Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

  • Before posting a complaint about a user on this page:
  • Include diffs demonstrating the problem and be brief; concise reports get faster responses.
  • Do not report breaches of privacy, outing, etc. on this highly visible page – instead click here.
  • If you cannot edit this page because it is protected, click here.

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

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

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

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

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

User:Victuallers and misuse of the admin tools Edit

When looking at Special:NewPagesFeed, I noticed Rose Edouin, a creation by User:Victuallers with the indication "Previously deleted". Having been aware of multiple issues with some of their creations, I checked what this was about, and noticed that they deleted an apparently perfectly valid redirect before creating the "new" page under their own name. I raised this at Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion#Rose Edouin, and checked their logs to see if this happened regularly.

Sure enough, the last few weeks alone, they deleted existing redirects at Terri Libenson, Nell Gifford, Louisa Henrietta de Rivarol and Ena May Neill. A lot worse was their Undeletion of Caroline Elizabeth Newcomb, with the reason "This page was deleted without explanation. She is notable by AU experts. How this missed AfD baffles me. I strongly suspect this was a bit of stalking and they didnt even use their ownname." No idea how they succeeded in missing the rather clear explanation given by User:Justlettersandnumbers at the time of deletion: "G12: Unambiguous copyright infringement of,". And sure enough, Victuallers succeeded in bringing a copyright violation back into the mainspace...

The combination of repeated WP:INVOLVED misuse of the tools (deleting valid page history to get the credit as page creator) and misuse of the tool to undelete a copyvio (with the lack of competence in not even finding the deletion reason), coupled with other recent issues like copyright violations, total disregard for proper attribution (which had to be explained nearly step-by-step before they got it), ... makes me doubt that they should continue to be an admin, but perhaps some clear final warnings from uninvolved editors may be sufficient? Fram (talk) 16:20, 22 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm a newish admin, and AFC is not my main cup of tea. Isn't it common practice to G6 a mainspace redirect—one that has only minor history—to make way for an AFC draft publication? That's what happened with Terri Libenson. Victuallers is not credited as the page creator, since another editor created the draft. I haven't looked into the others. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:47, 22 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
At least Rose Edouin was not an AFC accept/move. It was a copy-paste-edit fork from another article, slapped in place after deleting the redirect. - UtherSRG (talk) 16:54, 22 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've struck out Libenson, as that is the only one not deleted to put his own creation. I don't know if this is or isn't standard AfC practice, but in any case it doesn't belong with the others in this report, thanks. Fram (talk) 16:55, 22 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think that Newcomb isn't as clear a copyvio as the original deleter thought - the referenced article it copies from is licensed as CC BY 4.0. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:58, 22 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
SarekOfVulcan, I haven't yet read this discussion (to which I was pinged) in full. I think you may be partially right about the Newcomb article – the page carries no CC release and is clearly marked as copyright, so may (or may not) fall under their "otherwise noted" exception (wouldn't it be good if institutions could learn how to implement the CC releases they want to make?). But I see no justification for the copying of content from here, and am guessing that that was my principal reason for deleting the page on 28 November 2018. There was then, and still is, a substantial CCI still open for this user (any help much appreciated!). I've removed the residual copyvios from the ADB from Caroline Elizabeth Newcomb. We really need to engrave in stone that G12 deletions may not be restored. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:07, 22 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Further to this comment, I've gone ahead and bolded the sentence "Copyright violations and attack pages will not be provided at all" in the header of WP:REFUND. Victuallers, could you kindly confirm that you understand the potential problems with ignoring that advice, and that you will take care not to repeat that particular mistake? And that if for some (inconceivable) reason it's imperative to undelete a copyvio, you will be sure to clean and revdelete it immediately? Thanks, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 19:44, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi @Justlettersandnumbers:, I think its implicit in me calling it a mistake. But I'm happy to explicitly confirm that I see why it was a mistake and the need to clean up. I'm happy to help with the CCI. I'm in a Wikipedia training session at the moment, but I'll get on to it. HTH Victuallers (talk) 13:56, 29 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Rose Edouin had exactly one edit, creating a redirect. There is nothing else in the history. Anyone with the page mover right would've been able to move a draft on top of it, replacing it. It's pretty standard, and the history didn't need to be recovered. Could some admin check to see if the histories of the Gifford, Rivarol, and Neill articles are the same? — Rhododendrites talk \\ 17:09, 22 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I undeleted Gifford, as that was a redirect that didn't need to be deleted. I left de Rivarol as it was, because the redirect was created by Victuallers themself. Neill, I'd like a second opinion on. Victuallers created it in 2015. After a couple of edits and a short talk page discussion, it was redirected. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:16, 22 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I undeleted the deleted edits on Neill. They are relevant to the article history, and the first edit was by Victuallers, so that wasn't an attempt to "steal credit" for article creation. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:26, 22 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@SarekOfVulcan: What do you mean need to be deleted? Which need to be deleted, which don't, and which need to be undeleted? The whole point of creating this ability in the page mover right is a redirect isn't meaningful content that needs to be retained. If there's more than just a redirect, it should probably be retained, but not just a redirect. The only real function of undeleting a redirect is to ensure the wrong person gets notified if an article is, say, tagged for deletion, and to ensure that the person who might want to receive notifications about incoming links cannot get them. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 17:30, 22 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That's a very good point about notifications, Rhododendrites. I want to see how this discussion goes, but I may go ahead and re-delete those two edits, and I wouldn't considered it a WP:WHEEL case if somebody overrode me first. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:48, 22 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree it can yield better results in terms of more relevant notifications if redirects are deleted. It does feel a bit wrong if admins use deletion to give themselves creator credit, but {{db-move}} allows anyone to request that, so perhaps it shouldn't feel wrong. —Kusma (talk) 18:09, 22 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes I think you will find they are the same. This has been discussed before with the same conclusion as yours Rhododendrites. Victuallers (talk) 17:20, 22 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't see a problem with the deletions. I've done similar myself in the past and done similar for non-admins who have asked me to. A redirect is not meaningful history. Undeleting something that was G12'd is poor; @Victuallers you should have discussed that with the deleting admin first and come to an agreement that it could be undeleted. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:07, 22 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Fram it sounds like you've been working really hard on coaching this admin but haven't been able to build the positive working relationship you'd like to have or elicit editorial/behavioral changes you think are important. I'm sure we can collectively work out a win-win low-drama solution that moves us forward. What's the most critical issue that needs attention? How can we most help *you* today? jengod (talk) 20:35, 22 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Jengod, it sounds like you're using an AI bot and haven't instructed it very well. What is your comment intended to accomplish? Bishonen | tålk 08:16, 23 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think I disagree about the desirability of deleting redirects. There's an attribution issue under the license, I believe? One could say that only matters when there have been substantial edits since creation, but that's a slippery slope: Ena May Neill received 2 small copyedits in addition to one by Victuallers himself before its redirection, and the redirect decision itself constitutes another part of the history that should be transparently documented; the discussion is on the talk page of the article and so was presumably also deleted? Also, it's the responsibility of the editor initiating an AfD discussion or other deletion proposal to notify all substantial contributors to the article. Notifying only the creator may be what you get it you let some automated process such as Twinkle do it for you (and that's already more than some nominators do), but in many instances there are others who contributed to the article and thus should be notified. This is a collaborative project; the norm should be that an article gets worked on by multiple editors, and we are held responsible for our edits, including our interactions with fellow contributors, and shouldn't fall back on automated processes as an excuse (or expect everyone to be monitoring their watchlists, another form of automation; those are often huge, plus the article may have been moved and the nomination thus be for a new title). Yngvadottir (talk) 02:00, 23 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Even in that one article that had more than just the redirect itself -- an article which Victuallers created, but which Fram included in assuming bad faith that Victuallers was "misusing admin tools" to get the credit as page creator -- the only edits that weren't Victuallers did not contain anything copyrightable. Someone ran AWB; another person ran some other script which replaced the name of a template. There's nothing to attribute. I would be curious to hear why Victuallers deleted their own draft instead of just revising the old version, though, because it's odd not because it's insidious. it's the responsibility of the editor initiating an AfD discussion - It's not. Not even the creator is mandatory. Would be nice, but in practice it never happens beyond what's automated. When it does, it's just as likely as not to be labeled canvassing. I know, I know, but these are the times we live in. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 03:37, 23 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
So deleting things that don't meet any of Wikipedia's speedy deletion criteria isn't a misuse of admin tools? Huh? * Pppery * it has begun... 04:33, 23 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What was deleted without arguably meeting G6 or G7? —Kusma (talk) 06:44, 23 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I must be way out of step, then; I've always followed the instructions at AfD and informed all major contributors, and I was pretty horrified when an article of mine was speedy deleted on erroneous grounds (the nominator and the admin had only to look at my first edit summary) without any notification. No, it's not mandatory, but neither is more than minimal civility. It's seriously uncollaborative to ask for people's work to be deleted without the simple courtesy of letting them know (even creators of attack pages should get a templated notification), and automation is a poor excuse. Anyone who can't be bothered to even tell their colleagues that they have asked for their work to be deleted shouldn't be surprised if the level of acrimony and assumption of bad faith on the project continues to rise. (And, as I said, it's a slippery slope. What about the discussion that led to the redirect? What if a non-admin was examining one of those two people's gnoming patterns for some reason, including improving a tool?) It's also wasteful, but I know we aren't supposed to make any arguments based on server capacity. Yngvadottir (talk) 07:11, 23 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
My comment was intended to communicate that Fram's first post when he came here looking for help indicated that he believed there were grave issues that needed to be addressed.
>"perhaps some clear final warnings from uninvolved editors may be sufficient?" Fram requested help with coaching. What has he already communicated about that didn't get a response or a behavior change, and what would he like reinforced by other people? jengod (talk) 13:50, 23 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oh I see from your edit summary @Bishonen that you actually think I used AI
to write that comment? LOL and I strongly deny the accusation! The only time I've ever touched such a thing was at my kid's birthday party they coaxed me to give ChatGPT and I asked it to write a Wikipedia article on cienegas of California and it did a meh job. The kids told me I gave it too long a prompt tho. jengod (talk) 14:00, 23 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What I would like is that other people take a look at their edits (e.g. by removing the autopatrolled right) so I no longer have to inform an admin about copyright violations, the need for attribution and how to do it, that machine translations shouldn't be trusted (or used), ... and that I no longer get the feeling that I'm the only one looking at their sometimes very poor creations (e.g. recently I tried to clean up one paragraph of one of their creations, here, correcting 5 factual errors and some other stuff. I see now that in doing this, I introduced one capitalization error though...). Fram (talk) 08:39, 25 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oh my gosh I didn't even know we had a policy against machine translations. I have quoted from a Google Translate version in at least two articles bc I didn't know better! (noting inline that the quotes were machine-translated, of course). A nice polyglot came along and did a proper human translation in one case that made it to DYK, but for all I know my sentence from Swedish on my leopard-trainer article is completely goofily wrong. Do we have a translation helpdesk instead? Or what are we supposed to do if we're monolingual idiots (such as myself) but found a reference to a topic we're covering in a non-English source?
  • "the need for attribution and how do to it" - in what way? Like I assume things in new articles created by Vic are referenced...but wonky somehow?
  • Copyvios should just be deleted, right?
  • Have you tried tagging inline and at the top as a form of editorial commentary? When someone puts a critical tag on an article I'm emotionally attached to I usually jump right on fixes if I see any hope of fixing the problem at my current level of expertise. Judicious editorial criticism is the most precious thing in the world to a writer. We can be trained, I swear!
  • What about looping in WikiProject reviewers with project tagging? Or a note on talk page? I know that's slower than we'd all like but no one should be working on any part of Wiki in a vacuum, it's a team project, we all make each other better, etc etc.
jengod (talk) 18:05, 25 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've actually done a few similar undeletions recently (not of Victuallers's work) and I don't really see it as a matter of copyright but of history that's potentially interesting and should stay accessible to non-admins where possible. I think it's interesting to note that Terri Libenson was a redirect for over fourteen years before becoming an article and ditto with Louisa Henrietta de Rivarol (for nearly nine years), and have undeleted them accordingly. I don't think it's quite a deal-breaker and if consensus is that these should be re-deleted I could live with that. An example of a redirect I recently undeleted in similar circumstances was Signe Byrge Sørensen; I found it while checking deleted contributions of Patrick, inspired by this RFC about removal of text about minor edits because the relevant text was added by Patrick way back in 2003. (I went to check his deleted edits from around that time in case I was missing something, and found this edit to "Dating" that I undeleted from around that time). I've found all sorts of things by checking his and my deleted edits, but most of these sorts of deletions seem accidental and almost all deletions I've reviewed by looking at deleted contributions were completely fine. Graham87 (talk) 07:45/08:00, 23 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Also re Terri Libenson, I've just discovered that the talk page was created by a bot in 2014, so in that case I feel more strongly that the corresponding article history should be undeleted to show *why* the bot created the talk page way before the article existed. Graham87 (talk) 07:54, 23 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think that having history accessible to non-admins is a laudable goal, but for trivial bits like redirect creation, notifications going to the right person instead of a bot is an equally acceptable goal. —Kusma (talk) 08:43, 23 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I see that as a problem with the tools though (albeit a corner case that's hard to fix). People should take responsibility for every edit they make, either with or without a semi-automated tool, and should check to see whether what the tool is doing makes sense. (Speaking as someone who does all deletion nominations, etc. manually). I've just encountered so many weird cases with so many pages (some random examples) that I barely trust any semi-automated tool here. Graham87 (talk) 09:47, 23 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I fundamentally disagree that redirect creation is "trivial", choosing to redirect a page to another is an editorial decision with equal significance to choosing to create an article at that title. If bots are delivering notifications to the wrong person then that is a problem with the bot not a reason to speedy delete pages that don't meet the speedy deletion criterion and/or declare other editors' work "trivial". We should always fix the bot to work with the encyclopaedia rather than attempting to "fix" the encyclopaedia to work with an incorrectly coded bot. Thryduulf (talk) 10:00, 23 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There's not just bot and Twinkle notifications that go to the page creator, but also Echo notifications for "someone has linked to your page" that go to the earliest editor in the page history. I don't think there is a good way to fix those in software. But it would perhaps be better for everyone if the creation credit for KAIA (group), a redirect that was turned into an article, would be given to the person who converted the redirect to an article, not to me who just happened to create the redirect while gnoming. (As an aside, creating articles about people who become important politicians is a good way to be informed about what they do; my most successful article creation is Ursula von der Leyen and she gets a lot of links). —Kusma (talk) 10:25, 23 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Echo notifications should also be fixed, for exactly the same reasons (phab:T66090 is relevant). Thryduulf (talk) 10:38, 23 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Re the KAIA situation, I agree because you created the redirect before the girl group was even founded, so I moved the redirect edit back to KAIA where it was originally. I've made similar history switches before, such as at "Bardcore". Re echo notifications not going to the page creator: I've experienced it myself but it's a minor inconvenience; for example I think the redirect edit before my article creation in this diff at Kevin Cullen (doctor) is integral to its history. Graham87 (talk) 11:03, 23 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you. Strictly speaking, the history of KAIA now a bit of a lie, but it makes more sense than before :) I usually leave such situations alone unless there is a good reason to mess with the histories. —Kusma (talk) 12:50, 23 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Vis à vis User:Justlettersandnumbers: Copyright issues; but alerting Victuallers is 'silly [and] nagging'. Also [1]. No brainer. Pull his autopatrolled right. A shame that an editor as supposedly experienced as him needs to be treated this way, but you see, he puts quantity ahead of quality. See UP. Their understanding of INVOLVED was also questioned some time ago. SN54129 13:50, 23 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think you are being unfair here. Quality is so important that it should never be confused with quantity. Alerts to errors are important, as is fixing them, and they are responded to. I think you are drawing unfair conclusions. Victuallers (talk) 14:45, 29 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Isn't autopatroller bundled with admin rights? Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:30, 25 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No, I see that it's not, but that admins can grant the right to themselves without discussion. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:33, 25 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It used to be bundled, but was removed following an RfC in December 2021. Thryduulf (talk) Thryduulf (talk) 01:36, 25 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Discussion on Autopatrolled user right Edit

