Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems. Before posting: Take a look at these tips for dealing with incivility If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page Try dispute resolution Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly. Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight. When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough. You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so. Closed discussions are usually not 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. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)
Start a new discussion

User:Victuallers and misuse of the admin tools

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

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 http://adb.anu.edu.au/biography/newcomb-caroline-elizabeth-2238/text2441, https://collections.museumvictoria.com.au/articles/1883". 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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 museumvictoria.com.au 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

@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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

What was deleted without arguably meeting G6 or G7? —Kusma (talk) 06:44, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Fram

• 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Echo notifications should also be fixed, for exactly the same reasons (phab:T66090 is relevant). Thryduulf (talk) 10:38, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Isn't autopatroller bundled with admin rights? Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:30, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

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)

It used to be bundled, but was removed following an RfC in December 2021. Thryduulf (talk) Thryduulf (talk) 01:36, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Discussion on Autopatrolled user right

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

---

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)

"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)

@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)

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)

That was my mistake - I misthought that it had been deleted anonymously. Victuallers (talk) 07:45, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

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)

• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• @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)
• 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)
• Revoke without comment on anything else. I'm not sure I agree with all of Grams diffs, but there is enough there and still there after given the section below for concern. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 10:39, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

These diffs above pleased to see we don't have quantity, but is each one of them evidence?

1. here "using unreliable sources" (really?) Katherine Davidson's gravestone "records that she was one of the first three deaconesses and her work with the guild and Scotland's fisher girls." I made reference to a photograph of the stone and made attribution as per cc licensing rules. "A photograph of a gravestone" is a useful reference. If the image had been freely licensed then it would have been in the article! The photo was in line with making a judgement about whether a source is good enough for the role it is being used for. We don't stop blogs being referenced on Wikipedia because we allow editors to make a judgement about whether they are reliable enough and add value. Fram deleted the adequate reference and the text that was referenced is now uncited. No edit war, but I don't believe this was an improvement and another editor might have left it as it was. Is this quoting unreliable sources, or is there some miscasting?
2. [7] Another edit debate was over whether Winifred Brown "was the first or the only woman to win the King's Cup air race (in 1930)". The text said she was first woman (in 1930) or "She was the only woman to win the King's Cup air race (in 1930)". There was no "original research". I have no knowledge or opinions about 1930 aviators and the suggestion that I might be floating original research is fanciful. Fram did correct the text with a ref. and that was a useful improvement. Characterising this as WP:OR is however hyperbole.
3. (see diff above) Esther_d'Hervart was publised and it wasn't a good article. It was a start. The article was improved by Fram from a start article ... to a start article. Well done. If he hadn't then I or someone else would have done so.. and we will, and do improve articles, see below. Encyclopedia Brittanica succeeded because it published near perfect articles. This is not how Wikipedia works.
4. Jane Baldwin (see diff above) was published at 12:19, 5 July 2023‎. 11 minutes later a date was corrected. Well done.
5. (see diff above) Winifred Brown was written on 17th July last year and as a new article it was added to the Women in Red editathon page where new articles are reviwed. After it was first published by myself it was editted by @Tagishsimon, FeanorStar7, Paradise Chronicle, PeterWD, Afernand74 and Fram: in the first week. It was reviewed by at least by Ipigott, Paradise Chronicle and RFD. The start article became a B and 12,000 people viewed it in the first year. One of the editors and reviewers decided to bring that article as an example of my editting to here. Do the others agree? If I am being accused of valuing quantity above quality then I think we need to look behind the quality of a diff's characterisation rather that the quantity of them. There are other examples including one where another editor had to repair the damage Victuallers (talk) 20:31, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

@Victuallers: Above and in your response to me, 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", you appear to be relying on fellow editors to clean up for you. The autopatrolled right is specifically for editors whose articles almost never require such clean-up. NPP isn't just for new editors or editors whose content has been problematic in the past; it's a general check. And of course it doesn't interfere with anyone else performing gnome fixes on your new articles, or otherwise improving them. Nor does it imply any negative assumptions about the notability of the topics, or you and editors you often collaborate with. It's the default initial check, no more no less. And while I'm here, I'll ask again more bluntly: why have you been deleting redirects when you create a new article, and do you intend to stop doing so, since there is not agreement here that such deletions are uncontroversial and/or desirable? There is an accountability issue here, and I'm personally more concerned with that than with the flaws in your articles, since those can be fixed by any editor. Yngvadottir (talk) 22:50, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

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

Dandielayla, Ainsley Earhardt, and competence

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)

I have indefinitely pageblocked Dandielayla from Ainsley Earhardt. Cullen328 (talk) 22:37, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

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)

Note: Please read the guidance if you wish to be unblocked. Regards. 🛧Midori No Sora♪🛪 ( ☁＝☁＝✈) 01:17, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

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)

• 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)

  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)

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)

Trying to edit talk pages on the mobile app is horrible. Can't work out the indentation. I stopped trying. TarnishedPath^talk 12:59, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

User:HoodGoose

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 [8], appears to be POV pushing [9][10]. 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)

Stale. Lourdes 08:11, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

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

Competence is required

Dustfreeworld claimed that sourced information cannot be verified [11]. I provided verification [12] using sources already in the article. They did not engage in the discussion but removed the information [13] [14] and placed a warning on my talk page, even though there is nothing wrong with most of my edits [15]. This seems like a WP:CIR issue. Vacosea (talk) 04:22, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

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)

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)

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 [16] [17], 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 [18]. Their justifications are all contradictory, but I suppose I can try discussing with them one time. Vacosea (talk) 16:51, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

I meant "one more time", see context from previous comments. Vacosea (talk) 16:08, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

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 [19]. 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Actually the warning [20] came after the talk section [21] [22]. Vacosea (talk) 19:51, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

It would be much appreciated if you can stop confusing people. Thanks. --Dustfreeworld (talk) 22:25, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

I must say I’m really surprised to see this discussion about me.

• 18:58, 12 September 2023 User:Vacosea made this edit:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Coco_Lee&diff=prev&oldid=1175089915

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

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1175121745

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:

• https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1175233034
  • From: In early 2023, Lee and her husband moved out of their previous home.
  • To: In early 2023, Lee reportedly moved out of her previous home.

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)

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)

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:

• https://www.thestandard.com.hk/section-news/section/11/256329/Husband's-'affair'-triggered-Coco's-downward-spiral
  • “The couple started to live separately on October 15, 2022” - you said they had separated for 2 years?
  • “A month after Lee filed the divorce application Rockowitz issued a response through his lawyer admitting his affair in 2017, but not the continuation of the affair his wife mentioned.” - He only admitted having cheated on Lee once.”

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)

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:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Vacosea&diff=prev&oldid=1158777818
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Vacosea&diff=prev&oldid=1165129803

• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive353#Suspicious_edits

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Vacosea&diff=prev&oldid=1176765896

I’m not familiar with the procedure, but a ban maybe needed. --Dustfreeworld (talk) 21:01, 27 September 2023 (UTC)--Dustfreeworld (talk) 06:38, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

Vast majority does not mean one or two disputes. If Dustfreeworld wants to engage in good faith discussion [23], they should not have waited until ANI while reverting away in the mean time [24][25], 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? [26] User talk:Wpscatter#Korean cuisine [27] 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)

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)

@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)

"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)

No. We can do that without using legally-charged words. BLP covers it sufficiently, we do not need to use "defamation" / "libel". — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:11, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

“A discussion as to whether material is libelousis not a legal threat. Wikipedia's policy on defamation is to delete libelous material as soon as it is identified.” WP:NLT --Dustfreeworld (talk) 17:21, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

What they wrote about me on that board, "please stop your continual and deliberate false accusations", was baseless and itself potentially defamatory [28]. Their edits there focus too much on linking back to this ANI to begin with. Vacosea (talk) 17:47, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

@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)

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)

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″.
  • https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20161026-how-liars-create-the-illusion-of-truth

--Dustfreeworld (talk) 04:40, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

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)

Some administrator should put an end to this trolling. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 11:25, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

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)

Thanks for the explanation Boynamedsue. No, it’s not a comparison of any party to anyone, definitely not. The term . . . Effect just come up in a webpage and it sounds like a professional psychological term to me so I used it. I’m just describing a psychological phenomenon. No offence indeed. --Dustfreeworld (talk) 16:11, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Repost just to add highlight:

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

(add: and I believe no consensus on talk is required before the deletion as it’s contentious topic) --Dustfreeworld (talk) 15:34, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Repost just to add highlight:

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) --Dustfreeworld (talk) 15:26, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

I think this is a content dispute where both users became quite aerated at different times. It's been moved back to the talkpage, so perhaps this should be closed now? It is just a parallel venue for argument. Boynamedsue (talk) 05:33, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

I see some potential behavior issues that resemble forum shopping [29] (not because they posted there per se but their focus on linking to this ANI) and canvassing [30] (in the edit summary). They may have couched their aspersion of "lie"/"lies"/"liar" here, but repeat it so often that it feels gamey. Overconfident in their ability but quick to cast suspicion [31] [32]. Excessive text and highlighting [33][34] dance around the fact of their baseless personal attack [35] and what has been described as [36]. Vacosea (talk) 10:19, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

What I see is you keep linking to the BLP board.

