really believe, that there is no source? [250] SPECIFICO talk 15:14, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

@Makeandtoss: What is the RS that supports the article text you added in this diff to state that Israel "targeted civilians". You deleted text that described collateral civilian deaths. Please respond to these two requests. SPECIFICO talk 15:58, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

The SPECIFICO special, start trying to throw a pile of shit against the wall whenever somebody calls out your editing. Still waiting to see an explanation on why you removed an RFC that had multiple responses to it already. nableezy - 16:03, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

As you may not be aware, OP narrowly avoided sanctions in a complaint so recent that it hasn't even been archived from this page, in this section. I am giving OP a chance to explain themselves before considering whether to propose a boomerang here. SPECIFICO talk 16:12, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

I think that's more than enough back and forth between you two, @SPECIFICO and @Nableezy. Treat this like AE and address your comments to uninvolved admins. If you continue bickering amongst yourselves, there will be sanctions. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:44, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

HJ, Noted. I wouldn't even elevate it to the level of "bickering", but anyway my stated concern was with OP, whose history in this area needs to be examined. I will start a section below to remove the distraction of banter between me and nableezy. SPECIFICO talk 19:00, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Keep in mind that the talk page in question is an out of control disaster area replete with Godwin's law analogies. Well over 100 edits were oversighted last night and few editors even noticed. O3000, Ret. (talk) 15:12, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

I saw that ( Selfstudier (talk) 18:26, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

• I disagree with SPECIFICO's removal and think Makeandtoss's RfC was perfectly relevant, but I don't really think this rises to the level of needing action. Overall, I'd be very careful to remove RfCs that are not pointy or disruptive. This one was neither. Jeppiz (talk) 18:57, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
• The more I look at this, the more neither party comes out smelling of roses. Wiping away an RfC is not great, doing it again over the objection of another editor is disruptive and getting towards tendentious editing. The same goes for removing sourced or easily sourcable information with disingenuous edit summaries. Both have been playing the game long enough to know the rules. I feel sanctions are in order for both, but I'm torn between short blocks from the article (and its talk page) or longer-term topic bans. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:09, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

  HJ, what makes you think I "did it again?" SPECIFICO talk 19:25, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

  My apologies, SPECIFICO. I misread the sequence of events. I've struck that part of my comment. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:59, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

  I'm of a similar mind. I do wish that this had come to AE rather than ANI, though. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:33, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

  Same question for you, @ScottishFinnishRadish: - What makes you think I removed that RfC a second time as OP stated without evidence? SPECIFICO talk 19:38, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

  I don't see a second removal of the RFC. But I do see an out of process removal of an RFC in a contentious topic, battleground editing, incivility, and personal attacks. You have been warned and sanctioned for this behavior in the past. "Their editing was bad too," and "They could have just reverted my removal of the RFC," is not a defense that I find persuasive. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:46, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

  @ScottishFinnishRadish: You said yuo are of a similaar mind. The post to which you indented that similar mind stated Wiping away an RfC is not great, doing it again over the objection of another editor is disruptive and getting towards tendentious editing. SFR, you endorsed the ASPERSION made by OP and by @HJ Mitchell:. That is not acceptable behavior for any user here, and for two Admins it is highly problemmatic. Removing the RfC is rare, and is mild IAR out of process. I gave an explanation in my edit summary. That is the explanation I see most frequently when an editor removes a new RfC. The RfC is up again now. It is poorly defined, it will run for a month on an article the content and WP text of which is under constant flux and high frequency editing. I have engaged repeatedly on talk concerning related to the content, sourcing and NPOV issues surrounding the RfC. And of course your personal animus toward me, on and off-wiki is a matter of record. Very disappointing. SPECIFICO talk 20:04, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

  I've blocked SPECIFICO for two weeks for WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior and casting aspersions in this thread. This is not meant to stop any discussion on the other issues. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:15, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

  @HJ Mitchell: and @ScottishFinnishRadish: I feel there’s an unjustified equivalency here. Removing an RFC and removing a talk page message is something. And disagreeing over my edit summary is something entirely else.

  My edit summary was clear: “Hamas is a non-state actor, no reliable sources have used this phrasing to describe the group”. Most sources have described Hamas as a “ruling militant group” and not as a “de facto government of Palestine”. Either way this is something that is up to discussion, and certainly not a violation that deserves a ban of any sort, especially as I have made great efforts to reach consensus on my talk page and on the article talk page, initiating more than 7 discussions—I have not engaged in removal of talk page sections. Thank you for your being objective in this. Makeandtoss (talk) 19:45, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Conduct of Makeandtoss at Gaza War page

In case anyone wants to look at OP's conduct and consider a boomerang, I've collected what I know. I would suggest at a minimum, their participation on this article be confined to the talk page only. I'm not pinging the editors involved in the events listed below to avoid any appearance of canvassing. I don't expect to make any further comment here.

1. Removal of top paragraph lead text, claiming it is WP:OR. @Makeandtoss: Could you explain this recent edit of yours to the top of the article lead? Why does your edit summary state that there is no source to verify that Hamas is the governing authority of Gaza? Is this what you really believe, that there is no source? [251]
2. Addition of unsourced contentious content. @Makeandtoss: What is the RS that supports the article text you added in this diff to state that Israel "targeted civilians". You deleted text that described collateral civilian deaths, per sources.
3. Recent ANI thread in which OP pledged better behaviour, [in this section here]
4. 1RR issue at Gaza War here.
5. WP:BATTLEGROUND concern at Arbitration.
   SPECIFICO talk 19:25, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

The sentence says targeting civilian infrastructure, and the citation at the end of the sentence (this) says A World Health Organization spokesperson said it had reported 13 attacks on health facilities in the Gaza strip since the weekend and said that its medical supplies stored there had already been used up. That is not unsourced, and your representation of that edit is tendentious. nableezy - 19:50, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO would you file this at WP:AE please? ANI is not well-suited to evaluating conduct in contentious topics; AE has structured comments, word limits, and clear conduct rules. I promise you will not be sanctioned for forum shopping or similar. Of course, that's no guarantee that the complaint will be found actionable. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:06, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

@HJ Mitchell, just for information: it seems SPECIFICO was blocked for two weeks based on this discussion so won't be able to answer. Also probably means the discussion can be closed.Jeppiz (talk) 21:50, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Comment Such a surprising thread - SPECIFICO needed a break. Block is justified from what I see. Two weeks seems longer than needed based on WP:BLOCK but it is above my pay grade. Lightburst (talk) 23:44, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Based on SPECIFICO's behavioural history, 2 weeks is a kindness. Cjhard (talk) 02:55, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree. Far from finding this block excessive, it's probably time the community start to talk in broader terms about Specifico's approach to editing. This is an editor who contributes in the main almost exclusively in CTOP/GS areas and yet after all this time still cannot manage not to run afoul of basic conduct standards. It's not just a matter of the block log, but also the large number of times they have been brought here to ANI or AE on behavioural matters, sometimes resulting in logged editing restrictions.

Mind you, I've no personal beef with the user (actually I often find myself in agreement with their perspective on the underlying content issue), but I respond to a lot of RfCs through the random FRS system, and virtually every time I arrive at an AMPOL topic, if there has been a high level of disruption between two camps on a culture war issue, Specifico can pretty much be assumed to be in the mix: they are simply that prolific an editor in the western contemporary politics/media space, and also that consistently tending not to be able to recognize the line between energetic engagement and turning the talk page into a battleground. I actually think they harm the argument they are intending to support, often as not, through inflammatory rhetoric that tends to damage good faith consensus process and entrench positions.

Further, they never seem to take the community's concerns on board for long and tend to blame-shift whenever called out on having crossed behavioural or process lines (their response on their talk page to SFR's block in this instance is pretty typical in that respect). They know their content policy well enough, but are somewhere between IDHT and CIR issues when it comes to our behavioural guidelines. I don't know if I recommend continuing this discussion for long without their being able to contribute, but I think it wouldn't be the worst thing in the world for their own best interests to give them a warning that community patience is not inexhaustible. And if the pattern doesn't show some signs of abating, the community probably would do well to consider implementing a much broader TBAN than in the past, or else a longer-term block. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 06:55, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

@Cjhard and Snow Rise: Thanks for the comments. I am always surprised when an administrator uses discretion on a block or ban while a discussion about the editor is active. This has happened twice in the past two weeks. The question for me is what exigent circumstance necessitates an immediate block or ban? Then the next question is about the duration because a block or ban is supposed to be to protect the project or other editors. Long blocks feel like punishment rather than protection. I was not familiar with the long term editing patterns of Specifico but if you are both correct about the editor then I concur that a longer block is needed. There is the discussion on Specifico's talk page: essentially they believe that ScottishFinnishRadish has targeted them. checking the block log, ScottishFinnishRadish blocked them another time recently. ScottishFinnishRadish also participated in the thread, so they could have waited. It would have been best to allow another administrator to handle the thread to avoid the appearance of involved. Lightburst (talk) 14:35, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Refusal to engage with MOS and Wikipedia Guidelines by User:Island92

Island92 refuses to follow the MOS until forced by multiple users, including enforcing the continued existence of unverified information despite repeated warnings through reverts on their part.

1. Talk:2023 Singapore Grand Prix: In response to being called out for adding unverified information, state that the source provided report generically 'required to start from the pit lane after car was modified whilst under Parc Ferme conditions' rather than more specifically. 5225C tries to explain the issue with this, and Island92 seems to WP:ICANTHEARYOU in response. I re-brought up the issue and Island92 was unwilling to change, and is continuing to enforce the presence of unverified statements.
2. Talk:2023_Qatar_Grand_Prix#The_Lead_(again): after reducing the lead to a single sentence, I link MOS:LEAD. Island92 ignores the MOS, states a lead summary is redundant, and responds Sometimes you should be more elastic and logical-thinking rather than following MOS at all costs. and I tend to follow these parameters, but not too much as your case, with respect. That's why I think being precise is not always the maximum required in everything we do on this encyclopedia.
3. Talk:2023_Qatar_Grand_Prix#Unverifiable_information refuses to allow obvious WP:SYNTH material they added to be removed.

Other problematic and WP:OWNership like behavior has included the following. Not all individually rise above a simple content dispute, but show a patter of behavior when paired with the above policy violations:

1. Talk:2023_Qatar_Grand_Prix#Brief_Descriptions: Not allowing a description of a special race format because Never made in previous Grands Prix consisting of this format. I sought a third opinion, which quickly sided with it's inclusion. The user often will not allow a change to be made if it hasn't been done that way before on a Grand Prix race report.
2. Talk:2023_Qatar_Grand_Prix#Race_vs_Sprint_race refusing to compromise on a confusing terminology issue.
3. Violating MOS:EGG by reverting my fix, without explanation. Island92 later self reverted after I asked for an explanation on the talk page.
4. Misusing "rvv" and accusing others of vandalism, even after being warned multiple times: User_talk:Island92#Incorrect_use_of_vandalism User_talk:Island92#Accusations_of_vandalism. The user apologized for this, but later repeated the problem.

I believe this behavior exceeds simple content disputes, and shows a genuine disregard for Wikipedia's norms. I have been told in multiple ways by Island92 that my desire to follow the policies of guidelines are not a good idea, including You seem to be too set in your ways, very much depended on policies. Be open sometimes in regards to allowing unverified information to remain. Cerebral726 (talk) 20:33, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

The procedures are more than source stated. The sporting regulations say start from the back of the grid. This is the first thing happening in any case because Zhou did exceed pu quota. That he started from the pit lane was an extra factor brought by work on car during parc ferme. Always used this sentence since I don't remember when as being linked with sporting regulations. Nothing is unverified information. Practice in use for a huge amount of GP. You noticing it just now. Island92 (talk) 21:17, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Simply put, you need a source saying these things. You cannot deduce them from your own understanding of the regulations & then add that to the article, that is considered original research. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:46, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Island92 has had that explained to them numerous times but continues to enforce WP:V issues. They only conceded after multiple users (in the linked instances below, Pyrope) push back. [252][253][254] Cerebral726 (talk) 16:30, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

• You've got two very seperate issues here, and I'd suggest sticking with the one that actually matters, which is adding improperly sourced information. The MOS is guidance, it is not rules and generally speaking nobody should be trying to force anyone else to follow it. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:50, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
• I see Beeblebrox's point but I disagree with their assessment of what the issue is. The issue that Island92 has is an extreme dedication to keeping things the same, even if there isn't really a good reason to. I could give examples of this going back much further than 2023. However, I would not like to see Island92 dissuaded from contributing to F1 coverage. Their work is often helpful and productive, it's just that they aren't great at adapting to suggested improvements in how we write articles. This is what has led to the present conflict and most conflict with this user. I do get the impression from a few conversations that English is not their first language, this may be contributing to the situation. In my opinion, Island92 needs a proper warning and explanation that for them to continue being a part of the project they need to be open to the idea that the way we do things can change. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 01:58, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

User:Oldtowncafe

Multiple reverts of good faith edits without valid reasons. — Preceding unsigned comment added by UA0Volodymyr (talk • contribs) 19:16, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

No warnings were given to the user in question prior to them being reported here. Given the reporting user's history, it raises legitimate questions about whether this is a good-faith report. —C.Fred (talk) 19:27, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Oh, I think it is. You might want to look at this IPs contributions. Oldtowncafe indeffed as a block-evading sock. Black Kite (talk) 19:41, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

The reporting user has been editing for just three weeks, but is evidently very familiar with Wikipedia processes. They have but two interests: one, making contentious and yet unexplained edits to Ukraine-related articles; and two, seeking revenge against users that have reverted their edits. Their report here was very obviously an act of revenge. It is baffling that an administrator fell for it. 86.187.231.125 (talk) 18:37, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

IP: 77.75.244.157

IP 77.75.244.157 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is changing numerous political pages with unexplained deletions and nonsense additions. Has not used their Talk page and has not taken notice of numerous warning. Thank you, David J Johnson (talk) 14:34, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

@David J Johnson: A faster way to deal with obvious cases of vandalism like this is available at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism; an admin or clerk can refer an AIV case to ANI at their discretion should a more nuanced response be required. ~ Pbritti (talk) 18:32, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, I should have realised that - must be cracking-up. Best regards, David, David J Johnson (talk) 18:52, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

NPOV and NOTTHERE in General

Nauman335 is clearly WP:NOTTHERE. I saw them deleting sourced information while providing misleading summaries (User_talk:Nauman335#WP:NPOV_and_misleading_summaries). Judging by his user talk this was not an isolated incident, R Prazeres, David notMD - please chime in. Alaexis_¿question? 19:07, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

He could just be incompetent, but he definitely looks like he's deliberately pushing a POV to me. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 19:13, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Ah, lovely. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 20:05, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Yeah Shutup [sic] you fake editor is hardly an appropriate response to a CTOP notification regarding the Israel - Palestine conflict. As they've also gone way over the 1RR in articles in that area, some kind of block is necessary here. I would support an indef block or topic ban. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:19, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Treated to an indefinite vacation, or us from their edits. Star Mississippi 21:44, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Revdel request

Hello, can an admin please revdel File:Nitin Bajaj.jpg under criteria RD4? The previous revision is an unused and unrelated personal file and it would be easier to just revdel, instead of WP:HISTSPLITing it and then requesting a WP:PROD for the old file. (Sorry if this is the wrong place. {{Editnotices/Page/Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard}} says that any "narrow issue needing an administrator" should be reported here. —Matr1x-101 _{(Ping me when replying)} {_{user page} ^{(@ commons)} - _talk} 18:50, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

@Matr1x-101: Speaking as a non-administrator, when it comes to revision deletion, I'd recommend contacting an admin of your choice privately via email. A list of those can be found on here under the name "Category:Wikipedia administrators willing to handle RevisionDelete requests" (it unfortunately won't let me link it). I'll also recapitulate the following portion of the "How to request Revision Deletion" section of the WP:Revision deletion policy page I linked above: "To avoid the Streisand effect, there is no dedicated on-wiki forum for requesting revision deletion under [circumstances other than RD1]." If you really do believe this to be oversightable information that falls under RD4, I'd highly recommend using email to bring it to the attention of any of the admins listed under those willing to handle revision deletion requests rather than posting publicly about it here. I know that this was posted in good faith, and I appreciate that, but if you really do believe that this is oversightable, I'd definitely recommend requesting its removal in a more private forum from here on out. JeffSpaceman (talk) 11:43, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

@JeffSpaceman As a protip, to wikilink a category (rather than add the page to a category), place a single colon (:) in front of the wikilink, so that the code looks like this: [[:Category:Wikipedia administrators willing to handle RevisionDelete requests]]; and the result looks like this: Category:Wikipedia administrators willing to handle RevisionDelete requests. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). 11:55, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

@TheDragonFire300: Wow, I've been on here for over three years, and yet I never knew that before today. Huh. I appreciate you letting me know, I will definitely keep that in mind from here on out. Thanks! JeffSpaceman (talk) 11:58, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

This wasn't revdel as its an image. Secretlondon (talk) 11:58, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

@JeffSpaceman: Sorry, I made a typo, I meant RD5. Also thanks for the advice about revdelling. —Matr1x-101 _{(Ping me when replying)} {_{user page} ^{(@ commons)} - _talk} 14:05, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

I've deleted the image featuring a person - I presume that was the one you wanted deleting. Secretlondon (talk) 11:54, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Sidenote, I feel like that editnotice should probably say "issue with a specific user, page, or dispute" or something like that. In practice, help requests and other non-user-conduct-related narrow issues absolutely go to AN, not AN/I. AN is even the recommended venue for stuff like titleblacklist exemptions. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 23:21, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

SSSniperwolf

This is pretty much a WP:BFDI-ish problem. A user has attempted to game the system for what is basically unsuccessfully attempting to get a non-notable internet personality called SSSniperwolf on Wikipedia.