There's been some suggestions above that Victaullers' Autopatrolled right be revoked or otherwise reviewed, so I am opening this sub-discussion. I have no strong feeling on the matter but it is reasonable to have a discussion-- I reviewed Victaullers' article creations over the summer as part of a CCI request Fram submitted. I was planning on declining the CCI as the violations were too small and sporadic to warrant a lengthy review for copyright issues. However, Fram raised issues regarding source-to-text integrity and factual errors that I thought might be appropriate for review at ANI. I got busy with other stuff before I could action this though. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 20:41, 25 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"planning on declining the CCI" ?? I'm confused. The CCI investigation was refused. Is there another? At some point we need to draw a consensus and decide whether editors working together are allowed create new articles even though another editor doesnt like it. The articles are not unpatrolled, they are all recorded for the review of editors as you can see in the edit histories and the number of views. My quick request about "coaching" said "Coaching is a partnership between coach and client" - we shouldnt misuse the word here. I'm not sure that anyone has ever become a successful coach by insisting that they need to be involved. Victuallers (talk) 22:59, 25 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Victuallers Sorry, I left out the detail about the CCI already being declined. I was planning on declining it and then opening a discussion in a different venue, but I got busy with other stuff and it was declined by someone else before I could do this. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 03:47, 26 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I am willing to WP:AGF on Victuallers deleting redirects, but restoring a copyvio article without removing the infringing text is hard to do. I wasn't able find evidence of any further errors on Victuallers' part, but a thorough review may be needed. Until then, I am undecided on whether to revoke Autopatrolled status. Scorpions1325 (talk) 23:46, 25 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That was my mistake - I misthought that it had been deleted anonymously. Victuallers (talk) 07:45, 26 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Apart from the issues listed above, there are things like using unreliable sources (e.g. here), making basic factual errors (e.g. [2]), even reintroducing wrong WP:OR claims after they have been corrected ([3] and [4]). General cleanup is often necessary as well[5][6]. These are just some examples from the few articles I touched during NPP, I skipped a lot of them to avoid giving the impression of harassment. Fram (talk) 07:51, 26 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Revoke Per above. There are too many issues, too frequently, with too much concern for quantity over quality; V. would probably find it, after all, easier to follow summary style and attribution if he wasn't currently trying to write an article about a woman every day again. He would also be able, after 16 years, to adhere to copyright policy, which would be nice. SN54129 13:16, 26 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Revoke I concur. There have been too many issues that would have been more quickly and easily corrected had V not granted themselves autopatrolled. Time to put the training wheels back on. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:05, 26 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Revoke but doesn't go far enough. Revoking autopatrol, with a statement in the close of this discussion that Victuallers should not re-grant it themself, will help with the issues Fram mentions in their post of 7:51 on 26 September, which makes a good case that Victuallers' articles need to be examined at NPP. But questions of admin conduct have been raised, and revoking autopatrolled has no bearing on that. There's disagreement here over the redirect deletions, but I believe it's important to maintain the policy of keeping speedy deletion for uncontroversial deletions. From the perspective of an admin, who automatically sees the deleted edits in a history, it may seem that deleting a redirect that was once an article with a short history is inconsequential, but it's not completely uncontroversial, as this discussion indicates. And a distinction should be made between deletion to make way for mainspacing of an article that's been through examination at AfC (by a separate editor who's been vetted for the filemover right; and often, perhaps usually, the redirect being deleted originally related to a previously deleted article, or a mainspace article that was draftified), and an administrator deleting a redirect to move their own new article over it. Why? That's not a housekeeping edit. Either expand the redirect to create the new article (which is what I would do) and watchlist it, or if the new article itself has a significant and overlapping history, do a history merge. @Victuallers: Can you please explain what you meant by At some point we need to draw a consensus and decide whether editors working together are allowed create new articles even though another editor doesnt like it.? I don't see anyone here objecting to your creating new articles (and I personally don't care at all if you choose to do one a day, or believe that that precludes making them adequately referenced, accurate, copyvio-free, and otherwise ready for mainspace), and I don't see any criticism here leveled at anyone with whom you collaborate. Accordingly, when I first read it, that sentence read to me like a strange assumption of bad faith. And have I missed your responding to the issue of your deletions in order to replace existing redirects with your own articles? Under the principle of admin accountability, I was hoping that when you responded here, you would address that issue; and I don't see a remark insinuating that people's objection is to your creating articles as being a satisfactory response. What am I missing or misinterpreting? I do see you apologizing (in your response to Scorpions1325) for undeleting the copyvio, but again, what do you mean by I misthought that it had been deleted anonymously? Who deleted it is plainly visible in the log; if I remember correctly (it's been a long time since I had the admin goggles) you would have seen it as a line in the article history; and things are deleted by named admins, not by anons. If you meant "in response to tagging by a drive-by IP", it doesn't matter who tagged something for speedy deletion unless one wants to take it up with them, or even whether it was tagged first; the really important thing is the criterion/speedy deletion category, and the second most important which admin actioned it, in case there's a need to discuss whether the criterion was applicable. Again, could you please clarify how you missed that the text was deleted as copyvio? Yngvadottir (talk) 03:15, 27 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • @Yngvadottir: In response to your first ping I meant "The articles are not unpatrolled, they are all recorded for the review of editors as you can see in the edit histories and the number of views." The contention is that the articles need to be patrolled... but they are. They may not be seen by patrollers but they are seen, read and improved by well respected editors whose names can be found in the edit histories of "the articles" (that it is suggested need to be auto-patrolled). When you said "in response to tagging by a drive-by IP" thats exactly what I meant. Your comments are helpful in outlining my mistake. Which is what I meant, when I said it was a mistake. Can I add that your presumption that I might change my own rights appears to me as bad faith. Victuallers (talk) 07:43, 27 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Revoke and no self-granting, given the issues raised above, this is essentially a warning to tighten up the quality of editing. starship.paint (RUN) 15:10, 27 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Somebody under multiple IPs continuously vandalizing Sawdust article Edit

On September 19, an IP vandalized the Sawdust article by adding this edit, stating "Sawdust is the main ingredient in pepperoni and many types of noodles."

Taking a look at the revision history, you can see after having their revision reverted, the IP proceeded to reinstate their vandalism three times before being blocked for a week by administrator @Ponyo. After which, it seems that the IP has been evading their block to once again reinstate their vandalized revision on the Sawdust article, but this time by using multiple IPs & switching to a new one every single time somebody reverts their edit. The following is a list of IPs that have been used:

Judging by the revision history, it seems that the individual waits for several hours before hopping on a new IP and reinstating their vandalized revision, so I do not see this stopping. I'm hoping an admin could look into this and potentially pursue further blocking and/or page protection. Thank you.

Pinging @Novo Tape in case they'd like to provide any input, as they have also reverted the vandal's revisions. B3251 (talk) 02:31, 24 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for the ping. I'd like to add that, based on the page history for Ottawa, User:2607:FEA8:D55E:6F00:50FC:255E:F8A5:F824 could possibly be a block evasion of the same user. Besides that, I don't have much to add (although I agree that page protection might be in order). Sincerely, Novo Tape (She/Her)My Talk Page 03:12, 24 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Just popping in to note that Sawdust was protected by Favonian.-- Ponyobons mots 18:25, 26 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Repeated disruption on Blue zone and talk-page Edit

Sauljnewman has been edit-warring on the Blue zone article, repeatedly adding original research to the article. If you check the talk-page discussion they have been told many times why their editing is problematic. The same user has admitted to using the other IP addresses (they are all the same editor). I am not sure why they need all those IPs and an account but I will assume good faith as they are not claiming to be different users. After the user was told the content is WP:OR and unreliable they edit-warred on different IPs. After they were reverted they are now using the talk-page on different IPS [7], [8] repeatedly claiming that other users are "blocking" their edits. This is not good faith editing as they have been told why their edits break policy. The user has been told that their edits are WP:OR (the sources they are adding do not mention blue zones) and they seem to be doing their own statistical research, but the user repeatedly denies this and says they are not doing original research. This seems to be reaching close to a case of WP:NOTHERE. A block from the blue zone article may be suitable.

Any admin advice here about what could be done would be useful. At this point the comments on the talk-page from Sauljnewman's are disrespectful and bordering disruption because they have ignored advice from several experienced Wikipedia users. Psychologist Guy (talk) 15:18, 24 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've semi'd it for 2 weeks. Just giving the rope here for them to try to get consensus on the talk page. Thanks, Lourdes 15:33, 24 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Please allow criticism of the Blue Zones on the basis of government data to be posted on the page.
This is simply not WP:OR. I am citing CDC sources, which are stated by Wikipedia as an example of trustworthy soures, that clearly dispute the central claim of the Blue Zones that individuals have extraordinary lifespan. I am also citing Japanese government statistics bureau and the EUROSTAT database, which likewise show that the lifespan in 'blue zones' regions is not remarkable. The Psychologist Guy is claiming, absurdly, that these independent sources of evidence cannot be cited on Wikipedia because they do not explicitly name-check the Blue Zones. I have repeatedly asked hum why this is necessary, and why govenrnment statistics cannot be cited on wikipedia. He has not been able to state why, and keeps taking down these edits.
The CDC does not need to name-check every fad diet out there in order for it to be cited on wikipedia. The idea is absurd.
The idea that I cannot post Japanses government/EUROSTAT/CDC data to wikipedia, because reading the number from a map or database is 'original research', is equally absurd. Yet these are the objections being put forward here. Sauljnewman (talk) 08:47, 25 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sauljnewman has been told many times that their edits are WP:OR, check the Blue zone talk-page, it has been explained many times why their edits are unreliable. None of the sources they are adding mention "blue zones". Unfortunately this user is also using an IP address on the talk-page claiming the same nonsense which is now resulting in some personal attacks [9]. I believe this user and their IPs should be blocked. There is blatant disrespect for consensus, policy and other editors here. Psychologist Guy (talk) 10:21, 25 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You don't seem to understand what is being said. Wikipedia relies on secondary sources, not primary sources that you have found. If you read No original research, you will find that your edits are against policy:

On Wikipedia, original research means material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published source exists. This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that reaches or implies a conclusion not stated by the sources.

If someone were to publish a peer-reviewed paper that reaches the same conclusions that you have from those statistics, you could cite that. But you cannot post your own conclusions. Matuko (talk) 20:55, 27 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dandielayla, Ainsley Earhardt, and competence Edit

Dandielayla (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Ainsley Earhardt. 5 days, 69 edits, this user is singularly obsessed with a Fox New host's date of birth. They do not understand what it means to find a reliable source, to cite it, to differentiate from reliable vs. unreliable. The article talk page, their user talk, and the RSN noticeboard is just awash with emoji-laden screeds that vary from slightly passive-aggressive to self-deprecating "I'm sry, I suck, sry sry sry", over and over. This person is not grasping what is being required of them to be a competent editor.

Eleven attempts to add the d.o.b. in 5 days.

