Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents: Difference between revisions

Dustfreeworld claimed that sourced information cannot be verified [1]. I provided verification [2] using sources already in the article. They did not engage in the discussion but removed the information [3] [4] and placed a warning on my talk page, even though there is nothing wrong with most of my edits [5]. This seems like a WP:CIR issue. Vacosea (talk) 04:22, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This case is mostly a content dispute, but Dustfreeworld has failed to discuss as part of the BRD cycle. I am not an admin, but if Vacosea wants to reinsert the information they feel is not covered, I would be happy to support the inclusion temporarily until discussion is completed, acting as an informal third opinion. Be careful not to revert, thereby deleting the many changes that have been made since your edit, simply make a minimal edit which includes the information you wish to see included.

Dustfreeworld probably needs to show awareness that following a revert which the other user takes exception to, discussion is not optional. Boynamedsue (talk) 06:46, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's not like that at all, in my reading. Dustfreeworld has not removed anything put by Vacosea, except take out small details due to BLP issues (changing of "cheated three times" to "cheated", or changing "separated for more than two years" to "separated", as these are sourced to breaking news reports). Has Vacosea done anything wrong? No; these are editorial calls. Is Dustfreeworld required mandatorily to comment on the talk page of the article? Absolutely not. Is Dustfreeworld's warning to Vacosea uncalled for? Well, yeah... I think Dustfreeworld did not realise the impact that such a template may cause to an editor who is excitedly placing, whatever can be sourced, into the article. Like what is mentioned above, it is an editorial issue and need not be discussed here. Vacosea, request Dustfreeworld again to give his pov on the article's talk page. For future disputes, please follow the procedures listed out at dispute resolution. Thanks, Lourdes 07:56, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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 [6] [7], 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 [8]. Their justifications are all contradictory, but I suppose I can try discussing with them one time. Vacosea (talk) 16:51, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

For the record, out of the 30+ edits made by User:Vacosea to the article Coco Lee, 16 of them involved removal of content, most of which was added by me. You can see that from the page’s history [9]. And yes, I DO think that “Their justifications are all contradictory, but I suppose I can try discussing with them one time”, too. --Dustfreeworld (talk) 19:09, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This does not explain their refusal to check with the sources and engage in discussion, and placing a warning template on my talk page about "stop adding unreferenced or poorly referenced" information. It just goes on to show the contradictory and ever changing nature of their complaint. Vacosea (talk) 19:51, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree DustFreeworld answered a reasonable request to discuss with a warning template, that is treading into personal attack territory. Boynamedsue (talk) 16:56, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Actually no, scrub that, the warning came first, it wasn't warranted, but it wasn't in response to the request to discuss. Boynamedsue (talk) 23:55, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for the clarification Boynamedsue :) Perhaps you can strike that as well? In case people may misread. Thanks again. --Dustfreeworld (talk) 19:14, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the warning [10] came after the talk section [11] [12]. Vacosea (talk) 19:51, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

The vast majority of my edits were accurate. After the cite check, I adjusted some details. Moving out and separating are not always the same thing anyway. On the other hand, Dustfreeworld didn't seem to have checked with any sources before reverting other information again, even though I showed the sources for correction, including early 2023/early this year. They placed a warning template, out of nowhere, about "stop adding unreferenced or poorly referenced" information on my talk page. Just because their talk page has received many notices from other editors in the past doesn't mean they should be doing that with mine. Vacosea (talk) 19:51, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

And User:Vacosea is still adding the contentious and likely wrong information to the article today. Surely this is not the first time that this user is warned on sourcing and content additions:

• 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)[reply]

Vast majority does not mean one or two disputes. If Dustfreeworld wants to engage in good faith discussion [13], they should not have waited until ANI while reverting away in the mean time [14][15], 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? [16] User talk:Wpscatter#Korean cuisine [17] They have complained about verification, refused to look at verification, warned me about "references", even though the sources have been there all along, complained about me removing content, complained about my accuracy, when are they going to stop? Vacosea (talk) 21:54, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I’ve posted on the BLP notice board as well: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Coco Lee. I believe the issue is important as it may have real life consequences on the financial arrangements of the subjects’ family, and that the dubious information may also be defamatory. --Dustfreeworld (talk) 22:03, 27 September 2023 (UTC)--Dustfreeworld (talk) 23:11, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Dustfreeworld Please don't toss words like defamatory around on Wikipedia. That can have a chilling effect on other editors and may result in a WP:NLT block. I'd suggest striking through that statement, just for clarity. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:02, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Wikipedia contains over a million articles about living persons. From both a legal and an ethical standpoint, it is essential that a determined effort be made to eliminate defamatory and other inappropriate material from these articles"... It's important for an editor to be able to point out stuff that is potentially defamatory. We might actually be effecting a chilling effect by telling editors to not point out such stuff. Thanks, Lourdes 17:20, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

“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)[reply]

Key words: a discussion about, not just lobbing the word into a comment and leaving it there like a ticking time bomb. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:06, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What they wrote about me on that board, "please stop your continual and deliberate false accusations", was baseless and itself potentially defamatory [18]. Their edits there focus too much on linking back to this ANI to begin with. Vacosea (talk) 17:47, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Vacosea May I reiterate what another user said above: “Please don't toss words like defamatory around on Wikipedia. That can have a chilling effect on other editors and may result in a WP:NLT block. I'd suggest striking through that statement, just for clarity”. Thanks :) --Dustfreeworld (talk) 18:12, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The one who is engaging in baseless personal attack is Dustfreeworld, however hard they try to change the subject or reframe around it. Vacosea (talk) 22:42, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

And IMHO, what’s more important is that, people who are able to make the right judgement (believe the actual facts) may also have very negative impressions on those who keep repeating the lies (no matter those are organisations, governments or individual). Besides thinking that those are liars, people may also think that they are not reasonable. --Dustfreeworld (talk) 09:45, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

I would suggest that, when you are being accused of making personal attacks, it is probably better not to respond by comparing the other party to a genocidal war criminal. Also, ixnay on the rolltay word, would have thought that was obvious, especially here. Boynamedsue (talk) 14:47, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I can't read your mind from edit summaries only or a warning template [19] if you skip discussion on the talk page [20], even though you were active on Coco Lee and other articles and talk pages, including ones I was also editing [21]. The times cheated and separation time were not "another issue" or "corrected". They had been there since early on, through all the time you placed your recent death template [22], was reverted [23], and your cite check template [24]. "No consesus on talk is required before the deletion", while you could argue for it, is a very recent new point. Vacosea (talk) 19:41, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

I see some potential behavior issues that resemble forum shopping [25] (not because they posted there per se but their focus on linking to this ANI) and canvassing [26] (in the edit summary). They may have couched their aspersion of "lie"/"lies"/"liar" here, but repeat it so often that it feels gamey [27] [28]. Overconfident in their ability but quick to cast suspicion [29] [30]. Excessive text and highlighting [31][32] dance around the fact of their baseless personal attack [33] and what has been described as [34]. Vacosea (talk) 10:19, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Making accusations against another editor, which you have done again, requires evidence. Your personal attack [35] on the BLP board should be mentioned here at ANI, but you should not have brought this ANI to the BLP board [36]. Your edit summary was also inaccurate [37]. 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)[reply]

This should be my first edit on August 23 [38]. The number of citations Dustfreeworld kept could make short sentences. Multiple empty section templates had been added since August 2 [39]. I'm not out to get anyone and can take their word for it. What motivated me to come here, beside their warning template and skipping discussion, was that overall, what they were doing defied any easy explanation, at least to me looking from the outside. Vacosea (talk) 19:50, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If all those continual false accusations against me can make your day, you can keep on, I’m fine with that. :) --Dustfreeworld (talk) 19:59, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Which one was false? Vacosea (talk) 20:20, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Almost all are false. --Dustfreeworld (talk) 11:04, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

More than a week after saying similar things [40], you have not provided evidence. See Accusing others of bad faith. Vacosea (talk) 07:11, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I did assume good faith, but then I know I was wrong and is am deeply disappointed. [41][42] --Dustfreeworld (talk) 13:06, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you are not getting the point. I'm talking about your claim that I lied or falsely accused you deliberately [43] [44]. Vacosea (talk) 11:12, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Assume the good faith assumption that everyone has the assumption of everyone assuming good faith, assuming that you are assuming the assumption of good faith^[1] --Dustfreeworld (talk) 12:40, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Even new discussion about edits are turned into "false allegations" and "misinformation" [45] [46]. This last sentence may be why [47] and what's influencing their outlook. Vacosea (talk) 22:09, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• This discussion reminds me of children fighting incessantly in the back seat of the station wagon during a family road trip. "Just cut it out ... Don't make me pull this car over!" Cbl62 (talk) 17:16, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Yeah, there are completely evidence free accusations being thrown around without care. This is not helpful. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 15:00, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  (Don't tell me s01 is going to get archived now... Lourdes 06:32, 12 October 2023 (UTC))[reply]

  Someone close this and let the highlighted paragraphs go back to the talk page.... And if anyone is willing, keep an eye there. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 09:43, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Archived..... --Dustfreeworld (talk) 12:47, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Thank you. Lourdes 06:21, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Democfest (talk · contribs) edited the Junlper article to use masculine pronouns (as Junlper is a transgender woman, this is against MOS:GENDERID) for and slur the subject of the article. CJ-Moki (talk) 23:01, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And you reverted it. What is the administrator issue here? 331dot (talk) 23:04, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@331dot: Democfest included a derogatory term for transgender people which I'd argue is a massive WP:BLP violation. If they didn't have more than 3 years of editing experience, this would normally be a solid report for WP:AIV. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 23:08, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