So far, there have been 5 AfD nominations for articles about her:

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SSSniperWolf
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sssniperwolf
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SSSniperwolf
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SSSniperwolf (2nd nomination)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SSSniperWolf (5th nomination)

Davest3r08 (^_^) ^(talk) 01:02, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

If there is no admin intervention, this could become a sitewide problem. Davest3r08 (^_^) ^(talk) 01:05, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

@Davest3r08: I have a guess but I can't definitively tell who you're reporting. I went to your user contributions because any time you report someone here, you're supposed to notify them on their talk page but I couldn't find that from you, either. Help. CityOfSilver 01:14, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

I think I might have posted this on the wrong page. Davest3r08 (^_^) ^(talk) 01:18, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Personal attack (involving Sockpuppet investigations)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I've been largely inactive from editing Wikipedia since February 2023, after I was topic-banned from a certain area. Recently, I was notified that, in a bizarre turn of events, a person whom I was arguing with way back then has decided to launch a "sockpuppet investigation" against me. Bear in mind that I'm entirely innocent. I've had completely zero interactions with the accuser (Grandmaster) ever since February 2023. I'm both surprised and angered by this fresh accusation. The sockpuppet accusation is entirely false and fabricated, so I'm not worried about it at all, but I believe that there must be consequences for the actions of the accuser. Bear in mind that editing Wikipedia has been detrimental for my mental health, so I've been attempting to avoid editing at this website for several months now (I was active in some contentious topic areas before). This discussion may be of interest to JM2023 as well. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 09:00, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Don't waste your time here Jargo, JM and don't waste ours. Let the SPI take its course. Thanks, Lourdes 09:24, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

The SPI is completely irrelevant. I've already stated that my mental health has been damaged. I request immediate action against Grandmaster. Bear in mind that I've already effectively abandoned this terrible website ever since February 2023. The less time that I can spend on this case, the better. Also, you are very rude, and please don't speak to me again, Lourdes. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 09:29, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

I apologise for those comments. With all seriousness, I would suggest letting the SPI take its own course. Requesting any action against Grandmaster here is, again with no intent to be rude, a waste of your and our time. Nothing will be done here. Thank you, Lourdes 09:39, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

The SPI was already closed just a few minutes ago, which clearly shows that it was completely false and fabricated. Now, I would like for Grandmaster to be punished for his attacks against me, as it has severely affected my mental health and I'm very upset about it all. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 09:40, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

For your information, the SPI has basically been closed immediately. So, that shows just how inappropriate that entire thing was. Now, Grandmaster must face the consequences of his actions over here at ANI. I absolutely do not forgive him at all for his crimes. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 09:39, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

No crime has been committed here. --Yamla (talk) 09:43, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

The crime of a personal attack is certainly a crime. My mental health is deteriorating by the second. I literally just cried a minute ago even though I was in a good mood earlier today. There's a good reason that I quit editing Wikipedia many months ago. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 09:46, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Please don't speak to me ever again, you are just as bad as Grandmaster, and you should be ashamed of yourself. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 09:51, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

I closed the SPI case. A personal attack, while a violation of policy, is not a crime - be careful about the words you use. Now, any editor in good standing is permitted to report suspicions of sockpuppetry at SPI. If that is done vindictively, that would be inappropriate, but you have not presented any evidence to suggest that this was a vindictive filing. If you can present any diffs to that effect, we can investigate, but above you said that The less time that I can spend on this case, the better: the case has been closed, you do not need to spend any more time on this, you can simply walk away. Girth Summit _(blether) 09:52, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Well, firstly, I was highly traumatised by this event: "Jargo Nautilus was indefinitely topic banned from modern armed conflicts in Eastern Europe including the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict on 26 January 2023, and blocked for the ban violation on January 28, 2023 by Callanecc." I did not intend to ever have to speak about this event again. And, I really do not like that "Callanecc" person at all. User Grandmaster has decided to randomly highlight this event out of nowhere, and force me to relive my trauma. I was minding my own business when I was suddenly attacked out of nowhere. In my opinion, this very act is a crime. I don't care about the SPI case specifically, I just want Grandmaster to be punished for traumatising me. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 10:04, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

I'm twenty-two years old. From February 2023 up until October 2023... That's like eight entire months. A lot has changed in my life since then. I've mentioned that I finished one course of study and started a new one. I've left the past behind. Clearly, Grandmaster hasn't. Also, Grandmaster is clearly a lot older than me since he joined Wikipedia in 2005, and I was just four years old at that time. Grandmaster should be utterly ashamed of himself. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 10:06, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Please consider performing Rev Del on this edit

Because it is very offensive [255]

Thanks. 103.78.183.11 (talk) 16:33, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

This edit falls under RD2. Grossly insulting, degrading, or offensive material - It says that the celebrity "belongs in jail". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.78.183.11 (talk) 16:48, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

N not likely to be done as it doesn't meet any WP:CRD criteria. Additionally, this isn't the place to request revdel, for future reference, WP:REVDELREQUEST NotAGenious (talk) 16:45, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

I have however semi-protected that article, it probably should have gone back to semi when the ECP expired. Black Kite (talk) 17:30, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

That was a basic troll edit. It was removed, and it's not so offensive as to need RevDel. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:30, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for performing it. 103.78.183.11 (talk) 17:35, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Looks like it got RD3'd anyway. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 22:07, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

FWIW, I'd have revdel'd that.-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 12:19, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Italian "External links" IP is back

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

The Italian IP range from Puglia that adds too many external links to YouTube videos/audio is back and disruptively editing articles once more ([256][257][258]). Everything had been done to communicate with this IP, including a talk page discussion and a partial block to force them to talk to us, but it looks like they refuse to listen. For reference, here are several other involved IPs:

• 62.211.233.175 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 87.20.7.191 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 82.51.12.168 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 79.18.74.229 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 79.47.17.39 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

As you can see, a rangeblock is not the most effective solution here, as they'll hop to a new one straight away. ResPM (T🔈🎵C) 11:13, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

The 62.211.233.175 IP was partially blocked as the outcome of this ANEW thread that I created.

Another issue with this IP user besides them adding excessive external links and failing to discuss the edits, is that once reverted, they often edit-war to restore these superfluous external links back, such as here, here and here. — AP 499D25 (talk) 11:51, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

I'd be happy to support a long term (2-5 years?) rangeblock. Those IP addresses are all quite different to each other though so would probably need someone with more practice at rangeblocking than me to implement it. WaggersTALK 12:00, 16 October 2023 (UTC) Comment restored GabberFlasted (talk) 13:05, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Responding to the comment by Waggers, which has been inadvertently removed by Lowercase Sigmabot, possibly because of an edit conflict:

I've got a bit of understanding of how IP address allocations and subnets work, and from what I'm seeing here, there seems to be several different IP ranges in use here, rather than it all being one gigantic range. The WHOIS info of an IP address can sometimes tell what exact range the address is in. Anyways, it seems the addresses are being used sequentially, one at a time by the user, rather than them being used simultaneously. Here's a timeline of the various different involved IPs:

• 87.20.7.191: 9 December 2022 – 16 February 2023
• 79.47.17.39: 18–26 April 2023
• 79.18.74.229: 28 April – 8 May 2023
• 82.51.12.168: 21 June – 4 July 2023
• 62.211.233.175: 15–18 July 2023 (blocked on the 18th)
• 87.10.95.29: 10 September 2023 – present

So I think a block of the latest involved IP address(es) might work here. The IP range switching seems to be quite infrequent anyway, at a rate that ranges from several weeks to several months. — AP 499D25 (talk) 12:45, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Makes sense to me. WaggersTALK 14:41, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, there's no range we could block that would encompass all those IPs. I've blocked the most recent one for a month, we'll just have to whack any new moles as they emerge. Girth Summit _(blether) 14:50, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Repeated NOTAFORUM violations by User:Martha223

• Martha223 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

After a complete set of four escalating warnings for WP:NOTAFORUM violations at Talk:Mini Hatch and Talk:Mini, they just did it a fifth time. I think it's an issue of communication as they are editing from a mobile device and probably have not read their talk page.--Jasper Deng (talk) 11:59, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

I partial blocked from Talk:Mini Hatch. Can be unblocked when matter is resolved. Or at any admin's discretion. Oh, I skipped over Talk:Mini. Will PB there to. -- Deepfriedokra (talk)

Compare Special:Contributions/Martha223, Special:Contributions/20030105jan, Special:Contributions/2002sj, Special:Contributions/41.182.161.167, Special:Contributions/197.188.229.134, Special:Contributions/Franspawah. No, I don't know what it all means. 128.164.177.55 (talk) 15:05, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

• Post archive note Blocked per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/RaunaNekomba-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:36, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Personal attacks and POV pushing by Gustavo La Pizza (talk · contribs)

First, he's POV pushing on Ottoman wars in Europe and Ottoman conquest of Otranto, claiming conquests are occupations. However it's generally accepted that occupations are defined after the 1907 Hague conference. That's first.

Summary 1:[259]: Claiming Otranto to be "first OUTPOST" entails there were "several" other "Ottoman outposts in Italy", which, uh, never existed..? This simply was a 11-months-occupation of a city, after they had massacred the civilians. Hardly a heroic feat, or even a proper "military conflict" at all . LOL, the absolute mess of these articles. Must've been the work of some neo-Ottoman Turkish ultranationalist spreading their wishful thinking lies. Full edits:[260]

His revert:[261] No "Beshogur", it's ME removing your lies and POV-pushing.

His another revert on Ottoman wars in Europe[262]: Rollbacking bestial and deceitful NPOV edits.

Another edit:[263] I guess everything is possible when you lie..? LOL. What a joke.

This user hasn't engaged single time on a talk page and always does aggressive edit summaries. Beshogur (talk) 14:17, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

I've given them some pointers on their talk page. It will be interesting to see whether they take it onboard. Girth Summit _(blether) 15:05, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Concerning sysop behaviour by Bbb23

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• Bbb23 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

So, I was browsing through the maintainence category Category:Wikipedia orphaned files when I come across this file. It's a test page, and is speedy deleteable under WP:G2. I nominate it, and it's declined by User:Bbb23 for no reason (the edit summary just says "decline g2").

I then question the user on their talkpage, only to be reverted. I admit I may have made a bit of a joke the user may not have liked, but that should not stop the user from actually answering my question. I post another comment on the user's talkpage, and they reply only with "Your post was obnoxious". I then ask the user to forget about this mini-fight and to just consider the SD nomination, only to be reverted again.

I think that this is not the behaviour an admin of this project should have. Firstly, they seem to think they own their talkpage, but more importantly, they aren't addressing why they rejected my nomination. I have had this exact scenario happen to me before, and the admin simply acknowledged their mistake, deleted the image, and moved on.

The user says I should leave this to WP:FFD (source). However, I believe this is unnecessarily burdening volunteers for no reason, for an image that is easily deleteable under a speedy criterion.

Thank you, —Matr1x-101 _{(Ping me when replying)} {_{user page} ^{(@ commons)} - _talk} 17:44, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

@Matr1x-101 - You are required to notify Bbb23 (even if they have said not to post on their talk page). EvergreenFir (talk) 17:54, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

@EvergreenFir: I did. —Matr1x-101 _{(Ping me when replying)} {_{user page} ^{(@ commons)} - _talk} 17:55, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Did you think your "and get some better glasses lol." was polite or an example of a good attitude? A declined speedy goes to XFD, we don't need a lot of drama about it. Courcelles (talk) 17:58, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

@Courcelles: It was a failed joke, I take accountability. That should not have prevented the user from actually answering the question of why the SD nomination was declined for no reason. —Matr1x-101 _{(Ping me when replying)} {_{user page} ^{(@ commons)} - _talk} 18:01, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Having looked at the recent history of Bbb23's talk page, it's not his conduct in the matter that gives me concerns. I don't think this is going to go anywhere that you want it to, Matrix. Girth Summit _(blether) 18:08, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

@Girth Summit: fair enough, I'm currently on mobile, can you please archive this section? I kinda realise this whole thing is a bit dumb and out of proportion. My bad, —Matr1x-101 _{(Ping me when replying)} {_{user page} ^{(@ commons)} - _talk} 18:18, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

• @Matr1x-101: Since we're discussing etiquette, the polite thing to do would have been for you to ask usernamekiran whether they needed the file of not. Either way, this is unnecessary drama and you may find yourself at the wrong end of it. RegentsPark (comment) 18:10, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

  @RegentsPark: yeah fair point, I was kinda impulsive over a stupid thing, please archive this section for me if you can since I'm on mobile. —Matr1x-101 _{(Ping me when replying)} {_{user page} ^{(@ commons)} - _talk} 18:19, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Fully agree with Bbb23 here. There's no particularly good reason to delete users' personal test pages without as much as asking them. @Matr1x-101, indeed you are wasting time. —Kusma (talk) 18:10, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

• (Non-saying what we're all thinking comment) It's funny how new/newish editors seem to dig out Bbb23 the most. I assume it's because he CU-blocked them at some point. Serial 18:13, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

  How did you know that's what I was thinking? Cos, like, it was. Girth Summit _(blether) 18:20, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

  @Serial Number 54129: I'll be honest, I have no idea what you're talking about. I'm way more familiar with Wikimedia Commons. Sorry for wasting everyone's time. —Matr1x-101 _{(Ping me when replying)} {_{user page} ^{(@ commons)} - _talk} 18:20, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Light prism2020: misuse of sources, AI, and other issues

• Light prism2020 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

On the suggestion of Drmies, an admin with experience engaging with the user in question, I would like to request action with regards to Light prism2020's persistent disruption. Since opening an account two weeks ago, Light prism2020 (LP2020) has edited almost exclusively to draw comparisons between Mithraism, Zoroastrianism, and Christianity. These additions are often massive (see this 5,395 character addition to Christianity as a typical example) and have been subject to scrutiny by at least a half-dozen experienced editors. Among the issues raised by other editors were misrepresentation of sources, use of unreliable sources, copyright violations, and insertion of non-encyclopedic content over the objections of multiple editors (see this version of LP2020's talk page). Drmies has also expressed concern that this edit raises flags that AI writing might be involved. I think that their may also be some self-promotion in play, given the use of this website in this edit; I'd note the broken English proliferate of that website and compare with LP2020's writing. I would like to request at least a topic ban from Persian religions, broadly construed. If more evidence is necessary, please let me know! ~ Pbritti (talk) 16:21, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

• I agree that we're pretty much in NOTHERE territory, but one of the reasons I suggested we take this here is that it would be good for the editor to see that they're not simply running into two or three editors who just don't agree with them. Drmies (talk) 16:35, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
• As I said on Drmies' talk page, I checked the citations for the claim about December 25 in this edit to Mithraism. Two of the citations were to chapters of scholarly sources (Vermaseren 1965 and Clauss 2001); neither of those chapters says anything at all about December 25. The other citation is to this page (which is based on a fork of an old version of our own Mithraism article), which specifically says, with sources, that more recent scholarship doubts that there was a Mithraic celebration on December 25. This user seems to be throwing together credible-looking citations without any regard for what the sources actually say.

I'll go further than Pbritti and say that an editor who fabricates citations like this shouldn't be kept around in any capacity, certainly not when that editor hasn't demonstrated any other usefulness to the project. A. Parrot (talk) 16:55, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Disliking something or feeling of defending your faith, doesn't justify accusing others of false information, vandalism, misuse, being AI or any other wrongdoing!!! In the Britannica on topic "why-is-christmas-in-december", it is mentioned that Mithra's birthdate was December 25th. I strongly recommend that members such as @Drmies, @A. Parrot, and @Pbritti should be banned for allegedly altering the contributions of independent editors and acting in a manner that hinders the accurate information from being added to the Wikipedia project. for reference I quote Britannica here " It was also the birthday of the Indo-European deity Mithra, a god of light and loyalty whose cult was at the time growing popular among Roman soldiers." Light prism2020 (talk) 17:31, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

@Light prism2020, this report isn't about Mithras and December 25. It's about the quality of all of your edits and sources across multiple articles, as well as your interactions with other editors. Schazjmd (talk) 17:48, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Regrettably, this matter pertains solely to the similarities between Mithraism and Christianity and Christmas rituals, particularly the shared celebration of December 25th. It raises the question: If I were editing something as simple as a flower's name or any other topic, would these individuals still be quick to accuse me and obstruct the addition of information? I initiated discussions on these topics to seek insights from others and to collectively contribute to the Wikipedia project with accurate and current information, rather than allowing it to be influenced solely by a particular viewpoint or historical perspective of a single ethnic group. This knowledge is intended for the benefit of all of humanity. Correct me if I am wrong! Light prism2020 (talk) 18:00, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

If you were misusing sources in the same way on any topic your edits would get the same reception. MrOllie (talk) 18:09, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

You're wrong, User:Light prism2020, I think, but it's hard to say because what you write is so convoluted, and both grammatically and semantically unsound. "This matter pertains solely"--that's correct, as a starter, but what comes next is "...to the fact that other editors perceive your edits as incompetent, and your comments as not pertaining to the topic". Drmies (talk) 23:21, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

• I agree the topic ban or more is justified. The interaction I've had with LP2020 indicates to me that he does not have the fluency in English to understand what is required to edit here. Indyguy (talk) 17:03, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

• Site ban, given all of the above, and in particular the fabrication of citations. I don't think a topic ban would be sufficient, but would support that if the consensus of the community is that is a better approach. --Yamla (talk) 17:10, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

  I recommend that you visit the Britannica article, which correctly mentions Mithra's birthday as December 25th. Unfortunately, there are individuals who are obstructing the addition of accurate and transparent information to Wikipedia. Their reluctance appears to be rooted in the concern that this information might impact the celebration of Jesus Christ's birthday. Pardon me, but this situation reminds me of the inquisition period. https://www.britannica.com/story/why-is-christmas-in-december Light prism2020 (talk) 17:38, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Light prism2020, a simple question. Are you using translation software or AI (e.g. ChatGPT) to create or edit your posts? AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:04, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

As one gentleman requested to correct my writing before publishing, I use Grammarly to correct my writing and improving my English. https://www.grammarly.com/ I am open to your advise for improving my writing. Light prism2020 (talk) 18:19, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

My only advice would be to find a Wikipedia project in your native language, and contribute there instead. It seems readily apparent from the discussion above, and from your posts elsewhere, that you lack sufficient competence in the English language to be able to usefully contribute here. This is a collaborative project, and collaboration requires clear communication. Existing translation software and/or AI text generation is simply inadequate in this context. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:25, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

I acknowledge your concern. Precisely because this is a collaborative project, we should promote diversity and "invite" other ethnic groups to share their knowledge. Imagine if some one is Christian and, after Saturday Mass, Priest mentions you are not allowed to Pray in English! because The Jesus`s original language was Aramaic! would you accept that as a native English speaker? I personally don`t think so. Light prism2020 (talk) 19:01, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Interesting thought experiment; my priest usually just asks if I want to grab a drink. While you seem to acknowledge that Wikipedia is a collaborative project, you have yet to indicate any interest in accepting any serious change in your editing practices. I now lean towards a general indefinite block for NOTHERE and CIR until such a time that LP2020 demonstrates a willingness and capacity to improve their editing practices. The standard offer might further encourage them to gain experience in their native language before transitioning to EnWikipedia. ~ Pbritti (talk) 19:07, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

I agree. Note also that Light prism 2020 is continuing to misuse sources at Talk:Magi while this discussion is going on. A. Parrot (talk) 19:19, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

@A. Parrot, is this against the rules that you and me were talking on a 'talk page' of Magi? You could mention that over there! In that case, I would cease talking to you. Light prism2020 (talk) 19:52, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

In that situation, you should speak up. As I mentioned, English is not my first language, and I used Grammarly to correct my editing. I appreciate your concerns, and I am open to the administrators' decision. Light prism2020 (talk) 19:33, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

I do, usually with something to the effect of "cheers to that, Father." I hope you find success editing elsewhere on the project and return here someday with more experience. You seem sincere, if somewhat unprepared. ~ Pbritti (talk) 19:38, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

• Site ban. WP:CIR, WP:NOTHERE. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 19:27, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
• I saw this from the sideline as one of the effected pages is one my watchlist for a few weeks. I've no opinion to the content matter, or the knowledge to make a judgement. However Light prism2020 inability to see any disagreement with their edits in any other light than religious bias is very problematic. Even in this discussion they are multiple posting casting aspersions at the motives of other editors. A block until they accept that they have to treat other editors in a civil manner is warranted. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 19:50, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

  It's my mistake if anyone perceives that I'm disrespecting them. Please consider it as a cultural difference. I believed that I should respond when someone is talking about me. I am not intentionally trying to harm or disrespect anyone. I believe I have successfully navigated the rigorous process, and if Wikipedia thinks I can contribute insights from other sources, I would appreciate the opportunity to edit pages. However, if you believe that this is detrimental to the collaborative aspect, I am willing to stop speaking here. Light prism2020 (talk) 20:06, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

  Statements such as Disliking something or feeling of defending your faith, doesn't justify accusing others of false information and Their reluctance appears to be rooted in the concern that this information might impact the celebration of Jesus Christ's birthday has nothing to do with culture differences. Unless you can provide proof that such statements are true they are nothing but aspersions against other editors.