No it’s not canvassing. It’s an attempt to let the other user know that, it’s possible that what they had suspected two months ago maybe true. As for your translations, I still find them suspicious after a second look. And I hope you are happy with your excessive linking. If all those continual false accusations against me can make your day, you can keep on, I’m fine with that. :) --Dustfreeworld (talk) 06:09, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Making accusations against another editor, which you have done again, requires evidence. Your personal attack [37] on the BLP board should be mentioned here at ANI, but you should not have brought this ANI to the BLP board [38]. Your edit summary was also inaccurate [39]. Those edits were unrelated to this, and when you attempted to raise suspicion about my translation, you did not comprehend the source material fully. Vacosea (talk) 16:02, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

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

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• I'd just point out that the IP user went to the talk page as instructed and started a discussion. They posted on SCB's talk page ... and this was the reply they got (note the edit summary) [40]. Given that we're only a few weeks away from this, and SCB previously received two blocks in 2022 (for 1 and 2 weeks) for the same thing (indeed, the one week block was for personal attacks in edit-summaries), I wonder how long we're going to let this go for? Black Kite (talk) 13:21, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Support CBAN. Reasons [41], SN54129 diffs, and Ravenswing's reasoning. I can understand a momentary lapse of self control, (I've personally come one publish click from a fast CBAN on numerous threads, so I know its difficult), but this is a pattern that has to stop. Don't have a quote from Babe, maybe a sad quote from Old Yeller because SCB has a lot of add, I hope someone finds a way out of this remedy. 19:54, 26 September 2023 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by TimothyBlue (talk • contribs)
• Support community ban Unless SCB can commit to knocking it off with the petty personal remarks, they're a timesink and we've c-banned for much less, and the other issues are well beyond the pale. Some time off, an attitude adjustment and a WP:SO are the bare minimum here, and I do feel the block was appropriate (if you can't stop snarking once the feet are on the fire, that does not seem like an issue with the block issuer). Nate • (chatter) 21:20, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
• Support CBAN. It's a shame, but this editor has a long history of personal attacks. CLYDE ^{TALK TO ME}/_{STUFF DONE} 21:32, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
• Support CBAN we were literally just here earlier this month for very similar reasons i.e. this user being obnoxious for the sake of it. That isn’t even pretending to care about coming within inches of a CBAN, so the only way they’re going to get the message is to just do it. Dronebogus (talk) 22:44, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
• Support CBAN. haven't been involved in any of this discussion or the 1 month prior one, but looking through the things, it's starting to seem like SCB needs a lot of time to think about their actions. DrowssapSMM (say hello) 23:34, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
• Support CBAN the user has made it perfectly clear they don't care about collaboration; I don't see why any should care about not collaborating with them. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:46, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
• Support CBAN They do not have the temperament to be able to edit here. Scorpions1325 (talk) 00:22, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
• Support CBAN Enough is enough. Sometimes people can lose their temper but when it happens again and again it becomes our fault for allowing it. Time to fix that problem. - Who is John Galt? ✉ 02:19, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
• Support CBAN or an indef block, whatever will let people move on from this time sink. WindTempos ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:29, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
• Support CBAN They have made it clear they really don't want to collaberate with others. It probably won't happen in the near future either.Seawolf35 (talk) 18:58, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
• Support CBAN - this user is clearly not capable of interacting in a collaborative environment. Looking at their most recent contributions, it seems like they're just intentionally violating WP:JERK for no good reason. It really isn't hard to not be rude. --Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 02:18, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

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

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

Selective blocking of Pakistani users

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 39.34.180.183 (talk • contribs) 15:16, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

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)

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. 39.34.180.183 (talk) 17:29, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

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. 39.34.177.168 (talk) 19:42, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

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)

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. 39.34.177.168 (talk) 02:15, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

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)

Who exactly are you talking about? 39.34.179.87 (talk) 17:33, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

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)

Just gonna mention here, that the user socking in question, has posted a complaint about the SPI offwiki on a Reddit post, seen here: https://www.reddit.com/r/wikipedia/comments/16rp5jz/my_account_got_banned_for_something_i_didnt_do/ , so I think some canvassing is suspected here. Yoshi24517 (Chat) (Online) 18:56, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

• I moved the SPI report under discussion to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/سب سے بڑی گڑبڑ, which is now closed. MarioGom (talk) 19:02, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
• I would like to comment that this unregistered user is using multiple IP addresses to edit war here. Request an admin to please look into this. Wrythemann (talk) 17:16, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

  Update: IP 39.34.179.87/39.34.177.168 just violated the three-revert rule at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Persecution_of_Christians_in_Pakistan&action=history. Please look into this. Wrythemann (talk) 17:45, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

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

User:TheFriendlyFas2

@TheFriendlyFas2

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

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

Relevant examples:

[42][43][44]

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

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

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

It looks like there are similar edits done more recently; specifically [45][46][47][48]. While they are from five months ago, when combined with the diffs provided by OP they do make it seem like there's a long-term POV-pushing issue here. Hatman31 (talk) 15:22, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

User:Bgsu98

Yet again, this user has shown disregard for behaviour "branding" edits idiotic here [49]. User:Bgsu98 has been reported to this noticeboard on numerous occasions but nothing is ever done, no warnings are ever given. The way this account continues to get away with ransacking articles and edit summaries that border on harassment.2A00:23EE:19E0:8088:F103:6825:D453:5EC9 (talk) 02:20, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Disruption and POV pushing by Procastinater

His revisions are a blatant violation of WP:NPOV-[50]. It goes against the consensus that was achieved on how to best characterize the subject in the lede [51]. 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 [52]. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 03:42, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

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)

You do realize that on top of the RFC [53], 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)

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)

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)

No, that wouldn't work. It needs to be reverted to "militant". Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 04:17, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

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)

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)

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 (timesnownews.com) Procrastinater (talk) 05:43, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Furthermore you have reverted the article a further two times with this discussion in progress. - HotMAN0199 (talk) 04:50, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

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)

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)

The description as "militant" is more than generous. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 14:08, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

• This is a spurious complaint, because it is Procrastinater who has exhibited WP:BATTLEGROUND conduct, not Southasianhistorian8. The warnings are not spam or harassment, but are what's expected for the blatant editorializing that changing an Indian militant to a revered Khalistani Freedom Fighter represents. Procrastinater, it's clear you are unfamiliar with Wikipedia policy and best practices (i.e. WP:FREEDOMFIGHTER), so maybe edit uncontentious topics until you get your bearings...? El_C 05:42, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

  It is possible that i have by passed few rules purely by mistake, because I am still learning. But my sources and understanding on this Sant Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale are without a shadow of doubt correct. This is not an individual view on Sant Jarnail Sahab. It is widely agreed upon in the Sikh community. This concept of Jarnail Sahab being "militant" is untrue and propagated by the opposition. Just Check Talk:Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale - Wikipedia to understand peoples views aswell. This Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale - Wikipedia article has way too many contradictions. Procrastinater (talk) 05:52, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

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)

It is widely agreed upon in the Sikh community.

Simply put, what a particular community, business, or even individual calls themselves is irrelevant. We go by what independent reliable sources say, so as to have a less biased descriptor. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:21, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

CBAN evasion

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)

 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)

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)

What's a reasonable max for a /64, NinjaRobotPirate? El_C 01:49, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

My Super Scientific Fool-Proof Method™© for blocking /64s is "how long have they been on this range?" + a smidge extra time.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 19:59, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

When editing competence issues become disruptive

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 [54]; [55]; [56]; [57]; [58]; [59]; [60]; [61]; [62]; removal of AfD tag [63]; and as an IP [64]. 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 [65], and another note was greeted with similar lack of understanding [66]. 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)

ok thanks, I underst

tand that, and also I will fix that David Madbellics (talk) 02:25, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

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)

It will be sufficient for me, Sir David Madbellics (talk) 09:09, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

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)

How about adding citations, infoboxes, etc.? David Madbellics (talk) 09:27, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

so, are you telling me that a source must not also a encyclopedia? David Madbellics (talk) 12:22, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

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)

How about adding citations, infoboxes, etc.? David Madbellics (talk) 11:36, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Propose CBAN

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)

• Support as proposer. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:12, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

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)

Thanks - might as well formalise it here, I think. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:17, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Or, then again, maybe just closing this now they're blocked would save time, so...

• Withdrawn now the user is blocked. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:20, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

JBW self-reporting in relation to Persianwise

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

@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)

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)

@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)

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)

@Usedtobecool:

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.