MOS:GENDERID is a manual of style; It doesn't dictate any policies or guidelines. _→AzaToth 23:18, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not using slurs to refer to BLP subjects is pretty solid policy. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:21, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's beside the point. MOS:GENDERID shouldn't be used as a WP:BLP argument; It should only address manual of style. _→AzaToth 23:29, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Deliberate misgendering is BLPvio. That has very strong community consensus. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:32, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@331dot and AzaToth: GENDERID isn't mandatory since, as part of the MOS, it's a guideline and not a policy. I know! That said, are we sure it's not mandatory? I could be wrong but I think that if someone makes an edit that isn't in compliance with GENDERID, the only way it won't also be a BLP violation is if it's about someone who's no longer living. User:CJ-Moki correctly reported that an edit about a living person was against GENDERID. Would you two have blocked had they cited BLP instead? CityOfSilver 19:22, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Do you not see the administrator issue involved in calling a BLP subject slurs in their article? Googleguy007 (talk) 18:30, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at their timecard, and their recent editing times, this seems like an unusual time for them to edit. Any possibility of account compromise here? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:20, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

probably not so; user has received two previous blocks for WP:AE followed by one for personal attacks. I'd probably believe that this is them. —darling (talk) 23:24, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

slightly less recent editing times (September) also seem to include rather late editing times around that edit. —darling (talk) 23:25, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

also see this diff. —darling (talk) 23:32, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like Patar knight has taken care of this for now. Izno (talk) 23:38, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I blocked from the article history after I saw the post on the talk page by an IP on my watchlist (hence the manual block template on the user talk page). Inserting slurs into a BLP article is unacceptable, and paired with the less serious violations of MOS:GENDERID seemed to indicate deliberateness and malice, so I blocked at first instance. Any other admin should feel free to unblock if there's evidence that this was a compromised account that has been re-secured, upon a sufficient unblock request, or if there is consensus here against the block for whatever reason. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 23:42, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Can I just say that people dismissing adding attacks and misgendering to a BLP is kind of a problem, to the point of WP:Competence is required issues. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.5% of all FPs.} 23:45, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I was wondering that myself. Did they even look at the diff in question? Oh well, it's irrelevant now. Black Kite (talk) 18:00, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair, the edit was revdel'd. I saw it, but a lot of people commenting after me who aren't admins wouldn't know what it said specifically (though that isn't an excuse for ignoring my comment where I explicitly stated there was a slur there). –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 06:27, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not only did I revdel it because of the slur at 23:10 UTC, which is before everything but MJL's first comment here, I think the grammatical mistake in the initial post may have misled the first repliers. Taking out the parenthetical about JUNlPER being trans/MOS:GENDERID, the verb phase of the sentence is: "...edited the Junlper article to use masculine pronouns...for and slur the subject of the article. That could easily be interpreted as saying that the misgendering itself was meant to slur the subject and not that the editor had inserted a slur independent of the misgendering. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 12:11, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's a plausible explanation for 331dot, but not AzaToth, who was replying to a comment that said explicitly that Democfest included a derogatory term for transgender people. It even linked the specific term.

I also agree that this is pretty egregious and a WP:Competence is required issue. Loki (talk) 07:16, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Writing here as User:Elemimele recomended here. Previouse history you can see here.

In small words: Oleg Burlakov systematicaly converted by user:ssr into attack page against widow of Oleg Burlakov and his daughters. He rejected my attempts to discuss the massive violations of WP:BLP rule and undid all my articles edits. Burlakov case articles made by him is an original research with selective presentation of information whose content exclusively compromises the same widow and daughter. At the time of writing this article, in addition, the author could not cite a single source that would unite all the cases mentioned in it as the “Burlakov case”. The links he provided in the discussion of the proposal to delete the article Burlakov case to articles mentioning this term are frankly dishonest disinformation. None of these articles mentions the Burlakov case as a whole set of heterogeneous events listed by the author in the article.

The participant shows serious persistence in disseminating this information - after it was removed from the Oleg Burlakov article in the Russian section of Wikipedia, he created there a separate article, Burlakov Case (at russian), which was deleted as original research. Without ever entering into a discussion of the legality of deleting the information he disseminated in Russian, he began to replicate it in other language sections - in addition to English, he created versions of the same article Burlakov case in German, French, Spanish and Latvian, despite the fact that articles about Oleg Burlakov himself is not available in these languages. This suggests that he acts in a biased manner and is interested in a certain non-neutral presentation of the material, perhaps acting on a profitable basis.

I'm asking administrators to help with this situation. I suggest removing the Burlakov case article as an obvious and redundant fork of the Oleg Burlakov article (all info can be merged in main article and somehow forcing user:ssr to meaningfully discuss how the edits he makes violate the rules and how to avoid this by correcting the text. When I wrote about these violations earlier, I did not receive a single meaningful answer, yet these violations are obvious, I discussed them in detail here. Thank you in advance. Джонни Уокер (talk) 12:05, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Джонни Уокер You have failed to notify Ssr (talk · contribs) of this report, as the red notice on top of this page clearly requires. I have done so for you this time. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). 13:10, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I repeat for the 3rd or 5th time: the account "Джонни Уокер" is a "farmed sockpuppet" account. Any admin can conclude it from their contributions. Please ban this account ASAP so they not generate more useless requests and distract all of us from regular work. -- ssr (talk) 13:10, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Stats: as one can judge from their contributions, this is the 4th noticeboard this user uselessly try to exploit. Previously there were: "No original research/Noticeboard", "Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard", and "Articles for deletion". All the attempts were useless. This time we see another useless attempt, so the user is apparently repeatedly abusing the system whilst having 0 useful edits. -- ssr (talk) 13:29, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Джонни Уокер, in my opinion, the current fork of the case page does focus significantly negatively on living people who may (or may not) be notable only for a single series of events. It is an editorial call whether this qualifies under WP:BLP1E or not. You are right that if the fork were merged into the main article, it becomes easier to determine editorially what would be a good NPOV balance, especially as multiple living persons are involved here and the danger of seeing the case page as an attack page is significantly high right now. I see that the past BLPN and AfD efforts did not get significant response, but there were comments in your support. While I don't want this to sound as a forum-shopping expedition, you could start an RfC on the talk page of the Burlakov Case article to ask whether one should merge the details back into the main article; you could refer to the discussion here as a basis. As far as Ssr is concerned, they don't seem to have any ulterior motive - although the Burlakov Case was created by them, has the highest contributions from them, and of all articles to which they have contributed, this stands as the second highest -- which could explain why they might not wish this to be deleted. Again, ANI will not take an editorial call. You will have to try and reach consensus perhaps through an RfC. Lastly, if you find any significant legal concerns, rather than writing them on any talk page on Wikipedia, directly contact legal@wikimedia.org. Thank you, Lourdes 14:35, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is even a special Wikimedia Ukraine statement regarding this sockpuppet farm. -- ssr (talk) 05:42, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have not been active on Wikipedia for some weeks (off-wiki life suddenly got in the way). When the Burlakov Case article was nominated for deletion, there were allegations of ownership and general bad behaviour. I suggested that the allegations be dealt with here (if anyone felt strongly enough), while the content issue be dealt with by any of the standard mechanisms of dispute resolution. My feeling was that mere deletion or merging (the job of AfD) would just move the underlying problem to the main Oleg Burlakov article. I still think this is true. The allegations should either stop, or be investigated, but they don't help in sorting out the general issue of what should be in the article(s).

I don't want to get into judging the behaviour, that's for anyone daft enough to want to be an admin. Nor do I really want to get into the content at this stage (I don't know if/when I'll return to Wikipedia). But ssr I would comment that regardless of the sheer quantity of legal stuff going on about Burlakov, it is very important that we don't call it "The Burlakov case" unless someone has lumped all the legal stuff together and called it either exactly this in English, or something that unequivocally translates to this from Russian. Otherwise we are synthesising. Perhaps an imperfect analogy, but Partygate can have an article of that name, because sources external to Wikipedia brought together a lot of parties and complaints and gave them exactly that name as one whole joined-up thing. We have to be extremely careful of creating an overall viewpoint when people involved in it are still alive. Elemimele (talk) 11:23, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your involvement! It is very valuable as I see almost no people wishing to help me with the article in positive way (yes it is complicated I know =))) Here is the particular English source that operates the exact term "Burlakov's case" (it is present in the article). But I don't mind renaming the article according to WP:consensus. There are many articles that have "generalized" title. For example — List of Linux distributions. Such articles don't need to have a reliable source that exactly introduce the term "List of Linux distributions". The article just needs some title. On 14 August 2023 user:Auric, while commenting here, proposed titles "Burlakov inheritance cases" or "Burlakov inheritance suits". I don't mind renaming in such way, the shorter version "Burakov case" is simply more convenient. -- ssr (talk) 12:00, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As I say, I don't know the subject, and don't want to get involved, but (1) the alternative titles seem sensible if others also dislike the current title, and (2) at the moment Burlakov case has a statement "Burlakov's wife and daughters started to demonstrate aggressive behaviour towards him" with no source attached, which is extremely problematic. Elemimele (talk) 09:37, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

After this sentence, there are several properly sourced mentions about assassination attempts attributed directly to the women. Anyway, thank you for your help, I will try to attribute exactly this sentence (there are many sources). -- ssr (talk) 09:41, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ssr, can you please show here the sources which clearly mention

1. That "Burlakov's wife and daughters started to demonstrate aggressive behaviour towards him".
2. Given your above statement, can you also show here the reliable source that you have used in the article that attribute the assassination attempts directly to Burlakov's wife and daughters?
3. In the article, you have written a statement, "Oleg Burlakov openly named his wife, daughters and Gregory Gliner as the organizers of his attempted assassination". Can you show the sources that you have mentioned in the article where Burlakov has named his daughters and Gregory Gliner as the organisers?

While ANI will not decide on content issues, the question out here is whether you have created an attack page. Will await your response on this. Thanks, Lourdes 06:25, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy ping to Ritchie333 who closed the Afd associated with the page. Lourdes 06:39, 16 October 2023 (UTC))[reply]

@Lourdes: as I can reply right out now, whithout further seeking, lets's see the literal paragraph that you cite.

Many extra sources can be added as the story has been having heavy coverage in world media (thus is notable). And I don't mind changing the article in the way it looks more clear. I will gladly discuss it with regular Wikimedians such as yourself and other editors who have valuable contributions. Please ask me for more if you like! I just extracted some things from the article. We can find more sources, as there are more appearing and not all of the existing ones is present in the article (let's add as many as needed). -- ssr (talk) 07:34, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough Ssr. I can understand the weight of material that is available on this case. In my opinion (this is just an opinion, you don't have to act on it), the article fork carries the danger of being considered an attack page due to the excessive negative stuff written. Therefore, you can consider including NPOV statements (such as, the comments of the wife and daughters' lawyers who said that investigation did not find any such accusation to be true... and such stuff) as well as ensuring that no statement should be left uncited or be an original research (such as, your line of the wife and daughters displaying an aggressive attitude towards the subject -- that is clear OR). Having said that, this discussion will not go on any further at ANI. Thank you for providing all required details. Please improve the article further. And happy editing. Lourdes 08:45, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For three months, Darker Dreams has been engaging in disruptive editing on articles related to Witchcraft. It seems they've set out to 'right great wrongs' by pushing an unhistorical neopagan-feminist view of Witchcraft. They've been edit warring, misrepresenting sources, ignoring consensus, making POV forks, wrongly accusing others of vandalism, and ignoring good-faith requests. All are listed examples of tendentious editing. DD was recently blocked for edit warring but has continued after being repeatedly warned to stop. In the report, CorbieVreccan said: "This is tendentious editing. The user edit-wars to the edge of 3RR, is reverted by multiple editors, then takes a break for a day or more, then resumes the disruption".