Please put a fork in this. At the very very bare minimum, an indefinite topic ban on the topic of Ainsley Earhardt, is necessary here. Others may want to go for a full BLP restriction, perhaps. Zaathras (talk) 20:53, 24 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have indefinitely pageblocked Dandielayla from Ainsley Earhardt. Cullen328 (talk) 22:37, 24 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I wasn’t trying to be obsessed with her article, and her page. I know what I did was wrong, and I say sry bc I understand what I did was wrong. I have ceased on the emojis part, and someone said I shouldn’t give up. Now I don’t know what to think at this point and I thought I was loved for trying to be a good editor. I know I have said I wasn’t good or have said I was stupid, and I know what RS stand for now. Someone explained it to me, and suggested I read the biographies of living persons. This is the last time I will say sry, and I’m really sry for messing everything up for u guys. I may be a failure, and have failed at editing but I understand why I’m indefinitely blocked now from editing Ainsley Earhardt’s article. Plz accept my apology, and thank u 🙏🏻 for helping me. Dandielayla (talk) 00:55, 25 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: Please read the guidance if you wish to be unblocked. Regards. 🛧Midori No Sora♪🛪 ( ☁=☁=✈) 01:17, 25 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oh ok, and I will read the guidance to be unblocked. Thank u for the link, and for the tips. Dandielayla (talk) 01:21, 25 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Update. Dandielayla took my and others' advice and tried to improve other articles. They worked from the list of suggested newcomer tasks, but sometimes strayed from or didn't understand the specified task: for example here an attempted image addition and an attempted end date addition tagged as copyediting. They also tried the Teahouse, but unfortunately focused there on the Earhardt article and their block. Some of their problems undoubtedly come from being on mobile—I suspect that's why they keep trying to add inline links. But their talk page also demonstrates that they are finding it very hard to understand and absorb all the information we've been trying to give them. And now after further warnings their indefinite block has been made sitewide by Yamla. I don't know what else we can do; Zaathras appears to have been correct at the outset, CIR. Yngvadottir (talk) 12:10, 26 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Note also that the user repeatedly promised to stop what they were doing, only to immediately continue. --Yamla (talk) 12:25, 26 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It does look like competence, but I'm also going to suggest that using the mobile web interface actively makes editing harder and adding rookie mistakes easier. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:31, 26 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Trying to edit talk pages on the mobile app is horrible. Can't work out the indentation. I stopped trying. TarnishedPathtalk 12:59, 26 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Cullen328 said it best here, "We would all be better off if the WMF shut down all these poor quality smartphone/mobile apps, which are an impediment to collaborative editing. I cannot imagine the amount of money that has been wasted on these crappy apps over the years, but "small fortune" comes to mind". Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:04, 26 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

For the record, Dandielayla (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been indefinitely blocked for continued disruptive editing and WP:CIR. They may wind up needing talkpage access revoked, as they cannot seem to properly comprehend the reasons for their block. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 16:56, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please don't withdraw talk page access. They are not doing any harm by continuing to try to understand and responding to people who try to explain things (most recently an IP deserves a tubful of thanks, but not only can I not use the thanks function for an IP, it's one of those newfangled semi-infinitely varying IPs so not worth starting the talk page to do so). They've started to figure out the unblock template; they'd never manage UTRS. Yngvadottir (talk) 00:34, 29 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Newfangled IP in question here; thanks received! And I agree that withdrawing talk page access would be a mistake. The user seems legitimately confused and trying their best to understand the various policies and templates and practices at play here. Sure, this might well still end with CIR and the standard offer, but they've done absolutely nothing so far to merit revoking their own talk page access. If any admin is tempted to do so, perhaps that admin's time would be better spent responding to the user's nearly-two-days-old-and-counting unblock request with some tangible guidance. 2600:1700:87D3:3460:8C27:D611:283D:EEB6 (talk) 02:02, 29 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

FYI, they have had an open request for unblock for a day now. Zaathras (talk) 20:56, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Burvegas and edits contrary to the Manual of Style Edit

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

Burvegas has been warned extensively about their edits to remove logical quotes from articles, most recently last week, and with "final warnings" in March and April of this year. They're right back at it today. I think a stronger message is in order.

Box of wolves (feed) 21:05, 25 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Logical quotation is acceptable but not mandatory. That's because the MoS is the consensus view of what should be done -- in other words a guideline -- and is not policy, and therefore not mandatory. Editors should keep this distinction in mind and not elevate MoS to de facto policy status. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:44, 25 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It doesn't matter if it's not mandatory, there is no good reason to remove them. This makes this user's edits WP:DISRUPTIVE. --RockstoneSend me a message! 21:50, 25 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I wouldn't agree. The "good reason" is a simple preference: which is all the MOS is anyway. Thousands of edits a day do nothing more than establish one editor's preference in phrasing, word choice, formatting and flow over another's. I want a significantly better rationale to call an editor's edits disruptive than that you don't like them. How, precisely, are these edits being disruptive, and what diffs do you proffer as to specifics? Ravenswing 23:16, 25 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
First and foremost, these edits are disruptive because they disregard the consensus-building process. Guidelines such as the Manual of Style reflect community consensus, and editors "should attempt to follow guidelines" in the absence of specific reasons to make exceptions. Burvegas's edits do not follow the community's consensus about the use of quotation marks in articles, as seen in [10], [11], and [12]. Burvegas has not justified these edits beyond stating in the edit summaries and on their talk page that typographer's quotes are preferred in American English, a position that does not align with community consensus on variants of English (at least as concerns writing on Wikipedia). They have not attempted to develop new consensus by discussing punctuation styles on the talk pages for the articles in question or the Manual of Style itself, despite being specifically asked to do so here.
While "thousands of edits a day do nothing more than establish one editor's preference [...]", those editors are expected to engage in dispute resolution should another editor express a competing preference. Multiple editors have expressed a competing preference here ([13], [14], [15]) and attempted to engage in talk-page discussion, and Burvegas has not responded with anything substantive outside what was already included in the edit summaries of the disputed edits, and continues to make similar edits.
The non-MoS edits here are also at least slightly disruptive in their own right; straight and logical quotes are considered best practices for technical and clarity reasons, respectively, and copyediting Wikipedia to conform to the Manual of Style is considered an accepted practice, so making edits that serve only to reduce compliance with the MoS will frustrate the work of those other editors. However, I think the core issue here is the refusal to engage in dispute resolution.
Box of wolves (feed) 01:21, 26 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Did you look at the edits? It's obvious. (talk) 01:29, 26 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
They're disruptive because there's no valid reason to make the change. They're disruptive in exactly the same way that changing a bunch of articles written in American English into British English would be. In both cases it's part of the Manual of Style, is it not? --RockstoneSend me a message! 04:52, 26 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
They're also in violation of MOS:CURLY, causing unbalanced pairs of quotation marks. This is the only kind of edit they seem to make. Is it necessary to prove this is disruption? It is by no metric constructive. Folly Mox (talk) 01:28, 26 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I understand disliking MOS guidelines but changing the right and not the left double quotation mark to curly (while making no other changes) when others have asked you not to seems facially disruptive. Mackensen (talk) 02:17, 26 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree with that, changing only one side of a pair of quotation marks is disruptive. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:57, 26 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:HoodGoose Edit

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

HoodGoose (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Contributions show WP:NOTHERE: overwhelming majority of edits have been reverted, violation of WP:SOAP and WP:BLP [16], appears to be POV pushing [17][18]. Given that almost every single action taken so far has created work for others it may be best to block, or issue warning. AncientWalrus (talk) 00:44, 26 September 2023 (UTC) AncientWalrus (talk) 00:46, 26 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Stale. Lourdes 08:11, 26 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

OWN, NPOV and casting of aspersions by Theresunset on E.A.T. (TV program) Edit

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

(Mild trigger warning regarding self-harm) I would like to make a bit of a complaint regarding Theresunset over what I see as a case of WP:OWN and their apparent vested interest in the show despite them casting aspersions of me being supposedly a fan of a rival series, which I am honestly not interested in either. I have tried rewording the section pertaining to Joey de Leon's insensitive remarks referring to suicide by hanging and how it was condemned by audiences and experts, but Theresunset on the other hand repeatedly reverted my edits and spuriously accused me of "bias" which I honestly tried to avoid. From my interpretation of his wording he tried to downplay de Leon's tactlessness and portrayed those who criticised him and the show as "detractors", "mostly Kapamilya Network fans" as if he tried to emphasise the fabled network rivalry between ABS-CBN and GMA more than the severity of de Leon's self-harm remarks. From what I gather from the sources cited, audiences did point out a double-standard on part of the MTRCB for imposing a suspension order on It's Showtime due to an alleged lewd act by an LGBTQ+ comedian and their life partner but overlooking most if not all infractions by their rival show. Blake Gripling (talk) 01:29, 26 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The article talk-page is this way. (talk) 01:32, 26 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
For transparency, Blakegripling mentioned this issue in the community Discord server and was warned for their attitude. It also helps to provide diffs about what the issue is, because right now this just looks like a content issue with zero attempt at resolution instead of a user conduct issue (e.g. this message shows the claimed aspersions and failure to AGF) CiphriusKane (talk) 02:25, 26 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I do sincerely apologise for the gaffe I made over at the Discord server as it was at the heat of the moment and I wanted to respond thoroughly if not for being late at night on my end. My problem with the user is they blindly accused me of bias without any compelling evidence and spuriously alleged that I am loyal to It's Showtime yet the way I see it I only tried to make the passage as concise and neutral as possible given our policies; the wording on their revision seems to imply a half-hearted attempt at downplaying the subject's fault and put undue weight over the mud-slinging by supporters of the rival show. Blake Gripling (talk) 02:40, 26 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm leaving a warning message on this user's talk page. The aspersion casting and demonstration of clear article ownership is unacceptable and it will stop now. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 03:00, 26 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  Done (diff, permalink). If this behavior continues, I think an indefinite partial block from editing these articles is an appropriate next step. Please let me know if the user violates those policies again. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 03:25, 26 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'll let this comment slide... ;-) The user was put on notice and now they have to "watch their P's and Q's". Don't do this to other editors; I'll have no problem "upping the ante" to fix this situation. :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 03:37, 26 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ah shit, here we go again with this inflammatory comment. Blake Gripling (talk) 10:59, 26 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Oshwah: who is "the user"? Not sure to whom you're referring.  — Amakuru (talk) 11:11, 26 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Theresunset (@Amakuru: this is "the user") immediately reverted their addition with the same edit summary so now it's WP:POINTY as well as inflammatory CiphriusKane (talk) 11:49, 26 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oh I see, well given the final warning earlier, and that they've continued making comments like "too biased" In edit summaries, I've blocked them from editing that article. If they are to be unblocked, they'll need to demonstrate that they can edit there collegiately.  — Amakuru (talk) 12:06, 26 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Amakuru - Thanks for doing that while I was away. This user's behavior and demeanor, in addition to the policies they've repeatedly violated despite warnings, show me that they simply aren't capable of collaborating and behaving civilly in that article area. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 17:09, 26 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Delete edit history and block IP range Edit

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Materialscientist deleted edit history of Revision as of 08:11, 24 September 20 and his revert Revision as of 08:13, 24 September 2023 after I requested on his talk page. Since the IP has also used uncivil language in his edit summary I would request if it too can be deleted then please do so. Now, the IP returned and added the same thing once again here. Revision as of 02:19, 26 September 2023 and was reverted by Box of wolves here Revision as of 02:19, 26 September 2023. I would request to remove the edit history and summary as it is too uncivil to remain on Wikipedia or any public accessible platform. And would want some action to be taken against that vandal IP. Shaan SenguptaTalk 01:33, 26 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Shaan Sengupta -   Done. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 03:59, 26 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Oshwah it seems there is much more left to do. First I would request you to block the second IP have I have mentioned above. Second I want you to have a look at 2402:8100:2009:0:0:0:0:0/48 (talk · contribs). Its clearly a case of WP:NOTTHERE. I think the whole IP range needs to be blocked. Look at the contributions that the IP has made. Nearly all the edits are reverted and most of uncivil edit history is removed. But edit summaries are not removed. The user has repeatedly user abuses in the edit summaries. It will take too much time to mention every revision link. I would request you to look at their contribution and remove the edit history and summaries. And also block the IP user and if possible the whole range. Shaan SenguptaTalk 05:51, 26 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Shaan Sengupta - Sorry, I got pulled into another task that was extremely urgent. Okay, I just got finished checking out the IP range and the edits made from it to make the best determination as to how to stop the disruption. It's important that I make sure that collateral damage is low. Also, you can see that the IP address of the two users you listed begin with 2402:8100:2008 and 2402:8100:2009, which means that the range is actually higher than what the WHOIS shows (2402:8100:2000::/44). I've blocked 2402:8100:2000::/44 for one month, and all disruptive edits and their edit summaries have been redacted. Please let me know if I missed anything. :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 06:11, 26 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Oshwah Thanks for the quick action. I understand that admins are occupied with so many things here and the outside world too. As much as I can see, you have done more than what I saw untill now. Will let you know if I see more of this. Best Regards! Shaan SenguptaTalk 06:16, 26 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Competence is required Edit