  If you can show that other editors have posted statements that show these are true you need to show them with diffs, if not you should strike such comments.

  The simple rule is that you should discuss content not other editors, nor should you assign motives to other editors that they have not plainly shown. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 21:03, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

• Support indefinite block. It is obvious that Light prism2020 is using software in an attempt to make up for an inability to effectively communicate in the English language. Given that such software is incapable of doing the job required, and that a barrier to clear communication remains (e.g. see the repeated nonsense above concerning 'ethnicity', which is of no relevance whatsoever to what is being discussed here), prism2020 is incapable of the effective collaboration required to participate. Per normal procedure, an indefinite block rather than a site ban would seem appropriate, though the difference would be moot unless and until Light prism2020 could demonstrate effective communication in the English language, entirely unassisted by translation software, grammar correction software, or chatbots. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:01, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
• Blocked. Light prism2020 edits uncollaboratively and against all reasonable sourcing principles. This response on their page shows that they are not reaping any benefit from the attempts to warn and advise them, or from explanatory edit summaries, but see these efforts merely as demonstrating "that we are in a period reminiscent of the inquisition". Such assumptions of bad faith appears in their replies in this thread as well. I have blocked indefinitely per WP:NOTHERE. Should they offer some willingness and capacity to improve their editing practices, as called for by Pbritti above, I'll gladly unblock. Bishonen | tålk 21:14, 15 October 2023 (UTC).
• Site ban per the Inquisition dif above.-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 12:24, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
• Site ban as they clearly are unwilling to engage in discussion to the levels expected by the community. EggRoll97 ^(talk) 14:25, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
• Site ban - Falsifying sources, refusal/inability to collaborate in good faith, and a proselytising attitude all are things that by themselves would justify an indef. All three on one editor screams "I am right and do not need to dignify your harpy-screeching with anything but contempt" and isn't something you can even try to work with. It's those sorts of attitudes that are the root cause of our several ethno-political trouble spots, and we don't need to encourage them. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{Source assessment notes} 19:05, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Sockpupetry, Incitement to violence on 2023 Gaza Israel War

Caught these IPs making hate speech and possibly sockpuppeting each other on Talk:2023 Israel–Hamas war

Both 67.184.240.103 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 2601:244:4F00:A5C0:90DD:AE7B:4362:E2D9 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) made exactly the same comment in one topic section of the talk page, namely “The Qataris are a terrorist state that Israel needs to nuke along with Iran so no, they’re not reputable.” one of them also uttered vulgar language in one talk page.

In another section titled “This article is completely pro-palestine”, 2600:1017:A00A:722:1558:DD7C:A4FE:D4E7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) posted: “Damn libs and arabs ruining the world”. Borgenland (talk) 15:46, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

That talkpage is a disaster. It would better if it was semi-protected, which would cut down significantly on the number of non-constructive comments. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:29, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

+1 DFlhb (talk) 17:45, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

+2 This is but a small sample of the problems with this page by SPA IPs. O3000, Ret. (talk) 18:19, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Blocked both, WP:DUCK. Doug Weller talk 19:08, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Agree with semi-protection. There's going to be an endless amount of this for the foreseeable future. — Czello ^(music) 19:05, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

The article talkpage has now been semi-protected for a week. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:53, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Block a user who wrote "I am blocked"

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

At Talk:Armenia, User:49.205.122.10 wrote, in this edit, "I am blocked that's why I write in this way." This appears to be the latest appearance by a disruptive user who won't let an issue drop that they believe in passionately despite well-established disagreement by other participants in this user's discussions. WP:DEADHORSE applies here. Can we get a short-term block on this address? Largoplazo (talk) 23:21, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

WP:SPI is over there for non-obvious calls and WP:AIV for obvious calls, but in either case you should be able to point to similar diffs or specific behavior that indicates this is the same as another user (i.e. the name of the other user at a minimum).

As for the specific I am blocked that's why I write in this way. that could as easily mean "the main page is protected so I must discuss on the talk page" without the context of another user to compare to. At first glance in the history of the talk page, I don't see another user this could be, so could you please provide that name or IP address? Izno (talk) 23:52, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

• It was Special:contributions/212.34.242.62 who said that, and they are now blocked by another admin for block evasion.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:11, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Repeated non-constructive edits

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

User:Fixna exclusively makes non-constructive edits by adding irrelevant strings of text into articles, and they have been warned multiple times. It seems to be a WP:CIR issue. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 14:27, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Not sure why this wasn't done before but blocked. RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:31, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Legal threats by 2601:248:4D02:B3C0:C26:CAC1:EFA7:FA64

I am reporting the IP user:

• 2601:248:4D02:B3C0:C26:CAC1:EFA7:FA64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

for unconstructive edits and legal threats, on the following article:

• Bob O'Dekirk (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

The following is what the IP user above has been writing in the edit summaries, as well as the subsequent edits (after being reverted) of the article: Potential lawsuit with titles and words that were used being misrepresented! Articles being labeled here will go with the federal lawsuit! — AP 499D25 (talk) 10:44, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Not too clear what they are trying to say, but I have blocked for a month. Also close to a 3RR violation. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:47, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

He has put this same text into his talk page in response to the block. Should I remove per NLT? I like Astatine (Talk to me) 15:22, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

I'd say no. The user who made the legal threats is the one who should be withdrawing and removing the threats, not us. — AP 499D25 (talk) 02:32, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Odd diff

Do you see [264]? Revision history says it's +682,088 bytes.

And the first edit at User talk:Cursed Peace is +341,234 bytes. Something is not going right. tgeorgescu (talk) 07:00, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

There were some 300,000 instances of an invisible Unicode character (didn't bother to check which) at the beginning of their signature. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:06, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Maybe an exploit for some browsers? tgeorgescu (talk) 07:13, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

I use a Dutch keyboard, perhaps it is a unicode thing? C͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏u͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏r͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏s͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏ed Peace (talk) 07:14, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

I watched a speech by a representative of Fox IT (internet security company), and he said in IT one must act having a healthy dose of paranoia. Something unusual happened, and I reported it here. tgeorgescu (talk) 07:27, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

I'm not clicking that but the user should be blocked at least temporarily and it reported to WMF right away... —DIYeditor (talk) 08:14, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Cursed Peace, I have identified all the unicode characters you used deliberately, once while creating your user talk page and then doubling up the effort at RSN. You try this one more time and that would be it for you at Wikipedia. Lourdes 09:27, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

I fixed it so it's ok nkw ((ping|lourdes}} Cursed Peace (talk) 05:05, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Burlakov case and Oleg Burlakov multiple rules violation

Hello. Writing here as User:Elemimele recomended here. Previouse history you can see here.

In small words: Oleg Burlakov systematicaly converted by user:ssr into attack page against widow of Oleg Burlakov and his daughters. He rejected my attempts to discuss the massive violations of WP:BLP rule and undid all my articles edits. Burlakov case articles made by him is an original research with selective presentation of information whose content exclusively compromises the same widow and daughter. At the time of writing this article, in addition, the author could not cite a single source that would unite all the cases mentioned in it as the “Burlakov case”. The links he provided in the discussion of the proposal to delete the article Burlakov case to articles mentioning this term are frankly dishonest disinformation. None of these articles mentions the Burlakov case as a whole set of heterogeneous events listed by the author in the article.

The participant shows serious persistence in disseminating this information - after it was removed from the Oleg Burlakov article in the Russian section of Wikipedia, he created there a separate article, Burlakov Case (at russian), which was deleted as original research. Without ever entering into a discussion of the legality of deleting the information he disseminated in Russian, he began to replicate it in other language sections - in addition to English, he created versions of the same article Burlakov case in German, French, Spanish and Latvian, despite the fact that articles about Oleg Burlakov himself is not available in these languages. This suggests that he acts in a biased manner and is interested in a certain non-neutral presentation of the material, perhaps acting on a profitable basis.

I'm asking administrators to help with this situation. I suggest removing the Burlakov case article as an obvious and redundant fork of the Oleg Burlakov article (all info can be merged in main article and somehow forcing user:ssr to meaningfully discuss how the edits he makes violate the rules and how to avoid this by correcting the text. When I wrote about these violations earlier, I did not receive a single meaningful answer, yet these violations are obvious, I discussed them in detail here. Thank you in advance. Джонни Уокер (talk) 12:05, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

@Джонни Уокер You have failed to notify Ssr (talk · contribs) of this report, as the red notice on top of this page clearly requires. I have done so for you this time. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). 13:10, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

I repeat for the 3rd or 5th time: the account "Джонни Уокер" is a "farmed sockpuppet" account. Any admin can conclude it from their contributions. Please ban this account ASAP so they not generate more useless requests and distract all of us from regular work. -- ssr (talk) 13:10, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Stats: as one can judge from their contributions, this is the 4th noticeboard this user uselessly try to exploit. Previously there were: "No original research/Noticeboard", "Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard", and "Articles for deletion". All the attempts were useless. This time we see another useless attempt, so the user is apparently repeatedly abusing the system whilst having 0 useful edits. -- ssr (talk) 13:29, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for doing this, I was not careful with this rule.Джонни Уокер (talk) 14:03, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Джонни Уокер, in my opinion, the current fork of the case page does focus significantly negatively on living people who may (or may not) be notable only for a single series of events. It is an editorial call whether this qualifies under WP:BLP1E or not. You are right that if the fork were merged into the main article, it becomes easier to determine editorially what would be a good NPOV balance, especially as multiple living persons are involved here and the danger of seeing the case page as an attack page is significantly high right now. I see that the past BLPN and AfD efforts did not get significant response, but there were comments in your support. While I don't want this to sound as a forum-shopping expedition, you could start an RfC on the talk page of the Burlakov Case article to ask whether one should merge the details back into the main article; you could refer to the discussion here as a basis. As far as Ssr is concerned, they don't seem to have any ulterior motive - although the Burlakov Case was created by them, has the highest contributions from them, and of all articles to which they have contributed, this stands as the second highest -- which could explain why they might not wish this to be deleted. Again, ANI will not take an editorial call. You will have to try and reach consensus perhaps through an RfC. Lastly, if you find any significant legal concerns, rather than writing them on any talk page on Wikipedia, directly contact legal@wikimedia.org. Thank you, Lourdes 14:35, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

There is even a special Wikimedia Ukraine statement regarding this sockpuppet farm. -- ssr (talk) 05:42, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

I have not been active on Wikipedia for some weeks (off-wiki life suddenly got in the way). When the Burlakov Case article was nominated for deletion, there were allegations of ownership and general bad behaviour. I suggested that the allegations be dealt with here (if anyone felt strongly enough), while the content issue be dealt with by any of the standard mechanisms of dispute resolution. My feeling was that mere deletion or merging (the job of AfD) would just move the underlying problem to the main Oleg Burlakov article. I still think this is true. The allegations should either stop, or be investigated, but they don't help in sorting out the general issue of what should be in the article(s).

I don't want to get into judging the behaviour, that's for anyone daft enough to want to be an admin. Nor do I really want to get into the content at this stage (I don't know if/when I'll return to Wikipedia). But ssr I would comment that regardless of the sheer quantity of legal stuff going on about Burlakov, it is very important that we don't call it "The Burlakov case" unless someone has lumped all the legal stuff together and called it either exactly this in English, or something that unequivocally translates to this from Russian. Otherwise we are synthesising. Perhaps an imperfect analogy, but Partygate can have an article of that name, because sources external to Wikipedia brought together a lot of parties and complaints and gave them exactly that name as one whole joined-up thing. We have to be extremely careful of creating an overall viewpoint when people involved in it are still alive. Elemimele (talk) 11:23, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for your involvement! It is very valuable as I see almost no people wishing to help me with the article in positive way (yes it is complicated I know =))) Here is the particular English source that operates the exact term "Burlakov's case" (it is present in the article). But I don't mind renaming the article according to WP:consensus. There are many articles that have "generalized" title. For example — List of Linux distributions. Such articles don't need to have a reliable source that exactly introduce the term "List of Linux distributions". The article just needs some title. On 14 August 2023 user:Auric, while commenting here, proposed titles "Burlakov inheritance cases" or "Burlakov inheritance suits". I don't mind renaming in such way, the shorter version "Burakov case" is simply more convenient. -- ssr (talk) 12:00, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

As I say, I don't know the subject, and don't want to get involved, but (1) the alternative titles seem sensible if others also dislike the current title, and (2) at the moment Burlakov case has a statement "Burlakov's wife and daughters started to demonstrate aggressive behaviour towards him" with no source attached, which is extremely problematic. Elemimele (talk) 09:37, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

After this sentence, there are several properly sourced mentions about assassination attempts attributed directly to the women. Anyway, thank you for your help, I will try to attribute exactly this sentence (there are many sources). -- ssr (talk) 09:41, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Ssr, can you please show here the sources which clearly mention

1. That "Burlakov's wife and daughters started to demonstrate aggressive behaviour towards him".
2. Given your above statement, can you also show here the reliable source that you have used in the article that attribute the assassination attempts directly to Burlakov's wife and daughters?
3. In the article, you have written a statement, "Oleg Burlakov openly named his wife, daughters and Gregory Gliner as the organizers of his attempted assassination". Can you show the sources that you have mentioned in the article where Burlakov has named his daughters and Gregory Gliner as the organisers?

While ANI will not decide on content issues, the question out here is whether you have created an attack page. Will await your response on this. Thanks, Lourdes 06:25, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Courtesy ping to Ritchie333 who closed the Afd associated with the page. Lourdes 06:39, 16 October 2023 (UTC))

@Lourdes: as I can reply right out now, whithout further seeking, lets's see the literal paragraph that you cite.

Extended content

It is the section called "Circumstances of death", the 2nd paragraph from top. It literally reads: "In November 2018, an assassination attempt was made against Burlakov in Moscow, and he was wounded.[20] A tracking device was found in his car at the time of this attempt. Oleg Burlakov openly named his wife, daughters and Gregory Gliner as the organizers of his attempted assassination.[21][22]" Where [20]: https://www.forbes.ru/milliardery/368791-v-moskve-soversheno-pokushenie-na-biznesmena-burlakova — it is Forbes. Entitled: "В Москве совершено покушение на бизнесмена Бурлакова". The reliable (Forbes is reliable) news source is directly dedicated to the assasination attempt (as title say and as paragraph refer). Forbes also mentions Interfax. Extra sources can be found. Furtherly [21] is: https://secretmag.ru/criminal/sledstvie-aktivizirovalo-delo-o-pokushenii-na-rossiiskogo-millionera-posle-ego-smerti-ot-koronavirusa.htm "Следствие активизировало дело о покушении на российского миллионера после его смерти от коронавируса". This is the magazine The Firm's Secret — another reliable source. Let's look at the intro: "В ноябре 2018 года машину бизнесмена обстреляли по пути в клинику на медосмотр. Тогда он заявил, что за покушением стоит его жена, а причиной назвал развод и раздел имущества. Бизнесмен неоднократно обвинял экс-супругу в хищении средств" — literal mentions. Let's now see the [22]: https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2018/11/06/russian-multi-millionaire-escapes-assassination-attempt-media-report-a63409 "Russian Multi-Millionaire Escapes Assassination Attempt, Media Report", the source is in English and talks about assassination attempt. You are most probably concerned that Gregory Gliner and daughters aren't mentioned in this particular paragraph's sources. They are mentioned in other parts of the article. Probably this has to be improved as I had not enough support from other Wikimedians in proofreading. Thank you for involvement! I needed that. Let's take sources from other parts of the article: https://www.forbes.ru/milliardery/449751-semejnye-cennosti-kak-nasledniki-olega-burlakova-borutsa-za-2-7-mlrd "Семейные ценности: как наследники Олега Бурлакова борются за $2,7 млрд" — Forbes. Contains: "В Москве совершено покушение на Олега Бурлакова. Бизнесмен никак не пострадал. Позже в беседе с Forbes он намекал, что к покушению могут быть причастны его дочь и ее супруг." Also there: "Прокуратура Ниццы начала расследование по факту вторжения в частную жизнь Бурлакова: в его самолете был обнаружен трекер, отслеживающий перемещения бизнесмена. По словам очевидца событий, трекер якобы находился в сумке, которую пронесла на борт дочь Вероника. Бурлаков постоянно боялся слежки со стороны жены и детей, до инцидента с трекером он якобы находил в квартире камеру, подключенную к телефону дочери, рассказывает собеседник Forbes". Please keep in mind this edit from a fellow editor from 1 August 2023 (thanks to him!). Until this edit, the reference literally read: [ref](in Russian) https://secretmag.ru/criminal/sledstvie-aktivizirovalo-delo-o-pokushenii-na-rossiiskogo-millionera-posle-ego-smerti-ot-koronavirusa.htm "Покушение на Олега Бурлакова произошло вечером 3 ноября 2018 года. Неизвестный окликнул сидевшего во внедорожнике Бурлакова по имени, а потом начал стрелять. Пули попали в корпус машины, но миллионер выжил. Позже в ходе медосмотра обнаружилось, что в еду бизнесмена добавляли мышьяк. Бурлаков рассказал следствию, что возможным заказчиком убийства могла стать его супруга Людмила Бурлакова, с которой он находился в процессе развода."[/ref] — so the reference text contained directly what you ask. Another source, Izvestia: https://iz.ru/1235762/iuliia-romanova/naslednyi-printcip-chem-zakonchitsia-spor-za-milliardy-olega-burlakova "Сумма претензий Олега Бурлакова к супруге была колоссальной и исчислялась сотнями миллионов долларов. После этого отношения их окончательно переросли в затяжной конфликт с участием адвокатов в различных юрисдикциях, — рассказал источник. По его словам, взрослые дочери бизнесмена в конфликте встали на сторону матери и тоже прекратили общение с отцом." Another source in English: https://the-daily.org/health/item/73475-latvian-police-foil-an-attempt-by-russian-nationals-to-illegally-seize-inheritance-left-in-latvia "Bourlakov also claimed that his ex-wife together with his daughters and son-in-law Gregory Gliner had transferred the money earned by the partners (over 1,5 bln. USD) from their accounts before filing for divorce. A criminal case was initiated in Monaco on the basis of this transfer, leading to charges against Ludmila Bourlakova and a claim by Kazakov has been filed in the US against Bourlakovs and Gliner (husband of Veronica Burlakova working in the stock market)). Nikolai claims that Gregory Gliner used his knowledge and professional connections to facilitate the transfer and dissipation of partnership assets of Nikolai Kazakov and Oleg Bourlakov".