Edit warring on Witchcraft:

• 11 July - 1st revert - replaced the longstanding academically-sourced definition with a bare URL dictionary definition, and a claim not backed by the source
• 11 July - 2nd revert - said they were ignoring BRD because "it's optional" and accused editors of OWN
• 12 July - 3rd revert
• 13 July - 4th revert - put the off-topic Wiccan meaning at the top of the lead

The article was then protected for a while and went through a Dispute Resolution and a Request for Comment. While these were ongoing, DD filed an Arbitration Request, which meant the Dispute Resolution had to be failed. The mediator, Robert McClenon, said "the filing of the arbitration request was not only unnecessary, but vexatious", and called on ArbCom to admonish DD. The RfC ended in mid September, when DD's disruption resumed...

• 14 Sept - misrepresented the sources. I reverted and asked for quotes to back it up. Instead of doing that, they reverted me and immediately warned me for 'edit warring', just for reverting them once. When I tagged the claim, they just deleted the tag and falsely claimed the quotes were on the talkpage somewhere.
• 20 Sept - deleted the important and reliably-sourced detail that 'neopagan witchcraft' is mainly a Western anglophone phenomenon, calling it "extra words that distract".
• 20 Sept - deleted more important reliably-sourced detail that contradicted something they added.
• 20 Sept - again deleted the statement
• 23 Sept - misrepresented the source, to make it seem that it talked about witchcraft as positive.
• 23 Sept - misrepresented the source again
• 24 Sept - 1st revert of the above, implying in their summary that Wikipedia doesn't have to follow sources closely.
• 24 Sept - 2nd revert
• 25 Sept - 3rd revert, calling it "POV pushing"
• In a discussion about the above; three editors agree Darker Dreams is misrepresenting sources.
• 27 Sept - 4th revert (just outside the 24hr window), calling it "POV pushing", despite unanimous opposition.
• 3 Oct - deleted a whole section and references, without discussion, about how the pagan Romans had laws against witchcraft - 1st revert
• 3 Oct - deleted the whole section again, 2nd revert
• 4 Oct - deleted the whole section again, 3rd revert
• 12 Oct - deleted the whole section again, 1st revert
• 12 Oct - deleted the whole section again, 2nd revert
• 12 Oct - deleted the whole section again, 3rd revert
• They also deleted another section and its references, leaving only one unsourced sentence. When asked to replace it, they added different content and references that backed up their POV.

Edit warring on Witchcraft (disambiguation):

• 11 July - 1st revert
• 12 July - 2nd revert
• 19 July - 1st revert again, accused editors of "POV pushing"
• 19 July - 2nd revert
• 19 July - 3rd revert, saying "last stable version isn't a valid thing".

Edit warring on Witchcraft (sidebar):

• 5 Sept - 1st revert
• 5 Sept - 2nd revert
• 5 Sept - 3rd revert
• 5 Sept - 4th revert
• 27 Sept - another revert, bizarrely right after posting a RS quote on the talkpage that contradicted themselves.

They created three POV forks of Witchcraft:

• Witchcraft (traditional) was deleted as a POV fork, with several editors noting that it misrepresented sources.
• Witchcraft (diabolic) was deleted as a POV fork
• Witchcraft (feminist) was created with only one reference; requests for more have been ignored; article left as a stub.

Edit warring on Witchcraft (traditional) - this was deleted, but admins can see the diffs here.

In the last ANI discussion involving them, several editors proposed they be topic banned.

Netherzone:

"I immediately got the impression that they were trying to right great wrongs. I found ... some of the accusations and personal attacks on the talk page disruptive and incivil ... they were making rapid changes to the article without respecting other editors through civil discussion and consensus building".

Thebiguglyalien:

"Darker Dreams and a small number of other editors are frustrated that the article does not reflect the Western neopagan understanding of witchcraft, and they have spent well over a month trying new things to move it in that direction each time their changes are contested, which raises issues of religious POV pushing. ... There are also serious bludgeoning issues as these same editors are dominating the conversation".

CorbieVreccan summed it up at ArbCom:

"I've lost track of all of DD's policy violations and misrepresentations of policy. ... They've been chronically disruptive, incivil, and look to me to have engaged in tag-teaming".

This is clearly a behavioral issue. I thought things had calmed down, but they've started yet again after a few days, and they're now challenging the agreed wording after the RfC didn't go their way. This has been a huge time sink and unfortunately I don't think these articles will have stability unless DD is blocked from them. – Asarlaí ^(talk) 10:33, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Asarlaí has made several accusations with a lot of diffs. The problem is it all ignores several key points.

1. Asarlaí contends that I am “pushing an unhistorical neopagan-feminist view of Witchcraft.” This is the foundation of their presumption that I’m performing 'tendentious editing,' including seeking to 'right great wrongs,' and justification for a number of their own comments and actions throughout this dispute.

1a. This is based on the assertion that there are only two valid definitions of witchcraft to be covered; malevolent and Neopagan. (I assume Asarlaí will willingly acknowledge this.)

1b. This is despite the fact the article contains multiple quoted reliable sources that demonstrate additional definitions as valid, including from a source they have referenced. Addition of properly sourced information is not tendatious or disruptive. All of the other conflicts (and accusations) flow from this

2 I prefer to work based on edit based consensus. This is in accordance with policy (WP:EDITCON). I would rather put work towards making improvements, rather than talking about making improvements. I have demonstrated on several occasions with multiple people in the witchcraft-related area and elsewhere that I’m willing to start at or move to talk when it’s useful, and more than happy for back-and-forth edits to produce improvement. It’s clear that my preference in this has been profoundly off-putting for some people. I find it concerning that work done in accordance with policy has been treated as evidence of bad faith and a behavior problem.

3. Several statements have been made that the RfC “didn’t go my way.” I’m deeply unclear where that belief is coming from – my initial edit and major point of contention was de-centering the primacy of one singular definition in what claimed to be a broad-concept article. The removal of malevolence and harm from the first two sentences was in accordance with sources and policy; ie - it was my way. Further, I am concerned that Asarlaí (and, frankly, a number of other people) view this as something I “lost,” like any part of this ongoing dispute is fight to be won.

I encourage anyone interested to take a deeper look at both Asarlaí and my ongoing involvement with the constellation of witchcraft-related pages.

I will address individual actions or sets of actions if desired. However, every choice I have made has been to improve coverage based on citable, notable information. - Darker Dreams (talk) 16:34, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am not alleging bad faith editing on the part of User:Darker Dreams, and I don't think that anyone is alleging that. POV-pushing is good-faith disruptive editing. It is done in order to improve the encyclopedia. It just doesn't improve the encyclopedia, because neutral point of view is the second pillar of Wikipedia. I may address the other points within 36 hours. Robert McClenon (talk) 07:18, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The timing of this report is not so good for me as I am traveling at this time. I will chime in with my thoughts on this matter in the next few days, please keep the report open. Thank you. Netherzone (talk) 15:30, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As this discussion directly relates to the content of and consensus around the Witchcraft article, I have placed a notice on the Talk:Witchcraft page using roughly the text from the standard user notice. - Darker Dreams (talk) 19:23, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Robert McClenon

Not again! I haven't followed this controversy in the past month. I became involved in July 2023 when User:Darker Dreams filed a DRN request. Darker Dreams was and is unhappy about the content of the article on Witchcraft and related articles, and filed a DRN request listing 22 users. The only dispute resolution process that works well with that many users is an RFC. An RFC was begun to try to get consensus on the scope of the article by getting consensus on the lede paragraph of the article. Darker Dreams then filed a Request for Arbitration while we were still working on the DRN. It wasn't clear what Darker Dreams wanted ArbCom to do, but this was forum shopping and was vexatious litigation. I see that User:Asarlaí has filed a detailed account of conduct issues. I will review Asarlai's filing and will comment further. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:13, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have read most of the material posted by Asarlai. I haven't read the diffs that were before my unsuccessful mediation. I am particularly concerned by the most recent edit-warring on witchcraft in pre-Christian ancient Rome, both because the clock-watching to game the 3RR rule is obvious, and because the POV-pushing is obvious. They are trying to hide the fact that there was a concept of malevolent witchcraft in a European pagan society. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:03, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User:Darker Dreams writes: I prefer to work based on edit based consensus.. Yes. That statement is empty, because we all prefer to work based on consensus. The question is what does an editor do when they are in the minority. What Darker Dreams does is to continue to push their POV. I will keep my remaining remarks shorter than sometimes. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:03, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I continue to be surprised by @Robert McClenon's adamance about assuming my bad faith since the failed mediation, including their willingness to admittedly ignore and refuse to acknowledge information.

1. While stating that I am POV pushing @Robert McClenon has failed to address in any way the core of the issue; that my "POV" is fundimental Wikipedia policy; include sourced material and the "counterpoint" is to remove or suppress that material.

2. They acknowledge that they have not reviewed the situation prior to the unsuccessful mediation. As such, I assume that when he says "what does an editor do when they are in the minority." they are unaware of multiple editors who were ground down and run off from the Witchcraft article prior to my arrival in the conversation. Corbie Vreccan said bluntly at one point that they repeatedly had the same conversations.

3. They have repeatedly described my filing at ARBCOM as vexatious and litigatious forum shopping. This is particularly shocking to me because there was nothing about the RfC process I was unhappy with. My only frustration with the DRN process was how much Asarlai and others were uninterested and unwilling to engage with it at multiple points. They were the ones that argued against the process beginning, and regularly did not participate. I have explained previously that I opened the ARBCOM case because I assumed the DRN would be failed after Corbie Vreccan opened a separate noticeboard case against me on a related page. However, @Robert McClenon has never acknowledged that I voiced this concern.

4. No one prior to this moment has voiced that their concern about removing the Roman history section was that they felt it was hiding a concept of malevolent witchcraft in European pagan society. The summary currently present in the overall witchcraft article is the lead from the European witchcraft article. Those unhappy with the move of the Rome section have not sought to change that intro in accordance with this concern. I have transferred the changes that have been made from one to the other without issue.

5. The idea that my "clock-watching is obvious" and that I prefer to work on edit-based consensus are part of the same thing; "taking it to talk" has more than once become a place to ignore things until they are pushed with edits to the page. For example, I opened a section on the talk page regarding the move of the Roman material to the European Witchcraft page. @Asarlaí still has not replied on that talk section after more than a week, another editor has replied supporting the move, and choosing instead to open this case.