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)

@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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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 kitten_meow 10:19, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

• 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)

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

Edit filter false positives vandalism

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)

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)

User:Paradoxodarap

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)

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)

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)

COI editor Arbomhard

First, I’d just like to put my own potential COI in this as someone who nominated the article in question for a recent failed AfD and who has been trying to work with the wider Linguistics Wikiproject to make the status of this fringe theory clearer as a fringe theory, which did result in me removing most references to Bomhard's work from the Nostratic article (this was potentially heavy handed, but the sources given were clearly WP:PROFRINGE). As a result of that AfD, multiple editors worked on changing the long-static article to improve it so it didn't have the issues that got it AfD'd in the first place.

With regards to Nostratic, I’ve been trying to work with the larger wikiproject and building a consensus and I'm not the only editor working on this, and I don’t want to give the impression I was trying to Right Great Wrongs. To be clear, since this is an esoteric topic: Nostratic is a fringe theory and the subject of the article in question is one of the primary advocates of that fringe theory. That doesn't mean it hasn't seen real attention in academic press, just that it's viewed as a fringe theory regardless of that. If this is a difficult issue in particular to ascertain, I encourage any admin to go ahead and ask about its status on the Linguistics wikiproject.

I’ve been going back and forth with user Arbomhard for a while now who was attempting to unilaterally change an article which they readily self-identify as about themselves to remove anything negative. I’ve tried engaging with them but they’ve been blanking comments, engaging in personal attacks, accusing a few editors of having an agenda, and attempting to exert ownership of both the Allan R. Bomhard and Nostratic articles. I've tried maintaining civility throughout and asked for sources so I could help them work on the article.

I’ve also been trying to engage with them on both talk pages and a dispute noticeboard (where they reiterated their demand of “restore the article” and ignored multiple requests for citations until today, when they generally provided one in a reply that contained:

Sorry, Warren, I do not mean to be rude, but you do not appear to have the requisite academic or professional credentials to be making the edits to this and several other Wikipedia articles. If I am mistaken here, please provide proof to the contrary. Being an outsider, you do not have a clear understanding of the dynamics involved. Again, you are trying to throw up meaningless procedural roadblocks instead of approaching the matter objectively and cooperatively. The current version is both incomplete and contains errors. I am probably one of the few people in the world who is qualified to make this statement.

To be fair to Arbomhard, once their initial edits of a criticism-free un-cited article were reverted they engaged slightly more on the talk page and didn’t edit the articles further, and used the talk page to request their preferred version be restored, but the blanking of my own comments and a glance through their edit history reveals that almost all their edits on Wikipedia, ever, are to add their own research content to Wikipedia, typically from WP:PROFRINGE sources. I think this is a pretty cut and dry example of WP:NOTHERE and WP:ADVOCACY, and given their edit history I think there’s going to need to be fairly consistent vigilance from linguist Wikipedians to avoid WP:PROFRINGE material percolating back into the articles if they continue to edit. This is a particular concern given their leapfrog into a BLP dispute noticeboard post (yay!) which wholly ignored the good faith efforts of myself and another editor (and administrator, David Eppstein) to explain exactly what was going on (less yay) and reitterated demands for a criticism- and citation-free version of the article.

Apologies for the lack of brevity, this one felt like it took a bit of explaining. Warrenmck (talk) 19:52, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

A dispute was originally filed at DRN. I advised that it be moved to BLPN, and advised User:Warrenmck to wait to file a case here and see if the content dispute at BLPN would resolve the matter. One editor took my advice, and one didn't; that is typical. I agree that User:Arbomhard has insulted Warrenmck.

Are User:Warrenmck and User:Arbomhard willing to resolve the content dispute at BLPN first and hold off on this conduct matter? Our objective should be to improve the encyclopedia including the article on Allan R. Bomhard. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:46, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

I opted out of BLPN following the reply that got posted at Nostratic, and my issue isn’t specifically the content dispute, rather the behaviour underpinning it. I’ve not responded there, and my understanding was that this isn’t inappropriate, just perhaps not the best possible solution under normal circumstances (which clearly I don’t think these are). If I’m wrong about that, apologies, but I don’t see how a second dispute page repeating the exact same thing after editors have explained we need citations for weeks was anything other than an abuse of process at this point to attempt to exert ownership over the article, as highlighted by the abject refusal to engage but a perfect willingness to open a dispute (which would require that engagement). I genuinely believe the editor in question is not here to build an encyclopedia, and while I think it’s possible some good could come from the content dispute I’ve been just swallowing a lot of incivility in the name of trying to positively engage in good faith which I don’t see will ever be forthcoming from Arbomhard. Their literal entire edit history is adding their own content to fringe articles, and they’ve been asked for days to cite anything and have simply scattered “restore the original version” across, by my count, five pages now without substantively engaging anyone who has been trying to help.

if you genuinely believe it’s in the best interest of Wikipedia for this to be tabled until after, I’ll accept that. But this is why I responded to the first DRN post with “I’ve had an ANI ready to go about this situation” and only posted it when personal attacks were doubled down on after that DRN discussion and the reposted dispute to BLPN made it clear Arbomhard was not actually going to engage either civilly or in good faith. Warrenmck (talk) 21:05, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Since the locus of the behavioral issues involves Nostratic languages, its talk page, and related articles, and not just the BLP Allan R. Bomhard, I think discussion here is not redundant with the BLPN discussion and should continue. (My own position is that I am supportive of independent scholarship but not supportive of fringe-pushing nor of editors whose primary purpose is self-promotion, all of which are in evidence here.) —David Eppstein (talk) 23:42, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

I would just like to draw attention to the fact that @Arbomhard is responding to this ANI at the talk page for Nostratic Languages. Warrenmck (talk) 12:01, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

The comments don't appear to be a direct response to this ANI. That said, they also seem to be content-free complaints about Warrenmck, rather than actually explaining whatever problem they have with specific edits to the article. Arbomhard is leaning hard on claiming Warrenmck is not an "expert," which makes me wonder if Armobhard might be in a WP:EXPERT conflict. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:33, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

The comments don't appear to be a direct response to this ANI.

I could have misread

You have also quoted out of context.

but the discussion that was under was only ever quoted by me here, other than that I never quoted it. Did I misread a post-ANI comment about a thread a week ago? Sincere question, I don't want to accidentally be creating drama out of the ether here if I misread something.

Arbomhard is leaning hard on claiming Warrenmck is not an "expert," which makes me wonder if Armobhard might be in a WP:EXPERT conflict.

I've genuinely tried avoiding this specific discussion with him, which is why I haven't responded to it at any point. I don't want to get into a discussion of credentials on Wikipedia. Let me just leave it at "I generally disagree with his statements on this" and that I've been working carefully to build consensus where possible and cite my claims carefully instead. I think it's perhaps a bit risky to consider a page about a fringe theory a WP:EXPERT conflict, however. At least when considering the full context. Warrenmck (talk) 20:46, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

User:XERI MUSIC

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)

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)

User was indeffed by Bb23 as a spam account, and is now posting unblock requests begging to be unblocked. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:35, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Deliberate and partisan BLP violation and introduction of falsehoods

CONTEXT: Impeachment inquiry against Joe Biden

I noticed that

• Ericson Barbarona (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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)

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?-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:50, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

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)

User MrOllie

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))

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)

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)

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)

@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)

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)

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)

I didn't know that but thank-you Veganpurplefox (talk) 09:35, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

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)

I will go back to tea house then and see their answers Veganpurplefox (talk) 09:36, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

I need someone to compare our IP addresses so people will believe me now Veganpurplefox (talk) 14:06, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

@Veganpurplefox it's okay, you don't need to prove that you are not the same as the other user. No one has blocked you as a sockpuppet. It's irritating to be accused of being a sockpuppet, but if you aren't one, that's all it is - irritating. Just keep editing as normal. Like ARoseWolf, my advice is that you edit articles you aren't hyperfocus-level interested in for a while. It will be easier to learn how Wikipedia editing works this way, without ending up in conflicts like this that become emotional for you because you care a lot about the topic. Once you know more about how Wikipedia editing works, it will be easier to go back to the topics you care about and edit on them in a productive way. -- asilvering (talk) 23:59, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

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)

But if it is true that they themselves are autistic, and I don't know that to be a fact just assuming good faith, I don't see the point in them calling themselves a liar. That's why I tried to look at it from a different perspective and came to the conclusion they were saying that they feel others look at them, as part of a group, that way. There are all kinds of stereotypes in this world. I face them regularly for my struggles and I have lashed out at those stereotypes in a lot the same way before. I still think they should be careful doing so and your statements on how you read what was said is not unwarranted, I just understood them differently taking everything in context. It would still be better for them to strike the statement because regardless of which of us is correct it has had an affect on fellow editors. --ARoseWolf 15:21, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Very clearly, as pointed out, I misunderstood what was written. That statement is a personal attack and should be struck through and not repeated. Whether that's what was intended or not I agree with JoJo. --ARoseWolf 16:43, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

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)

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

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

---

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." [67]

He was unblocked on 25 January 2023 by Bishonen under conditions [The block is lifted on certain conditions, outlined at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Philomathes2357&oldid=1135629704#Unblock_conditions 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

• At Talk: Breitbart News: [68]
• At Talk: The Grayzone: [69]
• At Wikipedia_talk:Neutral_point_of_view: [70]
• At Wikipedia:Teahouse: [71]
• At Talk:Douma chemical attack: [72]

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.