Many extra sources can be added as the story has been having heavy coverage in world media (thus is notable). And I don't mind changing the article in the way it looks more clear. I will gladly discuss it with regular Wikimedians such as yourself and other editors who have valuable contributions. Please ask me for more if you like! I just extracted some things from the article. We can find more sources, as there are more appearing and not all of the existing ones is present in the article (let's add as many as needed). -- ssr (talk) 07:34, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Fair enough Ssr. I can understand the weight of material that is available on this case. In my opinion (this is just an opinion, you don't have to act on it), the article fork carries the danger of being considered an attack page due to the excessive negative stuff written. Therefore, you can consider including NPOV statements (such as, the comments of the wife and daughters' lawyers who said that investigation did not find any such accusation to be true... and such stuff) as well as ensuring that no statement should be left uncited or be an original research (such as, your line of the wife and daughters displaying an aggressive attitude towards the subject -- that is clear OR). Having said that, this discussion will not go on any further at ANI. Thank you for providing all required details. Please improve the article further. And happy editing. Lourdes 08:45, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

The adequacy of my participant's use of sources using a simple example: Oleg Burlakov, phrase In the same year, Oleg Burlakov was hospitalized, and arsenic was found in his body, suggesting an attempted poisoning. The businessman attributed the attempts to a conflict over the division of property during his divorce proceedings and the alleged embezzlement of family funds by his wife Lyudmila Burlakova (Marchenko), who had filed for divorce in December 2018. - hree sources are cited for the statement: [265] Contains the phrase (translated into English) And then information appeared in the media that traces of arsenic were found in his tests. Investigative data also leaked, judging by which Burlakov himself connected this episode with the process of dividing property with his wife Lyudmila.. That is, there is neither a direct quote from Burlakov, nor even an indication of where exactly such information was published, and instead of Burlakov’s personal opinion, a reference is made to anonymous investigation materials, which, of course, were not published anywhere. [266] - there is no information in the text that Burlakov linked the poisoning to the actions of his wife. [267] - In the same year, an assassination attempt was made on Burlakov in Moscow. While the businessman was sitting in the car on the way to a medical examination, an unknown man ran up to the car and called out to him. After Burlakov rolled down the window, an unknown person fired several times in the direction of the car. No one was injured in this incident, but the businessman felt unwell. The examination results showed the presence of arsenic in his body, Lenta wrote. Burlakov then connected the assassination attempt with a conflict during the divorce process. There is no direct speech from Burlakov. Also, no link for a Lenta article. This is not accidental; the article is not difficult to find and there is https://lenta ru/news/2018/11/06/burlakov/ nothing like that in it. In my opinion, such unconfirmed reports in articles are clearly not enough to disseminate technically unverifiable information about Burlakov’s opinions about his wife. However, when I deleted this information as violating WP:BLP, my opponent reversed my edit and further refused to discuss anything meaningfully. He shows similar negligence with sources for every controversial edit in the article about Oleg Burlakov. P.S. By the way, when I was writing this message, I discovered that the Lenta is included in the global blacklist of Wikipedia, which, it seems to me, undermines the validity of links to it, including indirect ones. Джонни Уокер (talk) 14:53, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

I have nothing to do with the story you referred to and did not even know about its existence. In turn, I note that your acquaintance with it and your insistent reference to it from the very beginning of the conflict around the article makes us suspect that you are in its context, and not at all on the part of the Wikipedia administration. However, I am not going to discuss motives, only actions. The main problem with the edits you make is that you refuse to discuss their content, making purely procedural maneuvers to defend your position. In the Russian section, you did not challenge my edits to the article (it would have been difficult, they were based on the rules), but simply silently created a fork. Also, you were silent when it was deleted, you simply went to the English section. In the English section, you chose a strategy of obstruction - in response to my requests to discuss making edits on the article discussion page (or somewhere else), you complain to the administrators about some qualities of my account that you do not like and demand that I be blocked. This does not follow Wikipedia's rules and is not fair behavior. Please return to the question I raised, that your actions, first of all, contain numerous violations of the WP:BLP rule. I gave an example, please answer them. Джонни Уокер (talk) 14:10, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

The main problem with the cited sources is that some of them refer to the yellow press, and some of them for the purposes of use on Wikipedia are interpreted poorly, with a stretch in relation to the text of the article to which he refers. All this could be removed in the dialogue in the main article, if there was a dialogue. But the participant refuses dialogue on principle. Moreover, the very history of the appearance of the article The Burlakov Case boils down to the fact that the participant, without any discussion, collected the fragments removed from the article about Oleg Burlakov into a separate article and began to translate them into different languages. At this point, I ask the administrators to at least get the participant to begin meaningfully responding to my points that his edits violate - here, on the article's discussion page or somewhere else. Since he is not in the mood for constructive communication with me, some kind of third glance is needed so that we can move forward in editing it. Without any problems, I could give specific examples of a participant’s inadequate references to materials that, according to his version, confirm (but in fact do not) the information he contributes. But is this the right place? Джонни Уокер (talk) 14:24, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Sources such as Forbes are reliable. And as much as another editor and I have advised Ssr to correct source referencing, I don't see any ulterior motive of Ssr in this. Don't get me wrong. In my personal opinion, the fork should not exist as it looks as an attack page. But this has to be discussed on the fork's talk page, not here at ANI. Thanks, Lourdes 06:01, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Please do not call this a fork. Oleg Burlakov is an article about a man. Burlakov case is an another legitimate article about a litigation (particularly in High court of justice of London) that existed while man was alive and continues (and will continue) to exist regardless of the man being alive. All this is properly sourced and conform to rules. I have started correcting the article according to your advice (thanks again for it). --ssr (talk) 06:29, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Not a problem Ssr. I guess we both will continue to hold separate viewpoints. You may call it whatever -- in my eyes, it remains a negative content fork created to showcase extremely negative material about living people, while deliberately avoiding the positive viewpoints (such as the lawyer's views, which you avoided giving). Once again, the litigation for this is to be done on the talk page of the article/fork (as you may), not here. This discussion will be closed soon. Thanks, Lourdes 06:35, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

We just have to conclude that we are dealing with "farmed sockpuppets". These sockpuppets tend to appear in articles regarding to some cases in High court of justice of London. I have an experience with articles Norebo and Norebo conflict (two separate articles regarding High court of justice of London). The article Norebo conflict suffered intrusions from 3 (three) farmed sockpuppets. All of them were banned lately. I see this case is similar in behaviour. There are many such sockpuppets—because of "farm". This is harm to Wikimedia. You are very correct that article needs balancing. I will gladly discuss it with normal users who have valuable contributions, but not with sockpuppets (that just should be banned as previous ones were) -- ssr (talk) 06:49, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Willbb234

• Transgender (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Willbb234 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was blocked for a week for edit warring. Within an hour of the block expiring (seriously, he must have set an alarm to remind him) he is back on the Talk page of the same article he was edit warring on and disruptively trying to restart the previous drama by aggressively demanding that a specific editor (who he pinged) satisfy his objections. (diff) This seems like trolling and maybe even harassment. I'd suggest a topic ban but, given how many previous blocks he has had for similar behaviour on various topics, maybe it is time to just call this a case of WP:NOTHERE? --DanielRigal (talk) 14:31, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

I was asked to take issues to the talk page instead of engaging in edit warring. What else do you want me to do? I am also still trying to figure out how my edit was "non-constructive". Willbb234 14:35, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

You could have opened a discussion about whether the content you were edit warring over was valid for inclusion and invited opinions from all. Instead you decided to badger one named user in an aggressive way. This seems far more about a personal grievance than about the content itself. --DanielRigal (talk) 14:42, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

That's because Raladic was the one who did the revert. Why would I ask someone else about this? I suggest you move on Daniel before you embarrass yourself. You already did this at my talk page. Willbb234 14:52, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Like I said, you are making things unnecessarily personal. You could have chosen to open a discussion about whether the content is valid without carrying over all the previous drama. That was the very thing that the block was meant to put a stop to. This isn't about keeping score or getting one over on other editors. --DanielRigal (talk) 15:15, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

The block was about preventing future edit warring. I haven't edit warred since the end of the block so I don't see the issue. I also don't see how any of the conversation on the talk page is "personal". Willbb234 15:19, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Why would I ask someone else about this?

Because WP:CONSENSUS is important on Wikipedia. Two people arguing back and forth is not the best way to resolve a dispute. You want to create a general discussion on the Talk page to invite outside input, not just continue a fight with one editor. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:57, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

@HandThatFeeds: I was referring to this revert, which was performed by Raladic and so I asked Raladic why they did this. I am unsure as to why I would ask someone else as to why Raladic performed this revert. Willbb234 18:31, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

The issue is that, rather than starting a general discussion about what an appropriate change would look like, you went straight back to confronting Raladic about the revert. You should have simply started a new section with a proposal for your changes to the article, backed by reliable sources. If other people agreed, you'd have consensus to make the change; if not, you'd have to let it go. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:05, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

No, you don't tell me what I should and shouldn't be doing. I'm at liberty to question other users if I don't feel as if their reasoning is acceptable. And please don't talk to me as if I don't understand Wikipedia's basic principles. Willbb234 19:13, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Time served, and as the subject has said, they are discussing on the talk page which is where this belongs. Lightburst (talk) 20:15, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

The current "discussion" looks a lot like a mixture of sealioning/WP:BLUDGEON, WP:OWN and WP:IDHT. It seems like far more of a continuation of previous behaviour than an attempt to restart the discussion on a better basis. When another editor stepped in suggesting a compromise (adding "some") this was flat out rejected. I'll try to steer it towards an RfC as a way to try to break the deadlock but I really doubt that this is going to stop until Willbb234 either gets exactly what he wants or somebody puts a stop to it. --DanielRigal (talk) 21:03, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

You go down this bad-faith accusation line and when that doesn't work, you then claim that I am not allowed to hold an opinion in this debate. The discussion is actually progressing nicely considering that it has only been going on for half a day, but now you believe an end needs to be put to this as there is apparently a "deadlock" (really?). My objection is backed up by both source analysis and some reasonable explanation and I have done quite a bit more of this than other editors on the talk page, so to suggest that I am bludgeoning, sealioning or whatever other label you want to use is just absurd. I've already said that you need to move on Daniel, but you are clearly not getting the point. Willbb234 22:08, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

It's pretty fucking obvious you either don't understand or (more likely) don't care about basic principles. You've made up your mind that you are right, and no one is going to persuade you otherwise. I expect you'll find that sticking to this path is a quick way to an indef. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 15:52, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

I don't know how you've come to that conclusion. Willbb234 15:57, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

To The Hand That Feeds You: Well, it looks to me that Willbb234 is right on the content matter. It’s not a good idea to get so aggressive and insulting – how about striking your comment? Sweet6970 (talk) 16:00, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Having gained no traction for his position on the Talk page, Willbb234 is now threatening to resume the edit war by removing the article content that he, and only he, has objected to. A compromise suggestion from User:RoxySaunders has been rejected out of hand. My attempts to encourage an RfC are getting absolutely nowhere. (I'm not keen to start the RfC myself as I am not the one proposing change and hence I can't provide the rationale for the proposed change.)

Please can we get some more eyes on this? In the meantime, I've posted a neutral notification to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies to see if anybody there can help. --DanielRigal (talk) 13:43, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Please familiarise yourself with WP:ONUS. Willbb234 13:52, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

And this is the problem. It's like arguing with a brick wall. The problem is, at best, WP:SATISFY and, at worst WP:OWN. There is a rough consensus against Willbb234's position on the talk page (I think it is 3 to 1 against) and yet he demands the content be removed and rejects any compromise. --DanielRigal (talk) 14:03, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

I am not rejecting any compromise. Where did you get this idea? I disagreed with Roxy's interpretation of the views expressed in the sources. As I have said, I am open to discussing this further. If you have some constructive comments relating to the content I would be happy to talk about these. However, it seems as if you are more interested in talking about me (I think I have an admirer) than about the content. Willbb234 14:07, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

But you insist on removing the content, despite a rough consensus against doing so, pending discussion that it is unlikely can ever end because you demand satisfaction. As for "it seems as if you are more interested in talking about me", yes, this is literally a thread about your behaviour.

More than WP:NOTHERE, I think that the most relevant policy that argues for a block here is WP:NOTCOMPATIBLE. --DanielRigal (talk) 14:21, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

You have tried to get me blocked for trolling, harassment, WP:NOTHERE, disruptive behaviour, edit warring, and being incompatible with the project, accused me of sealioning, bludgeoning, claiming ownership of content, not getting the point, warned me more than once on my talk page, and lied to me about policy. I think you need to take a step back, calm down, and stop with the bad-faith accusations. This would make me much more keen to work with you, not against you. Willbb234 14:39, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

In accordance with DanielRigal’s request for ‘more eyes’, I have just looked at the relevant section on the article’s Talk page. This looks like a content dispute to me – so ANI is not an appropriate venue for the discussion. Sweet6970 (talk) 14:45, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

This thread is about behaviour. The content dispute is the venue where some of the behaviour in question took place. --DanielRigal (talk) 14:48, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

This is now a behaviour issue (it may not have been before), as Willbb234 is threatening on the talk page to remove the contested material again, and appears to believe that posting on the talk page that he's going to do it means he's not continuing an edit-war. I don't see the problem with the suggested RfC - that is the usual manner in which contested content disputes are dealt with. Black Kite (talk) 14:54, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

@Black Kite: Please explain how WP:ONUS should be correctly applied here. Thanks, Willbb234 15:10, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

That's exactly the point, though - there is a dispute as to whether ONUS applies here, so an RfC is the best way to solve that issue. A continuing argument on a talk page between two (or more) editors who have entrenched differing views is unlikely to do so. Black Kite (talk) 15:18, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

I thought that the disputed content should be removed until consensus was established or an RfC takes places and from there a decision would be made as to whether to add the content back in or not. It wasn't my intention to restart an edit war or provoke a response from another editor. I'll leave it alone. Willbb234 15:26, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

No, that's not how ONUS works. The text you want to remove dates back to 2015. ONUS applies, generally, only to new additions; long standing text is normally presumed to have implicit consensus from the number of people who read or edited it without changing it, so the burden is generally on anyone who wants to remove it to demonstrate that that's not the case - either by explaining how it lacks implicit consensus or by actively demonstrating a lack of consensus. Otherwise anyone could delete large swaths of typical articles and demand extended discussions to restore them, which would obviously not be workable. Even beyond that, the rough consensus on the talk page is clearly against you - a quick nose-count is a weak consensus but is still consensus, which shifts the burden to you if you want to argue against it. Even if the text you were objecting to were new and lacked implicit consensus, you certainly cannot claim WP:ONUS when discussions are something like three-to-one against you. In this case WP:SATISFY is a more relevant policy - you can't remove longstanding text simply because you personally object to it when multiple people disagree with you; they don't have an obligation to satisfy or convince you personally. (Also, I'm noting this exchange down in my ever-growing list of "unconvincingly sweeping interpretations of ONUS lead to unconstructive trainwrecks" examples the next time there's a dispute over it.) --Aquillion (talk) 09:08, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

ONUS doesn't give an editor the right to edit war, and if multiple editors has reverted you maybe your interpretation of the situation is wrong. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 18:56, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

This "implicit consensus" you speak of doesn't exist (you've just made the concept up). And content being on a page for a while doesn't mean anything. The page is in a bad shape as has been pointed out already, so just because content has been on it for a while that doesn't mean that editors agree with its inclusion. Willbb234 22:42, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Nope, in fact the whole editing concept of Wikipedia is based on implicit consensus as outlined at WP:IMPLICITCONSENSUS - content existing on a page is implied consensus by the community, especially if it has been there for a long time. And while you claim the article is in bad shape, it is a very highly watched article and the content you have disputed had consensus, which is why you were reverted, and subsequently blocked for edit warring against said consensus. Raladic (talk) 22:49, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

An edit has presumed consensus until it is disputed or reverted. Aquillion was trying to claim that implicit consensus is robust enough to override the instructions at WP:ONUS, which it is not, or that it exists even if an editor disputes the content. Willbb234 22:59, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Consensus can override Onus, which is a specific sub policy to verifiability.

If the community of editors have formed consensus and have RS to back said consensus, then you have to first reach a new consensus.

The entire editing process of Wikipedia is based on Consensus, not WP:WIKILAWYERING to try to shoehorn a specific policy that by itself may support your viewpoint to ignore the rest of the editing community. Raladic (talk) 23:10, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

This is now a purely academic discussion and nothing to do with the matter at hand. The content issue has now been resolved - see the discussion on the talk page. There doesn't seem to be any admin action needed on the behaviour side. ANI is not the place for philosophical arguments about whether and when local consensus can override policy. Unless I'm missing something, we're done here. WaggersTALK 07:36, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Generally, more eyes from experienced content editors at Transgender would be great. This is an article that gets 130,000 views per month and is at the center of hot-button political disputes in many countries, but has lots of poorly-sourced or out-of-date information. I recently cut several kilobytes of broad assertions sourced to single news articles or studies. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 23:53, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

I agree that Willbb234's first edit after the block was unnecessarily aggressive in tone and could have been much better phrased. Perhaps as a result, the subsequent discussion is turning into a bit of a battleground and that could have been avoided by framing the discussion in a more collegiate way. However, that aggressively phrased question does not, in my view, constitute harassment or trolling, and I don't see a need for admin intervention at this point. I would of course encourage everyone involved to calm down a bit and be more civil to one another, because there's a real danger that sanctions will be required if they don't. WaggersTALK 09:37, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

I've added it to my watchlist now @Tamzin :) WaggersTALK 09:40, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Jord656 misrepresenting sources

Jord656 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Seems to be willfully? CIR? something? misrepresenting sources repeatedly and getting into arguments about it. See [268][269] and compare with sources Jord gives themself at Talk:Ada_Lovelace#Ada Gordon or Ada Byron as birth name., and [270][271][272] on Akt (charity) and compare there with the source. I don't have the patience or desire to delve deeper into this person's edit history. Also their behavior on talk pages with bizarre "no you" or tu quoque or something mirroring of warnings they get. —DIYeditor (talk) 22:13, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

No, you just go round reverting everything ive done even with sources. You just seem to dislike my contributions for no legitimate reason Jord656 (talk) 23:08, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

DIYeditor's reverts seem to have legitimate reasons. The findingada.com source doesn't seem sufficient to contradict the other sources that state her name was Ada Byron. Your changes to Akt (charity) were both ungrammatical ("being chased multistory") and not supported by the source (no mention in it of being chased). Schazjmd (talk) 23:16, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Well having known Albert's foster mum and been privvy to the evidence that was submitted, i feel that is suffice Jord656 (talk) 08:21, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

oh and I apologise for my dyslexia, it causes me more problems then you Jord656 (talk) 08:22, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Hi Jord656, your personal relationship with the subject will therefore subject you to our WP:COI guidelines, which would in effect stop you from editing that article directly. Also, your personal knowledge of anything is not acceptable on Wikipedia articles. Any material you add should be attributed to reliable sources. I would advise you to not edit the said article from hereon and to use the talk page to post any material that you may wish to be added to the article. This is not to reduce your editing experience, just to ensure you are aware of our guidelines and are able to follow them. Thank you, Lourdes 08:51, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Another editor telling me I'm not welcome, and whitewashing blaten homophobic violence. Sounds typical to me. Jord656 (talk) 12:31, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

I suggest you cease accusing other editors of whitewashing blaten homophobic violence, per WP:NPA. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:18, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

when editors fail to actually state facts of murderous homophobia, how is it not whitewashing homophobia? Jord656 (talk) 22:49, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Please carefully read WP:VERIFY, WP:RS and Help:Citing sources. —DIYeditor (talk) 00:23, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

I have a personal relationship with the UK should i not edit british pages, i am also a human being shall i not edit any page that relates to the human existence? Jord656 (talk) 22:59, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

COI isn't a black and white thing. Generally we mean being directly connected to a person or organization. There is a lot of arguable COI that occurs on Wikipedia. At any rate, please read WP:COI for an explanation. —DIYeditor (talk) 00:26, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

All this sounds to me like you want me to stop going on Wikipedia, especially now as i wanted to actually mention homophobia that happened with alberts death, but i suppose that like the rest of the world now, wiki wants us banished too. Well thats it, never doing anthing on Wikipedia, since you all want to erase the history of lgbt violence Jord656 (talk) 00:52, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

We go by reliable sources. You don't seem to want to process that. Hopefully a block will be put in place to help you keep your word to stop editing. —DIYeditor (talk) 08:52, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

I've used multiple reliable sources but you obviously don't want to be proved wrong so you spew false allegations. Sounds like you think you are better than everyone else. But when you have an "encyclopedia" that cannot even get Prince William's name correctly what do you expect.