As I said when @Robert McClenon comment at the ARBCOM request; I do feel bad that the mediation ended. I deeply appreciate the work they put into it. I think that it was making positive progress, and would have preferred to remain with that process, except that I felt other editors who were vocally unhappy with participating were being litigious and forum shopping in a way that would have failed the mediation. - Darker Dreams (talk) 00:02, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, the only remedy should be an indefinite topic-ban from the subject matter of witchcraft, magic, and the supernatural, broadly defined.

• Support as proposer. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:03, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support We do not need determined POV pushers operating in fringe topic areas. Cullen328 (talk) 00:06, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. This is a consistent pattern of singleminded, WP:SANCTIONGAMING, PoV-pushing disruption within this specific topic-area. But the T-ban should probably also include paganism, lest this behavior just side-shift to a closely-related sphere (an argument can be made that paganism isn't covered by "witchcraft, magic, and the supernatural", and it's not an argument we need to entertain).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:29, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - POVpushing and disruptive attempts to game the system. “Supernatural”, broadly defined, seems to cover religion in general, including Paganism. FOARP (talk) 06:41, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  If we want to include religion and paganism in the ban, we should probably mention them explicitly, just so there aren't disputes on definition down the line...  — Amakuru (talk) 06:55, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - They have been given numerous warnings about their behavior on their talkpage and the Witchcraft talkpage itself; and ignores anybody who tries to stop them from making clearly biased edits with little to no reason besides personal preference Frost.xyz | (talk) 02:06, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - Like I've said elsewhere, I do not think the problems with Witchcraft are down to any single individual including DD. Browsing the diffs, I also think that OP's characterizations of them range between extremely combative and just false. E.g. I'm not really sure what about this diff moving a few paragraphs is misrepresenting a source to make it seem like it's talking about witchcraft as positive? It's quite clearly about witches using powers to harm, on both sides of the edit.

The edit warring, on the other hand, I do think is very concerning, but again, that's not solely on DD: you need two sides to edit war. I think there needs to be some sort of page- or topic-wide sanctions and that sanctions on DD alone are just an obvious attempt to remove an opponent from the topic area. Loki (talk) 02:19, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Clear case made out for the TBAN, though I would prefer the broader one proposed below as (1A). Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 13:09, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support as per my original post. – Asarlaí ^(talk) 21:11, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - topic ban. DD still does not seem to understand this is a behavioral issue not a content issue. They have not modified their behavior over the past several months, rather it seems like they have dug in their heels and have excellerated the frequency and intensity of tendentious editing. They have a sustained an editorial bias that is contrary to NPOV. They have not learned from previous warnings and a block. A topic-ban makes a lot of sense, and I would not object to adding religion to the tban. Netherzone (talk) 21:28, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support The "misrepresentation of sources" diffs are clear. DD has yet to provide a response for those editing failures, instead choosing to extol their own reasonableness. An admission of the obvious wrongdoing might have changed my mind. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:07, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  As I said, I'll answer questions about any of the edits that people want; Adding citation of moral neutrality to granted power To be clear, I did not find this (or the other) citations in response to the conflict. I posted this days before making the edits above. I cited everything that's claimed as "POV misuse of sources" Direct citation of "substances" acting on their own. I could, and probably should, have gone straight to these more direct quotes. However, I was trying for more mild moves and, neutral (NPOV) tones. It is also worth pointing out that Asarlai's response in every case was straight reversion - even when the citation ended up being a description of sympathetic magic based entirely on long-existing citations at the linked page. I was also, frankly, feeling out "consensus" on how close was text should be to citation. Asarlai also does not include their list of edits a number I've made since I got a copy of Hutton's Fear: a History of Witchcraft - because it turns out the book had been used pretty loosely to make unsupported statements for quite a while before I arrived at the page. In fact, the core of the content dispute was that book's definition of malevolent witchcraft being used with the adamant exclusion of it's own support of other definitions. - Darker Dreams (talk) 23:08, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per above. Enough is enough, lots of time and energy being wasted. JM2023 (talk) 04:11, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

To respond to concerns about the possibility of gaming the sanctions, we should expand the topic-ban to witchcraft, magic, religion, and the supernatural, broadly defined. Paganism is a term used to characterize polytheistic religions. Robert McClenon (talk) 07:09, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• support also this, for the reasons already discussed. FOARP (talk) 07:52, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - see above Loki (talk) 02:19, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per above. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 13:09, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per my support for Proposal 1 and per nom. We don't want to allow opportunities to game the system. JM2023 (talk) 04:13, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Moved to Wikipedia:Conflict of Interest/Noticeboard#Bmchedlishvili

See [48]. tgeorgescu (talk) 18:47, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The reports of my death have been greatly exaggerated. RickinBaltimore (talk) 18:51, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thankfully so. --ARoseWolf 18:57, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think I could handle another one right now. BD2412 T 19:06, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think we all know who has the mental health issues, and it is not RickinBaltimore. Cullen328 (talk) 20:07, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My friends would argue that. Seriously, it's an IP troll that's does this sort of thing from time to time. Unless, I'm writing this as a zombie... RickinBaltimore (talk) 20:13, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well I guess that's your Halloween costume sorted then!-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:06, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"This Wikipedian is undead." Narky Blert (talk) 00:52, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Narky Blert Have a quick and dirty userbox to celebrate. Feel free to create your own fork with much better programming than I am at these userboxen. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). 01:04, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@TheDragonFire300: If you would like to try your hand at another - possibly more practical, and certainly usable by RickinBaltimore - the obvious "Reports of this Wikipedian's death have been greatly exaggerated". Narky Blert (talk) 01:28, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Narky Blert Here you go. I'm not really sure what image would work here; the usual candle pic would probably be too easily confused with an actual "This Wikipedian is deceased" userbox, but it'll do as a placeholder for now. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). 01:51, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

TheDragonFire300, surely a pic of Mark Twain ~ it's a misquote, i believe, but that is the source of the phrase. Happy days, ~ Lindsay^Hello 14:26, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@LindsayH Good catch (and says a lot of how much I know of historical figures); I've added it, keeping the candle pic to set up the punchline. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). 23:28, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I thought RickinBaltimore died in prison? Dronebogus (talk) 16:05, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, can an admin please revdel File:Nitin Bajaj.jpg under criteria RD4? The previous revision is an unused and unrelated personal file and it would be easier to just revdel, instead of WP:HISTSPLITing it and then requesting a WP:PROD for the old file. (Sorry if this is the wrong place. {{Editnotices/Page/Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard}} says that any "narrow issue needing an administrator" should be reported here. —Matr1x-101 _{(Ping me when replying)} {_{user page} ^{(@ commons)} - _talk} 18:50, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Matr1x-101: Speaking as a non-administrator, when it comes to revision deletion, I'd recommend contacting an admin of your choice privately via email. A list of those can be found on here under the name "Category:Wikipedia administrators willing to handle RevisionDelete requests" (it unfortunately won't let me link it). I'll also recapitulate the following portion of the "How to request Revision Deletion" section of the WP:Revision deletion policy page I linked above: "To avoid the Streisand effect, there is no dedicated on-wiki forum for requesting revision deletion under [circumstances other than RD1]." If you really do believe this to be oversightable information that falls under RD4, I'd highly recommend using email to bring it to the attention of any of the admins listed under those willing to handle revision deletion requests rather than posting publicly about it here. I know that this was posted in good faith, and I appreciate that, but if you really do believe that this is oversightable, I'd definitely recommend requesting its removal in a more private forum from here on out. JeffSpaceman (talk) 11:43, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@JeffSpaceman As a protip, to wikilink a category (rather than add the page to a category), place a single colon (:) in front of the wikilink, so that the code looks like this: [[:Category:Wikipedia administrators willing to handle RevisionDelete requests]]; and the result looks like this: Category:Wikipedia administrators willing to handle RevisionDelete requests. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). 11:55, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@TheDragonFire300: Wow, I've been on here for over three years, and yet I never knew that before today. Huh. I appreciate you letting me know, I will definitely keep that in mind from here on out. Thanks! JeffSpaceman (talk) 11:58, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This wasn't revdel as its an image. Secretlondon (talk) 11:58, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@JeffSpaceman: Sorry, I made a typo, I meant RD5. Also thanks for the advice about revdelling. —Matr1x-101 _{(Ping me when replying)} {_{user page} ^{(@ commons)} - _talk} 14:05, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've deleted the image featuring a person - I presume that was the one you wanted deleting. Secretlondon (talk) 11:54, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sidenote, I feel like that editnotice should probably say "issue with a specific user, page, or dispute" or something like that. In practice, help requests and other non-user-conduct-related narrow issues absolutely go to AN, not AN/I. AN is even the recommended venue for stuff like titleblacklist exemptions. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 23:21, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Island92 refuses to follow the MOS until forced by multiple users, including enforcing the continued existence of unverified information despite repeated warnings through reverts on their part.

1. Talk:2023 Singapore Grand Prix: In response to being called out for adding unverified information, state that the source provided report generically 'required to start from the pit lane after car was modified whilst under Parc Ferme conditions' rather than more specifically. 5225C tries to explain the issue with this, and Island92 seems to WP:ICANTHEARYOU in response. I re-brought up the issue and Island92 was unwilling to change, and is continuing to enforce the presence of unverified statements.
2. Talk:2023_Qatar_Grand_Prix#The_Lead_(again): after reducing the lead to a single sentence, I link MOS:LEAD. Island92 ignores the MOS, states a lead summary is redundant, and responds Sometimes you should be more elastic and logical-thinking rather than following MOS at all costs. and I tend to follow these parameters, but not too much as your case, with respect. That's why I think being precise is not always the maximum required in everything we do on this encyclopedia.
3. Talk:2023_Qatar_Grand_Prix#Unverifiable_information refuses to allow obvious WP:SYNTH material they added to be removed.

Other problematic and WP:OWNership like behavior has included the following. Not all individually rise above a simple content dispute, but show a patter of behavior when paired with the above policy violations:

1. Talk:2023_Qatar_Grand_Prix#Brief_Descriptions: Not allowing a description of a special race format because Never made in previous Grands Prix consisting of this format. I sought a third opinion, which quickly sided with it's inclusion. The user often will not allow a change to be made if it hasn't been done that way before on a Grand Prix race report.
2. Talk:2023_Qatar_Grand_Prix#Race_vs_Sprint_race refusing to compromise on a confusing terminology issue.
3. Violating MOS:EGG by reverting my fix, without explanation. Island92 later self reverted after I asked for an explanation on the talk page.
4. Misusing "rvv" and accusing others of vandalism, even after being warned multiple times: User_talk:Island92#Incorrect_use_of_vandalism User_talk:Island92#Accusations_of_vandalism. The user apologized for this, but later repeated the problem.