Examples:

• 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 [73] 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.[74] [75]

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)

• 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. [76][77][78] [79] [80]
• Philomathes at Talk:The Grayzone constantly accuses opponents of "wiki lawyering" [81] and casts aspersions, accusing others of not wanting to improve the article [82].
• Philomathes has also engaged in egregious off-wiki canvassing [83] 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)

@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)

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).

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. -50.234.188.27 (talk) 08:27, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

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)

• I've indeffed UUD.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:29, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

  Pretty sure this is a Vizorblaze sock, asking another CU to check also. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Vizorblaze Doug Weller talk 13:57, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

  This doesn't take away from the fact the complaints are accurate and there is a time sink, fringe advocacy, and IDHT problem. The failure to respect the causes of previous block and many warnings, and a resumption of the problematic behavior after the block, should result in renewed blocks and/or topic bans. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 15:44, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

  And thus we're stuck in what appears to be a pretty common occurrence... A sock has accurately pointed out behavioral issues with a legitimate user... Leaving us in the pickle of addressing the behavioral issues while also maintaining WP:DENY which as I'm sure most have noticed is completely impossible or at least we've never figured out a good way. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:48, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

  Valjean, can I convince you to let this particular thread die and consider posting a different one after a waiting period? It might also be better to go to WP:AE, and to find actual diffs. We have a bit of a fruit of the poisonous tree problem here, and it would be nice for responding, uninvolved admin to come at this with less garbage in the way. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:49, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

  One thing to note is that the vast majority of the world rejects the concept of fruit of the poisonous tree, its a foreign concept to most non-American editors. (I once brought it up at a Sockpuppet investigation and a fellow editor said something along the lines of "I am a German and where I am from we have no such nonsense, evidence is evidence") Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:53, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

  The more you know... It's not a perfect fit anyway, and you made the point well while referencing actual policy. , Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:01, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

[removed IP comments and blocked]

And yet another IP from Houston. I suggest people ignore them. I’m not sure who is the sockmaster but that’s irrelevant. Doug Weller talk 17:35, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

[removed IP comments]

Doug Weller did in fact tell someone to create an account [91] to file a report like this recently. To immediately jump on someone who followed instructions in good faith is quite concerning as another violation of the required civility for Wikipedia.

Socking is socking. I don't see it as "good faith" to ask questions as an IP of a blocked sock, then create a new sock account. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:42, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

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

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

• Curbon7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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)

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)

• 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)

  I get the impression said user is trying to speedrun a permaban. 5 days ago he voted to delete a BLP article purely on the basis of the subject being obviously a crypto-communist or a crypto-russian (there were certainly legitimate arguments to vote delete, but that's not one of them). I hope the 72 hour block helps him clear his head a bit. Ostalgia (talk) 19:23, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

  I'm not sure if it matters much but in the unlikely event an unblock of Daikido is considered, I'll mention I'm not even sure if that's the worse comment Daikido left in relation to that. He was notified about his !vote being removed and left this reply [84]. Note that the "ukrainian-canadian veteran who fought against the orcs" is surely Yaroslav Hunka [85]. Hunka was honoured in the Canadian parliament recently something which eventually lead to the resignation of the speaker, and for the Canadian prime minister to say it was deeply embarrassing [86] since it turned out Hunka was a part of the Waffen SS Galizien a unit which as with many Nazi units, committed war crimes. As you might guess this means the "witch-hunt" Daikido refers to may have included the subject of that AFD, but it also included the the Friends of Simon Wiesenthal Center for Holocaust Studies along with numerous Jewish groups; and of course both the PM of Canada and the former speaker of parliament. Nil Einne (talk) 13:28, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

  I had not seen that. I guess nothing was lost with the indef, then. Ostalgia (talk) 19:26, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

• Eh, Curbon7 is among the most level-headed and competent folks, I have seen in the project and his explanation is quite sensible. There's no need of any warning. That said, Daikido ought to be indeffed - this is beyond-the-pale behaviour. TrangaBellam (talk) 19:43, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

I stand by the (un-logged) warning for the reasons stated. Sorry, all, forgot to mention that I indeffed Daikido last night with TPA revoked. See the link I provided above (I'll bold for emphasis). El_C 21:50, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

@El C: Good block, this has been building up for a while. I was wanting to report his behavior but felt like his instances of disruption were way too far apart timing-wise to build a case with. _{Duly signed,} ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 22:29, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for your support, WaltCip. I just want to put the following out there: if anybody sees users behaving poorly at WP:ITN, especially in a ways that fall well outside standards elsewhere on the project — please drop me a line. I do not give a fuck and will block WP:UNBLOCKABLES, if needed. El_C 22:36, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Easy @El C:. A warning first is appreciated by everyone no matter how long they have been on this project, block first is not policy and not best practice. IDGAF is not good language to use when working on an encyclopedia either. Lightburst (talk) 23:16, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Uh huh. El_C 23:22, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Yup, no worries with that; I should not have come down like a ton of bricks on a newer good-faith editor. Countering systemic bias is something I'm quite passionate about both on- and off-Wiki, and that passion got the better of me in that instance. Will be more mindful going forward. Curbon7 (talk) 23:27, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. For sure, that (countering) is commendable. And your reflection and introspection does you credit. El_C 23:45, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

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

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)

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

Mr. Shaan Sengupta

To whomever it may concern,

I am writing today to file a complaint against Mr. Shaan Sengupta (User:Shaan Sengupta) for obstructionism, notice violation and unretracted accusations.

Revision as of 14:18, 27 September 2023

Revision as of 03:09, 28 September 2023

Notice: Template:Editnotices/Page/Bharatiya Janata Party

Accusation of me being disruptive.

Accusation of spamming when asked to specify.

Mr. Shaan Sengupta took a limited circumstances exemption for notice violation but it couldn't be reasonably applied. He made accusations but the accusations couldn't be reasonably justified. He insisted on "discussion first" repeatedly and claimed the notice mandated it but it does not.

He did not apply the discussion first standard to himself when he made a change.

I started a discussion section (Talk:Bharatiya Janata Party) and was willing to overlook it all provided he come forward with a content related "policies and guidelines" based objection to my edit. I asked for such on 5 occasions total in our back and forth communication across the talk page, my user talk and his user talk.

Finally he says that he is not opposed to what is in my edit.

Since then I have asked him 4 times to either make an objection and if he doesn't whether he was going to revert if I restore the edit but he gave no clear answer.

Finally he indicates that he will continue to revert without giving a content objection.

Therefore I am forced to make this complaint.

It has been about 50 hours since he made his first revert and about 17 hours since the start of the discussion section but neither him nor anyone else has come forward with an objection. He provided policy (Wikipedia:Consensus) to justify his stance of reverting but not giving an objection. But the page itself says that consensus is implicit and presumed unless disputed but he refuses to dispute the edit.

I seek remedial action. Thank you

MrMkG (talk) 16:03, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Regardless of what's happening here—which seems like a content dispute, but it's hard to tell due to mobile diffs being tedious to convert to desktop—I've upgraded the protection for that page, from indef WP:SEMI to indef WP:ECP (overdue). Logged as WP:ARBIND. New and inexperienced users shouldn't be editing the main article. They, however, are weclome to engage the talk page, including with consensus-determining discussions and requests (like a Request for comment), or by submitting simple edit requests. El_C 16:51, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

He is not disputing the content only reverting it. He says "My objection was never about what you added but how you added." In all the messages he never discussed the content after reverting it repeatedly and demanded discussion. I only added references for what was already there. He removed the pre-existing text and also the references.