Dustfreeworld claimed that sourced information cannot be verified [19]. I provided verification [20] using sources already in the article. They did not engage in the discussion but removed the information [21] [22] and placed a warning on my talk page, even though there is nothing wrong with most of my edits [23]. This seems like a WP:CIR issue. Vacosea (talk) 04:22, 26 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This case is mostly a content dispute, but Dustfreeworld has failed to discuss as part of the BRD cycle. I am not an admin, but if Vacosea wants to reinsert the information they feel is not covered, I would be happy to support the inclusion temporarily until discussion is completed, acting as an informal third opinion. Be careful not to revert, thereby deleting the many changes that have been made since your edit, simply make a minimal edit which includes the information you wish to see included.
Dustfreeworld probably needs to show awareness that following a revert which the other user takes exception to, discussion is not optional. Boynamedsue (talk) 06:46, 26 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's not like that at all, in my reading. Dustfreeworld has not removed anything put by Vacosea, except take out small details due to BLP issues (changing of "cheated three times" to "cheated", or changing "separated for more than two years" to "separated", as these are sourced to breaking news reports). Has Vacosea done anything wrong? No; these are editorial calls. Is Dustfreeworld required mandatorily to comment on the talk page of the article? Absolutely not. Is Dustfreeworld's warning to Vacosea uncalled for? Well, yeah... I think Dustfreeworld did not realise the impact that such a template may cause to an editor who is excitedly placing, whatever can be sourced, into the article. Like what is mentioned above, it is an editorial issue and need not be discussed here. Vacosea, request Dustfreeworld again to give his pov on the article's talk page. For future disputes, please follow the procedures listed out at dispute resolution. Thanks, Lourdes 07:56, 26 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Dustfreeworld said there was speculation/wrong information, but they have offered nothing to question the reports. Allegations of Rockowitz cheating on Lee and their marriage problem were covered before [24] [25], so they are not breaking news, only Lee's death was. If the problem was sourcing, the same or similar English and non-English sources are used to support their own edits about Lee [26]. Their justifications are all contradictory, but I suppose I can try discussing with them one time. Vacosea (talk) 16:51, 26 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
For the record, out of the 30+ edits made by User:Vacosea to the article Coco Lee, 16 of them involved removal of content, most of which was added by me. You can see that from the page’s history [27]. And yes, I DO think that “Their justifications are all contradictory, but I suppose I can try discussing with them one time”, too. --Dustfreeworld (talk) 19:09, 27 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This does not explain their refusal to check with the sources and engage in discussion, and placing a warning template on my talk page about "stop adding unreferenced or poorly referenced" information. It just goes on to show the contradictory and ever changing nature of their complaint. Vacosea (talk) 19:51, 27 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I disagree DustFreeworld answered a reasonable request to discuss with a warning template, that is treading into personal attack territory. Boynamedsue (talk) 16:56, 26 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Actually no, scrub that, the warning came first, it wasn't warranted, but it wasn't in response to the request to discuss. Boynamedsue (talk) 23:55, 26 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you so much for the clarification Boynamedsue :) Perhaps you can strike that as well? In case people may misread. Thanks again. --Dustfreeworld (talk) 19:14, 27 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Actually the warning [28] came after the talk section [29] [30]. Vacosea (talk) 19:51, 27 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It would be much appreciated if you can stop confusing people. Thanks. --Dustfreeworld (talk) 22:25, 27 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I must say I’m really surprised to see this discussion about me.
  • 18:58, 12 September 2023 User:Vacosea made this edit:
They misinterpreted the source as “Lee and her husband moved out of their previous home” (in the source it said Lee moved out of their previous home).
So I added the “Cite check” template to call for source verification:
  • 22:52, 12 September 2023
My edit summary: Added { {Cite check} } tag. The page now reads: “Lee and her husband had been separated for more than two years before she died . . . In early 2023, Lee and her husband moved out of their previous home”? And the source cited mentioned nothing about “early 2023”. I think there maybe more. . . WP:GROWNUPS
What I mean is, if they had separated in 2021, how can THEY moved out of their previous home together in 2023? It’s simply wrong, and the wrong information was added by User:Vacosea.
After that edit of mine, User:Vacosea posted the “verification” they mentioned above to the article talk page and also edited the article and added a parameter (talk=September 2023 verification) to the Cite check template
Cite check|date=September 2023|talk=September 2023 verification
And then, they edited the article again to removed the wrong information they added, per what I had pointed out:
In short, they KNEW they were wrong on that, had corrected it and had posted a “verification” on talk (that post is somewhat redundant IMHO, but now I know how it can be used). I didn’t reply to that post because the article had been corrected already, and I wanted to save face for them (FYI the latter adjustment on times cheated and separation time is basically another issue). NOW I know I was wrong. I never anticipated that it will turn into an accusation of ME being incompetent. They knew they had put in wrong information to the article and they knew why the template was added but still make such false and misleading accusations (that I didn’t engage on talk and show “incompetence”). I suspect there maybe behavioural issues. --Dustfreeworld (talk) 18:37, 27 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The vast majority of my edits were accurate. After the cite check, I adjusted some details. Moving out and separating are not always the same thing anyway. On the other hand, Dustfreeworld didn't seem to have checked with any sources before reverting other information again, even though I showed the sources for correction, including early 2023/early this year. They placed a warning template, out of nowhere, about "stop adding unreferenced or poorly referenced" information on my talk page. Just because their talk page has received many notices from other editors in the past doesn't mean they should be doing that with mine. Vacosea (talk) 19:51, 27 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Those who are interested in Coco Lee’s marriage and what problematic content User:Vacosea had added may visit the talk page. I have posted some old evidence that support those. If you want the latest BREAKING news, 20 September 2023 (no, not old news), here you are:
I’m very doubtful about their saying that “The vast majority of my edits were accurate”, respectfully.
From my understanding, for BLP, wrong or doubtful content must be removed as soon as possible. I SHOULD HAVE removed them and posted warnings on their user’s talk page much earlier. --Dustfreeworld (talk) 20:45, 27 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And User:Vacosea is still adding the contentious and likely wrong information to the article today. Surely this is not the first time that this user is warned on sourcing and content additions:
I’m not familiar with the procedure, but a ban maybe needed. --Dustfreeworld (talk) 21:01, 27 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Vast majority does not mean one or two disputes. If Dustfreeworld wants to engage in good faith discussion [31], they should not have waited until ANI while reverting away in the mean time [32][33], or highlighted their source here without mentioning 6 other sources against them on the article's talk page all this time. Is it also good faith behavior for Dustfreeworld to omit information from my history in order to push for a ban? [34] User talk:Wpscatter#Korean cuisine [35] They have complained about verification, refused to look at verification, warned me about "references", even though the sources have been there all along, complained about me removing content, complained about my accuracy, when are they going to stop? Vacosea (talk) 21:54, 27 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I’ve posted on the BLP notice board as well: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Coco Lee. I believe the issue is important as it may have real life consequences on the financial arrangements of the subjects’ family, and that the dubious information may also be defamatory. --Dustfreeworld (talk) 22:03, 27 September 2023 (UTC)--Dustfreeworld (talk) 23:11, 27 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Dustfreeworld Please don't toss words like defamatory around on Wikipedia. That can have a chilling effect on other editors and may result in a WP:NLT block. I'd suggest striking through that statement, just for clarity. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 17:02, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"Wikipedia contains over a million articles about living persons. From both a legal and an ethical standpoint, it is essential that a determined effort be made to eliminate defamatory and other inappropriate material from these articles"... It's important for an editor to be able to point out stuff that is potentially defamatory. We might actually be effecting a chilling effect by telling editors to not point out such stuff. Thanks, Lourdes 17:20, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What they wrote about me on that board, "please stop your continual and deliberate false accusations", was baseless and itself potentially defamatory [36]. Their edits there focus too much on linking back to this ANI to begin with. Vacosea (talk) 17:47, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Vacosea May I reiterate what another user said above: “Please don't toss words like defamatory around on Wikipedia. That can have a chilling effect on other editors and may result in a WP:NLT block. I'd suggest striking through that statement, just for clarity”. Thanks :) --Dustfreeworld (talk) 18:12, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The one who is engaging in baseless personal attack is Dustfreeworld, however hard they try to change the subject or reframe around it. Vacosea (talk) 22:42, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It seems that you are trying to make use of the “Goebbels effect” (or “big lie technique”), in the hope that “Repeat a lie often enough and it becomes the truth”. But experiments tell us that it won’t,
  • ″For statements that were actually fact or fiction, known or unknown, repetition made them all seem more believable … the biggest influence on whether a statement was judged to be true was... whether it actually was true. The repetition effect couldn’t mask the truth. With or without repetition, people were still more likely to believe the actual facts as opposed to the lies″.
--Dustfreeworld (talk) 04:40, 29 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And IMHO, what’s more important is that, people who are able to make the right judgement (believe the actual facts) may also have very negative impressions on those who keep repeating the lies (no matter those are organisations, governments or individual). Besides thinking that those are liars, people may also think that they are not reasonable. --Dustfreeworld (talk) 09:45, 29 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Some administrator should put an end to this trolling. (talk) 11:25, 29 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I would suggest that, when you are being accused of making personal attacks, it is probably better not to respond by comparing the other party to a genocidal war criminal. Also, ixnay on the rolltay word, would have thought that was obvious, especially here. Boynamedsue (talk) 14:47, 29 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

Edit warring on 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" ( 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)- 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". (talk) 08:49, 26 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
I consider fault on both sides. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:18, 26 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I can't think of any other reason why he's so desperately trying to protect a drug cheat's name ? (talk) 09:18, 26 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I tried to resolve this on the users talk page. (talk) 09:18, 26 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
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 ? (talk) 09:20, 26 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
You protected the WP:WRONGVERSION. How dare you. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:00, 26 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • 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) [37]. 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)Reply[reply]
    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)Reply[reply]
    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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
Today — lol. El_C 14:44, 26 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
  • 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)Reply[reply]
  • 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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
Yep, no worries. Black Kite (talk) 18:06, 26 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
Ritchie: Here is a purse of monies. SN54129 18:52, 26 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support CBAN. Reasons [38], 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 (talkcontribs)
  • 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)Reply[reply]
  • 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)Reply[reply]
  • 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)Reply[reply]
  • 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)Reply[reply]
  • 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)Reply[reply]
  • Support CBAN They do not have the temperament to be able to edit here. Scorpions1325 (talk) 00:22, 27 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • 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)Reply[reply]
  • Support CBAN or an indef block, whatever will let people move on from this time sink. WindTempos (talkcontribs) 10:29, 27 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • 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)Reply[reply]
  • 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. --RockstoneSend me a message! 02:18, 29 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

IPs creating hoax drafts Edit

There may be more IPs I currently cannot find, but these two seem to be the primary culprits. Essentially, the main problem here, is that these IPs (one of them still actively doing so) are creating many hoax drafts. While there are some that actually exist, a majority of them appear to be hoaxes. I had come across these IPs while tagging the drafts for seasons 12, 13, and 14 of The Masked Singer for CSD, as the show has currently only been renewed upto season 11. Similarly, I don't believe anything has been announced for any new season of American Idol to air in 2025.

A majority of the hoax drafts appear to be coming from the IP- I'm highly inclined to believe that all the drafts regarding 'Untitled Scooby-Doo! and _________ film' and 'Untitled Jetsons/Flintstones and Bill Nye the Science Guy/Neil deGrasse Tyson film' are completely made up.

I would personally suggest a block on the IP (as they are the one currently still actively contributing to this issue) and doing a purge of hoax drafts create by both IPs. Magitroopa (talk) 10:49, 26 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Also worth noting... just seeing now that both IPs have previously been blocked once for this same disruptive behavior. Obviously nothing has changed. Magitroopa (talk) 10:53, 26 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Blocked User: three months for creating hoaxes. See also their talk page for prior warnings. The two IPs listed above are both from Newfoundland. Let me know if you notice other IPs continuing this activity. EdJohnston (talk) 23:58, 26 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Selective blocking of Pakistani users Edit

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

@Barkeep49, Beeblebrox, Cabayi, CaptainEek, Enterprisey, GeneralNotability, Izno, L235, Primefac, SilkTork, Wugapodes, Guerillero, Moneytrees, and Opabinia regalis: @Girth Summit:'s "they're in the same country" with a population of 240 million people with 21% of the population or 50.4 million people using internet "so I guess it's possible that it's the same person" just doesn't cut it. The Fixed Local Line subscribers of PTCL is reported at 2.4 million. So blocking someone merely because they live in Pakistan and use PTCL has now become a common occurrence at SPI. Please know that PTCL users don't have a static IP but a dynamic IP. There has been too many collateral in these false positive cases. This needs to stop.