I believe this behavior exceeds simple content disputes, and shows a genuine disregard for Wikipedia's norms. I have been told in multiple ways by Island92 that my desire to follow the policies of guidelines are not a good idea, including You seem to be too set in your ways, very much depended on policies. Be open sometimes in regards to allowing unverified information to remain. Cerebral726 (talk) 20:33, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The procedures are more than source stated. The sporting regulations say start from the back of the grid. This is the first thing happening in any case because Zhou did exceed pu quota. That he started from the pit lane was an extra factor brought by work on car during parc ferme. Always used this sentence since I don't remember when as being linked with sporting regulations. Nothing is unverified information. Practice in use for a huge amount of GP. You noticing it just now. Island92 (talk) 21:17, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Simply put, you need a source saying these things. You cannot deduce them from your own understanding of the regulations & then add that to the article, that is considered original research. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:46, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Island92 has had that explained to them numerous times but continues to enforce WP:V issues. They only conceded after multiple users (in the linked instances below, Pyrope) push back. [49][50][51] Cerebral726 (talk) 16:30, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• You've got two very seperate issues here, and I'd suggest sticking with the one that actually matters, which is adding improperly sourced information. The MOS is guidance, it is not rules and generally speaking nobody should be trying to force anyone else to follow it. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:50, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• I see Beeblebrox's point but I disagree with their assessment of what the issue is. The issue that Island92 has is an extreme dedication to keeping things the same, even if there isn't really a good reason to. I could give examples of this going back much further than 2023. However, I would not like to see Island92 dissuaded from contributing to F1 coverage. Their work is often helpful and productive, it's just that they aren't great at adapting to suggested improvements in how we write articles. This is what has led to the present conflict and most conflict with this user. I do get the impression from a few conversations that English is not their first language, this may be contributing to the situation. In my opinion, Island92 needs a proper warning and explanation that for them to continue being a part of the project they need to be open to the idea that the way we do things can change. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 01:58, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For the last few weeks, from a single IP range in Dayton, Ohio. Preadolescent homophobia and antisemitism. Requesting either a range block or page protection. Thanks, 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 02:20, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I protected the article for six months and blocked the IP range mentioning BLP in the protection summary but later saw that the article concerns a fictional character. I'm not going to worry about that because such a persistent interest often needs a long absence to break the habit. Johnuniq (talk) 03:16, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Cheers, 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 03:27, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

JAhf Reach Cabah (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) is a refspam-only account, interested only in promoting their music. Five career edits. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 09:25, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Mathglot: For what it's worth, I tagged their userpage for speedy deletion under WP:G11, and it appears that it was deleted by User:Deepfriedokra as I was leaving the message informing them of this. JeffSpaceman (talk) 11:52, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

UPDATE: User has been blocked by User:Deepfriedokra. JeffSpaceman (talk) 11:54, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Not just refspam. Self promotion only account and blocked as such. Such can be reported at WP:SPI WP:AIV-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 11:56, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks all; I think I'd heard about AIV before, but forgot. Thanks for the quick action, and the reminder. Mathglot (talk) 17:28, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Uzzwalkhanal (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) has been conducting mass name changes on several Nepalese articles (ex:[53]), redirecting substantial articles ([54], [55] and [56]) and has created duplications of these articles to match their spelling, all without any attempt at discussion. Their talk page is full of warnings from various users about this, yet they refuse to listen. I feel as though a block may be needed. 47.227.95.73 (talk) 12:30, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Given this diff, where the user basically states that they will edit war to get their way no matter what, this user needs an indef NOTHERE block. 47.227.95.73 (talk) 13:36, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I do think a block is necessary, but maybe doesn't need to be indef. The edits seem good faith, if confrontational for their POV. OwainDavies ^(about)_(talk) edited at 13:39, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• (Non-administrator comment): Evidence of @Uzzwalkhanal edit warring, currently at their 5th revert just within the past day at Nepalese rupee (link to page history). Discussion and consensus is needed for what they want changed. Fork99 (talk) 13:53, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Indefinitely blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:40, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Drsmoo has previously had a ARBPIA logged warning about WP:BATTLEGROUND for fostering a battleground environment at Zionism, race and genetics and its talkpage.

Today they've decided they would carry on uncivil WP:BATTLEGROUND behaviour as demonstrated in this edit at Talk:List of Islamist terrorist attacks. I'm calling for a topic ban for Arab-Israeli conflict topic area broadly construed. TarnishedPath^talk 13:01, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please note more battleground behaviour. TarnishedPath^talk 13:07, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please reference this edit in which Drsmoo refers to me as being upset as more evidence about WP:BATTLEGROUND behaviour. TarnishedPath^talk 13:32, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please WP:Boomerang this. I have not made a single personal attack or battleground post and I have no idea what Tarnished Path is talking about. Another editor made a post about “convincing” them, to which I replied that Wikipedia was not about opinions but reliable sources. Tarnished Path asked me to strike my post, so I changed personal pronouns “you” to general one’s “if one”. Tarnished Path continued insisting I was making a personal attack. When I asked, out of genuine confusion, what they were upset about so I could modify it, they took that as a personal attack and started this. I have been trying to edit collegially with Tarnished Path, if they are going to take a gentle question about why they’re upset as an attack then I don’t see how constructive editing is possible. Drsmoo (talk) 13:17, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Edit: Here I specifically asked Tarnished Path what in my edit they object to so that I could change it, and they responded by insulting and threatening me. Drsmoo (talk) 13:29, 14 October 2023 (UTC) Edit: Please also note that the edit provided by tarnished path is old, and was struck/modified well before this AN/I was posted. Drsmoo (talk) 13:39, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Drsmoo, I suggest you strike that comment. The diff you presented shows that I neither insulted you nor threatened you. TarnishedPath^talk 13:38, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

TarnishedPath, nothing Drsmoo said in that discussion was a personal attack or an insult. I suggest you drop this before it becomes a WP:BOOMERANG. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:53, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@HandThatFeeds, telling editors that they are biased and not fit to edit topics is not personal attacks or insults now. OK, I'll take your advise on board. TarnishedPath^talk 01:06, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @TarnishedPath, as pointed out above, I had already edited my post to clarify the point as a general one well before you started this AN/I. I’m not sure why youre repeatedly bringing up an edit prior to its modification? Drsmoo (talk) 04:11, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Drsmoo, you originally wrote "Not interested in your opinions, nor in “convincing” anyone. Wikipedia is based on reliable sources. If your biases cause you to edit against reliable sourcing you are not fit to edit in this topic."

Which you then edited to "Not interested in your opinions, nor in “convincing” anyone. Wikipedia is based on reliable sources. If your biases cause you to edit against reliable sourcing you are not fit to edit in this topic."

It's clear that you had already clarified what you meant by that point.

Your final edit you wrote "Not interested in your opinions, nor in “convincing” anyone. Wikipedia is based on reliable sources. If your ones biases cause you them to edit against reliable sourcing you they are not fit to edit in this topic."

So as a general point are you not interested in anyone's opinions? Again you've been warned for WP:BATTLEGROUND behaviour previously in regards to the Arab-Israeli conflict and the discussion was in regards to that very topic area. TarnishedPath^talk 05:01, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that’s correct, Wikipedia is based on reliable sources, not about “convincing” anyone. In the future, please use the current text when making a report. Drsmoo (talk) 07:19, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Saying that you believe someone has a bias is not an insult or a personal attack. Saying someone is not fit to edit a topic is rude, but a single instance is not enough to bring sanctions IMO.

At this point, I'm going to say again: WP:DROPTHESTICK and move on. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 12:23, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Calling people biased is incivil, particularly when no evidence is presented in furtherance is such aspersion. As you also note calling people "not fit to edit" is rude. Both are part of battleground behaviour and this is not a once off.

• Please ban two users from article Gilad Atzmon - A discussion about the animus and rancour that has been occurring between Drsmoo and another editor other a period of months. In that discussion is linked a case at Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance regarding none other than Drsmoo at Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance/archive76#User:Drsmoo. This details various battleground behaviour by Drsmoo.
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive983#User:Nishidani using talk page as a forum - Details Drsmoo editing Talk:2018 Gaza border protests is a disruptive manner. They received a warning from admin on that occasion.
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1118#Mass reversion spree by Drsmoo - Details a mass reversion spree by Drsmoo in what admins described as what appeared to be WP:HOUNDING. Linked in that discussion is an interaction they had on another editors usage talk found at User talk:Iskandar323/Archive 5#Complaint, in that interaction Drsmoo repeatedly casts aspersions at another editor, without evidence, indicative of battleground behaviour.
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1136#Zionism, race and genetics is discussion regarding the behaviour of a number of editors and Drsmoo was one of them. In that discussion are linked two diffs [57] and [58] in which Drsmoo casts aspersions about editor/s having COIs, again indicative of battleground behaviour.
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive212#User:Drsmoo reported by User:Carolmooredc (Result: Stale) - A discussion about Drsmoo allegedly violating 1RR at Richard A. Falk per WP:ARBPIA. In this discussion is linked a diff [59] in which Drsmoo leaves a combative reply in response to someone explaining wiki policy, again demonstrating battleground behaviour.
• and as I linked at the top of this discussion they've had a ARBPIA logged warning in relation to "fostering a battleground environment at Zionism, race and genetics and and its talkpage".

Note all of these discussions from what I can gather have resolved around disputes to do with articles in the Palestine-Israeli topic area. TarnishedPath^talk 14:25, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So you're digging through years-old incidents to try and get a person topic-banned, all over being called "biased." This really seems like you're trying to get someone topic-banned to win an argument, and I won't be surprised if you're hit with a WP:BOOMERANG. Count yourself lucky if this just gets archived for inactivity in a few days. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 15:45, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I also modified my edit very quickly so that I wasn’t calling anyone biased. Drsmoo (talk) 20:34, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There's immaterial different in editing your to ones and you to them when your comment was still directed at Kashmiri. If you were sincere about recanting it, you ought to have struck the whole thing. TarnishedPath^talk 23:17, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please WP:AGF and don't case WP:ASPERSIONS. This is not about trying to "win an argument". This is about not walking past an established pattern of behaviour spanning a period of time. Additionally they didn't call me biased, their incivility and rudeness was directed at another editor. TarnishedPath^talk 23:15, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Further instances demonstrating a pattern of ongoing behaviour:

• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive38#Per WP:ARBPIA, User:Drsmoo in Gilad Atzmon - Discussion in which it is noted that Drsmoo has engaged in personal attacks on article talk pages. Refer to diffs [60] and [61].
• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive320#Tombah - During this discussion Tamzin removes unevidenced accusations made by Drsmoo and provides a warning.