He also made accusations against me and violated the notice which says no one should make more than 1 revert in 24 hours. MrMkG (talk) 17:11, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

@MrMkG, you still haven't understood what this is about. This is the reason inexperienced editors are kept away from these topics by the arbitration committee. It is always advised to discuss the dispute with others in every case. Regarding my revert within 24 hours it was because you didn't initiate a discussion ans readded the disputed stuff. So disputed stuff is always removed until consensus to keep it. I will once again say since it is referenced I don't have any issue if the community thinks that it should be added it will eventually be added. As you said that you gained consensus now please see one editor fast registered their different view. Thatswhy I told you to wait for some time so that others can join. Any discussion should go atleast for a week. Although this might not be written anywhere (I am clarifying this because you would again say where is it written), but things should be given time to reach a good amount of people. I would request you to assume good faith and proceed. This won't go any further. Shaan Sengupta^Talk 17:19, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

So all the "policies and guidelines" and the "notices" are overridden by apparently unwritten rules? What is the point of having them then if you don't have to follow them? MrMkG (talk) 17:22, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

@MrMkG everyone is following it. And those not following are dealt with. @El C please explain him once whether that small disscussion at Talk:Bharatiya Janata Party#BJP is a right-wing to far-right political party has gained consensus or not. By his replies it seems he won't listen to me. Shaan Sengupta^Talk 17:25, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

I spend a good part of my day reading the "policies and guidelines" that you linked to me. But what you yourself say contradicted it. And now I find out that they don't really need to be followed as per written. What was the point of reading them? MrMkG (talk) 17:33, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Ok, I thought he will understand that by simply gaining a consensus he can make it. But here we are. Now the summary of this is that as we always do amd I have been told to is when editing an article of contentious topics first discuss major changes gain consensus and then do so in the article if someone objects. The user wants to add far-right as political position of the Bharatiya Janata Party in its article.

His edits were reverted at Revision as of 22:10, 26 September 2023. This is where @MrMkG needed to start a discussion to resolve another editors concern. But since he is new we can let it go. As reverting editor also didn't ask for it. Then he manually reverts the revert Revision as of 01:41, 27 September 2023. I enter here at Revision as of 19:48, 27 September 2023 clearly asking him to discuss it on talk page first. He ignores my message and once again reverts Revision as of 02:24, 28 September 2023 telling that I message a dubious revert without understanding other editors concern. This is nearly just after the 24-hour period. I re-revert him here once again within 24 hours which is allowed under limited circumstances at Revision as of 08:39, 28 September 2023 because the user didn't bring it to talk page even after being asked to. Then I do some cleanup in the article and remove the term political position because it is invalid parameter in infobox indian political party. I serve him with Template:uw-disruptive2 on his talk page and explain my concerns very nicely. After extensive discussion he then asks me to initiate a discussion and gain consensus. Now I am not able to get that a change he wants to make why should I gain consensus. I am him to do so. Meanwhile another editor starts the discussion at Talk:Bharatiya Janata Party#BJP is a right-wing to far-right political party. Now he wants me and everyone to believe that this short discussion that has not even happened for a day (remember the discussion to gain consensus is what is being talked, not disput) be termed as consensus. I am not ready to agree on this. I already made my point clear that I am not opposed to anything that is properly sourced. But since this comes under contentious topics, major changes (since it defines political position) should be discussed and be made only after community agrees. Another user wanted to make same change but was advised the same thing by Kautilya3 that I am doing now at Talk:Bharatiya Janata Party/Archive 10#A central right to far right party. I don't understand why is @MrMkG not able to understand this simple thing. I will atlast ask the community is that discussion which is happening arrived at consensus? Shaan Sengupta^Talk 16:53, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

@El C In the mean time we already have an oppose to that discussion. How can it be termed as consensus gained. This is sick. Shaan Sengupta^Talk 16:55, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Sick? I don't know what you mean — and why no WP:DIFF attached? Anyway, whatever it is, please avoid hyperbole and any other excesses. El_C 17:00, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

@El C Sorry for that. I just wanted to say that despite repeatedly telling him that this small discussion can't be termed as consensus gained. He continued to argue that he had gained it. Thatswhy I used that word not for him but for this situation. Anyways I hope he might understand now that contentious topic dispute should always be discussed. Thanks for this advice. I shall work to lessen the expression in words. Shaan Sengupta^Talk 17:04, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

I told him here that this is not a consensus.

• Revision as of 16:28, 29 September 2023
• Revision as of 17:33, 29 September 2023
• Revision as of 17:56, 29 September 2023

His reluctance that he has gained consensus.

• Revision as of 16:51, 29 September 2023
• Revision as of 21:36, 29 September 2023
• Revision as of 21:42, 29 September 2023

And some more. Anyways since you have already protected I shall rest here. Shaan Sengupta^Talk 17:11, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

As I told the OP, it's hard to tell [what's happening] due to mobile diffs being tedious to convert to desktop. El_C 17:22, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

It is not that hard, it is easy to tell that at least the notice which says you can't make more than 1 revert in 24 hours was overridden by him.

If you read the discussion, you can also tell he never made a dispute. He just kept saying gain consensus without himself discussing the thing he reverted. MrMkG (talk) 17:25, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Forgot to mention that both disputants also violated WP:1RR. In future, please be mindful of that Shaan Sengupta and MrMkG. El_C 17:28, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

@MrMkG I am repeating I re-revert him here once again within 24 hours which is allowed under limited circumstances at Revision as of 08:39, 28 September 2023 because the user didn't bring it to talk page even after being asked to. Shaan Sengupta^Talk 17:29, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

@El C I will make sure that this doesn't happen in the future. Shaan Sengupta^Talk 17:29, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

I did not make 2 reverts in 24 hours. I made one at 20:17 26 September and 20:54 27 September. He made one on 14:18 27 September and one on 03:07 28 September. He claimed a special exemption but there is no special exemption in the 8 types that can be applied to it. MrMkG (talk) 17:32, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

What do mean by never made a dispute, MrMkG? Generally, we follow the maxim of WP:ONUS, which states: The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content. But it isn't immediately apparent which version is the longstanding one here (mobile diffs don't help). El_C 17:33, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

He reverted but he never opposed what I added. He openly said so. Throughout the discussion he never tried to discuss what I added when I kept asking him to do so. He just kept saying that I need to discuss and get a consensus. But with whom do I discuss if he the one reverting me doesn't discuss? MrMkG (talk) 17:36, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

@El C I have been telling him this. But you might also feel that he is either not able to or not willing to understand. I told him the same thing multiple times that he should start a discussion but see his latest reply. He has not yet understood that its him who is needed to start the discussion and gain consensus and not me. I have also made it clear multiple times that I am not opposed to your content but opposed to the way you are adding them that is without disscussing. Shaan Sengupta^Talk 17:39, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

He once again has modified his comment in amidst the reply despite just being asked not to. Shaan Sengupta^Talk 17:41, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Well, now they realize such an exemption does not apply, so it's moot. And hopefully, as of now, ditto for you for having waited ~30 min for your 1RR 24-hour cycle, which is usually considered a violation (i.e. WP:GAME). But Wikipedia:Don't revert due solely to "no consensus" should definitely be avoided, if that's all there was to it (again again, mobile diffs). El_C 17:42, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

@El C WP:DRNC point taken. And what you said now I told this too to him multiple times. Once in this too above. That revert made just after 24 hours is also a violation. Shaan Sengupta^Talk 17:44, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Adjusting a comment before anyone replies to it, including removing it outright, is fine. Anyway, I can't keep posting here right now. I'm at, like, double digits edit conflicts. It's too much. El_C 17:46, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

@El C just one request please tell him that consensus is not achieved at Talk:Bharatiya Janata Party#BJP is a right-wing to far-right political party as he says is achieved. Shaan Sengupta^Talk 17:49, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Concur. I think it would be best to codify it via a formal consensus-determining discussion (like an WP:RFC) that is properly closed. HTH. El_C 17:55, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Understood so you shouldn't revert right after the point you can and yes, Wikipedia:Don't revert due solely to "no consensus" is exactly what he was doing. How am I supposed to do anything if someone does this? For the first 50 hours, there was only me and him and he kept saying "discussion first" so there was no one else for me to discuss with since he himself wouldn't discuss. I am still worried he might persist reverting even if no one objects to the edit. MrMkG (talk) 17:56, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Another edit conflict? Okay, I'm done now, for real. Addendum was: But that does not necessarily mean your version represents consensus, either, Shaan Sengupta. Again, I don't know which version is the longstanding one and which one is the contending one (again, refer to WP:ONUS). El_C 18:00, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Man discuss first means that you should start a discussion like the other user started there. You dont need to discuss with someone specific. You just start one and people joined like people are joining there. He never started it with someone. That's what I was asking. You are still focused on some way proving that I am only at fault. I have accepted that I am regarding my revert. Because I had no info about WP:DRNC. You too accepted that you violated by reverting just after 24 hour period because you didn't know about it. Shaan Sengupta^Talk 18:01, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

I only want assurance that you won't revert if no one else and you yourself are not opposing my edit because then there is no way for me to do anything. MrMkG (talk) 18:14, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

I won't and can't do anything. Since it is already up for discussion Whatever consensus is reached will be done. If not by me then some admin or anyone. Shaan Sengupta^Talk 18:17, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Long standing version had "far right". It was just hidden due to a glitch which I fixed (Desktop diff). I had only added better sources for it after that (Desktop diff) but Mr. Shaan Sengupta removed the references but also the "far right". MrMkG (talk) 18:11, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