Also ask Aman.kumar.goel why it is hell bent on removing someone else's comment and remind them that IP editors are WP:HUMAN too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 15:16, 26 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Because you're repeatedly making baseless accusations that don't actually contribute to the SPA in question, and now you've copy/pasted the same complaint here. IP needs blocked just for spamming pings, if nothing else. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 15:55, 26 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Baseless accusation at whom exactly? I can mention at least half a dozen SPI cases where each new Pakistani editor is reported by a gang of next door neighbors and these users eventually end up getting blocked. ArbCom needs to review these SPI cases where circumstantial evidence is used for placing one-sided blocks. (talk) 17:29, 26 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Another gem by Girth, "Comparing against what I can see in the CU logs indicates that the user is in roughly the same part of the same country." So living in Pakistan is now a crime. (talk) 19:42, 26 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Since that wasn't the basis of the block, it's hard to see what you're whining about. --JBL (talk) 23:13, 26 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
So you are saying it's a usual practice for admins to block someone after a CU when they happen to be "in the same country" or "same part of the same country" even in cases when that country is say for example USA, China or India? Maybe, in reality this heavy handedness is reserved for users from Pakistan. Instead of blocking someone over abuse of multiple accounts when happen to be in the same city, a wider geographical link is enough to place a block for Pakistani users specifically.
This gang of Indian users reports any new Pakistani editor on multiple SPI threads to see what sticks and one eventually does simply because they happen to live in the same part of the same country. What happened to matching any two users to see if they are using the same internet connection, device and browser etc.?
Mark my words, you continue on this path and the Indian nationalists will continue to run riot and WP would lose any popularity left in Pakistan. (talk) 02:15, 27 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't know if *any* of those users are Indian. let alone *all* of them; in fact, I know for a fact that several of them are *not* Indian.
Spouting out conspiracy theories about "Indians repressing Pakistanis on Wikipedia" isn't going to end how you want it to though.
2603:7000:CF0:7CB0:686C:F13:CD5C:205F (talk) 02:27, 27 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Who exactly are you talking about? (talk) 17:33, 27 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm saying it is usual practice when investigating sock-puppets to take geography into account, that this is obviously a good and correct practice, and that your reaction to a routine example of it is absurd -- either an incompetent or malicious misrepresentation of what took place. There are good reasons to be concerned about Hindutva / Indian nationalist editing on Wikipedia, but they have literally nothing to do with a British checkuser making a routine comment on geolocation as part of a sockpuppet investigation. --JBL (talk) 17:44, 27 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Just gonna mention here, that the user socking in question, has posted a complaint about the SPI offwiki on a Reddit post, seen here: , so I think some canvassing is suspected here. Yoshi24517 (Chat) (Online) 18:56, 26 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Easing3220 Edit

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I've already pinged @Materialscientist: on the users talk page, this non-ec user is continuing to edit political topics on Armenia/Azerbaijan-related articles despite me letting the user know of WP:GS/AA and it's restrictions. The user is now edit warring, I've reverted his edits, since I understand from WP:GS/AA that reverts made solely to enforce the restriction are not to be considered edit warring. AntonSamuel (talk) 15:45, 26 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The user @AntonSamuel is trying to push his etno-natioanlist agenda in every single Wiki article about Azerbaijani region of Karabakh. Which is in itself is posing questionwhy a person that has interest in Armenia is involved so much in articles about Azerbaijani cities. They blatantly remove facts, and change narrative so Armenian side can look better even though they were forced Azerbaijani people from Kalbajar in the winter and harassed them non stop. Yet have audacity to think he is right. This person is full of hatred towards Azerbaijan and it's people yet he edits Azeri wiki pages to suit it's narrative. Easing3220 (talk) 15:51, 26 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Easing3220: Focus on the edits, not the editor - the restriction is quite clear and you need to respect it. Editors from all backgrounds and with all sorts of opinions need to stay civil and professional when editing Wikipedia. AntonSamuel (talk) 15:55, 26 September 2023 (UTC) AntonSamuel (talk) 15:55, 26 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@AntonSamuel Yeah talk about being a civil person that tries to hide ethnic cleansing. You need psychological help. Easing3220 (talk) 16:01, 26 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Of course I disagree with that statement, but it's not the point – you are editing in a restricted topic area and you refuse to listen to explanations and warnings, and instead go for personal attacks. AntonSamuel (talk) 16:05, 26 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Now you are the victim nice gaslighting bro. Don't pretend that you are neutral. I can't currently undo your changes due to captcha error but as soon as I fix the issue I will revert your changes. You can't undo it as much as you want. Easing3220 (talk) 16:10, 26 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If you have a genuine complaint about AntonSamuel you will need to start another thread about it. In the meantime you need to obey the rule that only editors with 500+ edits over at least 30 days are allowed to edit in this topic area, which has nothing to do with AS' conduct. (t · c) buidhe 16:32, 26 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ok clear enough. Following rules is more important than being morally right thanks for letting me know. Easing3220 (talk) 16:41, 26 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Buidhe: The user's edit warring is continuing on Kalbajar AntonSamuel (talk) 16:50, 26 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

yes it is due to systematic attempt of removing parts about ethnic cleansing. Easing3220 (talk) 16:54, 26 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Easing3220 blocked 48 hours edit warring and personal attacks. CambridgeBayWeather (solidly non-human), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 17:28, 26 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Don't think they'll stop until they're indeffed. DeCausa (talk) 17:31, 26 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Agreed- take a look at the user's talk page. They are already planning their edits in the coming days. Not to mention the racial/discriminatory language being used is shocking. More is needed than just a 48hr block. Archives908 (talk) 17:34, 26 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If this is not a sock I will eat my hat. Black Kite (talk) 18:25, 26 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Take a look here: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/ClassicYoghurt. Deauthorized. (talk) 19:06, 26 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yeah. Not even going to bother SPI with that. Indeffed. Black Kite (talk) 21:00, 26 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Msheehan1974 (talk · contribs): incivility and threat [39]: You think you’re funny. Well I have your IP address so it won’t take me long for us to meet up and you can say it to my face. Mincer! and Big man eh! Well I’ll let you know when I’m in Mississauga.

2607:FEA8:4ADC:100:E445:FD03:10B:4917 (talk · contribs · WHOIS): incivility [40]: calling the other editor numale. NM 18:29, 26 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

these both appear to be single purpose editors. they sniped at each other and have probably moved on, so it is unlikely that this incident requires administrator intervention unless they go at it again. .usarnamechoice (talk) 19:59, 26 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:TheFriendlyFas2 Edit


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:


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

Identifying with third positionism on their userpage should be grounds for a WP:NAZI block. CJ-Moki (talk) 01:04, 27 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
Yikes. I know NONAZIS is an essay, but come on. LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 09:22, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I just realized their username is quite literally "the friendly fascist". Double yikes. LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 11:39, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:Bgsu98 Edit

Yet again, this user has shown disregard for behaviour "branding" edits idiotic here [44]. 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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
OP   Blocked – for a period of 2 weeks (/64): clearly bad faith report. El_C 05:54, 27 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
Yes, this is an LTA. Just block the newest range when they pop up and semi-protect anything they touch.-- Ponyobons mots 15:32, 27 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@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)Reply[reply]
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.-- Ponyobons mots 15:41, 27 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If it’s not the same IP, then I apologize for the confusion. Bgsu98 (Talk) 15:43, 27 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Disruption and POV pushing by Procastinater Edit

His revisions are a blatant violation of WP:NPOV-[45]. It goes against the consensus that was achieved on how to best characterize the subject in the lede [46]. His first edit also used a false edit summary of removed disambiguation and he refuses to discuss his edits on the talk page even when pinged [47]. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 03:42, 27 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User @Suthasianhistorian8 is engaged in an edit war with me, although he is unable to provide adequate reasoning for his constant reverting, he provides me with a consensus article on the subject, in which there is absolutely no agreement among users. He is engaged in enforcing a biased and hateful, view on an individual who is highly respected and held in high regards by all followers of Sikh religion, I have seen his other edits and warning by admins on disruptive behavior in adding dubious information on articles regarding Sikh history. Added all this, he is constantly spamming warnings on my talk page, without adequate reasoning, I am feeling harassed by this spamming. Kindly review my request, I have mentioned his behavior to a known administrator as well Regards, Procrastinater (talk) 03:53, 27 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You do realize that on top of the RFC [48], it states and was closed with There is a consensus that proposal #1 is better.? I'm not the one who initally added that to the lede.
Can you provide evidence for all your other claims? Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 04:00, 27 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Also even if someone was a "revered freedom fighter", Wikipedia would never allow such flowery language to be used on an article, no matter how commendable the subject was, especially not in the lede, that too in Wikivoice instead of attributed to someone. At best, they could be called a revolutionary. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 04:04, 27 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you for reaching out again. Although i have been nothing but respectful till this point, i feel you are bit agitated. I am more than happy to provide you with evidence for all of my claims. Aside from that, on the subject of flowery language, if you don't like the phrase "revered freedom fighter.", i am more than happy to change it to a revolutionary which be more appropriate than the word militant which is very disrespectful for a man of such caliber. Please ponder upon this without the element of hate and bias. Regards Procrastinater (talk) 04:13, 27 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No, that wouldn't work. It needs to be reverted to "militant". Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 04:17, 27 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Southasianhistorian8 This is Wikipedia. This is not your little kingdom where you can spread your propagated information. Procrastinater (talk) 04:29, 27 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As far as I can tell, you have failed to keep a neutral point of view, as there's not one, but five, sources all describing Jarnail as a militant in the opening paragraph. Instead, you're pushing your own POV, as you have failed to cite a source that backs your argument of Jarnail being a freedom fighter or revolutionary. You are casting aspersions, and have failed to communicate, instead choosing to now be in violation of WP:3RR. - HotMAN0199 (talk) 04:44, 27 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Please Review these sources Aswell, all news present on the web is not absolutely authentic. This topic is very controversial, as I promised I will provide authentic sources here are the links, one of them is from Reuters the best news agency.
What is the Khalistan movement and why is it fuelling India-Canada rift? | Reuters
Jarnail Bhindranwale: Slain Khalistani separatist leaders seen in Pakistan’s Kartarpur video: Who were they? | India News ( Procrastinater (talk) 05:43, 27 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Furthermore you have reverted the article a further two times with this discussion in progress. - HotMAN0199 (talk) 04:50, 27 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Furthermore, I agree I was wrong here, because i reverted it by accident. It was not intentional. Procrastinater (talk) 05:44, 27 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Im sure im diving in deep and this is going to get me some pushback, but wouldnt a term like "controversial revolutionary figure" work pretty well here? Googleguy007 (talk) 12:45, 27 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The description as "militant" is more than generous. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 14:08, 27 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Procrastinater, the reality is that Wikipedia has a steep learning curve, so learning the basic in contentious areas rarely works out. Are you even aware that Wikipedia works by WP:CONSENSUS? Because when Southasianhistorian8 linked that specific consensus discussion for you in their edit summary (diff), but you reverted with un untrue edit summary that read: User:- Southasianhistorian8 engaged in spreading disinformation on this topic, well, that looks bad. And because you're learning the basics in a contentious area, you don't even realize that it looks bad. But it does. It is sanctionable misconduct, in fact. El_C 06:05, 27 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Looks to be quite obvious POV pushing, followed by backtracking when they got into trouble. Claiming their edit war to be an "accident" is laughable, especially in light of this comment

Southasianhistorian8, Thank you for getting back to me, firstly you got my name wrong on your topic its Procrastinater not *Procastineater*, secondly, you mentioned that community has decided, this is not a political forum that something is decided upon , it is an information platform where things are agreed upon, which is definitely not the case here just check the last 3 headings in the article. Lastly, you mentioned that my edits are reflected upon in the paragraph, which means even you are in agreement with the majority consensus on Baba Sant Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale. You are in a constant struggle to garb the truth with hate, in this case it is clear voilation of Wikipedia guideline of conduct policy. Regards,

The mental gymnastics used to justify the POV is astounding.
I think a block might be too severe given that the account is fairly new, and a TBAN from Indian subcontinent might solve the issues. This will also allow them to edit in less controversial areas and possible come back to editing more constructively. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 07:16, 27 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Will You be kind enough to explain how was it mental gymnastics, when i already admitted that it was by mistake Procrastinater (talk) 07:31, 27 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It has already been explained to you above what is wrong with your editing. I agree that it would be better for you to focus on other areas of Wikipedia that are not as political or controversial. Duly signed, WaltClipper -(talk) 18:29, 27 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I am assuming you know the meaning of mental gymnastics, (already been explained to you above what is wrong with your editing), I already admitted my mistake, check the whole conversation, i am not playing dumb to the fact that I bypassed some rules. But blatantly accusing me of mental gymnastics is just disingenuous. Procrastinater (talk) 03:58, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Procrastinater, It would look better for you, in this case, to accept what this community of editors is saying at face value without claiming that anything they are telling you is disingenuous. From what I see they have been patient in explaining the issues without a rush to judgement. Consensus is paramount on Wikipedia. Without it every discussion devolves into shouting matches. Because you are relatively new to Wikipedia and show a willingness to discuss issues I think that's why you see a softer approach here. Don't take that for granted. Accept all criticism. Take that which will help you learn and grow and apply it. Let the rest roll off but don't discount it whether you think it's disingenuous or not. You were wrong this time. It's okay, we've all been there. Don't let it discourage you and don't fight against it. Above all else, move forward, find some other area less contentious to edit in and contribute constructively. The editors here obviously think enough of you to give the opportunity. Use that opportunity wisely. --ARoseWolf 13:03, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dilku911 keeps changing numbers in articles Edit

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Dilku911 (contribution history) (talk) is an account created yesterday morning who spent yesterday changing numbers in about 36 articles, and he/she is at it again today. He/she just changes or adds numbers[49][50][51] - he/she never provides sources. He/she even changed the number in a URL in an edit to List of active Bangladesh military aircraft. He/she has been warned. But I do not think he/she understands the messages about the need for sources on his talk page,[52][53] and says that he/she is adding real data.[54] Please can admins stop him/her.-- Toddy1 (talk) 08:53, 27 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I blocked the user indefinitely. There is no need to consult me if any admin responds to a plausible unblock request and determines that there is reason to believe problems will not persist. Johnuniq (talk) 09:33, 27 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User: as sock Edit

After a sock of "维基中二群体代表" was locked again by Sotiale and one article got speedy deleted by G5, User: then appeared and re-created the previously deleted entry, as well as editing {{Chinese New Left}} and a few other wikis' related entries (idwiki, kowiki and ruwiki). ときさき くるみ not because they are easy, but because they are hard 10:45, 27 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User IP Edit

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This user was very rude to me. I gave him a good faith warning that he should not be adding any disruptive edits to the Trojan Horse page, and he told me "F**k you." Please give this IP a temporary block or warn them more. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 12:38, 27 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Disruptive edits by Edit (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

This IP editor is adding close templates to AfDs, using other user's signatures, adding protection templates to pages and removing AfD templates. Looks like a sock?