Again these appear to be in regards to be in disputes that arose out the Palestine-Israeli topic area. Including what I've linked above this is eight instances, that I've found, demonstrating an ongoing pattern of behaviour. TarnishedPath^talk 01:54, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive38#Per WP:ARBPIA, User:Drsmoo in Gilad Atzmon That's from 14 years ago? I'm struggling to see the relevance of such ancient history. BilledMammal (talk) 01:59, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

All of the entries span their continuous editing history. This demonstrates an ongoing pattern. TarnishedPath^talk 02:12, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

103.137.210.169 – clearly not here to build an encyclopedia, all edits are clear vandalism. User has been warned but has removed warning from user talk page. –GnocchiFan (talk) 13:20, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• GnocchiFan, this is just a troll. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 15:12, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Transgender (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Willbb234 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was blocked for a week for edit warring. Within an hour of the block expiring (seriously, he must have set an alarm to remind him) he is back on the Talk page of the same article he was edit warring on and disruptively trying to restart the previous drama by aggressively demanding that a specific editor (who he pinged) satisfy his objections. (diff) This seems like trolling and maybe even harassment. I'd suggest a topic ban but, given how many previous blocks he has had for similar behaviour on various topics, maybe it is time to just call this a case of WP:NOTHERE? --DanielRigal (talk) 14:31, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I was asked to take issues to the talk page instead of engaging in edit warring. What else do you want me to do? I am also still trying to figure out how my edit was "non-constructive". Willbb234 14:35, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You could have opened a discussion about whether the content you were edit warring over was valid for inclusion and invited opinions from all. Instead you decided to badger one named user in an aggressive way. This seems far more about a personal grievance than about the content itself. --DanielRigal (talk) 14:42, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's because Raladic was the one who did the revert. Why would I ask someone else about this? I suggest you move on Daniel before you embarrass yourself. You already did this at my talk page. Willbb234 14:52, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said, you are making things unnecessarily personal. You could have chosen to open a discussion about whether the content is valid without carrying over all the previous drama. That was the very thing that the block was meant to put a stop to. This isn't about keeping score or getting one over on other editors. --DanielRigal (talk) 15:15, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The block was about preventing future edit warring. I haven't edit warred since the end of the block so I don't see the issue. I also don't see how any of the conversation on the talk page is "personal". Willbb234 15:19, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why would I ask someone else about this?

Because WP:CONSENSUS is important on Wikipedia. Two people arguing back and forth is not the best way to resolve a dispute. You want to create a general discussion on the Talk page to invite outside input, not just continue a fight with one editor. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:57, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@HandThatFeeds: I was referring to this revert, which was performed by Raladic and so I asked Raladic why they did this. I am unsure as to why I would ask someone else as to why Raladic performed this revert. Willbb234 18:31, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is that, rather than starting a general discussion about what an appropriate change would look like, you went straight back to confronting Raladic about the revert. You should have simply started a new section with a proposal for your changes to the article, backed by reliable sources. If other people agreed, you'd have consensus to make the change; if not, you'd have to let it go. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:05, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, you don't tell me what I should and shouldn't be doing. I'm at liberty to question other users if I don't feel as if their reasoning is acceptable. And please don't talk to me as if I don't understand Wikipedia's basic principles. Willbb234 19:13, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Time served, and as the subject has said, they are discussing on the talk page which is where this belongs. Lightburst (talk) 20:15, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The current "discussion" looks a lot like a mixture of sealioning/WP:BLUDGEON, WP:OWN and WP:IDHT. It seems like far more of a continuation of previous behaviour than an attempt to restart the discussion on a better basis. When another editor stepped in suggesting a compromise (adding "some") this was flat out rejected. I'll try to steer it towards an RfC as a way to try to break the deadlock but I really doubt that this is going to stop until Willbb234 either gets exactly what he wants or somebody puts a stop to it. --DanielRigal (talk) 21:03, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You go down this bad-faith accusation line and when that doesn't work, you then claim that I am not allowed to hold an opinion in this debate. The discussion is actually progressing nicely considering that it has only been going on for half a day, but now you believe an end needs to be put to this as there is apparently a "deadlock" (really?). My objection is backed up by both source analysis and some reasonable explanation and I have done quite a bit more of this than other editors on the talk page, so to suggest that I am bludgeoning, sealioning or whatever other label you want to use is just absurd. I've already said that you need to move on Daniel, but you are clearly not getting the point. Willbb234 22:08, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's pretty fucking obvious you either don't understand or (more likely) don't care about basic principles. You've made up your mind that you are right, and no one is going to persuade you otherwise. I expect you'll find that sticking to this path is a quick way to an indef. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 15:52, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how you've come to that conclusion. Willbb234 15:57, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

To The Hand That Feeds You: Well, it looks to me that Willbb234 is right on the content matter. It’s not a good idea to get so aggressive and insulting – how about striking your comment? Sweet6970 (talk) 16:00, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Having gained no traction for his position on the Talk page, Willbb234 is now threatening to resume the edit war by removing the article content that he, and only he, has objected to. A compromise suggestion from User:RoxySaunders has been rejected out of hand. My attempts to encourage an RfC are getting absolutely nowhere. (I'm not keen to start the RfC myself as I am not the one proposing change and hence I can't provide the rationale for the proposed change.)

Please can we get some more eyes on this? In the meantime, I've posted a neutral notification to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies to see if anybody there can help. --DanielRigal (talk) 13:43, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please familiarise yourself with WP:ONUS. Willbb234 13:52, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And this is the problem. It's like arguing with a brick wall. The problem is, at best, WP:SATISFY and, at worst WP:OWN. There is a rough consensus against Willbb234's position on the talk page (I think it is 3 to 1 against) and yet he demands the content be removed and rejects any compromise. --DanielRigal (talk) 14:03, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am not rejecting any compromise. Where did you get this idea? I disagreed with Roxy's interpretation of the views expressed in the sources. As I have said, I am open to discussing this further. If you have some constructive comments relating to the content I would be happy to talk about these. However, it seems as if you are more interested in talking about me (I think I have an admirer) than about the content. Willbb234 14:07, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

But you insist on removing the content, despite a rough consensus against doing so, pending discussion that it is unlikely can ever end because you demand satisfaction. As for "it seems as if you are more interested in talking about me", yes, this is literally a thread about your behaviour.

More than WP:NOTHERE, I think that the most relevant policy that argues for a block here is WP:NOTCOMPATIBLE. --DanielRigal (talk) 14:21, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You have tried to get me blocked for trolling, harassment, WP:NOTHERE, disruptive behaviour, edit warring, and being incompatible with the project, accused me of sealioning, bludgeoning, claiming ownership of content, not getting the point, warned me more than once on my talk page, and lied to me about policy. I think you need to take a step back, calm down, and stop with the bad-faith accusations. This would make me much more keen to work with you, not against you. Willbb234 14:39, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In accordance with DanielRigal’s request for ‘more eyes’, I have just looked at the relevant section on the article’s Talk page. This looks like a content dispute to me – so ANI is not an appropriate venue for the discussion. Sweet6970 (talk) 14:45, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This thread is about behaviour. The content dispute is the venue where some of the behaviour in question took place. --DanielRigal (talk) 14:48, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is now a behaviour issue (it may not have been before), as Willbb234 is threatening on the talk page to remove the contested material again, and appears to believe that posting on the talk page that he's going to do it means he's not continuing an edit-war. I don't see the problem with the suggested RfC - that is the usual manner in which contested content disputes are dealt with. Black Kite (talk) 14:54, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Black Kite: Please explain how WP:ONUS should be correctly applied here. Thanks, Willbb234 15:10, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's exactly the point, though - there is a dispute as to whether ONUS applies here, so an RfC is the best way to solve that issue. A continuing argument on a talk page between two (or more) editors who have entrenched differing views is unlikely to do so. Black Kite (talk) 15:18, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I thought that the disputed content should be removed until consensus was established or an RfC takes places and from there a decision would be made as to whether to add the content back in or not. It wasn't my intention to restart an edit war or provoke a response from another editor. I'll leave it alone. Willbb234 15:26, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's not how ONUS works. The text you want to remove dates back to 2015. ONUS applies, generally, only to new additions; long standing text is normally presumed to have implicit consensus from the number of people who read or edited it without changing it, so the burden is generally on anyone who wants to remove it to demonstrate that that's not the case - either by explaining how it lacks implicit consensus or by actively demonstrating a lack of consensus. Otherwise anyone could delete large swaths of typical articles and demand extended discussions to restore them, which would obviously not be workable. Even beyond that, the rough consensus on the talk page is clearly against you - a quick nose-count is a weak consensus but is still consensus, which shifts the burden to you if you want to argue against it. Even if the text you were objecting to were new and lacked implicit consensus, you certainly cannot claim WP:ONUS when discussions are something like three-to-one against you. In this case WP:SATISFY is a more relevant policy - you can't remove longstanding text simply because you personally object to it when multiple people disagree with you; they don't have an obligation to satisfy or convince you personally. (Also, I'm noting this exchange down in my ever-growing list of "unconvincingly sweeping interpretations of ONUS lead to unconstructive trainwrecks" examples the next time there's a dispute over it.) --Aquillion (talk) 09:08, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Generally, more eyes from experienced content editors at Transgender would be great. This is an article that gets 130,000 views per month and is at the center of hot-button political disputes in many countries, but has lots of poorly-sourced or out-of-date information. I recently cut several kilobytes of broad assertions sourced to single news articles or studies. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 23:53, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that Willbb234's first edit after the block was unnecessarily aggressive in tone and could have been much better phrased. Perhaps as a result, the subsequent discussion is turning into a bit of a battleground and that could have been avoided by framing the discussion in a more collegiate way. However, that aggressively phrased question does not, in my view, constitute harassment or trolling, and I don't see a need for admin intervention at this point. I would of course encourage everyone involved to calm down a bit and be more civil to one another, because there's a real danger that sanctions will be required if they don't. WaggersTALK 09:37, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've added it to my watchlist now @Tamzin :) WaggersTALK 09:40, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Onesgje9g334 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) had 390 one or two character edits to a draft on July 12 in apparent attempt to game autoconfirmed status and is now editing a CTOP article. O3000, Ret. (talk) 18:19, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