Then thinking it is ok for you to erase violence to gay men, even though there is plenty of evidence. Typical homophobe Jord656 (talk) 09:49, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

• Hi Jord656, hope you are well. While ANI will not adjudicate on content issues, it would be well if you read up BRD and dispute resolution. In summary, when your change has been reverted, you should go to the talk page of the article to gain consensus rather than revert again. If you instead simply revert to your preferred version before consensus has been reached, that may be considered disruptive editing. Additionally, not all sources that document news are considered reliable. You may consider reading up on reliable sources once more. Again, don't revert once your addition to an article has been challenged and rejected by another editor. Have fun editing here, and don't get too hassled by all of it. Thanks, Lourdes 06:18, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

I have blocked this user indefinitely for continuing to make personal attacks here ("Typical homophobe") after being warned about WP:NPA. This was done as a regular admin action and does not preclude further community sanction on the other issues, if warranted. --Yamla (talk) 09:56, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

These personal attacks continued after the block, unsurprisingly. --Yamla (talk) 10:10, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

574X

574X (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Editor is WP:NOTHERE. Blocked again but will likely continue making a long stream of disruptive edits when the block expires. Practically all edits need to be reverted, and it's a lot of work to do so. The latest round is to add empty "See Also" sections mixed with nonsense linking (eg. Special:Diff/1180366208, Special:Diff/1180363602) - RovingPersonalityConstruct (talk, contribs) 00:03, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

I just reverted today an empty see-also section by User:Pass-word(p). Related? See also Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kfjisee. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:24, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

No, edit are not vandalism,please do not reverted, I only editing "see also" and see my edit. (name) (He/she/it) 05:47, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Courtesy ping to ScottishFinnishRadish for 574X's proposed indef. I have gone ahead and indef'd Pass-word per evidence listed at the SPI. Thanks, Lourdes 07:13, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

I'm fine with an indef, and almost did so yesterday. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 09:01, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Ok. Thanks SFR. Done. Lourdes 10:26, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Concerning page moves by Yafie Achmad Raihan

• Yafie Achmad Raihan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

A page move on Nusantara (planned city) article came up in my watchlist, with the abovementioned editor moving it to La Nusantara (planned city), and as well as changing the text to give it the appearance that the city was named as such all along. After checking through the sources and also the Indonesian Wikipedia, I determined that that the page move was probably not done on good faith, and reverted the move. The user had moved the Indonesian article to a similar name as well without giving a proper reason. This move was reverted within 5 minutes by another editor there.

At first the move on enwiki didn't raise much of a concern alone, however, the move on idwiki gave me an impetus to check on the editor's contribution here on enwiki, and what I found concerning were these moves made within the last 30 days:

• (4 minutes after the move above) Move of Nusantara Capital City Authority to La Nusantara Capital City Authority. Special:Diff/1180424158.
• 12 October 2023 - Move of 2023 Herat earthquakes to 2023 Triple 6.3 Magnitude Herat Earthquake. Special:Diff/1179777110
• 24 September 2023 - Move of various 2022 Asian Games and 2023 Asian Para Games pages (> 20 pages) to 2023, probably under the mistaken idea that the games should be 2023 Asian Games given that it was being held only this year due to COVID-19 concerns in the host country. Filtered Special:Contributions

Before I discovered the additional moves made (other than the ones related to Nusantara), I had given the editor a level 1 warning (Special:Diff/1180426807), under a mistaken belief that this was the editor's first unwanted page move. All the abovementioned moves were also reverted by other editors... and me. But after discovering the 2022 Asian Games moves, I would have retracted the level 1 warning and issue a level 4 warning as I only then remembered having to deal with the 2022 Asian Games moves when another user filed a request at WP:RM/TR to revert one of the moves, and only then I remembered that this editor had been warned or engaged before recently by several editors over the 2022 Asian Games page moves.

The editor removed those warnings from their talk page just minutes before I acted on reverting the Nusantara page moves. They also removed the level 1 warning I gave just minutes after I had given them. While the editor did not reply to any of the warnings, customised or templated, I presume that with these removals, they at least had acknowledged the warnings.

I am filing this report here as I do not think that they will engage with other editors on their talk page. – robertsky (talk) 16:44, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

The editor has been notified on their talk page. Special:Permalink/1180433677. – robertsky (talk) 16:45, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

This user has edited Wikipedia since 2014, far from being a new user. He knows exactly what he did. I think his ability to move page should be disabled, or the move vandalism will be continued in the future. His imaginary title of La Nusantara (planned city) is not funny. Bluesatellite (talk) 01:32, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Restricted from article space, till they communicate. Thanks, Lourdes 10:40, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

User:SheLikesHeraldry

Multiple non-consensus and non-constructive edits with personal attacks. UA0Volodymyr (talk) 10:42, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

• Removed this report, as well. Blocked for 72h in the first instance. Black Kite (talk) 10:49, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

IP:194.105.205.250

Unexplained non-consensus edits. UA0Volodymyr (talk) 11:02, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

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

@UA0Volodymyr I can see you're certainly making yourself comfy here at AN/I. This is not, however, a catch all report page. As bolded at the top, it is for urgent incidents, and chronic, intractable behavior. You've reverted them twice, without explanation, and have now brought them to AN/I without any attempt to actually communicate with them on either the article's talk page or theirs. This is a content dispute with no consensus I can find. Please try to communicate with them.

I would like to more explicitly caution you about starting threads here. It's expected here that you supply more information than a 3-word complaint. Diffs are generally expected as evidence of someone's behavior, unless posting the diff would be harmful or counterproductive. GabberFlasted (talk) 11:36, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

They don't follow WP:BRD. UA0Volodymyr (talk) 11:39, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

BRD is an essay, not policy, widely recommended though it may be. But you have not attempted to discuss with them, nor have you even used a warning template on their talk page before jumping to AN/I. You call their edits unexplained but you haven't explained your reason for reverting them either. A quick google search supports their version. Again, find a source, and bring it to the talk page. GabberFlasted (talk) 11:50, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

That isn't an administrator issue, at least right now. This is the last place to report something, not the first. You first need to attempt to discuss your issue with the others involved. 331dot (talk) 11:51, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Promotional dental product editing

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• Clear aligners (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

User Alexsmith1202 is continually inserting promotional material and not talking. Could use a quick look from an admin, Bon courage (talk) 08:37, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

You are the weakest link, goodbye! @Bon courage user indef'd for spamming. Feel free to go straight to WP:AIV with this sort of thing. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 08:53, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

O yeah, AIV ... Bon courage (talk) 08:58, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Persistent issues with sourcing and translations

Posting this here, as I'm not sure where else to take this. I'd like another pair of eyes on the creations of Patricia Mannerheim (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log · edit summaries) (ANI notification). They are a prolific creator of articles on (among other things) Finnish women, a topic area that certainly warrants attention. The problem is that their creations are plagued with issues, and they appear to not be interested in fixing those issues when they are pointed out on their talk page. Rather, they simply continue to the next article, repeating the mistakes there.

The main problems are (nb: diffs/permalinks only examples):

• Bad/misleading, occasionally to the point of being impossible to understand, translations of Finnish text. E.g. at Constance Ullner translates Finnish esitaistelija (champion, pioneer, lit. 'one who fights before [others do]') as "escort driver" and at Elli Ruuth, translates Fin. "Hovioikeudelle jouduttiin tällöin hankkimaan myös uusi kalusto, joka valmistettiin Helsingin ja Turun keskusvankiloissa" (The Court of Appeals had to procure new furniture, which was manufactured at the Helsinki and Turku Central Prisons) as "The Supreme Court granted the new devices to the central prisons of Helsinki and Turku". This last translation continues for a few sentences of the same quality with e.g. Finnish "kassa-arkku" (cash chest/coffer/strongbox) turning into "appeal tool chest"; see bottom-most bullet point for another concern regarding this specific article.
• References commonly either fail to verify the content cited to them, or occasionally directly contradict the prose. See e.g. Hilja Tavaststjerna, Constance Ullner and Tarja Salmio-Toiviainen.
• Incorporating completely irrelevant references. E.g. at Carin Bryggman cites a subscription form of a newspaper (ref #1). At Aili-Salli Ahde-Kjäldman (since draftified) references a completely unrelated scholarly article about Estonian newspapers of late 1800s (ref #5).
• Parts of the original Finnish/Swedish text are left completely untranslated. E.g. at Constance Ullner#Bibliography has both Finnish and Swedish language bibliographical notes interspersed. After extensively discussing this on their talk page, first produces a completely new article (Immi Hellén) with a completely untranslated bibliography and then (after a {{non-english}} tag) translates the names of the works (NB: No evidence these works were ever actually published with English titles) but not the bibliographical notes (permalink).
• Citations consisting solely of a full Finnish or Swedish citation copy-pasted into the title field of a {{cite}} template. E.g. at Hilja Gestrin, Carin Bryggman, and Lina Snellman.
• The articles often include segments that have been lifted whole-sale (but translated) from sources. Mostly these are individual or pairs of sentences, but see e.g. Elli Ruuth, where the segment cited to juristiuutiset is a directly copied (rather bad) translation. While compiling this report, I also noticed that at the same page the segment cited to ref #3 is also actually a direct translation from ref #1 (i.e. a completely different ref) and does not appear to be supported by ref #3 at all.

The latest article, Wilhelmiina Arpiainen, is a microcosm of the above. All the bibliographical notes in the the "Works" and "Translations" sections are untranslated, ref #2 is a copy-pasted wholesale, untranslated, into the title field of a {{cite book}}, ref #3 is a bare link that doesn't load. Most worryingly, almost all of the content cited to ref #1 fails to verify or is partially contradicted with e.g. years not quite matching up or different locations being given.

I'm somewhat at a loss on what, exactly, should be done here. Contributions on this area would be most welcome, and a few issues with any article is fine, to be expected even. But the above are both pervasive and rather concerning (especially the referencing and mistranslations) problems that keep cropping up time after time. Perhaps someone else could have a word with them.

Or, if I'm overreacting, perhaps someone could help me with the cleanup. Ljleppan (talk) 21:40, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

• Hi Patricia and hope you are doing well. I have analysed much of what is written by Ljleppan above and your related edits and beyond. While it would be great to have your response here (and I don't want to rush this), but given the evidence, would you be okay to voluntarily stop editing Finnish articles? Thank you, Lourdes 08:33, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

  Hi@Lourdes: Sounds good! but you're telling me to stop creating Finnish articles? totally? Or do I have no right to write about Finnish women? I have created many articles about Finland. None of them had any problems. Dear Administrator, Here's the problem: Please read this article and its discussion page: Pehr W. Palmroth. A user (Ljleppan) who constantly harasses me and (Redacted) does not have enough knowledge to raise the problem of the article on his talk page. Harassing me constantly on my talk page that turns to me. he seeks revenge for that article. —Patricia (Talk) 11:21, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

  Given the above claim of suicidal ideation & self harm, I have contacted Trust & Safety. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:09, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

  With that, looking over those articles myself, claiming that "none of them had any problems" just isn't correct. In like fashion, reading over the Palmroth article and its talk page, I'm failing to see how Ljleppan factored in at all; they have neither contributed to the article nor participated on the talk page. Ravenswing 18:50, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

  Ravenswing, Ljleppan was the main contributor to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pehr W. Palmrooth. TSventon (talk) 19:21, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

  As may be, but I'm not seeing in the OP where Ljleppan is seeking to relitigate the AfD. Ravenswing 00:38, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

  I don't think the allegation is that it's being re-litigated. I think what she's saying is that she's being harassed generally "in revenge" for what happened at the AfD. Not saying that's the case - just what she's claiming. DeCausa (talk) 07:21, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

  She did say that, explicitly. And I'm saying that I see no evidence of it. Ravenswing 07:27, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

  I did participate in the AfD for that article, as I do in most Finland-related AfD when I'm not swamped by work. Equally, I try to read through User:AlexNewArtBot/FinlandSearchResult and Wikipedia:WikiProject Finland/Article alerts every day. On my part, all I can say is that I don't hold any animosity over the AfD (Why would I? The consensus was against me, that's lifeWikipedia). Ljleppan (talk) 19:26, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

  Patricia, my suggestion would be to voluntarily avoid editing or creating Finnish/Finland-related articles for the time being. Wikipedia should not be the source of extreme stress for you -- with no disrespect, it is of your own creation due to your own continuing mistakes. Edit articles where you don't have to translate; and try to use sources as per our guidelines and policies. Is this acceptable to you? Thank you, Lourdes 05:53, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

With all due respect to you I must say frankly that your Decision and your vote (avoid editing or creating Finnish/Finland-related articles) It worried me a lot. It's not fair. Why don't you see my talk page which is full of constant bombardment of that user? I was harassed and humiliated and Attack by the user. Why don't you pay attention to this point? Why should the joy of editing Wikipedia, which is the right of every user, be taken away from them? Do you side with him because you both have good Wikipedia articles? I will try my best. Definitely, like you two, I do not have the knowledge, literacy and expertise in writing in Wikipedia. I have to admit this. But as always I will try my best. I consider myself bound by Wikipedia's policies. I wrote 56 articles about Finland. Are all these articles wrong? Start: 2022-03-28, here are:

• Tähtitorninvuori, Lonna, Lappeenranta Fortress, Salla National Park, Lovisa Fortress, Taavetti Fortress, Hanko Fortress, Toivala, Muojärvi, Palovesi,Harparskog Line, Järvitaipale Fortress, U-asema, Ala-Suolijärvi, Museum of History and Future, Alvajärvi (Pihtipudas), Ryökäsvesi-Liekune, Koskikeskinen, Korttajärvi, Kolonjärvi, Konttajärvi, Kolkku, Kaakkolampi, Kevatoinen, Keuruun Kaituri, Hallinjärvi, Aatunselkä, Methodism in Finland, Gunnel Adlercreutz, Ebba-Stina Schalin-Hult, Margit Lindqvist, Hilja Gestrin, Elli Ruuth, Kerttu Rytkönen, Anna-Lisa Stigell, Elsa Holmsten, Kerttu Tamminen, Pali-Maija, Fredrika Lovisa Lindqvist, Fredrika Wenman, Anette Reuterskiöld,Beata Sofia Gyldén, Augusta Vörlund, Anna-Reeta Korhonen, Ingeborg Malmström, Betty Elfving, Mathilda Roslin, Lina Snellman, Alma Hongell, Hilja Tavaststjerna, Tarja Salmio-Toiviainen, Carin Bryggman, Constance Ullner, Hilda Tihlä, Immi Hellén, Wilhelmiina Arpiainen.
• Many users have guided me before, users like: Goldsztajn or Ipigott or Thilsebatti and Siroxo. I thank them I learned a lot from these people and appreciate them, but the place for criticism is on the discussion page of the article. That complaining user should come to the discussion page of the articles and tell the problems. But he doesn't. He does not deal with the article talk page. If he does, and if I don't fixed the problems immediately, Patricia can be considered a user who doesn't care about Wikipedia's policies. However, this is not the case at all. The user rants and wants to turn everyone against Patricia and defame me. Thank you.—Patricia (Talk) 14:35, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
  • While Patricia Mannerheim has contributed to Wikipedia since early 2022, her articles about Finns and Finland seem to go back only about a month, i.e. to early September 2023. I can see she has been upset about the various problems with her editing listed here. She appears to have created many acceptable articles prior to that date and many about Finland which have not received attention. While editors appear to have encountered problems with her recent work, it seems to me it would have been more constructive to try to help her along rather than suggest she should stop creating articles in connection with Finland. It's not always easy to "translate" articles from another language version of Wikipedia, especially as many of the original internet-based sources may no longer be accessible as time goes by. I would have thought seasoned editors like Ljleppan might have been prepared to offer more assistance in finding acceptable alternative sources rather than just listing problems on PM's talk page and bringing the matter up for discussion here. It seems to me that by and large PM's work has been useful, in particular in connection with project WikiProject Women in Red. Maybe key players in that project such as Rosiestep, Victuallers and Oronsay could help sort things out. In any case, I think we should work towards making it possible for PM to continue her obvious interest in covering more women from Finland.--Ipigott (talk) 16:10, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

    I'd be perfectly happy with some sort of mentoring arrangement; Finnish women is certainly a topic where more contributions would be welcome. At the same time, I'd note that a major concern of mine are the misrepresented Finnish-language sources. Finnish is notoriously difficult for e.g. Google Translate to handle, so I'm somewhat skeptical what a non-Finnish speaking mentor would be able to do on that front. W/r/t her articles about Finns and Finland seem to go back only about a month, Patricia's created Finland-related articles since early 2022 (e.g. Special:Permalink/1079250700, Special:Permalink/1079741172). Ljleppan (talk) 16:53, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