This is the sole reason why it was not removed because it was hidden. Had it been visible it would have been disputed. The moment it was visible it got disputed. Shaan Sengupta^Talk 18:13, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

But you only reverted it and didn't dispute it. It didn't get disputed the moment it was visible. MrMkG (talk) 18:15, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

@MrMkG I am not the only one to remove it. One more guy did before me. After your edit he reverted it the next day which is just after you no gaps. So it was disputed the moment it was added. Anyways it won't lead to anything now sonce its up for discussion. Leave it here. Let the community decide what is to kept and removed. Me and you can't do anything for it. Only consensus will prevail. And now I have made everything clear please stop. Its getting lengthy. We are tired. Shaan Sengupta^Talk 18:20, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

He said that a source didn't say "far right". Perhaps he was reading one the sources for "right wing" which was near the same area. So I quoted the one of the sources since they did say "far right" and he didn't do anything after that. MrMkG (talk) 18:24, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Once again. Let the discussion happen. Only the decision there will be added. Nothing else. This isn't going anywhere. Please tell me when you are done so I close it. Shaan Sengupta^Talk 18:27, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

It is better left for someone else to close so that the question of long standing version can be considered. MrMkG (talk) 18:31, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

That's right, please leave any closures to someone uninvolved. @Shaan Sengupta and MrMkG: courtesy pings. El_C 21:55, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Talk page abuse

Pin Scrabble has repeatedly posted content to their talk page that is WP:NOTWEBHOST material ([87], [88], [89], [90], [91]), despite multiple notices/warnings. I'm requesting that they be blocked as WP:NOTHERE and have their talk page access revoked immediately, as that's where they are posting. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 16:22, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely: User talk:Pin Scrabble#Indefinite block. El_C 17:10, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

They've continued adding WP:NOTWEBHOST content to their talk page after being blocked. Please revoke TPA. – dudhhr ^talk_contribs^she_her 16:12, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

Talk page access revoked. -- Whpq (talk) 16:17, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

Cambodia–Thailand culture war

This has been a tedious, simmering issue for quite some time, but lately it's becoming a significant annoyance. There seems to be an increasing trend of ultranationalist keyboard warriors being prompted by off-Wiki calls for action to edit articles on topics that demonstrate a shared cultural heritage between Thailand and Cambodia. On the Thai side, it mostly manifests as Khmer heritage denialism (I created the Khom article to briefly explain where their beliefs are coming from), while from the Cambodian side, most of what I've seen is more insidious, like inserting Khmer names prominently into topics primarily related to Thailand. Most of it is from IPs and throw-away SPAs. Some examples:

• Phanom Rung Historical Park (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Phimai Historical Park (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Steamed curry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I haven't looked into the breadth of affected topics, but I've also seen such bad-faith edits in more obscure articles where they can go unnoticed for months.

I'm not quite sure if there's something that can be done here (or if there isn't a better venue for this type of thing). But I wanted to raise the issue, at least to hopefully have a few more eyes on it. Advice would be appreciated. --Paul_012 (talk) 16:32, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Oh boy. I love Cambodia and Thailand and have lived in both countries. Not that that makes me an expert, but it does mean that I'm very interested in and familiar with the topic. I'll take a look at this as time allows. Pecopteris (talk) 18:26, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Bbb23 - (ab)using admin buttons while deeply WP:INVOLVED

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

---

A short while ago, Bbb23 closed a thread above, deleting multiple comments and blocking the poster. [92][93][94] Ordinarily this would not be a major concern but the comments indicate that Bbb23 is deeply WP:INVOLVED with the situation. Bbb23's talk page also shows that he has been coordinating editing and communications with the user whose conduct the thread concerned.

While I wish that this did not need to be brought up, using administrator buttons while so deeply WP:INVOLVED is a severe violation of the trust that we as a community place in administrators. Bbb23 appears to be reaching a point of burnout and this sort of conduct is a major symptom that will cause worse issues if left un-addressed. 73.115.148.76 (talk) 18:56, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

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

Vanguard School (Florida)

Is it appropriate for an editor to put sex crimes on a school article, when there's only an allegation, and it only involves an employee, doesn't involve the school? Thanks! — Jacona (talk) 20:25, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

No it is not. RickinBaltimore (talk) 20:36, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

IEEE book added as a refernce to Artificial Neural Network page

Today I added a reference to the Wikipedia page: Artificial neural Networks. The reference is a book with 366 pages published by the IEEE. There are numerous authors and editors involved with that book and it is a good reference material. The editor MrOllie removed that reference outright without any reasonable explanation. I started a dialog on his talk page User_talk:MrOllie wondering why he removed that reference. I specifically pointed out that references 155-188 in that section of the article are all single source references (some simply conference papers without proper peer review). Why is it that, as an editor, he is letting those single source references stay and has deleted the book reference I had added in? He failed to provide a logical explanation and nor did he point out which internal rule(s) within Wikipedia states that multiple single source unvetted references take priority over a book that has been published by the IEEE. He only made biased and prejudicial persoanl statement such as "You are very focused on getting particular citations and books into Wikipedia..." and "You must learn how things are done here...", with no regards or respect for the merits of what I had done. I submit that this editor is judgmental, biased and prejudicial. I note on this Talk page there are a number of similar complaints along the same lines. I respectfully request a review of this situation and final decision. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Writingking (talk • contribs)

References

The warnings you received were valid, Writingking. That link constitutes WP:PROMO. Please do not restore. Please sign your user name + timestamp (See WP:SIG). You also mis-linked the article, which is Artificial neural network. Please use H:PREVIEW prior to submissions. Finally, you need to do something other than continuing to add that Amazon link for that book. Thanks. El_C 22:24, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Oh, I see, it's all by Mehrdad Nikoonahad. Conflict of interest disclosure is needed, then. I'll post that to your talk page momentarily. El_C 22:30, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

I don't understand! What is by Mehrdad Nikoonahad? What conflict of interest. this book is not by Mehrdad Nikoonahad. The full reference to the book is given. Writingking (talk) 22:43, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Nikoonahad wrote that book's chapter on medical ultrasound, as you well know. He also wrote almost every other citation you've been trying to add to Wikipedia. And you've been editing the biographical article on him. You know this, the conflict of interest has been pointed out on your user talk page by four different editors now. MrOllie (talk) 22:49, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

The book has 366 pages with about 50 chapters covering numerous topics in paradigms, applications and hardware implementations of neural networks. The publication date of the book is 1992. There are two issues here: Firstly I don’t see why you are fixated on Nikoonahad’s work! Even if he wrote a chapter of the book, so what? There are numerous other chapters in the book of significant value written by many other authors with editors involved. Secondly and perhaps more importantly you are patently wrong as Nikoonahad did not write that chapter on Medical Ultrasound. IEEE reprinted it in their book with permission from Nikoonahad’s earlier work in 1990. If you have time to read the book, you will see that it says so in the book.

You are not addressing that in that section of the article that there are numerous single sourced articles (some simply conference papers without proper peer review) and instead are abscessed that this book may have something to do in some remote and in some indirect fashion with Nikoonahad! This is respectfully absurd, biased and prejudicial. Writingking (talk) 23:19, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Meaning that a sample of refs you added to various pages all seem show Mehrdad Nikoonahad as author. Again, please answer the conflict of interest disclosure I've placed on your talk page. Direct link: User talk:Writingking#Managing a conflict of interest. El_C 22:56, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment. I agree I mislinked Artificial neural network. My bad. Is there anyway I can correct it? The book was published before the internet became commen place. It is available in most libraries in hardcopy form but very little is available on the internet except Amazon and few otehr places where they sell the book. Writingking (talk) 22:53, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

That does not address the WP:PROMO and WP:COI concerns, see above. El_C 22:56, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

I have no conflict of interest whatsoever. I don’t know the editors of the book and nor am I a salesman trying to sell a book for the IEEE, so I don’t understand the PROMO thing! As I mentioned this is a “pre-internet” valuable scientific reference in Artificial Neural Network with numerous topics in paradigms, applications and hardware implementations of that technology. I am seriously concerned that the editor herein deleted this reference but let stay 10+ single sourced references (some of which simply unvetted conference papers) present in the article. Writingking (talk) 00:18, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

Blocked. Writingking has answered the COI question on their page also. In view of the information above and on the user's page about the way their editing as a whole promotes a particular individual, I find it impossible to believe their denials. I've blocked indefinitely. Bishonen | tålk 04:42, 30 September 2023 (UTC).