Diffs, although the contribs are fairly self explanatory: [55] [56] WindTempos (talkcontribs) 13:28, 27 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Similar thing at User_talk:Blablubbs#Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Market_America_(3rd_nomination). Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:06, 27 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Block evasion by Kingshowman. Blocked for a week. — Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 15:21, 27 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Ingenuity: (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has just popped up to continue the disruption. What a nightmare. WindTempos (talkcontribs) 15:34, 27 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:Baseball Bugs Edit

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

And now this: Wikipedia talk:Editing restrictions#AldezD

One-way interaction ban imposed on 9 May 2022. @User:Cullen328: @User:Newyorkbrad: @User:Masem: @User:Guettarda: @User:EvergreenFir: Baseball Bugs has been blocked SEVERAL times for harassment and is now stalking me, even after I retired. This is not competent behavior. He has several topic bans as well as interaction bans. His post to Wikipedia talk:Editing restrictions violates the Wikipedia:Editing restrictions placed 2022-05-06 "Baseball Bugs is subject to a 1-way interaction ban with AldezD indefinitely". Please do something to stop this editor from bothering me. AldezD (talk) 14:03, 27 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Per Archive 323:

"Interaction ban - Baseball Bugs, I am imposing a 1-way interaction ban on you with AldezD. You may not interact with AldezD. Copying from WP:IBAN, this includes, but is not limited to, Editors subject to an interaction ban are not permitted to:

  • edit each other's user and user talk pages;
  • reply to each other in discussions;
  • make reference to or comment on each other anywhere on Wikipedia, directly or indirectly;
  • undo each other's edits to any page, whether by use of the revert function or by other means;
  • use the thanks extension to respond to each other's edits."

AldezD (talk) 14:08, 27 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It looks to me that he was trying to appeal the restriction. I'm not sure how he could possibly do that without making reference to you, but his main goal was rather obviously trying to get his 1-way IBAN lifted. Apart from the venue problem, which someone else pointed out, how else should he appeal? The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 14:16, 27 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
(edit conflict)Very plainly exempt, as noted in the very next section after WP:IBAN.
Since you've gone out of your way to draw our attention to it, what in the living fuck is this about? —Cryptic 14:18, 27 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yikes. How is that reaction not infinitely worse than an innocuous request about getting rid of an interaction ban? Sergecross73 msg me 14:27, 27 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@User:Cryptic The user was told almost 1.5 years ago to stop bothering me. He is clearly stalking me and still has some beef after being told to leave me alone. I logged in yesterday to see what has gone on since I retired, and I get an alert I was directly tagged in a message at Wikipedia talk:Editing restrictions. After all the action from this editor bothering me, why is he tagging me in ANOTHER edit after an indefinite ban? After I retired, why would he need a ban lifted if I'm not active? AldezD (talk) 14:27, 27 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You literally called them a "goblin". In no way was that appropriate. Sergecross73 msg me 14:43, 27 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You're right. It wasn't. I apologize. But that does not negate stalking behavior. AldezD (talk) 14:46, 27 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Let BaseballBugs appeal in the usual way. Boomerang for AldezD, though, not just for the downright incivility of their comment (Goblin?!) but that they literally posted a 'Retired' template back in February... and have now literally come out of retirement purely in order to 'gotcha' BaseballBugs at the highest profile noticeboard we've got? Noway should you get away with that. Absolutely outrageous incivility and bad faith all in one edit. Absolutely disgraceful. SN54129 14:48, 27 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • I've dealt with this individual stalking me repeatedly. I have multiple times asked to have this user stop bothering me. I happened to log in just to see what's up, only to have a notice show up that I was tagged again by this user after a year and a half later appealing an indefinite ban. If I'm retired, there's no reason to even bring me up in a request. Why would this user have any need to interact with me? Move on, do whatever you want, and don't reference me. Just stop bothering me. It's a long term evidenced pattern of stalking. That's hardly a "gotcha" when someone is explicitly told not to "make reference to or comment on each other anywhere on Wikipedia, directly or indirectly" and then appeals an indefinite ban. Move on with your life, stop tagging me and just do whatever you want. AldezD (talk) 14:59, 27 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Squeakachu removing well referenced text on unsubstantiated claims of poor referencing Edit

A very short paragraph was added to the article on Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints leader Harold Hillam discussing public controversy about that figure. The paragraph was supported by multiple references from respected sources (including other sources already used in the exact same Wikipedia entry) and references to United States Government documents. Despite this appropriate referencing, Squeakachu removed the paragraph in question on the claim that it was not well referenced. 2A0D:6FC0:2A16:1A00:EB52:911E:E524:2DB1 (talk) 18:09, 27 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Although there was some discussion on Talk, there has been no consensus on the additions and it seems Squeakachu was never contacted. It seems that Harold G. Hillam has now been semi-protected by Ponyo. I think this matter is resolved for the time being. Toadspike (talk) 19:01, 27 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I was going to say WP:ONUS applies, but the IP/64 has been blocked for 72hrs. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested transmissions °co-ords° 19:44, 27 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Just noting that I saw this shortly after it was posted but got sidetracked with IRL stuff, so no harm done by the lack of notification. I've commented at the article talk page but if any further input is needed here feel free to ask. Squeakachu (talk) 21:40, 27 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Bucky3423 Edit

Bucky3423 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Recently started making promotional / spam edits. User page questionable for disruption as well. Clearly NOTHERE. Bestagon ⬡ 20:01, 27 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Blocked indefinitely. El_C 01:56, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

RobelyBasis: reliable sources and rudeness Edit

RobelyBasis (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) continually refuses to use reliable sources when editing articles. I count eight notifications on their user talk page for this issue. The most recent issue is CT Rail, where they have removed cited information three times and have not responded to a ping on the article talk page. In edit summary and their user talk page, they insist that a Youtube video is a reliable source (not the first time they have claimed unverified Youtube and Twitter posts as sources). Their responses to unsourced/poorly sourced edits being removed have become childish and hostile: ...since the wikipedia police can't use google to verify something, ... just to anger the wikipedia police that have nothing better to do with their lives!, have argument dumbass. The combination of poor/no sourcing and hostile attitude is making this user a net negative to the project. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 20:54, 27 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Blocked. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 21:59, 27 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

CBAN evasion Edit

Carmaker1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was community banned in October 2021. It appears he is evading the ban.

The edits from 2603:8080:A402:6894:0:0:0:0/64 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) fit the pattern perfectly: identical topic areas of automobiles and pop music, and this edit summary is exactly Carmaker1's style. More recently, 2607:FB91:1A75:8A76:60A4:BEFF:FEBA:3FFE (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has been resuming the effort to purge the use of model years from American car articles, which was one of Carmaker1's priorities on Wikipedia. The IP resolves to the same state, and this edit summary is in line with the usual pattern. --Sable232 (talk) 21:57, 27 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Looks like a duck to me. I've blocked both /64s for six months. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:03, 27 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Blocking a /64 on a mobile IP range for six months is a bad idea. It's just going to cause collateral damage without impacting the sock puppeteer much at all. If you're going to block a mobile IP range, you need to do a much wider block. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:33, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What's a reasonable max for a /64, NinjaRobotPirate? El_C 01:49, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's hard to say. It depends on the ISP, really. In many cases, either 31 hours or a week. Some ISPs, like AT&T Mobility, dump a lot of their customers on a /64. If you block a /64 on AT&T Mobility, it could very well block a significant portion of editing from an American city, but individual customers will likely stay on that /64. So, it's a balancing act between trying to stop LTA vandals from editing vs mitigating collateral damage. Verizon Wireless, on the other hand, generally dumps people on a /40, and I suspect blocking a /64 won't do anything to stop them from editing. I think all they have to do is press one button on their smartphone, and they're back to editing from a different IP address on that /40. A short 12 hour or 31 hour block might discourage impulsive vandalism, though. On Jio, there's probably going to be a lot of collateral damage whatever you do, but that goes 10x for any ISP in Nigeria. I try to do short blocks on Jio when I can, maybe around 31 hours or even a week, and I try not to do any range blocks on Nigerian ISPs if I can help it. For Indian and Nigerian range blocks, I often leave account creation enabled if I do a block longer than 24 hours unless it's an LTA vandal who needs to be stopped from creating new accounts. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:15, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you for your insights!   I think it'd be good if these details were to somehow be integrated with the documentation @WP:/64 (whose #P.S. only touches on AT&T and Verizon). El_C 04:11, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
He's been on 2603:8080:A402:6894:0:0:0:0/64 for a few months. Possible he's moved to the other one and could move again though. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 07:37, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
My Super Scientific Fool-Proof Method™© for blocking /64s is "how long have they been on this range?" + a smidge extra time.-- Ponyobons mots 19:59, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

When editing competence issues become disruptive Edit

Well, yes, there's a lot of that. In this case, I'm referring to David Madbellics (talk · contribs), who previously edited as Charlesviibrown (talk · contribs) and JamesDavidson-Madison (talk · contribs). In the most recent incarnation, we have edits like [57]; [58]; [59]; [60]; [61]; [62]; [63]; [64]; [65]; removal of AfD tag [66]; and as an IP [67]. None of these are Wiki felonies--rather, they display a lack of competence in syntax, punctuation, capitalization and formatting that has left a small trail of clean up. I've attempted to broach the subject [68], and another note was greeted with similar lack of understanding [69]. Intentions appear to be good, but this doesn't seem to be their native language, and they're not proficient to copyedit effectively. I'm at a loss as to how best to proceed, without sounding harsher than I already have. Mostly, I'd prefer to hand this off to others, rather than task myself a solitary vigilance. Thanks. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 02:21, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

ok thanks, I underst
tand that, and also I will fix that David Madbellics (talk) 02:25, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've tried to offer a few words at their talk page, to explain that their English is not good enough for copy editing on the English Wikipedia. Not sure if that will be sufficient, though. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:02, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It will be sufficient for me, Sir David Madbellics (talk) 09:09, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OK, David Madbellics has agreed to stop trying to copy edit, improve, or rewrite article text. That seems good enough to me, at least for now. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:25, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
How about adding citations, infoboxes, etc.? David Madbellics (talk) 09:27, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Considering that one of your most recent edits (even from after this discussion here started) is adding an enwiki mirror as a source for the same enwiki article, I have to say no, you should refrain from those as well. Fram (talk) 10:28, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
hello, sorry for repitions but, what's wrong in citation that I gave for that article? David Madbellics (talk) 11:37, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's a Wikipedia mirror (see WP:MIRROR). It's a copy of the Wikipedia article - and you can't use a Wikipedia article as a source for itself. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:19, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
so, are you telling me that a source must not also a encyclopedia? David Madbellics (talk) 12:22, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm telling you that the source must not be Wikipedia itself! If that is not obvious, I really don't think you should be editing here at all. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:09, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
How about adding citations, infoboxes, etc.? David Madbellics (talk) 11:36, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Propose CBAN Edit

I'm sorry to have to suggest this, but the interaction above (on top of the English language problems) convinces me that David Madbellics does not possess the competence to edit Wikipedia. The "are you telling me that a source must not also a encyclopedia" in response to using a Wikipedia mirror just blows my mind. I therefore propose an indefinite community ban. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:12, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I just indeffed the user. I hadn't seen your proposal. I'm, there's no reason why such a proposal cannot continue despite my block.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:16, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks - might as well formalise it here, I think. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:17, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Or, then again, maybe just closing this now they're blocked would save time, so...

JBW self-reporting in relation to Persianwise Edit

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

  • I have already said the following below, but I think it may make it clearer for anyone reading this for the first time if I make it clear right at the start. This is about an incident where I made a block which I have withdrawn, as I now believe that I was mistaken in placing the block. However, the problems which led me to block still remain. JBW (talk) 09:44, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have partially blocked the editor Persianwise from the pages User talk:JBW, User talk:D.Lazard, and Talk: Cartesian coordinate system. I am posting here in case it may be thought that I am WP:INVOLVED. I do not myself believe that I am involved in the sense of that policy, but I am allowing for the possibility that others may interpret it differently.

The starting point of this case is a content dispute between Persianwise and D.Lazard relating to the article Cartesian coordinate system. That content dispute is a very small matter, concerning what to me is a trivial difference over choice of words. I have no strong feeling as to which wording should be preferred. If anything I perhaps marginally prefer Persianwise's version, but the block is not about the content dispute: it is about behavioural issues stemming from that dispute.

Persianwise has argued in favour of their preferred version on the basis of a misunderstanding of mathematical concepts, and the way that I came into this was attempting to help them understand their mistake by giving explanation on their talk page. D.Lazard also tried to explain the issues. Persianwise edit-warred on the article until Johnuniq fully protected it for a while. Their response to my and D.Lazard's attempts to help clarify the issue has been to persistently post on our talk pages to an extent which amounts to harrasment. They have repeatedly patronisingly told us that, unlike themself, we do not have "a proper background in mathematics", that the mathematical ideas involved are "far beyond the level of [our] mathematical ability", that D.Lazard "is unable to understand the basics of mathematics", and so on. Whether those claims are true or false is not the issue, as either way persistently harassing editors with posts like that is unacceptable; however, for what it's worth the claims are in fact absurd, as I have a degree in mathematics from a university with a high international reputation in the subject, and D.Lazard is an emeritus professor of mathematics from a university with a very high reputation, as can be seen in the article Daniel Lazard.

Persianwise has also added other dimensions to their harassment, such as repeatedly badgering us over and over again to give answers to questions which have already been answered, but where they cannot or will not take in the answers they have been given: see WP:IDHT.