• Thanks, Ljleppan, for responding so quickly. As a pioneer of machine translation in Europe, I must say I'm amazed at the recent progress Google translate has made with Finnish. While I am completely incompetent in Finnish myself, I am fluent in Swedish and am aware that many Finnish articles also have a Swedish-language version. I seem to have mistakenly thought that you, Ljleppan, were a Finnish speaker yourself but perhaps you a more of a Swedish Finn. In any case, there are many Finnish speakers who collaborate on the English Wikipedia who could help to sort things out and perhaps act as mentors. I would also be happy to do what I can to help things along. Let's all try to be more constructive and make sure all those who have been notable enough to have articles in Finnish can also be represented on the main English wiki. I am especially interested in seeing more articles about Finnish women as we need to chip away at the gender gap.--Ipigott (talk) 19:16, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

  I do speak Finnish and am slightly unclear what gave you the opposite impression. Especially given the concerns I expressed at the top of this section. Ljleppan (talk) 20:32, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

  My two pennit; in this particular case, at this point, not sure I'm comfortable telling the editor to cease working in the area. I've offerred to assist in reviewing their drafts. I'm also happy to assist with clean ups. Feel free to ping me as needed. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 22:39, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

• That's a wonderful offer, Goldsztajn. With your assistance, PM should be able to continue writing about Finnish women. Apologies to Ljleppan for any misunderstanding. Please let me know if you encounter any further problems.--Ipigott (talk) 05:38, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Being critical does not detract from my values. By the way, it makes me progress. There is no way I could have been so wrong that someone would bully me and that bullying would hurt me so much. I ask Ljleppan to support me. I expect it to guide me as a teacher with good tone on the discussion page. I will be happy if Lj point out my mistakes and I will definitely take action to fix them. I hope he will be satisfied with my progress in the future. I apologize to all friends for the misunderstanding. Thank you for the kindness and support of my unique teachers: Goldsztajn, Ipigott and Thilsebatti. I really hope that the editors recognize Patricia as a grateful, polite and principled girl. I am unconditionally bound by the Wikipedia consensus. I've been working on drafts for a while and I'll let my teachers know when I'm done. I do this process only for Finnish women. I do not use drafts for articles related to Finnish geography, Finnish military history, and other non-Finnish articles. thank u all. Best.—Patricia (Talk) 11:22, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Please see this article about finnish women/ October 2, 2023: Tarja Salmio-Toiviainen and its discussion page : Talk:Tarja Salmio-Toiviainen. Goldsztajn sent me a source and I used it immediately. For me, this act without asking and just seeing the article label was incredibly generous. Shouldn't I shake the hand of such a respected and generous user?! Thank you dear Goldsztajn. this is real Wikipedia. Best.—Patricia (Talk) 13:47, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Guto2003

Guto2003 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been making disruptive moves, seemingly to disrupt wikipedia to make a WP:POINT regarding the title of the Zeitoun incident article. When confronted about this, they stated that the complaniant should Go push your filthy ass Zionist, Eurocentric agenda elsewhere [273]. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:23, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes, please block this editor for having a WP:BATTLEGROUND stance seen from the above-quoted comment and their disruptive moves.—Alalch E. 18:27, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Agreed, support an indef block for this highly disruptive user. First moving several WP:ARBPIA articles without any discussion, even labelling these contentious moves as 'minor'. When warned, resorts to racist personal attacks. Clearly WP:NOTHERE for the right reasons. Jeppiz (talk) 18:32, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

• I’ve blocked for a week as an immediate response (they had had no proper CTOP notice according to the filter log, I later noticed one was given but not substituted so it didn’t get logged). I don’t object if someone else thinks an indef is a better call, had they been given CTOP notice before today they would be, currently, at a minimum topic banned. Courcelles (talk) 18:37, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
• Indef. Has been warned repeatedly and even blocked twice before for NPA. We don't need this sort of help to build Wikipedia. DMacks (talk) 18:39, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
• Good block. Suggest an ARBPIA topic ban on top (the comment came after the CTOP notice, even if the notice wasn't substed, and it's hard to miss the big scary warnings everywhere and think that was an appropriate remark). An indef seems a little over the top for a single remark but if the topic ban doesn't do the trick, an indef would be the next logical step. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:18, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Agreed, sounds like a good compromise to topic ban on top of the block but not indef for now. Jeppiz (talk) 19:24, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

I would also support an indef topic ban, at mininum. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:43, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Same also. That user also downplayed the Re’im massacre without consensus from other editors. Borgenland (talk) 00:36, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

This kind of incivility and POV pushing seems to be a pattern. 2603:7000:CF0:82A0:B0F3:1535:CF4B:5C6E (talk) 01:12, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, with that comment I would support an indef WP:NOTHERE block. Hemiauchenia (talk) 03:07, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

I also agree with the IP and with Hemiauchenia. When Courcelles blocked for one week, I agreed with HJ Mitchell that an indef over one comment may be severe. However, we now know it was not just one comment but a pattern of Guto2003 regularly attacking other users. Some attacks date back quite long, but that also shows this is not new. Apart from the attack that led Courcelles to block and the additional attack the IP posted, merely looking at Guto2003's talk page reveals still more attacks (and I haven't even looked at their comments elsewhere). This pattern of personal attacks combined with their disruptive editing in ArbCom sanctioned areas make me agree with both users above that an indef block seems more than warranted. Jeppiz (talk) 10:31, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

I see this is a pattern, not a one-time loss of perspective. Indef'd. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:20, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Good call. Courcelles (talk) 14:11, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Noting for the record here their response to being blocked. DMacks (talk) 19:35, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Given they have continued to use their talkpage to attack other editors, I have revoked talkpage access. DMacks (talk) 15:25, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Doskidoski888

As noted by HistoryofIran, Doskidoski888 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is clearly the user behind the IP 50.170.75.138, because a few minutes after this IP commented, Doskidoski888 made this comment. It is not worth delving into how these comments are unacceptable per se, but funny enough, I never made a single edit on Medes as claimed. It is also alarming that I was called a "Turk" by multiple new accounts and IPs, which indicate a possible off-wiki campaign and meatpuppetry.

Apart from their misconduct, more importantly, 50.170.75.138/Doskidoski888 made a series of disruptive edits this month, the latest of which were libelous comments on Garnik Asatrian: [274][275][276] Clearly WP:NOTHERE. Aintabli (talk) 17:20, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

They have just started a spree of cross-article disruption: [277][278] Aintabli (talk) 17:25, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Very concerning Aintabli is deleting sources and using bias sources while protecting Garkin writings while the source in Wikipedia states he does not see the Kurds as a nation and self proclaimed his owned anti Kurdish sentiment Doskidoski888 (talk) 17:37, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

@Doskidoski888, I placed a notice on your talk page to make you aware that Kurds and Kurdistan are considered contentious topics on Wikipedia. Please read it. Any edits that you make following that notice can cause you to be subject to contentious topic remedies. Schazjmd (talk) 17:40, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

[279] Aintabli (talk) 17:32, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Doski has just violated WP:NPA. See here. Sincerely, Novo Tape (She/Her)^{My Talk Page} 17:48, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Not the first instance (in just one hour). There is also a WP:CIR issue I believe, because they are most likely mistaking me with other users. Just like I have never edited Medes, I have never removed sources on Garnik Asatrian. They also just created their userpage. Aintabli (talk) 17:53, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

• Indeffed as WP:NOTHERE. I have also deleted that userpage. IP blocked for a month. Black Kite (talk) 18:00, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Persistent removal of sourced personal life content at Chloé Zhao

There seem to be three issues in play here. The first is whether the content in question be restored [280]. The second is whether the article ought to be locked. The third is the edit warring by 2001:569:5824:A900:5898:5A42:DFE5:3308 (talk · contribs), who appears to be either Akiras7119 (talk · contribs) evading a two week block, or someone editing on their behalf. I'd support a lock and user block, and suggest the content be reinstated and possibly reworded so as to avoid suggesting the couple is still together. Their partnership and working association seems notable. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 04:39, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the report. I have blocked for a week and protected for a fortnight and brought back the last stable version. No opinion on the actual wording. Will leave it to the active editors. Lourdes 06:59, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Thank you, Lourdes. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 14:33, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Though I would keep an eye on this after protection expires. This has been ongoing since May [281]. If the disruption resumes I'll ask for a longer lock at that notice board. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 15:13, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

This feels like something that should be discussed on WP:BLPN. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:04, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

COI or Undisclosed paid editor

BushHallMusic2001 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user claims to be a manager of Bush Hall’s brand and marketing, edits have been very promotional so I am suspecting either a COI or an undisclosed paid editor. 24.211.70.219 (talk) 16:05, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

If they're managing Bush Hall's brand and marketing, and they say they are, then they're very clearly COI and Paid. They haven't done the proper disclosure, but there's no question on it. Canterbury Tail talk 16:13, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Hello - I don't fully understand. How can I update the page legally? I just want to make it more true to the venue. BushHallMusic2001 (talk) 16:16, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

But have you declared a COI notice for the page or a paid editing notice? 24.211.70.219 (talk) 16:19, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

@BushHallMusic2001, after you make the proper conflict-of-interest declaration (see the message on your talk page), you can request edits to Bush Hall on Talk:Bush Hall. Please be aware that this is an encyclopedia article and not Bush Hall's personal website. Promotional edits like the ones you made ("Today, Bush Hall hosts everything from Live Music Gigs to Comedy Shows to Cabaret to Wedding Receptions to Conferences to Product Launches to Private Parties to Rehearsals to Filming to Photo Shoots. You name it, they can most probably do it! The space boasts high ceilings, beautiful acoustics, much history and many stories. A venue quite different from the rest.") will not be accepted. Schazjmd (talk) 16:26, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

@BushHallMusic2001: You stated in the edit summary for your first edit: I have updated and improved the Wiki page to drive more traffic to the venue. Can you recognize that explicitly states that your purpose is promotion, which is expressly forbidden by Wikipedia policy? WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 16:57, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Blocked by Cullen328. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 17:53, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes, this username was reported to WP:UAA, and I acted on that report. Cullen328 (talk) 18:10, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Jxpics and WP:GAME

Jxpics (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) seems to have been making loads of dummy edits to Cyberwarfare, seemingly to game ECP. Can this be revoked? Edits like this are hard to explain as anything other than dummy edits. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:44, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

As explained he is generating edits in order to have access to articles req. > 500 edits. Then he is doing POV things. Suggest block due to abusing the system and vandalism. --Julius Senegal (talk) 22:50, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

I've revoked extended confirmed. I was tempted to to indef but we'll see how it goes. @Hemiauchenia you still need to notify them. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:53, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

I definitely did notify them [282], however I see that Courcelles has indeffed them. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:55, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, @HJ Mitchell, I was showing them the door while you were pulling EC. Acting as an anti-vaccine apologist after 340 worthless dummy edits? Door, every time. Courcelles (talk) 22:59, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

No objection here. I nearly indef'd. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:06, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

UTRS appeal #80029 is closed. After reviewing this users edits and the unblock requests, I recommended a topic ban for post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, broadly construed, as an unblock condition. (Not a CTOP sanction. Hadn't been warned.) Or as this thread is still open, we can discuss it here.-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 00:51, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Vaccines etc would also have to be included, and they'd have to make 400 substantive edits before they got extended confirmed back. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 08:46, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Assuming their edits are centred around Robert F. Kennedy Jr. I'd consider this an all-CTOP% situation and not allow them back without, at minimum, CTOP topic bans from the AP2, COVID, and PS topic areas (the PS area covering any other anti-vax nonsense). That said, given the usual behaviour of these sorts of people, they're just going to find some way to worry around the edges of their ban and it's just not worth letting them back no matter the number of topic bans made. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{Source assessment notes} 21:36, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Olekina Ledama & 105.163.158.75: Legal threat

• 105.163.158.75 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• Olekina Ledama (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

User and page links added, "Legal threat" added to heading, moved from User talk:ToBeFree.
~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:32, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

The IP, claiming to be Olekina Ledama, just made a legal threat on their talk page.   –Skywatcher68 (talk) 19:21, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Nagol0929, reverting the removal of content claimed to be defamatory as "unexplained content removal" isn't ideal. Did you ensure verifiability before reverting, and are you aware of WP:BLPRESTORE? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:35, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

I'm also not really happy about Dakane2's Special:Diff/1180466925 either. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:44, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes I am aware of blprestore. And I made sure all the references were ok. Nagol0929 (talk) 20:47, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Nagol0929, at least the last sentence of the diff seems to lack a source and neutrality. Are you sure? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:49, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Rereading back over it I realize that the last sentence was not sourced and lacked neutrality. However that does not recuse the fact that the rest of the controversies section was sourced and was neutral. Nagol0929 (talk) 20:51, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Dedicating half of a biography towards a "Controversy" section seems to be inherently unduly weighted to me, "American slang" failed verification and "excellent fighter" seems to be a horrible joke rather than article content. Nagol0929, you have restored this content twice. One of us both is currently completely failing to see something important. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:59, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

_{I’m kinda an idiot sometimes} I see that now. But what about the first part? Is that okay or should that be removed too? Nagol0929 (talk) 21:04, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Also they removed everything below that including the reference list and categories. Nagol0929 (talk) 21:06, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Heh, no worries. Regarding the first part, I didn't attempt verification yet and won't judge. It may be reasonable to restore that part, but ideally after a discussion on the article's talk page, and after at least one attempt to invite the disagreeing editor to the discussion. If the discussion runs in circles, a third opinion may be helpful, and if the editor doesn't join the discussion after having been invited to, the essay WP:DISCFAIL may help. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:35, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Regarding the over-removal, that seems to be a forgivable mistake in the given situation. I don't think removing the categories was done intentionally, and removing the references section can additionally be explained as a misunderstanding of how MediaWiki/Wikipedia works. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:43, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

WP:BLPN is also an option for getting more eyes from editors with a deeper understanding of the intricacies of how WP:BLP and the WP:UNDUE intertwine.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:57, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

As a late response to Skywatcher68, thanks for the notification. The situation seems so messy that it shouldn't be handled on an individual user's talk page. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:51, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

There are significant WP:BLP policy concerns. I have extended confirmed protected the article for one week, and the issues should be discussed at Talk:Olekina Ledama. Cullen328 (talk) 21:11, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

As for the legal threat, I think that it can be disregarded when poorly referenced defamatory content inspired the comment. Cullen328 (talk) 21:13, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Block evading IP

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

More harassment of Philomathes2367 from block evading IPs at WP:RSN. Ip is 216.239.170.134 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). Please dispense blocks and semi protections as required. MrOllie (talk) 17:00, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

CU-blocked; TPA revoked by RickinBaltimore. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:12, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Edit warring on Kazakhstan and personal attacks User:GreatLeader1945

This user repeatedly claimed I'm "fan" of "authoritarian regime" of Kazakhstan, and I'm trying to "white-wash" them.[283]

1st edit: First he comes with[284] Kazakhstan is undoubtfully an authoritarian state with little to no political pluralism (source trust me argument)

2nd edit:[285] Are you seriously comparing an EU member country with a Cetnral Asian dictatorship? (other stuff exists argument)

3rd edit:[286] like the countries I listed (again other stuff argument)

4th edit:[287] Stop white-washing its government first personal attack.

5th edit:[288] Stop white-washing again. Beshogur (talk) 15:39, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

@Beshogur You literally have no arguments; for the N-th time, the Wikipedia page about Kazakhstan itself supports my claim. Reverting edits without arguments to prove your claim while, at the same time, mine is supported by the said page itself IS an edit war on your part. As for the "personal attacks" - I won't even comment that, as this isn't a personal attack. GreatLeader1945 (talk) 16:16, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Presidential republics tend to be authoritarian. Are you going to edit every authoritarian government here? Hungary is a democracy, yet its government is authoritarian. So what?

Per Template:Infobox country, "authoritarian government", "dominant party" are not government types. Effective dictatorships (eg Belarus, NK, Turkmenistan) might be an exception, but neither Kazakhstan, nor Uzbekistan are dictatorships. You claimed three times I'm trying to "white-wash" a government I'm apparently "fan" of it. That's a personal attack. Beshogur (talk) 16:24, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

@Beshogur "but neither Kazakhstan, nor Uzbekistan are dictatorships" - They are. And you literally changed the infobox info of Uzbekistan a few days ago to remove the fact that it's a dictatorship/authoritarian government. "Presidential republics tend to be authoritarian" - False, presidential republic =/= often a dictatorship, some of the most well-known examples of Presidential republics are not dictatorships - the US, France (yes, semi-presidential, but still), Mexico, whole of South America, South Korea. Uzbekistan is objectively super authoritarian, there's little distinction between it, Turkmenistan, Russia and Belarus ... and, of course, said Kazakhstan. GreatLeader1945 (talk) 16:35, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

I'm not going to discuss some cherry picking. It's clear what I meant. Yes on Uzbekistan, I removed your exact same edit because Shavkat Mirziyoyev and Kassym-Jomart Tokayev aren't dictator but reformists. Beshogur (talk) 16:36, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

@Beshogur I didn't write in Uzbekistan's infobox that it's an authoritarian dictatorship (check out the edit history), and mind you, this same classification is present in Russia and Belarus's infoboxes. They're "reformists" (biased POV) as much as Serdar Berdimuhamedow is a reformist. GreatLeader1945 (talk) 16:41, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

POV? Maybe search what they've done. Nobody claims Berdimuhamedow is a reformist, stop bringing random stuff. Beshogur (talk) 16:44, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

They are dictators and their gov'ts are authoritarian, period. It's as clear as a day. They even make Ergogan seem like a liberal fella. That's why I was saying that you keep white-washing them. I know that you're of Turkic origin and have an interest in this region but you can't argue with facts, it's literally stated in the respective pages. GreatLeader1945 (talk) 16:54, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Note I tried page protection, anti-vandalism etc. Beshogur (talk) 16:20, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

What I was doing wasn't vandalism, vandalism would be if I deleted some whole parts of the page, or wrote some gibberish etc. GreatLeader1945 (talk) 16:37, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

It's quite simple. Adding content that has been challenged repeatedly without also adding high-quality secondary sources that state what you are claiming can be considered vandalism after repeated attempts. Go find a source or two that is reliable and states the country is authoritarian and then add both. You will go much further with that strategy than readding challenged content and ascribing motives to other editors. spryde | talk 20:45, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

• I've fully protected the article for four days to stop the edit warring. Both editors get a trout for not using the talk page. GreatLeader1945, I'm going to drop a warning at your user talk page about personal attacks: "whitewashing" is borderline, as is commenting unnecessarily on the ethnic/national origin of other editors. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:58, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

  @Firefangledfeathers " "whitewashing" is borderline" - how could such a persistent action of his be called in this specific context then? OK, let it be "probably trying to white-wash" then.