Thirty citations needed templates in just over a half hour

Posted by Badboyxx (talk · contribs), a virtually new editor. Most of the articles don't appear to be poorly sourced, and there's been no response to my question here [95]. No edit summaries, no explanations. It looks like someone was going down an alphabetical list and randomly tagging. Any thoughts about a mass reversion? 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 02:20, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

You brooched

Why was this escalated here when you broached this issue on the user’s talk page maybe four hours ago? Additionally, you are required to notify the user when you file a complaint against them here, which you have not done. Bgsu98 (Talk) 03:09, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

This is not an escalation--user sanctions are not sought, but an inquiry is being made for administrative input. Secondly, I informed the user of this report immediately. In what way is your comment intended to be helpful? 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 03:49, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

My apologies; you did post the required notification. Bgsu98 (Talk) 03:52, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

It's cool. Have a look at their edits and see what you think. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 03:57, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

In truth, some of them look legit. But that sort of rapid drive-by template addition raises a flag, all the more so from an inexperienced editor. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 04:09, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia is full of articles that need cn and bsn. Is it a problem to note them? Malibu Sapphire (talk) 05:44, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

We could pick any thirty articles randomly, and half of them would merit sourcing templates. But any editing done without discernment--including haphazard application of templates--is disruptive. And having a fifty, or even seventy-five percent success rate, is not acceptable. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 06:21, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

The articles don't appear to be entirely random. A significant proportion of them start with the letters 'ab', and appear to have been edited largely in alphabetical order. From a quick look, much of the tagging looks entirely undue. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:37, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

I think that's DEFAULTSORT order and the editor was working through a maintenance category such as Category:All articles lacking reliable references, maybe specifically those with a single {{Unreliable source?}} tag, however many other good references they have. Tagging them with {{More citations needed}} is clearly inappropriate. NebY (talk) 13:20, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

Yes, that's what I'm seeing, as well. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 14:16, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

Badboyxx clearly is not a new user - Gaming autoconfirmed by making 10 edits adding commas 1 at a time, heading off to a wikipedia related article (Everipedia) to delete information related to Molly White, running what seems to be an unauthorised bot to perform some terrible clean-up tagging, I suspect we've seen this person before. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 20:46, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

I've just noticed that they've been blocked on wikidata as an LTA. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 20:47, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

User:Deb's Application of WP:A7 at Chuck Tollefson

Deb notified here

• Deb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• Chuck Tollefson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Deb, one of our longest running editors and admins, recently unilaterally deleted an untagged Chuck Tollefson with the following justification: A7: No credible indication of importance (individuals, animals, organizations, web content, events). This version was the one that was deleted. BeanieFan11 requested undeletion on Deb's talk page here, noting that the article made two credible claims of significant or importance: this person played in the NFL for three seasons and was part of an NFL Championship team. Deb responded by draftifying the article and responding to BeanieFan11 by saying Articles must explain what makes the person notable and this one didn't - no mention of championships or anything else. I've put it in draft for you to work on. (diff) I stumbled upon all of this from WP:PACKERS's assessment log. Noting that the article clearly didn't meet WP:A7, I moved the article back into the mainspace and added a source. Noting back to Deb's talk at User talk:Deb#Chuck Tollefson, I commented to Deb here and here that this was a bad A7 deletion. Deb's response was a bit shocking. She doubled down on the deletion, saying "No refs" was not the speedy deletion criterion, which was A7 - requiring a credible claim of importance. Without refs, it's not credible, and I've spent a long time looking for the notability criteria for American footballers - if you know of any, please let me know where they are. (diff) This obviously runs blatantly against what WP:A7 says, which is The criterion does not apply to any article that makes any credible claim of significance or importance even if the claim is not supported by a reliable source or does not qualify on Wikipedia's notability guidelines. When I pointed this out to Deb, her response was evasive and avoided the point. I asked again and here just for acknowledgement that the deletion was not valid under A7 and Deb would not acquiesce.

Look, I have made bad deletions before. All admins have, and when we do we typically undelete and apologize. But honestly I am shocked by how bad Deb is interpreting WP:A7 and how much they are doubling down on that bad interpretation. I don't have time to dive into logs, but a quick glance of Deb's talk page shows a lot of deletion activity. I want to make sure that they are interpreting and applying our deletion policy appropriately, both to avoid harming the project but more importantly not biting new users. Deb encouraged me to bring this to a larger audience, and WP:AN/I seems like the most appropriate place. Would some uninvolved admins provide their input on this discussion? « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 14:15, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

• Comment. I am a bit surprised that Gonzofan2007 hasn't mentioned that immediately after BeanieFan11 pointed out the problem to me, I realised I had been hasty in my response and I went to his talk page where I apologised and explained further. S/he seemed prepared to make improvements to the article, which by then I had already undeleted and put into draft. I recognised later that I should have put it somewhere else. Deb (talk) 14:49, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
  • Deb, I honestly didn't know. I'm glad you did. But again, this is here because you seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of WP:A7. Again, your comment on BeanieFan11's talk page reiterates this misunderstanding: When I checked, it did mention a championship, but without any references. It can be difficult for non-US contributors to understand the ins and outs of US sports, so his significance needs to be more clearly stated. Again, you are misinterpreting policy. It was a 15 year old article about a professional American football player who won a Championship. There was no way this was eligible for A7, even a cursory read of the article makes that easily known. Also, if you so clearly lack any understanding of American football, then you shouldn't be unilaterally deleting untagged articles in that area. I have zero understanding of cricket and what makes a cricketer notable. And thus, I have never deleted an article for A7 on a cricketer. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 15:31, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
    • In the mean time, I have significantly expanded Chuck Tollefson. Cullen328 (talk) 21:34, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
    • I think "won a world championship" is a pretty easily understandable assertion of notability regardless of the sport. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 11:44, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
• Comment. I'd add that I thought moving to draft was only supposed to be done for new articles (<6 months)? Espresso Addict (talk) 23:55, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

• Comment I would agree that that's not a good use of A7, which is more for the types of articles like "Mark Johnson plays in his town's garage band" and that's all of the content. Or if it's gibberish or nonsense or something. Any actual indication of notability, sourced or not, disqualifies A7 from applying. Silverseren^C 00:04, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

  • Pedantry. [G]ibberish or nonsense is G1, not A7. Folly Mox (talk) 02:07, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

• Comment. In Deb's apology on BeanieFan11's talk page (diff linked above), Deb conceded that it was a wrong application of A7, and the explanation was that It can be difficult for non-US contributors to understand the ins and outs of US sports, so his significance needs to be more clearly stated. However, significance was in fact clearly stated. And I don't think that one needs to have an interest in American football (I don't) to notice that the text indicates significance (I would not think that it fails to make a claim of significance despite my lack of interest in American football). So this all comes down to testing one's initial impression that a claim of significance is missing a little bit harder, by doing a Google search or two, or something like that.—Alalch E. 11:21, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
• Is any action required here? If I'm reading it right, the article has been undeleted and expanded, Deb apologised before this thread was started, and everything is moving in he right direction. Are we good to close this? Girth Summit _(blether) 12:01, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

• Agree with that. Thanks to the OP for raising this issue but there is nothing in here to disturb either admincond or adminacct. I particularly draw attention to the sentence from the first of those: Occasional mistakes are entirely compatible with adminship; administrators are not expected to be perfect. As GirthSummit notes, this seems an incorrect use of A7 which was apologised for and rectified before this thread opened. Special thanks to Cullen328 for expanding the article, and lets move on. -- Euryalus (talk) 12:31, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Another undisclosed paid editor

Chad theking62 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Another user that has created pages on non-notable stuff. They also indirectly mentioned that they are creating the pages for promotion.--24.211.70.219 (talk) 18:17, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

Looks connected to User:Cjrlabels who was blocked for promo Secretlondon (talk) 18:32, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

I looked at the user contribution and well,  Looks like a duck to me. 24.211.70.219 (talk) 18:40, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

The two accounts are  Confirmed -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 18:51, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

User:UA0Volodymyr

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

This user does not seem to be here to build an encyclopaedia. They added a massive amount of biased and badly-written text to Kira Rudyk ([96]), falsely claiming that its previous removal was vandalism. I re-removed it, as did another editor ([97]), but the user keeps restoring it (latest revert earlier today [98]). Today they attempted to get the page protected, in a bad-faith attempt to prevent their harmful changes from being removed ([99]).

Additionally, they have now begun to stalk my other edits, undoing them indiscriminately. Today, they have gone on another revert-spree: [100], [101], [102].