They have gamed the system clearly. Interestingly though, they are participating on talk pages, seeking consensus (at least on the surface it seems to be collaborative). Let us know if there are any diffs that are particularly egregious. Thank you, Lourdes 08:42, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Guto2003 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been making disruptive moves, seemingly to disrupt wikipedia to make a WP:POINT regarding the title of the Zeitoun incident article. When confronted about this, they stated that the complaniant should Go push your filthy ass Zionist, Eurocentric agenda elsewhere [64]. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:23, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, please block this editor for having a WP:BATTLEGROUND stance seen from the above-quoted comment and their disruptive moves.—Alalch E. 18:27, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, support an indef block for this highly disruptive user. First moving several WP:ARBPIA articles without any discussion, even labelling these contentious moves as 'minor'. When warned, resorts to racist personal attacks. Clearly WP:NOTHERE for the right reasons. Jeppiz (talk) 18:32, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• I’ve blocked for a week as an immediate response (they had had no proper CTOP notice according to the filter log, I later noticed one was given but not substituted so it didn’t get logged). I don’t object if someone else thinks an indef is a better call, had they been given CTOP notice before today they would be, currently, at a minimum topic banned. Courcelles (talk) 18:37, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Indef. Has been warned repeatedly and even blocked twice before for NPA. We don't need this sort of help to build Wikipedia. DMacks (talk) 18:39, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Good block. Suggest an ARBPIA topic ban on top (the comment came after the CTOP notice, even if the notice wasn't substed, and it's hard to miss the big scary warnings everywhere and think that was an appropriate remark). An indef seems a little over the top for a single remark but if the topic ban doesn't do the trick, an indef would be the next logical step. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:18, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, sounds like a good compromise to topic ban on top of the block but not indef for now. Jeppiz (talk) 19:24, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would also support an indef topic ban, at mininum. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:43, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Same also. That user also downplayed the Re’im massacre without consensus from other editors. Borgenland (talk) 00:36, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This kind of incivility and POV pushing seems to be a pattern. 2603:7000:CF0:82A0:B0F3:1535:CF4B:5C6E (talk) 01:12, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, with that comment I would support an indef WP:NOTHERE block. Hemiauchenia (talk) 03:07, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I also agree with the IP and with Hemiauchenia. When Courcelles blocked for one week, I agreed with HJ Mitchell that an indef over one comment may be severe. However, we now know it was not just one comment but a pattern of Guto2003 regularly attacking other users. Some attacks date back quite long, but that also shows this is not new. Apart from the attack that led Courcelles to block and the additional attack the IP posted, merely looking at Guto2003's talk page reveals still more attacks (and I haven't even looked at their comments elsewhere). This pattern of personal attacks combined with their disruptive editing in ArbCom sanctioned areas make me agree with both users above that an indef block seems more than warranted. Jeppiz (talk) 10:31, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I see this is a pattern, not a one-time loss of perspective. Indef'd. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:20, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Good call. Courcelles (talk) 14:11, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Noting for the record here their response to being blocked. DMacks (talk) 19:35, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple reverts of good faith edits without valid reasons. — Preceding unsigned comment added by UA0Volodymyr (talk • contribs) 19:16, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No warnings were given to the user in question prior to them being reported here. Given the reporting user's history, it raises legitimate questions about whether this is a good-faith report. —C.Fred (talk) 19:27, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I think it is. You might want to look at this IPs contributions. Oldtowncafe indeffed as a block-evading sock. Black Kite (talk) 19:41, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The reporting user has been editing for just three weeks, but is evidently very familiar with Wikipedia processes. They have but two interests: one, making contentious and yet unexplained edits to Ukraine-related articles; and two, seeking revenge against users that have reverted their edits. Their report here was very obviously an act of revenge. It is baffling that an administrator fell for it. 86.187.231.125 (talk) 18:37, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Death Editor 2 seems to make it a daily habit to pass by Kfar Aza massacre to remove the same well-sourced content. For three days in a row, Death Editor 2 has removed references to decapitation from the infobox despite this being well sourced in the article 19:39 12 October, 06:04 13 October, 21:31 14 October. The edit yesterday was already a flagrant violation of the 1RR in place. Continuing the same edit warring (also close to vandalism as the content is well sourced) seems purely disruptive. Jeppiz (talk) 19:44, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I had warned the user after their first round of removal [65]. Jeppiz (talk) 20:43, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article itself mentions that the beheadings of babies cannot be independently verified, so it does not make sense for it to be stated like a matter of fact. Death Editor 2 (talk) 21:10, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've pblocked DE2 from the article for a week. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:16, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Posting this here, as I'm not sure where else to take this. I'd like another pair of eyes on the creations of Patricia Mannerheim (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log · edit summaries) (ANI notification). They are a prolific creator of articles on (among other things) Finnish women, a topic area that certainly warrants attention. The problem is that their creations are plagued with issues, and they appear to not be interested in fixing those issues when they are pointed out on their talk page. Rather, they simply continue to the next article, repeating the mistakes there.

The main problems are (nb: diffs/permalinks only examples):

• Bad/misleading, occasionally to the point of being impossible to understand, translations of Finnish text. E.g. at Constance Ullner translates Finnish esitaistelija (champion, pioneer, lit. 'one who fights before [others do]') as "escort driver" and at Elli Ruuth, translates Fin. "Hovioikeudelle jouduttiin tällöin hankkimaan myös uusi kalusto, joka valmistettiin Helsingin ja Turun keskusvankiloissa" (The Court of Appeals had to procure new furniture, which was manufactured at the Helsinki and Turku Central Prisons) as "The Supreme Court granted the new devices to the central prisons of Helsinki and Turku". This last translation continues for a few sentences of the same quality with e.g. Finnish "kassa-arkku" (cash chest/coffer/strongbox) turning into "appeal tool chest"; see bottom-most bullet point for another concern regarding this specific article.
• References commonly either fail to verify the content cited to them, or occasionally directly contradict the prose. See e.g. Hilja Tavaststjerna, Constance Ullner and Tarja Salmio-Toiviainen.
• Incorporating completely irrelevant references. E.g. at Carin Bryggman cites a subscription form of a newspaper (ref #1). At Aili-Salli Ahde-Kjäldman (since draftified) references a completely unrelated scholarly article about Estonian newspapers of late 1800s (ref #5).
• Parts of the original Finnish/Swedish text are left completely untranslated. E.g. at Constance Ullner#Bibliography has both Finnish and Swedish language bibliographical notes interspersed. After extensively discussing this on their talk page, first produces a completely new article (Immi Hellén) with a completely untranslated bibliography and then (after a {{non-english}} tag) translates the names of the works (NB: No evidence these works were ever actually published with English titles) but not the bibliographical notes (permalink).
• Citations consisting solely of a full Finnish or Swedish citation copy-pasted into the title field of a {{cite}} template. E.g. at Hilja Gestrin, Carin Bryggman, and Lina Snellman.
• The articles often include segments that have been lifted whole-sale (but translated) from sources. Mostly these are individual or pairs of sentences, but see e.g. Elli Ruuth, where the segment cited to juristiuutiset is a directly copied (rather bad) translation. While compiling this report, I also noticed that at the same page the segment cited to ref #3 is also actually a direct translation from ref #1 (i.e. a completely different ref) and does not appear to be supported by ref #3 at all.

The latest article, Wilhelmiina Arpiainen, is a microcosm of the above. All the bibliographical notes in the the "Works" and "Translations" sections are untranslated, ref #2 is a copy-pasted wholesale, untranslated, into the title field of a {{cite book}}, ref #3 is a bare link that doesn't load. Most worryingly, almost all of the content cited to ref #1 fails to verify or is partially contradicted with e.g. years not quite matching up or different locations being given.

I'm somewhat at a loss on what, exactly, should be done here. Contributions on this area would be most welcome, and a few issues with any article is fine, to be expected even. But the above are both pervasive and rather concerning (especially the referencing and mistranslations) problems that keep cropping up time after time. Perhaps someone else could have a word with them.

Or, if I'm overreacting, perhaps someone could help me with the cleanup. Ljleppan (talk) 21:40, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi Patricia and hope you are doing well. I have analysed much of what is written by Ljleppan above and your related edits and beyond. While it would be great to have your response here (and I don't want to rush this), but given the evidence, would you be okay to voluntarily stop editing Finnish articles? Thank you, Lourdes 08:33, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Hi@Lourdes: Sounds good! but you're telling me to stop creating Finnish articles? totally? Or do I have no right to write about Finnish women? I have created many articles about Finland. None of them had any problems. Dear Administrator, Here's the problem: Please read this article and its discussion page: Pehr W. Palmroth. A user (Ljleppan) who constantly harasses me and pushes me to the point of suicide (I emphasize that the pressure and behavior of the user caused me to hurt myself twice) does not have enough knowledge to raise the problem of the article on his talk page. Harassing me constantly on my talk page that turns to me. he seeks revenge for that article. —Patricia (Talk) 11:21, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Given the above claim of suicidal ideation & self harm, I have contacted Trust & Safety. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:09, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  With that, looking over those articles myself, claiming that "none of them had any problems" just isn't correct. In like fashion, reading over the Palmroth article and its talk page, I'm failing to see how Ljleppan factored in at all; they have neither contributed to the article nor participated on the talk page. Ravenswing 18:50, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Ravenswing, Ljleppan was the main contributor to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pehr W. Palmrooth. TSventon (talk) 19:21, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  As may be, but I'm not seeing in the OP where Ljleppan is seeking to relitigate the AfD. Ravenswing 00:38, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't think the allegation is that it's being re-litigated. I think what she's saying is that she's being harassed generally "in revenge" for what happened at the AfD. Not saying that's the case - just what she's claiming. DeCausa (talk) 07:21, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  She did say that, explicitly. And I'm saying that I see no evidence of it. Ravenswing 07:27, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I did participate in the AfD for that article, as I do in most Finland-related AfD when I'm not swamped by work. Equally, I try to read through User:AlexNewArtBot/FinlandSearchResult and Wikipedia:WikiProject Finland/Article alerts every day. On my part, all I can say is that I don't hold any animosity over the AfD (Why would I? The consensus was against me, that's lifeWikipedia). Ljleppan (talk) 19:26, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Patricia, my suggestion would be to voluntarily avoid editing or creating Finnish/Finland-related articles for the time being. Wikipedia should not be the source of extreme stress for you -- with no disrespect, it is of your own creation due to your own continuing mistakes. Edit articles where you don't have to translate; and try to use sources as per our guidelines and policies. Is this acceptable to you? Thank you, Lourdes 05:53, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Mr Tulva had been making unconstructive edits. Two notifications were given by @Pickersgill-Cunliffe. Unconstructive edits in the following articles:

• Tulu Nadu
• Tulu Nadu state movement
• Tulu language

After the notifications, the user made such edits. It needs to be undone. Pagers (talk) 09:39, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• All edits rolled back (completely unconstructive, bordering on vandalism) and given this I have indeffed them as WP:NOTHERE. Black Kite (talk) 12:11, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Thank you Pagers (talk) 13:08, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