  "as is commenting unnecessarily on the ethnic/national origin of other editors" - it has to do with the specific context of this situation, and I've literally said it very clear in said comment. Anyway, I won't waste my time with this debate and I won't further participate in this edit war. GreatLeader1945 (talk) 17:11, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

  It is very, very easy to make the same point without making it personal. "I think this new phrasing presents [X] in an inappropriately favorable light" is one of a dozen different ways that I can think of. --JBL (talk) 00:54, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Undisclosed paid editor (again)

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

Possible COI or undisclosed paid editor adding promotional text to a government official of Maldives. One of their edits implies that they are a close member of the government. 24.211.70.219 (talk) 19:52, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

I think this is a bit premature. This is an account to keep an eye on, but I think the message on my talk page may just have been poorly worded, indicating that Mariya Didi is a "close member of the government." As of my writing this, this editor has made no further edits to the article since their last warning. TornadoLGS (talk) 20:03, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

They are actually back editing again. I haven't reverted but if they've been given a final warning then a block could be in order. --CNMall41 (talk) 20:40, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

I was just going to say, they have sources this time, but the tone is still promotional. This editor has received a level-2 warning and a notice for paid editing, but no level-4 warning. TornadoLGS (talk) 20:43, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Makes sense. Could be a WP:CIR issue but it always lights up my COI suspicions when I see such large edits from a newer editor. --CNMall41 (talk) 20:57, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

I am genuinely trying to improve this article. I have taken your criticisms and tried correcting them. I believe I have removed much puffery and added citations where needed. Please let me know how I can further improve this article as I believe the existence of it helps advocate for women in politics in underrepresented nations. TheoryGames (talk) 21:00, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Edit warring - UA0Volodymyr

UA0Volodymyr has been edit warring for over a week on Crimean Tatar language, making multiple POV edits and removing sourced material. They've been reverted by three users:

• Mellk {https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Crimean_Tatar_language&diff=prev&oldid=1178604331}
• Beshogur {https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Crimean_Tatar_language&diff=prev&oldid=1178603393}
• 37.245.43.126 {https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Crimean_Tatar_language&diff=prev&oldid=1180561579}

but have refused to participate in talk. (Disclosure The last reverts today were both by me - my IP jumped from 37.245.43.126 to 37.245.43.164)37.245.43.164 (talk) 12:49, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

As stated at the top of the page you are required to alert someone when you have started an AN/I thread regarding them. I have done so for you. GabberFlasted (talk) 12:52, 17 October 2023 (UTC) Whoops! Didn't realize I arrived here just after the section went up. Struck above, deleted my (now duplicate) alert. GabberFlasted (talk) 12:58, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

I was doing so - I was still editting the above! 37.245.43.164 (talk) 12:55, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

I submitted a report on WP:AN3. I did not see that a discussion was started here, but I think this can be closed and moved onto there. Mellk (talk) 12:59, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Surely this topic, and specifically the edits that UA0Volodymyr is performing is covered under the broadly construed section of WP:GS/RUSUKR? I know they're now (just) past 500 edits, but seems they've returned to their editing patterns from before the 500 mark and are quite willing to edit war to get their viewpoint. Canterbury Tail talk 13:24, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

I note now they've been blocked for the edit warring by Bbb23. I'd perhaps suggest removing their ECP and seeing if they can contribute in a collegial and non-edit warring manner for when they return. Ultimately from their comments and edit sumamries I don't believe they're capable of editing anything to do with Russia and Ukraine in a neutral non-POV manner. Canterbury Tail talk 14:02, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Bbb23 has blocked them for a week via AN3. If this is their usual MO then a topic ban is called for, if not an indef. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:24, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

They are certainly stirring up a good deal of conflict for someone who's been around less than a month. Ravenswing 14:37, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Why do I have the feeling this isn't their first rodeo here? RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:45, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Note this edit while blocked, which they reverted, otherwise I would ask for an indef. I am not taking accusations in whitewashing genocide lightly. Ymblanter (talk) 16:47, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Yeah I saw that. I suggest both removing ECP and topic banning them from Ukraine and Russia related edits broadly construed until such time as they can show they're willing and able to edit in line with Wikipedia's policies. However I think they may just be here to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. No objections to a straight up indef. Canterbury Tail talk 17:02, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

I do not think one can remove ecp (one technically can, but the first edit of the user would automatically restor it - at least this is my understanding). Ymblanter (talk) 17:38, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Oh well that sucks. Other options are still on the table then. Canterbury Tail talk 18:00, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

The user's very obviously problematic editing was reported by an IP, a week or so ago. The IP noted that the user had begun to indiscriminately revert all the IP's edits, as an act of revenge after the IP reverted one of the user's harmful edits. Despite the user being guilty of extremely blatant hounding, User:Ymblanter blocked the IP, giving very clear support to the user's campaign of harm. They should really explain themselves. 86.187.234.156 (talk) 20:58, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

You are now demonstrating clear inability to get the point. Ymblanter (talk) 21:01, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

and that point is what, exactly? 86.187.231.21 (talk) 20:53, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

LTA aka WP:BKFIP blocked; the next IPs will be immediately blocked as well. Ymblanter (talk) 21:26, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

WP:ARBPIA and unreliable claims

Users Ottomanor and Bojo1498 have been inserting a highly contentious claim into the article Mark 84 bomb. While normally outside WP:ARBPIA, the claim the two users keep inserting clearly falls well within ARBPIA. As their claim blaming Israel is sourced to Iran Press, it clearly fails WP:RS. For Bojo1498, it looks like a good faith edit of just being a bit too trigger happy with no bad intent. That can happen to anyone, so no problem there. For Ottomanor who came up with the contentious claim, has been edit warring over it, and is not allowed to make edits related to ARBPIA, it is highly problematic. Jeppiz (talk) 12:45, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Since my report, and despite having been warned, Ottomanor has now inserted the contentious claim for a fourth time in just a few hours [289]. I suggest that Ottomanor be blocked, the contentious claim removed, and the article protected by 1RR as it is being used as a tool in WP:ARBPIA disputes. Jeppiz (talk) 13:03, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Here´s the list of Ottomanor´s extensive edit warring over this claim

18 October 9:27

18 October 9:50

18 October 14:17

18 October 14:55

18 October 15:07

The last two reverts were performed after having been warned of 3RR 18 October 14:36 Jeppiz (talk) 13:20, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Ottomanor has now been given a short block for the edit warring. Could an admin please formally warn them they are not allowed to edit ARBPIA-related topics until meeting the normal ARBPIA criteria? Jeppiz (talk) 13:25, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I have blocked Ottomanor for 48 hours for violating 3RR. However, I don't understand why you say that they have fewer than 500 edits; they have over four thousand.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:26, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Bbb23, apologies, my bad! I took a quick look while on my phone and somehow messed that up. Then they are of course allowed under normal rules to edit ARBPIA. (Whether they should be allowed to in the future is another matter, after edit warring this extensively to push a clearly discredited source.) Again, apologies for that mess-up. Jeppiz (talk) 13:32, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

I think 48h is too light. This was edit-warring, to insert a statement sourced to an Iranian disinformation site (it repeats a viral social media hoax, that the WSJ attributed the explosion to an Israeli MK-84. The WSJ never said that, per Newsweek, and accredited fact-checker Maldita.es). The other cited source is WP:GUNREL. The edit warring was accompanied by a strange threat in an edit summary, and now block evasion. A large amount of warnings for vandalism and POV-pushing were added on their talk page over the last few years (some removed); there's a sustained pattern. DFlhb (talk) 20:40, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Obvious sock created to continue

Ping Bbb23. After you blocked Ottomanor, a new account was created with the sole purpose of continuing Ottomanor's edit warring [290]. It's getting a bit much. Can I suggest the 48h be extended, and the article semi-protected? Jeppiz (talk) 15:14, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

For the record, I blocked the sock, and Courcelles protected the page. Ymblanter (talk) 05:24, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Page preview images vandalism

Posting here as the vandalism page asks for a user/IP which I do not know as this is quite a sophisticated vandalism case.

Go to a page in the Organised Labour portal, such as Labour movement, with page previews enabled and start hovering over links in the "Part of a series on Organised labour" template on the right hand side of the page.

Many previews in this section seem to be using a very disgusting image of Vomit on a plate from Commons, and I have no idea how they managed to do that, nor what remit it falls under as none of the pages themselves seem to have been edited for this to happen.

I am not sure of the technical process behind how these preview images are shown, but it appears someone has managed to abuse it in order to vandalise link previews over a wide range of pages. The pages affected seem to not have a lead image on the page itself. I do not have the expertise or experience to figure this one out, so please if you could investigate it would be much appreciated.

B4shful (talk) 21:56, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

AFAICT, it's due to Ginasandie who vandalized {{Labor}}, among other templates, and has been blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:01, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

I see, that makes sense. Strange that it's still appearing considering it was reverted at 02:48 UTC. Is there some sort of caching being done on the backend that would somehow need cleared? B4shful (talk) 22:08, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

You might try purging the page. If that doesn't work, please tell us exactly what you hover over that still displays that image.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:12, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

I could try purging, however I found this from MediaWiki: Extension:PageImages - Image choice - How can I purge a bad image?

This seems to suggest purging won't work... B4shful (talk) 22:22, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Not the image, the Labour movement article. You still haven't said which link displays the image.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:34, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

It is many links displaying the image, in fact, even hovering over the link you just sent to the Labour movement article displays the vomit on a plate image. Here are a few which I have found by hovering over links in the Organized labour template, but the page preview image doesn't just display when hovering over it on the template, it displays anywhere where there is a WikiLink to the page and you hover over the link:

New unionism, Proletariat, Social movement unionism, Collective bargaining, Equal pay for equal work

Many, many more links can be found by hovering over links in that template, and I expect the same can be said for any page preview images for pages which use the other templates the vandal had previously vandalised. So, I can't really say which link displays the image because there are dozens upon dozens. B4shful (talk) 22:53, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

It appears to be something at your end. I turned Navigation popups on in my Preferences (I have it off because I find it very annoying), and when I hover, everything looks good. Possibly another editor with more technical knowledge who sees this thread will be able to help you. You can also try WP:VPT. Good luck.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:27, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

This is not about Navigation popups (I have always had them turned off), it is Page previews, which is under Preferences -> Appearance -> Reading preferences -> Enable page previews (get quick previews of a topic while reading a page)

Page previews and Navigation popups are two separate preferences. If you wish to try again after this information, feel free to let me know, as I don't think it's an issue at my end. B4shful (talk) 23:39, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Just noting that I have page previews turned on and do not see any image at all in the Labour movement preview. Is it possible your browser has cached the offensive version? Or I suppose mine has cached the harmless version. EducatedRedneck (talk) 23:56, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

I fixed that one - DFlhb (talk) 23:57, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

One of the remedies in the MediaWiki FAQ is to add/remove a wikilink, and/or reverting the change to reset the image cached for the individual page. What I can say is that it works for the pages listed above. – robertsky (talk) 01:41, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

I have gone through the internal links of the three templates that blocked user had vandalised and updated affected pages manually. A more systematic approach without going through Phabricator would be using AWB with bot permission to automate appending a dummy page link and removing the dummy page link in two succeeding edits. – robertsky (talk) 06:20, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

See the wub's post near the end of this previous report for a more automated solution. 57.140.16.27 (talk) 14:22, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Is there any way at all to address this systemically? Maybe an edit filter for images in includeonly tags in Template namespace? In recent months I've started seeing complains about this on big mainstream online forums; there's a reputation risk.

Also, this isn't "Navigation popups" in Gadgets, this is "Enable page previews" in the Appearance tab; I checked and removing/re-adding a wikilink in the affected article fixes it. Since purging doesn't work, I assume this won't go away on its own, and will need to be done to all articles that transclude {{Labor}}? DFlhb (talk) 23:39, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

There's some amusement inherent in the vomit image resisting purging. EEng 12:59, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

See the MediaWiki link I posted in a previous conversation: MediaWiki: Extension:PageImages - Image choice - How can I purge a bad image?

It I think says that in some cases to submit a Phabricator ticket, but that is beyond my expertise.

Also yes, indeed it is Page previews, also important to note that Enable page previews is turned on by default for non-logged in users, thus increasing the potential exposure to this sort of vandalism dramatically. The most likely people to have this feature turned off are the very people who would be equipped to deal with it (in other words, many logged in users may have Page previews turned off without even noticing). I know that I had it turned off without noticing, because I often do general reading of articles without being logged in, and when I logged in to report this I noticed it was turned off on my own profile. B4shful (talk) 23:46, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

• Would it not be a quite simple edit filter to restrict changes to images in templates to extended-confirmed editors? Black Kite (talk) 09:09, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

  There must be a way to prevent, or at least to quickly revert in a way that makes it invisible to readers, such vandalism. Any such action should be capable of being reverted in no more time than it takes to perform the vandalism. That was the rationale for intoducing rollback, which is a bit faster than undo, for "normal" article vandalism. It is more than 24 hours since the template was reverted but the vandalism is still displaying on many pages. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:36, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

  @Black Kite: They did trip the abuse filter for their edits, but the respective filter didn't take any actions. Deauthorized. ^(talk) 11:22, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

  I've already made a couple filters to stop this LTA, see Special:AbuseFilter/1268 and Special:AbuseFilter/1270. — Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 11:57, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

  That looks excellent. Good work! Black Kite (talk) 14:12, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

WP:CIR issues with User:Luvigas36437

I have some concerns about Luvigas36437's competency, specifically with regards to their grammar.

From their talk page:

• "Please ban 79.66.43.34, he or she add fake idea, in on pages, most in cartoons."
• "No news about this, but still wait sources."
• "If no discuss, move request will cancelled."
• "I'm sorry, I'm added fact, maybe is true fact."
• "But, I'm socked users, when not updated info."

From their edits or edit summaries:

• "...due to change the playout, same thing also on Boomerang."
• "Well is fact." Also, "Since June 5, 2023 channel is broadcast Disney Junior (EMEA) schedule."

Is a block in order? The Grand Delusion^{(Send a message)} 13:44, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Please don't block me, I apologize for the bad grammar. Luvigas36437 (talk) 13:56, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Those are some classic quotes. A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 13:56, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Luvigas is a native Latvian speaker. I left him/her some suggestions on their talk page. The Wikipedia movement can use this person's enthusiasm if channelled properly.

Spoken English is relatively forgiving of mistakes -- there are many ways to get one's point across. That's one reason English has become the global lingua franca.

By contrast, written English is deceptively treacherous and tricky. The written rules of English grammar are inconsistent and often illogical. Then there are many unwritten rules of English usage that aren't taught in classrooms but nevertheless expected in formal writing. I still find writing English text challenging and I'm a native speaker.

I think this dichotomy (spoken vs. written) is one reason we get enthusiastic editors with poor language skills here.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 14:46, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Blatant POV editing by Eladkarmel

Eladkarmel has this morning uploaded a series of gross violations of WP:NPOV, WP:V, and pretty much any other policy one could care to mention, in relation to the recent event at Al Ahli hospital in Gaza. The first edit was on Disinformation in the 2023 Israel–Hamas war and attempted to stand up the Palestinian narrative as "disinformation", in contrast to the Israeli narrative. To be clear, this is early stage news, and none of the sources are currently at the stage of what is or is not disinformation. The second edit added material to the event page itself from Abu Ali Express, a known psychological warfare and propaganda platform set up by the IDF, and some other IDF-connected site hosting raw uploads of video footage, i.e. not a source at all, let alone a reliable one. This level of editing, and Eladkarmel's attempts to push fringe sourcing, is unacceptable. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:55, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

As you can see, I added reliable sources to every edit I made.

The link from Abu Ali Express is a sharing of a photo published in the Shehab News Agency so I don't see it as a bad source.

the recording published by IDF officials is an important source for understanding the war of versions between the parties.

Regarding Disinformation in the 2023 Israel–Hamas war, there is no doubt that the incident at the hospital is a clear example of disinformation. From one side or the other (and it is worth discussing), the event is a classic case that fits the article. Eladkarmel (talk) 08:08, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Hi Iskander, the first edit you have linked seems absolutely okay on NPOV. The second and third seem primary (if I were to go by what you mention). These discussions are best taken on the talk page of the article, not here (unless there is evidence that you can show of repeated fringe pushing behaviour over a long-term). Thank you, Lourdes 08:14, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Seriously bad faith report by Iskandar323. Like Lourdes, I find the first edit perfectly fine. Abu Ali Express is not reliable, but this comes nowhere close to being actionable. Jeppiz (talk) 08:19, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Objecting to the use of propaganda sources is not bad faith. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:34, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

The first edit is totally unverifiable: none of the source involved mention misinformation or disinformation. How does this not fail WP:V? Sources merely questioning certain narrative is nowhere near demonstrating that there was misinformation or disinformation. I'm sorry, but this is absolutely WP:OR. We don't get to just pick and choose random debates over information in news sources and declare it a case of misinformation or disinformation before there are any kind of resolved facts. This is serious cart-before-horse editing. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:33, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

It was a rather poor edit, we agree. Nowhere near enough for action to be taken. Jeppiz (talk) 08:36, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

The first edit has now been restored by @LUC995 with an edit summary containing the words "We'll find out who's wrong and who's right soon." - ok, then why are we adding any information now? WP:NOTCRYSTAL. LUC995 has incidentally made 500 gnoming edits on geography articles followed by 100+ largely ABRPIA or vaguely related edits. That's just a pure description of their editing. I have absolutely nothing more to say on that. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:54, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. I see no real problem with Eladkarmel's editing, while LUC995's comes across as a bit more problematic. Jeppiz (talk) 08:57, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Indeffed LUC (since renamed HaNagid). For fuck's sake, Tombah. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 06:18, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Is there a single source that says the explosion was "disinformation"? Because none of them are cited. So no, the first edit does not "seems absolutely okay on NPOV". This should have gone to AE, a user placed in an article on disinformation an event that not a single source said was part of any dis-(or mis)-information campaign. That is OR and it is non-NPOV and it misrepresented the cited sources by claiming they support that it involved disinformation. Even here they say "there is no doubt ..." Well you can doubt what you like, but we dont base our articles on your lack of doubt. We base them on sources, and there were no sources that supported the inclusion there. nableezy - 13:58, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Id also add continued edit-warring at Israel without even an attempt at discussion. See here and here where a long-standing consensus is repeatedly reverted out. Then see if you can see that username at Talk:Israel. nableezy - 18:11, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Super Ninja2 and WP:NOTGETTINGIT

Apologies if I stumble on anything, as this is the first time I've ever opened an ANI case.

Anyhow, User:Super ninja2's behavior regarding the Al-Ahli Arab Hospital explosion has been nothing short of disruptive, repeatedly disregarding the consensus and advice of other editors seemingly in order to enforce their own view of the subject. I've divided their behavior into a few sections below:

The initial RM:

1. Super Ninja2 opens a RM, requesting the page title be changed from "Al-Ahli Arab Hospital airstrike" (as it was at the time) to "Al-Ahli Arab Hospital massacre."

2. After multiple editors suggest the user might be jumping the gun, considering the disputed responsibility and lack of reliable sources referring to it as a "massacre," the closure of the RM is suggested by SelfStudier, to which Super Ninja asserts that SelfStudier has "no right" to do.

3. After the RM is SNOW closed due to overwhelming opposition (namely on the rationale in point #2), Super Ninja2 unilaterally reopens the RM, asserting in the edit summary that, "You don't have the right to close the it! Don't take the decission (sic) by yourself without asking for a consensus!" They also assert the same in a comment, removed by the undoing of the reopening. For the record, there were nine official oppose votes with rationale, as well as several other unofficial "this is premature" comments; comparatively, there was just one other support besides Super Ninja2 as nominator, and that support argued for the change seemingly on emotional grounds rather than rational ones.