As far as I am concerned, Persianwise's persistence in an aggressive battleground approach to their disagreement with D.Lazard, their edit-warring on the article, and their harassment of myself and D.Lazard are sufficient grounds for a partial block; indeed, I have seen many editors site-blocked for less. I do not believe that I am disqualified from imposing the block by the policy on being involved, but since there is a reasonable chance that others may think I am, I am bringing it here, and if consensus is against me I will accept that. JBW (talk) 08:50, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've read through the discussion and I've now got a sore head, but then A Level Maths nearly did my head in too (there were no Hannah Fry videos back then). I think your explanation of what's going on is reasonable. Personally, I wouldn't have blocked Persianwise from my own talk page unless they were being grossly and unrepentantly abusive - I think it's just a fact of life that some people, even subject experts, don't like to be told by admins to stop being disruptive - but that's just me. I think Deepfriedokra's suggestion of getting a third opinion or seeking dispute resolution, ideally from another experts in Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics is the answer here. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:04, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for that comment, Ritchie333. You and Deepfriedokra both see dispute resolution as the way forward, and perhaps you are right. However, for the following reasons why I don't see it that way. Firstly, as I have said above, I don't see the (very trivial) content dispute as the issue; it's the behavioural problems. Secondly, although I did not express an opinion on the initial dispute over content of the article, my own intervention was an attempt to offer dispute resolution, in the form of a third opinion, on the associated argument about mathematical principles, and Persianwise's response gives me no faith whatever in the likelihood of dispute resolution on the content issue being any more successful. JBW (talk) 09:17, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I didn't check the history because you tell a story with no diffs, but going by the story alone, I would consider you absolutely and obviously involved. But since you've self-reported within an hour and it is just a partial block, I reckon we can discuss whether the block is necessary and whether you can be the one to do it, before any further action happens.
Again, from your story alone, you are involved because you tried to explain content to them, you sided with D Lazard, you determined that they were patronising and harassing you, not just Lazard, and you blocked them from your talk page. You can not say you are not involved, but you can say that it was an obvious and urgent case so you acted even though you are involved, and now would like endorsement from fellow admins. Best, Usedtobecool ☎️ 09:06, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Usedtobecool: I have read your comment and thought about it carefully, and I have decided that to a large extent you are right. There are some details on which I don't agree, perhaps the main one being that I did not try "to explain content"; what I tried to explain concerned their misundertstanding of mathematical principles which they introduced, and which were not part of the content of the article at all. Nevertheless, I think I was not thinking clearly; I thought I was not "involved" because I was not involved in the content dispute, but, as I have said, the block was not about the content dispute, and I do see, having read your comment, that it is reasonable to say that I was involved in the subsequent issues that led me to blocking. I shall therefore remove the block, and leave it for others to decide how best to deal with the situation. JBW (talk) 09:34, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you JBW. Though I did say it was not urgent, I believe it was the correct decision for you to have unblocked after other admins made themselves available to take over. I am heartened by your openness to questioning, reconsidering, and changing your mind. I believe it is reassuring to the whole community to see an admin set an example in this manner.
I concede that there are cases where an admin can make content determination without getting involved. And I can see how to an expert mathematician, someone obviously misunderstanding a mathematical principle would be just such a case. But it has to be obvious to laypersons, not just experts, in my opinion. For example, if he'd said something like 2 is an even number, only odd numbers can be prime, you would not become involved by telling them to cut it out or get blocked. But when neither Ritchie (above) nor I can tell who's in the right because you're discussing maths beyond our understanding, and we are the peers who have to make the determination as to your involvement, that makes you involved. That is my opinion (or advice as it pertains to how to avoid appearing to be involved even if and when technically not). Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 12:30, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Usedtobecool: Without any doubt, for the editor's comments on mathematics to be treated as disruptive it would be have to be obvious to a lay person, unless consensus had been reached among several editors with enough knowledge to be able to contribute an informed opinion. However, I don't think that is the point here, because the issue over which I (mistakenly) blocked, and which I hope can now be resolved here is not whether Persianwise was right or wrong about that issue, but about whether their way of handling the disagreement over that issue was right or wrong, and that can be assessed by lay people without mathematical knowledge. JBW (talk) 16:07, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
My response was in reference to I thought I was not "involved" because I was not involved in the content dispute from your previous comment. You are in fact involved with respect to that article because you've made multiple comments on the talk page of that article about the subject matter. Sometimes, we have trolls who will make blatantly false assertions and addressing those problems would not make you involved, but when you express opinion about an article beyond that, you lose your right to act as an admin with respect to that article. This includes not blocking other editors of the same article with relation to their editing of that article even if you have never been in a direct conflict/disagreement with them, especially not editors you disagree with. The way to remain uninvolved is to say no more than Johnuniq had said. But you are correct. The immediate INVOLVED issue is resolved and it's best the thread focuses on behavioral aspects of parties, which is an independent issue. We can discuss INVOLVED on your talk page or mine if we still disagree on it, and you are still interested in resolving it. Best, Usedtobecool ☎️ 18:20, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Please note that User:JBW was not only involved in but also demonstrated antisocial behavior in support of User:D.Lazard, who initiated the edit warring. He made this antisocial comment by stating that my assertion was "comical" when, on the contrary, it was mathematically precise.
Please refer to comment made by JWB at 20:36, 20 September 2023 (UTC) on D.Lazard talk page.Reply[reply]
Both of them also intentionally avoided answering legitimate questions about the issue at hand. Had they answered the questions, they would not have been able to continue the edit warring that they had started, and it would have immediately come to an end.
The question was simple:
If they disagreed that a number line and an axis were different things, where would they put either of them on a straight line? The correct answer is that they all coincide, which means that a number line and an axis are the same thing.
Despite this, they repeatedly reverted my justified edits, yet accused me of edit warring. The above question has remained unanswered up to now. Evidently, seeking the answer from him made him abuse his role as an administrator to block me. Persianwise (talk) 15:26, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Persianwise I think you may be misunderstanding how wikipedia works. Wikipedia is a collaborative project. That means we all need to be civil to each other. It also means we all need to accept when others are not convinced of our arguments, even if we don't feel they've been refuted.
First and foremost, remember to comment on the edit, not the editor. Saying someone doesn't have knowledge of mathematics comes off as a personal attack, and can get you blocked. Characterizing JBW's comments which you linked above as antisocial is indeed comical; JBW's explained in full about how D Lazard is a professor emeritus of mathematics, thus the accusation is comical. So you characterizing JBW as antisocial comes off as WP:ASPERSIONS, which can also get you blocked. Regarding edit waring, note that the onus is on YOU to get consensus for adding new material. Similarly, they are not obligated to answer your questions: see WP:SATISFY. Regardless of your intentions, the situations comes off as you displaying battleground behavior. If you keep it up, you may quickly be shown the door, and be unable to make your points here at all. You seem to have a lot of passion and some specialized knowledge, and I'd like to see you stick around. Therefore, I hope you change your approach to ensure that you can. EducatedRedneck (talk) 16:00, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I found your comment "Characterizing JBW's comments which you linked above as antisocial is indeed comical" to be antisocial behavior as well. Persianwise (talk) 16:41, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
They can use the next 3 days to read the rules, because that's enough editing for now. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:47, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I am sorry to see you've been blocked, @Persianwise. But being correct is not enough. And thinking you're correct is not a guarantee that you are in fact correct. Maybe you are a great mathematician, but you met two other great mathematicians, and instead of it resulting in a conversation worth archiving for posterity, it resulted in pointless bickering with everyone talking over each other and failing to even acknowledge that the other person is worth listening to. Wikipedia does not tolerate such chaos and hostility. That other people are wrong or behave wrongly can be a mitigating factor, but it does not excuse or justify your behaviour. I would advise you to take your time to reflect and come back to it with an assumption of good faith among all parties and an assumption of competence. Best, Usedtobecool ☎️ 18:29, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In light of some comments above and if wanted, JBW could remove the partial block and I or someone else could monitor the situation. Again I haven't examined the details but it looks like a lot of very inappropriate commentary has occurred on user talk pages and I would just let Persianwise (talk · contribs) know that any repeat of that would result in escalating blocks which I would be willing to apply. Johnuniq (talk) 09:26, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you, Johnuniq. You posted that while I was composing my message above where, as you can see, I came to the decision that I was mistaken in blocking, and that I should remove the block, which I have now done. If you are willing to keep an eye on the situation, as you have said, that will be very helpful. JBW (talk) 09:40, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I saw some of the messages from Persianwise on JBW‘s talk page and I did not think it was an acceptable way of communicating (example diff: Special:Diff/1177289616). I feel that a p-block may well have been justified, however I think it would have been better if JBW had requested that an uninvolved admin consider applying one, rather than apply one to Persianwise themselves. Putting to one side the question of whether an admin is involved by the letter of the policy, in my view what is potentially just as important is that an admin won’t be seen as being involved — and in this case, the latter (in my view) is definitely true. Best, user:A smart kittenmeow 10:19, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment. As an involved party, I fully support the blocks issued by JBW, although it would be better if they would have been issued by another administrator. Indeed, Persianwise's behaviour is blatantly disruptive, not only because of harassement and personal attacks, but also because it prevents any constructive discussion on the many issues of the article.
    This being said, the dispute is not really a content dispute, but a terminology dispute (what are an axis and a number line? is, or not, analytic geometry a part of geometry?). In such an elementary article, this is far to be minor, since this sort of article is commonly used by college students and teachers, and a wrong terminology in WP may contribute to have educational mathematics that differ from usual mathematics (of mathematicians and physicists). So, because of its possible consequences, the dispute is far to be minor. D.Lazard (talk) 15:26, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Edit filter false positives vandalism Edit

Vandal Jc11111 just before being indeffed did this to Wikipedia:Edit filter/False positives/Reports. Can't be undone because a bot came and did something to it. I have no idea how that page works. If anyone does know how it works can they make sure the vandalism isn't breaking anything or giving anyone a free pass that they shouldn't have? Ta, DuncanHill (talk) 12:50, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

that page gets blank reports all the time. the bot has already marked the request as being from a blocked user. ltbdl (talk) 13:02, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:Paradoxodarap has reverted several edits of mine and Shushugah without an adequate edit summary in what appears to be retaliation for opening and voting on an AFD for an article they were a major contributor to. It likely only requires a warning but I wanted to bring it here given it is, in my mind, definitely a conduct issue that should be noted and considered. MarcGarver (talk) 15:55, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Or maybe after you addressed their contributions as "stupid stuff" before removing it from the article? I'll put in a note to them to stop this retaliatory wave (it is uncalled for); but would advise you to consider using such words less. Thanks, Lourdes 16:54, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
User:Lourdes Thank you for taking time on this, I have explained myself to User:MarcGarver, It was a misunderstanding on my part. I'll be careful with my contributions. Thank you two for showing me where I was wrong. bɑʁɑqoxodaraP (talk) 09:07, 29 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

COI editor Arbomhard Edit

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]


User:XERI MUSIC This user is most likely not disclosing paid editing. They have had articles declined multiple times at AFC due to advertising and the like. A draft had been deleted under G11. They have also been told that YouTube is not a reliable source. Note:they have denied paid editing. Seawolf35 (talk) 19:57, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This editor has only been active for a few days, and I can't see any evidence that the user name is promotional (searching for "Xeri Music" doesn't come up with a company of that name). I don't see what needs to be done at the moment apart from telling the editor the things mentioned above. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:12, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Deliberate and partisan BLP violation and introduction of falsehoods Edit

CONTEXT: Impeachment inquiry against Joe Biden

I noticed that

made a series of edits, which I have undone. They were clearly deliberate and not an accident.

  1. The first one removed "false" and the source and replaced it with their own OR interpretation of events and a BLP-violating and libelous falsehood against Joe Biden.
  2. The second one introduced the editor's POV contrary to RS. They should keep their opinion that Trump's impeachment was "wrongful" out of Wikipedia.
  3. Then they proceeded, with a series of edits, to literally reverse the polling numbers for support and oppose.

This demonstrates a devious and deliberate partisan editing thought pattern that we do not allow. Those edits were not "accidentally" wrong. Editors are allowed to have political POV, but not to let them creep into their editing or the reasons for their editing.