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

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

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

'reducing Autism' as edit symmary

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2601:5C2:C500:2A10:188:5E50:BA4F:69F0

• 2601:5C2:C500:2A10:188:5E50:BA4F:69F0 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• She's So High (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

2601:5C2:C500:2A10:188:5E50:BA4F:69F0 has been changing Tal Bachman's identification on "She's So High" from a singer-songwriter to a "one-hit wonder". This term is not mentioned anywhere in "She's So High" nor on Bachman's bio page, and I have not seen another occurrence where an artist is described as a "one-hit wonder" in the opening sentence of an article. The user is reverting me, claiming I am introducing "original research". I believe mentioning a person's career path is a WP:SKYBLUE case unless the term is debatable or has challengeable connotations, such as "one-hit wonder", which, once again, is not mentioned anywhere else in the article. ResPM (T🔈🎵C) 20:18, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

I could be wrong but "singer-songwriter" does sound BLUESKY, or if someone is challenging it then it shouldn't be hard to reference if true. The same of course applies to "one-hit wonder". Have you though of engaging the editor on the talk page? -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 21:12, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

They haven't responded to any warnings I've given them, and it's not my burden to source someone else's claims. Even so, I don't understand how "one-hit wonder" can accurately describe a person. Some people don't know what a one-hit wonder is, but almost everyone knows what a singer is. I don't think we need to establish the fact Bachman is a one-hit wonder in the opening sentence, especially when we consider the fact that he isn't a one-hit wonder in Canada, where he had another top-40 hit (see number 31), at least not in my eyes. Where do we draw the line with what constitutes a one-hit wonder? Seems subjective to identify someone as that so early in the article. ResPM (T🔈🎵C) 22:19, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

One-hit wonder is a widely-understood term, and, if it is poorly understood by the reader, there is an extremely helpful link to an article on the phenomenon on wikipedia. I can't imagine how it could be made more clear. Additionally, the idea that One-Hit Wonder can't accurately describe a person is frankly bizarre. If that person is a musician, and their musical act had one real hit, it applies to them. If it can't apply to a person, then it's a completely meaningless phrase.

A fairer argument is that he's not a one-hit wonder in Canada, but I'd say the colloquial meaning of the term still applies. Arguing that no, he also had modest success with a single other song which received essentially zero international attention is I think hairsplitting.

I think that I responded quite nicely to your 'warnings' by explaining my thinking in reverting your bizarre edits. 2601:5C2:C500:2A10:188:5E50:BA4F:69F0 (talk) 23:13, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

Do you have a source that describes him as a one-hit wonder? NebY (talk) 23:16, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

These are all great questions for the talk page, which hasn't been editted since May 2020. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 00:46, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

RobertsullivanIII

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

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

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

User:Meters repeatedly harassing with baseless WP:PA allegations, refuses to explain

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:2605:B100:1116:A078:AD6F:E9C9:333:E8E2&oldid=1178012449

This user is continuing to harass me on my talk page, despite being unable to explain which comment violated WP:PA last time he posted on my page (the section immediately preceding). Meters has engaged in a campaign of ad hominem and harassment against me, seemingly in response to my issues with an obscure article about unmarked graves at Canadian residential schools. I need administrative assistance as I do not know the best way to handle abusive editors. Can I block these people from interacting with me somehow? 2605:B100:111D:E1D3:10B8:6E6E:22F8:A7B3 (talk) 02:23, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Note that I don't have control over the IP of my mobile device (and don't have a Wi-Fi connection at home), but I am the same user listed at the IPV6 above terminating in E8E2. 2605:B100:111D:E1D3:10B8:6E6E:22F8:A7B3 (talk) 02:25, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

I believe Meters is possibly mistaking the abusive posts by @Pbritti as my own? And I think maybe the conduct in this talk page section might need a look too... It seems there is a concerted effort to flame bait here or something? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Canadian_Indian_residential_school_gravesites#Why_are_Church_Arsons_listed_under_%22Reactions%22?

Regards 2605:B100:111D:E1D3:10B8:6E6E:22F8:A7B3 (talk) 02:29, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Last thing, per Meters' comments on my talk page, I will not leave a notice or ping them here. I am unable to do so, they've locked their talk page and expressly asked me not to contact them again (despite continuing to place baseless WP:PA warnings on my talk page). 2605:B100:111D:E1D3:10B8:6E6E:22F8:A7B3 (talk) 02:38, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

This is 206.45.2.52 block-evading and trolling. Also, they failed to notify Meters of the discussion. I'll do that. ~ Pbritti (talk) 02:40, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

• /64 range blocked 6 months.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:53, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

(ec)Prepared a long response, but range block seems to have eliminated the need. Meters (talk) 04:02, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

I'll hang on to a copy of my ec for awhile in case anyone has any questions. Most of the edit history does not show up on the range-blocked OP's 2605:b100:111d:e1d3::/64 The editor was originally on a different range at 2605:B100:1116:A078:AD6F:E9C9:333:E8E2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) but specifies above that they are the same user. Meters (talk) 04:20, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

This block range doesn't affect the OP. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:27, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

It looks to me like it does - it will affect all IP addresses starting with 2605:b100:111d:e1d3. Am I missing something? Girth Summit _(blether) 10:34, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Having said that, I'm not sure whether it will be effective, assuming they're the same person on 2605:B100:1116:A078:AD6F:E9C9:333:E8E2. The block would need to cover at least the /44 range to catch both of those addresses. Girth Summit _(blether) 10:37, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

I'm thinking of creating an SPI to document this case, making it easier to deal with further socks and reduce the time suckage. One of the earlier IPs was clear about returning with socks [103] [104] [105] and it seems as if they meant it. Meters (talk) 22:46, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

DrHunsuayHuaken

As described under #Cambodia–Thailand culture war above, DrHunsuayHuaken (talk · contribs) (and 2001:44C8:42B9:4E4E:6D92:C4D:9A00:BCAF (talk · contribs · WHOIS)) is one such bad-faith editor persistently disruptively editing to push a WP:FRINGE POV based on the denialism of the existence of the Khmer Empire, which is unaccepted by reliable sources. Reported to AIV but declined by User:HJ Mitchell, who suggested raising the issue here instead.

Their username is also a violation of policy on profanities in usernames, as it's Thai wordplay translating approximately to "c*ckwad Hun Sen". --Paul_012 (talk) 09:20, 1 October 2023 (UTC) --Paul_012 (talk) 09:20, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

• I have blocked the account for a week, and the /64 IP range for a month. Any possibility of assuming good faith evaporated whwn I found that the editor had repeatedly changed the title of a cited source to give the impression that the source supported their version, whereas in fact it supports the version they were edit-warring to remove. If the problem resumes I will be willing to consider the possibility of1 an indefinite block. I have not been able to confirm what you have said about the username, Paul_012, but if that is true it would be further reason to incline towards an indefinite block. JBW (talk) 14:13, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
  • Thank you. Regarding the name, it's indirect and so rather hard to conclusively demonstrate to those unfamiliar with the language. Boing! said Zebedee is the only (former) admin I know who's familiar with Thailand and currently somewhat active, but I'm not sure if they're fluent enough with the language to help. --Paul_012 (talk) 14:45, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
    • Afraid not, sorry. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:18, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

User:GeekWriter

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

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

Having failed to remove sourced content from the Sons of Confederate Veterans article, or to discuss the disputed content, User:GeekWriter has blanked the entire thing as 'propaganda'. [106] WP:NOTHERE would seem to apply. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:40, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

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

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

The content you removed [107] all looks to be properly sourced, and you replaced secondary sources with primary ones. In general Wikipedia is more interested in what secondary sources say about a subject, than what a subject says about themselves. Either way discussing the matter on the articles talk page is more appropriate than blanking the article. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 16:29, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

User:Bayreuth0115

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

Here’s what I think, and you can choose to take or not take the advice given:

You could seek formal intervention by reporting the user to Wikipedia’s appropriate dispute resolution forum, emphasizing the user’s persistent revert of edits, refusal to communicate, and disregard for warnings and Wikipedia guidelines. While framing your report, meticulously document each instance of the said behavior, referencing specific edits, ignored warnings, and neglected talk page discussions, to substantiate your claims. This will allow the administrators to impartially evaluate the situation, based on the evidence provided, and decide on a suitable course of corrective action, such as a warning, temporary block, or other sanctions, in accordance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Hope that helps, TheAlienMan2002 (talk) 15:55, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

This is a behavioral issue that doesn't appear to come under any of the more specialized noticeboards, so this is the appropriate dispute resolution forum. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:27, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

This sounds like it was written by ChatGPT (which would help explain its uselessness). --JBL (talk) 17:16, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

This, too. Not encouraging. --JBL (talk) 17:20, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Hmm, yes, it does. I don't think we have anything to fear from AI that is so obvious. We may have something to fear from AI that is not detected. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:26, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Nichole Ouellette accusing me of vandalism at Talk:Sainte-Anne-de-la-Pérade

Nichole Ouellette (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This editor has done multiple edits that break multiple MOS guidelines (such as on this page, this one, this one, this one), and when I reverted one of them, they started crying vandalism. I sent them a message, but I feel like them crying vandalism (and there's also copyright issues, so it's not just that) is egregious enough that it warrants the drama boards. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 16:06, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Nichole, there has been no vandalism here, but a disagreement about the content of the article. Please discuss it at Talk:Sainte-Anne-de-la-Pérade without any accusations against anyone else. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:21, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Extra Eyes Please on James Gordon Meek

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

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

Basher Six

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

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

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

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

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

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