4. In the meantime, the article title is uncontroversially moved to "explosion" rather than "airstrike," again owing to the reporting of reliable sources and disputed resonsibility. An aborted RM (closed as the page was moved anyways) further backs that move as uncontroversial.

Blanking Al-Ahli Arab Hospital explosion

Super Ninja2 then blanks the page, redirecting it to Al-Ahli Arabi Baptist Hospital airstrike, stating that "no consensus has been made." As the airstrike link was already a redirect to the explosion, this created a redirect inception, with no actual article.

User talk page warnings and incivility; failure to get the point

1. At approximately the same time of the page-blanking and redirecting, I placed a Template:Uw-disruptive2 warning on User talk:Super ninja2 due to the reopening of the RM. Nearly immediately afterwards, I see the page blanking, and place a Template:Uw-disruptive3 warning instead.

2. After SelfStudier seconds the latter warning, Super Ninja2 accuses him of censorship.

3. Super Ninja2 similarly does not react well to my warnings.

An RfC to move the page, again

1. Half an hour after the warnings, Super Ninja2 opens an RfC to change the page name to "massacre," despite the prior RM being SNOWed.

2. Unsurprisingly, the RfC is quickly closed due to further opposition, the above SNOWing, WP:NOTGETTINGIT reasons, and procedural reasons regarding the use of RMs vs RfCs.

3. Super Ninja2 then again unilaterally reopens the RfC, stating that, "can you not close the RfC because no one outside of the page watchers has seen the discussion yet, right?"

4. The RfC is swiftly re-closed.

5. Super Ninja2 then complains about the RfC closure, claiming that they wanted a "third opinion," but, "litteraly no one aside from User:Cullen328 participated in the disscussion as a third opinion because all of them have already voted in the disscussion above! Closing it like that making RfC with no use!" Again, consensus had been firmly against their proposed move.

While I was typing this, a new issue

Super Ninja2 then, against consensus, asserts blame for the attack based on one (non-RS) source. This also broke the page due to an open ref template. This last bit's more of a content dispute, but it doesn't hurt to include.

So in total, they've been a wildly disruptive presence on the article and its talk page, repeatedly refusing to get the point and/or accept others' viewpoints despite being repeatedly warned and told off. As I'm again fairly new to ANI, I don't know if a warning, TBAN, total block, or whatnot is appropriate, but I'd greatly appreciate everyone's input. The Kip 22:41, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

While I have not been a participant in the drama in question - although I've done edits in regards to the war, like creating the page for Battle of Sderot - I find the current name for the article to be outrageous frankly ("explosion" instead of "bombing", almost making it sound like it was an accident when someone clearly bombed the hospital), and considering emotions understandably raise to a fever pitch in such situations, I feel like maybe we ought to be a little bit more tolerant towards users who act this way in this situation relative to what we would do during "normal" times. A disruptive user would be someone who's intent on ruining parts of Wikipedia, but we have to really ask ourselves if the user in question intends to do that or is simply pushing for a better article. Just my two cents. --Dynamo128 (talk) 23:04, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

The user is just pushing for it to be called a "massacre", without any sources. Selfstudier (talk) 23:07, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

But the very first source quoted in the article, Al Jazeera, opens up the article by saying: "Israel-Hamas war live: Israel kills 500 in Gaza hospital ‘massacre’". So how can there be no sources? --Dynamo128 (talk) 23:20, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

That's in quotes and its also WP:HEADLINES. not RS. Selfstudier (talk) 23:29, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

If they had simply proposed the RM and moved on after it failed, or opened up a larger discussion on the talk page, I’d have no issue; what’s made it disruptive (and not simply pushing for a “better” title) is the repeated hammering of the issue despite consensus going against them, in responding to said failure by unilaterally reopening the RM, blanking the main article, opening an RfC, unilaterally reopening that after it also failed, reacting angrily to the talk-page warnings, and in general failing to accept the wider consensus initially generated on the RM. The Kip 00:19, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

editors are supposed to wait until they are calmer to act. going against consensus, unilateral re-openings and other actions, blanking the page, and acting in the cited ways toward other editors is disruptive. regardless of the emotional state of the user due to their beliefs and investments into the conflict, the behaviour is still disruptive. JM2023 (talk) 06:39, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

My main issue was with closing the discussions too fast instead of giving it a chance for other people other than page watchers to participate. Page watchers act like they don't want any other users to participate in the discussion. The discussions did NOT have a fair chance. And as Dynamo128 stated, explosion is not a fair name for the article. Plus, consensus is not a vote count, so even if the majority of the voters voted against the move, one can't just "SNOW close it" only because the majority voted with "oppose".

I didn't make disruptive edits, I participated my rights when I made the RfC and the RM.☆SuperNinja2☆ 23:19, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Plus, consensus is not a vote count, so even if the majority of the voters voted against the move, one can't just "SNOW close it" only because the majority voted with "oppose".

As has been explained to you repeatedly, on both your talk page and that of the article, the consensus was not just vote count but the fact the opposes had solid rationale (RSes not reporting it as such, disputed blame, fog of war, etc) and the supports did not (simply arguing “well it was a massacre.”). If you still fail to see that, you’re either intentionally being obtuse or we’re approaching WP:CIR territory. The Kip 00:10, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

• Comment Given this falls under ArbPia, the disruptive behavior by SuperNinja 2 is really problematic. I'd be lenient but a 48 hour ban from the article and talkpage seems reasonable. Also, Dynamo128, please keep unrelated content discussion on the article page. ANI really doesn't need that. Jeppiz (talk) 23:22, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Got it, I just felt that in this case, a little bit of context was necessary, but I digress. I agree that the article renaming is not something that should be discussed here otherwise. --Dynamo128 (talk) 23:25, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

From what I have seen yesterday the user needs an ARBPIA topic ban. May be someone can take the issue to WP:AE? Ymblanter (talk) 08:32, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

I'm unfortunately not familiar enough with AE processes to do so competently, but if someone else wants to do so I'm all for it. The Kip 16:52, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Edit warring and 1RR/3RR violations

1. 18:16, 17 October 2023 Blank and redirected Al-Ahli Arab Hospital explosion to Al Ahli Hospital massacre
2. 19:51, 17 October 2023 Blank and redirected Al-Ahli Arab Hospital explosion to Al Ahli Hospital massacre
3. 22:33, 17 October 2023 Switched perpetrators from "Disputed" to "Israel"; who to blame had been subject to considerable edit warring from various editors.
4. 10:43, 18 October 2023 Restored Guardian quote, partially reverting this edit.

BilledMammal (talk) 10:59, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

How is this 3RR violation? Editing controversial content is not prohibited. ☆SuperNinja2☆ 11:51, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

It doesn't really matter if it isn't a 3RR violation; 1RR is the restriction applied to this topic area.

However, each of these is very clearly reversing the actions of other editors, and none of them are such that you wouldn't be aware that you were reversing the actions of other editors. See here for the definition of revert: The term "revert" is defined as any edit (or administrative action) that reverses or undoes the actions of other editors, in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material, and whether performed using undo, rollback, or done so completely manually. A series of consecutively saved reverting edits by one user, with no intervening edits by another user, counts as one revert. BilledMammal (talk) 11:55, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

To be fair, as far as I can tell Super ninja2 has never been given the 3RR warning. I've done that now so they can see what it means in full. But as you say 1RR applies on that page. DeCausa (talk) 12:00, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

with no intervening edits by another user, counts as one revert. This does not apply to 22:33, 17 October 2023 and 10:43, 18 October 2023 edits. ☆SuperNinja2☆ 12:05, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

There were 243 edits between those reverts? BilledMammal (talk) 12:07, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Who said there should be 243 edits between them? ☆SuperNinja2☆ 12:11, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

No! BilledMammal is saying there are edits of others between each of your reverts which means that the 4 reverts listed above are treated as 4 separate reverts! You seemed to be claiming that 2 of your reverts could be treated as a single revert. they can't. DeCausa (talk) 12:15, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

This is well beyond the pale, and the absence of a warning for this particular article is no excuse. Anyone trying to edit it is met with a big red warning informing them of the 1RR in place on the article. All of this, together with the facts already established above prior to BilledMammal´s report, makes it clear a topic ban from ARBPIA is in order. I´d recommend not being too strict, and go for a time-limited topic ban of one month, hoping SuperNinja2 can use that month to edit constructively in other areas. Jeppiz (talk) 12:22, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Anyone trying to edit it is met with a big red warning informing them of the 1RR in place on the article Wrong. There's none. ☆SuperNinja2☆ 12:28, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

It is not red, it is yellow, but it is there. Ymblanter (talk) 12:32, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

I just added the formal edit notice but that's not really an excuse. +1 to a sanction, Arbpia first offense (1R breach) for a newish editor is usually a warning but the behavior here appears to go beyond that. Selfstudier (talk) 12:34, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

You need to follow the Arbitration Committee news to be familiar with the 1RR on Arab-Israelie topic. I am not very active editor on Wikipedia. I don't follow up with the updates of the rules here. And I am not a member of any project. I only do edits every now and then. So, a warning in this case is necessary for me to know about the rule. Else, how can I know about it? ☆SuperNinja2☆ 12:45, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Notification given here plus it is on the talk page in a big box at the top. In any case that deals with just the 1R aspect. Selfstudier (talk) 12:55, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

The notice was sent on 21:03, 2023 October 17. There are only two controversial edits after this notice. One of which is not a revert (22:33, 17 October 2023) and the other was of good intention as I didn't see this edit. So, I didn't violate the 1RR. ☆SuperNinja2☆ 13:47, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

plus it is on the talk page in a big box at the top they said. I'm sure Israel-Palestine has had a 1RR restriction for at least a decade. "I didn't know" is not an excuse for violation. JM2023 (talk) 06:43, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Sorry for the confusion. 22:33, 17 October 2023 edit is not a revert. ☆SuperNinja2☆ 12:26, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Of course it is. An editor had put in the word "Disputed" against the Perpetrators parameter in the Infobox and you reverted that to insert Israel. What are you talking about? DeCausa (talk) 17:10, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Getting back on topic - discipline proposal

Considering the list of incidents initially provided, the ARBPIA circumstances, the newly accused 3/1RR violations, and the continued refusal to get the point regarding all of the above, I'd like to propose a temporary topic ban from Israel/Palestine-related articles for Super Ninja2. The exact length of that ban is up for debate, but I'd believe at least 1-3 weeks to be appropriate. As SelfStudier mentioned above, while an editor with no prior history would typically only receive a warning, I feel that the conduct here has gone above and beyond that point in its disruptive nature. The Kip 16:50, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

This seems pretty clear cut to me. If this is a problem here because of the venue I don't mind moving this all over to AE as long as I don't get accused of forum shopping or something. Selfstudier (talk) 17:13, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

My only issue with that is to put it bluntly, I'm not well-versed enough in AE's procedures to competently open a case there. If you or another would like to do so, however, I'd be happy to support it. The Kip 17:57, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

I've indef'd. Not an AE block. Happy for it to be lifted if they're willing to drop the stick and do something useful. But this thread shows an attitude incompatible with editing contentious topics, and their talk page and block log sugest it's not just one topic. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:17, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Wowza. That was unexpected, but I can't say I disagree.

Thanks for the prompt response! The Kip 18:52, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

I've been following the article and this thread so it's not quite as out-of-the-blue as it seems. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:56, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

rev-del request

This edit, which at the bottom includes a horrible aspersion about other editors. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 09:54, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Gone. Courcelles (talk) 14:28, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Disruptive editing by UnbiasedSN

UnbiasedSN had been making disruptive edits on the page Battle of Kartarpur pushing an overly aggrandized, embellished version of religious history based off wholly unreliable sources. It was explained to him and the article's creator on the talk page that primary sources from the 18th century as well Raj era sources are not to be used on Wikipedia [291] , [292] and later again reaffirmed here [293]. Despite this, it appears as he is continuing to do the same thing, this time logged out, and apparently with a proxy. See edits on Battle of Patti and similar edits on my talk page-UnbiasedSN's copy paste of the message I posted on his talk page and IP's message-[294]. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 12:35, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Did you genuinely make a false accusation that I used a proxy IP address? I've never even visited that page, yet I can't help but suspect that you may be engaging in the same biased content promotion here as you do on other pages, and you've just decided to pin the blame on me to get your way.UnbiasedSN (talk) 17:37, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

@UnbiasedSN: Note the words "appears" and "apparently." You haven't been accused of anything. CityOfSilver 17:52, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Then why mention it? UnbiasedSN (talk) 17:53, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

@UnbiasedSN: It's extremely suspicious that you and the anonymous editor are making similar, highly contentious edits. Suthasianhistorian8 probably wants an administrator to investigate whether you and that anon are the same person. CityOfSilver 18:00, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

@CityOfSilver: Can you clarify on the edits? Other than Battle of Kartarpur & Battle of Rahon. Even when Battle of Rahon was reverted I reread the source and accepted that there was a case to be made. Then can you kindly gander on his edits and see how he engages and pushes his agenda vehemently.[295] UnbiasedSN (talk) 18:08, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

@UnbiasedSN: The striking similarities are in the links in this thread's first message. The last two, both made to Suthasianhistorian8's talk page, are almost exactly the same even though one came from you and the other came from the anonymous editor. CityOfSilver 18:13, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

An unbiased SN? What? How dare any serial number be unbiased on my watch!  ;) Serial 18:18, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

LOL! It was supposed to stand for social network, but I can see how people can take the "Unbiased" personally when editing. I'm new here and I just make minor edits most of the time. UnbiasedSN (talk) 18:27, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Not even the same format as what I posted on his talk page. It's evident he engages in this type of behavior with many other users. If anything this is establishing that they are a polarizing passionate individual with an agenda. UnbiasedSN (talk) 18:22, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

@UnbiasedSN: From my point of view, the first message and most of the second message are exactly the same thing but I'm not an administrator so if you deny that you and that anonymous editor are the same person, that's that.

Suthasianhistorian8 has made a lot of contentious edits to sensitive articles in this topic area. Thing is, though, they regularly appear at articles' talk pages to explain themselves and move towards compromises; see Talk:Battle of Lahira and Talk:Battle of Rahon (1710). Why not start a new thread at Talk:Battle of Kartarpur? (Although before you do, please read WP:FOC.) CityOfSilver 18:54, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

It's now proven beyond any shadow of a dobut that HaughtonBrit is behind at least the 65* proxy and likely UnbiasedSN. See this comment on Courcelles' talk page where the 170* IP/proxy geolocates to and has the same ISP (FedEx) as HaughtonBrit's confirmed sock IPs-[296] and [297].

Can an admin please block these sock proxies being abused by HaughtonBrit-[199.81.206.0/24], [192.189.187.0/24], [

170.170.200.0/24], [216.126.35.0/24]. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 14:56, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Really going for a two for one. UnbiasedSN (talk) 15:30, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Disruptive editing and POV pushing by Suthasianhistorian8

Suthasianhistorian8 had been making disruptive edits on the page Battle of Kartarpur offering a his own version of religious history, driven by personal preferences while overlooking substantial sources. An examination of the user's edit history and interactions on their talk page reveals a notable pattern of receiving numerous complaints and engaging in similar behavior with multiple users. Persistently advocating their personal agenda and beliefs, they frequently find themselves embroiled in editing conflicts with others. Their willingness to resort to falsehoods as a means to achieve their objectives is evident from their talk page. [298] It is imperative to address this disruptive behavior to ensure a harmonious online environment. UnbiasedSN (talk) 17:25, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Reads like an AI/LLM-generated retaliatory report to #Disruptive editing by UnbiasedSN, above. Schazjmd (talk) 17:40, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Ponder at their talk page. [299] It's a wonder they haven't been banned yet. If known about this board earlier I would've gladly have posted it sooner. UnbiasedSN (talk) 17:48, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Note: the user's correct spelling is Suthasianhistorian8 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), not Southasianhistorian8.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 19:10, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Please see [300] and my message on Courcelles' talk page [301]. It seems extremely likely that this is HaughtonBrit trolling as usual. He has an extensive history of trolling and intimidating people to push an overly aggrandizing narrative of his religion. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 04:18, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Classic coming from the fact that majority of your edits being one sided to one religion. Do you even edit anything else that doesn't promote your agenda? And can you stick with one user rather than going at scorched earth policy with anyone who goes against your beliefs. UnbiasedSN (talk) 15:32, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

User:Iammb8

Iammb8 has now created at least three times this Patange (2023) on a non-notable film, and I don't want to keep draftifying it. I believe they have a COI as one of the makers of the said film; I've asked them to disclose this, but so far nothing (that I can find at least). --DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:25, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

I moved it to Patange (film) before noticing it was being discussed here. Any objections to me simply raising an AFD for it? There doesn't seem to be a damn thing about it online apart from notices that it exists on Plex, YouTube, etc. I'll try to find RS coverage in other languages in a WP:BEFORE search first. Wikishovel (talk) 11:42, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Too late, just been speedied A7. Probably just as well. Wikishovel (talk) 12:49, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

I just blocked the editor for blatant promotional editing. It's quite obvious from their edit summaries, the name on theiruser page and edit history that this is their movie that they're just here to promote. Canterbury Tail talk 16:54, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Repeated COI OR page creation spam regarding Bradley/Bradlee family tree and descendants

User:Quinnbradlee, formerly User talk:Qbradlee82 and User talk:Qbradlee (see User talk:Quinnbradlee § November 2021 per Smartse), has been repeatedly creating original research pages with bare citations about their family members:

• Draft:Bradlee family (draftified by myself yesterday and then warned, given guidance about submitting COI pieces)
• Nathan Bradley (colonists) (created today, nomintated for deletion).

Including past contributions to the pages

• Ben Bradlee, presumably the main figure to the family, despite
• and Quinn Bradlee, their own page if their username is to be believed.

It doesn't make sense to post a collection of the Diff links when you can see a complete history of the abuse and disregard on all three talk pages. Following the warning yesterday, I'm concerned I'm now involved and want to bring this to the attention of the admins. I've simply tagged the recent article for deletion at AfD.

Note: I've pinged admin User:Smartse who originally caught the multiple usernames issue. Thanks, microbiologyMarcus ^{(petri dish)} 15:05, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for starting this User:MicrobiologyMarcus. This has been going on for 12 years now and despite numerous warnings, they have still not got the message. All of their edits violate WP:NOTGENEALOGY. If I wasn't somewhat involved, I'd have blocked them already, so I urge someone else to do so. SmartSE (talk) 15:13, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Indeffed with a note that it applies to them, the editor. Not just this account. I've left Qbradlee82 unblocked as they haven't used it in 11 years but heads up to @Deepfriedokra: who blocked the other account. Star Mississippi 21:04, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

In looking over User:Quinnbradlee's comments on the Nathan Bradley AfD, if this is indeed the same person, Mr. Bradlee has to be employing a battery of ghostwriters for his extensive bibliography. Ravenswing 21:13, 20 October 2023 (UTC)