I have notified the editor and scolded them in pretty clear terms, warning them that such actions will not be tolerated here. They are clearly WP:NOTHERE and should be topic banned or permabanned. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 20:00, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Valjean, you provided a clear warning, and I followed that with a CTOP notice; there have been no edits since, so I'm not sure why this has been escalated to here?-- Ponyobons mots 22:50, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This was written at the same time that you were also writing there. Maybe the warnings will be enough. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 00:00, 29 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User MrOllie Edit

Hello, there's an issue with adding Edward Hayter in the cast of Will (TV series). His name always get removed from the cast even when having his article approved. Tried on MrOllie talk page but it's getting out of hand and while 3 reviewers worked on getting him notable and agrees to approve it. Even if being notable the user is trying to delete his page. I was directed from tea house. (Veganpurplefox (talk) 23:58, 28 September 2023 (UTC))Reply[reply]

Perhaps the tea house advice should have been to consider WP:SPI instead of ANI? The history of Will (TV series) includes multiple single-purpose editors attempting the same addition of Hayter. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:42, 29 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Theres no suckpuppet there. I tried as well as seen someone else tried to add him until i was told to get him into an article which i had worked on that with help of 4 reviewers who proved his notability. Then one of them added his name to the cast and when i saw the draft was accepted i added back his name without noticing it was already added. Then the user removed all that. But thats not just that they also harassed and accused me of a COI as well as editing with multi accounts which i dont have and even explained it on my user talk. The user is trying to delete the article of Hayter now Veganpurplefox (talk) 00:56, 29 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I mean when i saw there was his name twice, i removed 1 and then the user removed all after Veganpurplefox (talk) 00:57, 29 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@David Eppstein: That seems to me like an even worse place to pursue this? How would that help them?
As far as I see it, MrOllie said they are going to start a deletion discussion (WP:AfD) for Edward Hayter, so the most appropriate response to at least that part of this is to wait for that discussion to be created, discuss in it and then respect the result. In fact I don't see the attempt at talking with MrOllie as having gotten out of hand, it seems to me that Veganpurplefox just does not know what WP:AfD's are, doesn't know the processes of how to solve disputes and when asking at teahouse got given the not good advice to come here.
SPI and ANI are both not the answer here. – 2804:F14:80BD:BF01:D85F:3C72:7CA4:BA29 (talk) 01:00, 29 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
then can someone just help me out and explain the next steps. No one explained this to me and tea house said I should come here. Veganpurplefox (talk) 01:16, 29 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Veganpurplefox, you are obligated to inform MrOllie about the report you made here. Since you have not done so, I have informed MrOllie myself. Cullen328 (talk) 01:30, 29 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I didn't know that but thank-you Veganpurplefox (talk) 09:35, 29 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You could continue asking for clarification at teahouse. In fact others commented on your question there afterwards: Generalrelative pointed you at WP:DR, the page which documents the dispute resolution policy. The link I just gave you to AfD(WP:AfD) includes a detailed description of all aspects of the discussion process, from creating one to how they are closed and how to contribute to one.
I'll admit that I don't have much experience with either of these things, as I jut avoid them, so I can't help you (and this board isn't for that anyways). But nothing is stopping you from continuing to ask questions at the Teahouse, as long as they are in good faith, that's what the teahouse is there for. Perhaps the person who initially indicated you here just severely misunderstood what was going on.
Just try to approach the dispute and your questions, like it says at dispute resolution: "Focus on article content during discussions, not on editor conduct; comment on content, not the contributor".
What I recommend you do in the meantime though, is formally withdraw this report (by commenting saying that you do).
2804:F14:80BD:BF01:D85F:3C72:7CA4:BA29 (talk) 01:36, 29 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I will go back to tea house then and see their answers Veganpurplefox (talk) 09:36, 29 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I still think that Vesyray (talk · contribs) / Vessyray (talk · contribs) are related to Veganpurplefox, (just look at User talk:Vessyray) but I didn't bother with SPI at the time because they seemed to get the message and knock it off after a warning. As to the deletion, I'll most likely start an AFD, but not until I have time to recheck the sourcing. That is the way to resolve this. MrOllie (talk) 01:33, 29 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If you believe so much that me and that other username are both me then just go compare our IP addresses and you'll see how none of youre allegations against me are true. I only have this account and sometimes forget to login to my account so my IP address appears but that's all accidental. Also, the Will series has been discovered by many Jamie Campbell Bower fans last year bc of his role of Vecna and plenty of fans have made fan edits of that series which is how I discovered Ed because of Jamie kissing Men for his role including Ed. There's a petition to get the series having a season 2(with 2020 signatures). I process to research him and he became one of my fav actors. Then I made a fan account of him which now has hundreds of followers (fansofedhayter), with the Wikipedia links in the bio so anyone could have seen the draft as well as the article accepted. Vesyray and I may have the same interest of the Will series and Ed but we doesn't even have the same writing pattern. I find it wasteful to even start with a "hello..." or end the conversation with "have a good day". While they do that. And why would I have more than 1 account? Aren't Wikipedia a place for everyone contributing???in Wikipedia we can edit all kind of articles from all our interests,while on a website like Instagram we'll I do have plenty ones cause there's my main as well as owning many fan accounts that aren't about the same things so that's fair enough to have multi accounts while here it's not. And I'm autistic so I may be direct but i don't lie. Lying is just make the society worse and get them issues and I don't want to be involved with that. And that's why we, autistics, are never believed cause neurotypicals are so busy lying all the time. Veganpurplefox (talk) 09:41, 29 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
neurotypicals are so busy lying all the time Autistic or not, I strongly suggest that you strike that inappropriate personal attack. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 11:32, 29 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You are very much not the only autistic editor on the site, it is no accuse for disruptive editting or making negative personal statements against other groups. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested transmissions °co-ords° 13:30, 29 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Before this becomes something more than I think it is, I read that statement differently. I don't believe the editor was saying any particular group is lying all the time. That's just how they feel they are looked at being part of that group. It is more a statement of how they personally feel they, being autistic, are viewed by others than a personal view they hold of autistic people. I would caution the editor that WP:AGF is a thing and we need to maintain the approach that every editor is acting in good faith until there is evidence they are not. MrOllie made an assessment based on their perception of what they felt was evidence of a link between the accounts. That is not necessarily proof of anything. I think that would still need to be tested at SPI before action was taken, likewise the AFD process will determine if the article stays on Wikipedia. The best thing for the OP to do is take a deep breathe, trust the process and go edit somewhere else on the project. That was clearly bad advice at the Tea House. This discussion should probably be closed. --ARoseWolf 13:58, 29 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes thank you, you interpreted my opinion well. How can i proove it that im not the same user of the other? How can i start to ask them for proof so they now will believe me when i say im not the same user cause im really tired of being accused of things i havent done. Veganpurplefox (talk) 14:06, 29 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I need someone to compare our IP addresses so people will believe me now Veganpurplefox (talk) 14:06, 29 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I read we, autistics, are never believed cause neurotypicals are so busy lying all the time as an unambiguous, and demonstrably false, statement that people like me are unremitting liars. I suppose, ARoseWolf, that we'll just have to disagree on that being a personal attack against an entire group of people. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 14:46, 29 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
noting for the record that the teahouse thread in question is Wikipedia:Teahouse#Issue with cast, and the person who suggested to come here is @thealienman2002. ltbdl (talk) 03:14, 29 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Philomathes2357 is WP:NOTHERE at least for post-1992 American Politics. Edit

Philomathes2357 is WP:NOTHERE at least for post-1992 American Politics.

On 18 January 2023, Philomathes2357 was indefinitely blocked by Bishonen for "Edit warring, bludgeoning on talkpages, disrespect for consensus, and an egregious waste of constructive editors' time and patience, which is Wikipedia's most precious resource." [70]

He was unblocked on 25 January 2023 by Bishonen under conditions [The block is lifted on certain conditions, outlined at and accepted by the user including the standard ArbCom post-1992 American Politics topic ban, broadly construed.

After his return, Philomathes has engaged in egregious violations of Wikipedia conduct that are directly related to the conduct he promised not to engage in to gain unblocking.

Bludgeoning & Forum Shopping

This bludgeoning also comes with numerous instances of disrespect for consensus and wasting constructive editors' time, including deliberately trying to promote WP:FRINGE or egregiously unusable sources and demanding that other users engage in 'homework assignments', such as gigantic reading projects or engaging in masturbatorial polemics about "epistemology" or arguments about fringe authors such as Noam Chomsky.


  • Philomathes promoted known cranks and bad-faith actors from the Working Group on Syria, Propaganda and Media (aka "Berlin Group 21") WP:FRINGE group at Talk: Douma chemical attack as if it were legitimate reporting. Not one of the sources Philomathes attempted to promote or launder at [76] is viable: most are non-expert and self-published WP:FRINGE sources Philomathes is deceptively attempting to misrepresent and pass off as legitimate.
  • Philomathes has repeatedly demanded that anyone who does not echo the WP:FRINGE viewpoints of Noam Chomsky or others disqualify themselves from discussion on pages.[77] [78]
Have you ever read Manufacturing Consent by Noam Chomsky? If you haven't, you should. If you have, you should re-read it. In my opinion, those who are not familiar with the book's arguments are not equipped to competently assess the reliability and objectivity of the modern media landscape.
Please be honest with me: are you open to including any of the sources I've brought forward, or am I probably wasting my time? Should I bother presenting other sources, or is my suspicion correct that all of them will be carefully Wikilawyered into the trash bin if they don't fit the current article's narrative? At this point, I feel like the NYT could publish a front-page piece fairly assessing The Grayzone and it would be Wikilawyered into the trash as "undue". Does this conversation have any realistic hope of going somewhere collaborative, or should I just give up now and bring this to the attention of a wider audience?... Philomathes2357 (talk) 00:00, 23 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Philomathes at Talk: Douma chemical attack, when confronted with the infirmity of the fake sources, casts aspersions, insults the respondents, and intimates of conspiracy theories. [79][80][81] [82] [83]
  • Philomathes at Talk:The Grayzone constantly accuses opponents of "wiki lawyering" [84] and casts aspersions, accusing others of not wanting to improve the article [85].
  • Philomathes has also engaged in egregious off-wiki canvassing [86] trying to gather support for his WP:FRINGE, tendentious and disruptive conduct.

This rabbit hole goes far deeper, and much of Philomathes's history has been hidden because of his habit of wiping his user talk page. But the conduct is beyond what the community should be forced to bear. Philomathes2357 is WP:NOTHERE, at least in terms of political topics post-1972, and I propose that at a very minimum the topic ban previously imposed by Bishonen as a condition of his prior unblock be reimposed. I invite other members of the community to submit further evidence in this regard, as I have barely scratched the surface of Philomathes's various insults towards other users and WP:BLUDGEONING or WP:FORUMSHOPPING behavior in this report. UsernameUnderDuress (talk) 02:58, 29 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@UsernameUnderDuress this belongs at WP:AE as the topic area is a WP:Contentious topic and Philomathes is aware of this. User:Bishonen knows a lot of the background. Doug Weller talk 07:08, 29 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
UsernameUnderDuress, there's a problem with your five Toolforge links at the list near the top of your report. I don't even know what Toolforge links are, and I'm getting "Wikimedia Toolforge Error" across the board from them. Why aren't they ordinary diffs, or perhaps section links, as per Wikipedia:Simple diff and link guide? Please fix when you move this to WP:AE. Bishonen | tålk 07:37, 29 September 2023 (UTC).Reply[reply]
The issue isn't the links, there's an issue with the toolforge itself at the moment that wasn't present when UUD filed the report. Subdomains, which each tool uses, aren't loading. Just from parsing its parameters (all edits by Philomathes on each of those pages) combined with the header talking about bludgeoning, I'm willing to hazard a guess that it was to illustrate the sheer number of talkpage edits on each of those cases. - (talk) 08:27, 29 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Beyond this matter, it's concerning to see toolforge data so often used as even remotely conclusive evidence. It shouldn't. Also sucks that it's often linked, like by the OP, as indistinguishable from diffs (i.e. not piped as toolforge so I know not to click it). Why does this diff not load? Oh, it's sigma.toolforge, of course! El_C 09:23, 29 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:Curbon7 and inflammatory statements, personal attacks, bad faith, and refusal to discuss those problems Edit

While discussing a nomination in ITN, I posted a comment which Curbon7 apparently took issue with, who told me, directly, quote, "Frankly, we don't give a rat's ass".

When I advised them to strike that comment, they responded with "no ... you know where to go" and linked to this very page, an outright call for me to write up this report about it. If anything's going to show that any sort of dispute resolution isn't going to work with them involved, it's that -- unwilling to even discuss the comment, simply points me here instead.

Furthermore, they told me I was being racist, saying: "I'd highly recommend you read systemic racism to see why I take such issue with your comment".

(For the record, my supposedly "racist" comment was me pointing out the Oscars are the largest film awards for the largest and only global film industry, while an Indian film award was for the Indian film industry with films mostly not in English.)

A repeated violation of WP:AGF , a WP:PA, and instead of trying to resolve the situation they simply told me to report them for it; doesn't look like it's going to be resolved through bilateral discussion then?

(P.S. I'm a relatively new user and this is my first use of this Wikipedia feature so feel free to help me out if I'm doing anything wrong here.) JM2023 (talk) 07:24, 29 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I meant to link to systemic bias, not systemic racism (which is a redirect). That is a big mistake on my part, so sorry about that. Regardless I don't think it changes the meaning that much; I neither implied nor stated that you're personally biased or racist, rather I pointed you there because your comment, specifically the phrase how many films at these awards were in English or known outside India, unintentionally falls into that category: Although we are the English-language Wikipedia, we cover global topics, no matter if they are from non-Anglo-speaking places; hence, my full original comment being Frankly, we don't give a rat's ass that this is not a primarily English award.
All that said, apologies for frustration on my end, some comments in that thread had quite irked me (especially this). Curbon7 (talk) 07:57, 29 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I've blocked Daikido (72 hours) for their subpar conduct at WP:ITN, which I refuse to let be as some kind of a free-for-all: User talk:Daikido#Block. Anyway, I don't know why all the OP's diffs are broken for me, but I read that thread indent. And I think that, in light of its content, and taking into account Curbon7 explanation and apology, a warning to take a pause when things get heated, suffices. An approach which would be more effective at countering Wikipedia:Systemic bias, at the least. El_C 08:41, 29 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User @RxxingAddict: unwilling to add sources to their additions despite being repeatedly warned about this for over a year Edit

I am starting this topic because I do not know how to act otherwise. Repeated notifying and warning on the user's talk page does not seem to change their behaviour, and by now they have resorted to simply deleting any notification of adding unsourced content. There does not seem to be any malicious intent, just simple lazyness and unwillingness to accept the importance of sources. I am tired of always having to clean up behind them, and it is not just me - I have observed other users notifying RxxingAddict about the same problems, such as @Island92: and @GhostOfDanGurney:. Again, I am not opening up this topic because of a personal problem with the user, just because I want this to be resolved. Thank you. H4MCHTR (talk) 08:45, 29 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Blocked – for a period of 31 hours: User talk:RxxingAddict#Block. El_C 08:59, 29 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]