IP 77.75.244.157 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is changing numerous political pages with unexplained deletions and nonsense additions. Has not used their Talk page and has not taken notice of numerous warning. Thank you, David J Johnson (talk) 14:34, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@David J Johnson: A faster way to deal with obvious cases of vandalism like this is available at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism; an admin or clerk can refer an AIV case to ANI at their discretion should a more nuanced response be required. ~ Pbritti (talk) 18:32, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I should have realised that - must be cracking-up. Best regards, David, David J Johnson (talk) 18:52, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Light prism2020 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

On the suggestion of Drmies, an admin with experience engaging with the user in question, I would like to request action with regards to Light prism2020's persistent disruption. Since opening an account two weeks ago, Light prism2020 (LP2020) has edited almost exclusively to draw comparisons between Mithraism, Zoroastrianism, and Christianity. These additions are often massive (see this 5,395 character addition to Christianity as a typical example) and have been subject to scrutiny by at least a half-dozen experienced editors. Among the issues raised by other editors were misrepresentation of sources, use of unreliable sources, copyright violations, and insertion of non-encyclopedic content over the objections of multiple editors (see this version of LP2020's talk page). Drmies has also expressed concern that this edit raises flags that AI writing might be involved. I think that their may also be some self-promotion in play, given the use of this website in this edit; I'd note the broken English proliferate of that website and compare with LP2020's writing. I would like to request at least a topic ban from Persian religions, broadly construed. If more evidence is necessary, please let me know! ~ Pbritti (talk) 16:21, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree that we're pretty much in NOTHERE territory, but one of the reasons I suggested we take this here is that it would be good for the editor to see that they're not simply running into two or three editors who just don't agree with them. Drmies (talk) 16:35, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• As I said on Drmies' talk page, I checked the citations for the claim about December 25 in this edit to Mithraism. Two of the citations were to chapters of scholarly sources (Vermaseren 1965 and Clauss 2001); neither of those chapters says anything at all about December 25. The other citation is to this page (which is based on a fork of an old version of our own Mithraism article), which specifically says, with sources, that more recent scholarship doubts that there was a Mithraic celebration on December 25. This user seems to be throwing together credible-looking citations without any regard for what the sources actually say.

I'll go further than Pbritti and say that an editor who fabricates citations like this shouldn't be kept around in any capacity, certainly not when that editor hasn't demonstrated any other usefulness to the project. A. Parrot (talk) 16:55, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Disliking something or feeling of defending your faith, doesn't justify accusing others of false information, vandalism, misuse, being AI or any other wrongdoing!!! In the Britannica on topic "why-is-christmas-in-december", it is mentioned that Mithra's birthdate was December 25th. I strongly recommend that members such as @Drmies, @A. Parrot, and @Pbritti should be banned for allegedly altering the contributions of independent editors and acting in a manner that hinders the accurate information from being added to the Wikipedia project. for reference I quote Britannica here " It was also the birthday of the Indo-European deity Mithra, a god of light and loyalty whose cult was at the time growing popular among Roman soldiers." Light prism2020 (talk) 17:31, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Light prism2020, this report isn't about Mithras and December 25. It's about the quality of all of your edits and sources across multiple articles, as well as your interactions with other editors. Schazjmd (talk) 17:48, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Regrettably, this matter pertains solely to the similarities between Mithraism and Christianity and Christmas rituals, particularly the shared celebration of December 25th. It raises the question: If I were editing something as simple as a flower's name or any other topic, would these individuals still be quick to accuse me and obstruct the addition of information? I initiated discussions on these topics to seek insights from others and to collectively contribute to the Wikipedia project with accurate and current information, rather than allowing it to be influenced solely by a particular viewpoint or historical perspective of a single ethnic group. This knowledge is intended for the benefit of all of humanity. Correct me if I am wrong! Light prism2020 (talk) 18:00, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you were misusing sources in the same way on any topic your edits would get the same reception. MrOllie (talk) 18:09, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You're wrong, User:Light prism2020, I think, but it's hard to say because what you write is so convoluted, and both grammatically and semantically unsound. "This matter pertains solely"--that's correct, as a starter, but what comes next is "...to the fact that other editors perceive your edits as incompetent, and your comments as not pertaining to the topic". Drmies (talk) 23:21, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree the topic ban or more is justified. The interaction I've had with LP2020 indicates to me that he does not have the fluency in English to understand what is required to edit here. Indyguy (talk) 17:03, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Site ban, given all of the above, and in particular the fabrication of citations. I don't think a topic ban would be sufficient, but would support that if the consensus of the community is that is a better approach. --Yamla (talk) 17:10, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I recommend that you visit the Britannica article, which correctly mentions Mithra's birthday as December 25th. Unfortunately, there are individuals who are obstructing the addition of accurate and transparent information to Wikipedia. Their reluctance appears to be rooted in the concern that this information might impact the celebration of Jesus Christ's birthday. Pardon me, but this situation reminds me of the inquisition period. https://www.britannica.com/story/why-is-christmas-in-december Light prism2020 (talk) 17:38, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Light prism2020, a simple question. Are you using translation software or AI (e.g. ChatGPT) to create or edit your posts? AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:04, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As one gentleman requested to correct my writing before publishing, I use Grammarly to correct my writing and improving my English. https://www.grammarly.com/ I am open to your advise for improving my writing. Light prism2020 (talk) 18:19, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My only advice would be to find a Wikipedia project in your native language, and contribute there instead. It seems readily apparent from the discussion above, and from your posts elsewhere, that you lack sufficient competence in the English language to be able to usefully contribute here. This is a collaborative project, and collaboration requires clear communication. Existing translation software and/or AI text generation is simply inadequate in this context. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:25, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I acknowledge your concern. Precisely because this is a collaborative project, we should promote diversity and "invite" other ethnic groups to share their knowledge. Imagine if some one is Christian and, after Saturday Mass, Priest mentions you are not allowed to Pray in English! because The Jesus`s original language was Aramaic! would you accept that as a native English speaker? I personally don`t think so. Light prism2020 (talk) 19:01, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting thought experiment; my priest usually just asks if I want to grab a drink. While you seem to acknowledge that Wikipedia is a collaborative project, you have yet to indicate any interest in accepting any serious change in your editing practices. I now lean towards a general indefinite block for NOTHERE and CIR until such a time that LP2020 demonstrates a willingness and capacity to improve their editing practices. The standard offer might further encourage them to gain experience in their native language before transitioning to EnWikipedia. ~ Pbritti (talk) 19:07, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Note also that Light prism 2020 is continuing to misuse sources at Talk:Magi while this discussion is going on. A. Parrot (talk) 19:19, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@A. Parrot, is this against the rules that you and me were talking on a 'talk page' of Magi? You could mention that over there! In that case, I would cease talking to you. Light prism2020 (talk) 19:52, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In that situation, you should speak up. As I mentioned, English is not my first language, and I used Grammarly to correct my editing. I appreciate your concerns, and I am open to the administrators' decision. Light prism2020 (talk) 19:33, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I do, usually with something to the effect of "cheers to that, Father." I hope you find success editing elsewhere on the project and return here someday with more experience. You seem sincere, if somewhat unprepared. ~ Pbritti (talk) 19:38, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Site ban. WP:CIR, WP:NOTHERE. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 19:27, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• I saw this from the sideline as one of the effected pages is one my watchlist for a few weeks. I've no opinion to the content matter, or the knowledge to make a judgement. However Light prism2020 inability to see any disagreement with their edits in any other light than religious bias is very problematic. Even in this discussion they are multiple posting casting aspersions at the motives of other editors. A block until they accept that they have to treat other editors in a civil manner is warranted. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 19:50, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  It's my mistake if anyone perceives that I'm disrespecting them. Please consider it as a cultural difference. I believed that I should respond when someone is talking about me. I am not intentionally trying to harm or disrespect anyone. I believe I have successfully navigated the rigorous process, and if Wikipedia thinks I can contribute insights from other sources, I would appreciate the opportunity to edit pages. However, if you believe that this is detrimental to the collaborative aspect, I am willing to stop speaking here. Light prism2020 (talk) 20:06, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Statements such as Disliking something or feeling of defending your faith, doesn't justify accusing others of false information and Their reluctance appears to be rooted in the concern that this information might impact the celebration of Jesus Christ's birthday has nothing to do with culture differences. Unless you can provide proof that such statements are true they are nothing but aspersions against other editors.

  If you can show that other editors have posted statements that show these are true you need to show them with diffs, if not you should strike such comments.

  The simple rule is that you should discuss content not other editors, nor should you assign motives to other editors that they have not plainly shown. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 21:03, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support indefinite block. It is obvious that Light prism2020 is using software in an attempt to make up for an inability to effectively communicate in the English language. Given that such software is incapable of doing the job required, and that a barrier to clear communication remains (e.g. see the repeated nonsense above concerning 'ethnicity', which is of no relevance whatsoever to what is being discussed here), prism2020 is incapable of the effective collaboration required to participate. Per normal procedure, an indefinite block rather than a site ban would seem appropriate, though the difference would be moot unless and until Light prism2020 could demonstrate effective communication in the English language, entirely unassisted by translation software, grammar correction software, or chatbots. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:01, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Blocked. Light prism2020 edits uncollaboratively and against all reasonable sourcing principles. This response on their page shows that they are not reaping any benefit from the attempts to warn and advise them, or from explanatory edit summaries, but see these efforts merely as demonstrating "that we are in a period reminiscent of the inquisition". Such assumptions of bad faith appears in their replies in this thread as well. I have blocked indefinitely per WP:NOTHERE. Should they offer some willingness and capacity to improve their editing practices, as called for by Pbritti above, I'll gladly unblock. Bishonen | tålk 21:14, 15 October 2023 (UTC).[reply]

Because it is very offensive [66]

Thanks. 103.78.183.11 (talk) 16:33, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This edit falls under RD2. Grossly insulting, degrading, or offensive material - It says that the celebrity "belongs in jail". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.78.183.11 (talk) 16:48, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

N not likely to be done as it doesn't meet any WP:CRD criteria. Additionally, this isn't the place to request revdel, for future reference, WP:REVDELREQUEST NotAGenious (talk) 16:45, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have however semi-protected that article, it probably should have gone back to semi when the ECP expired. Black Kite (talk) 17:30, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That was a basic troll edit. It was removed, and it's not so offensive as to need RevDel. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:30, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for performing it. 103.78.183.11 (talk) 17:35, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like it got RD3'd anyway. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 22:07, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nauman335 is clearly WP:NOTTHERE. I saw them deleting sourced information while providing misleading summaries (User_talk:Nauman335#WP:NPOV_and_misleading_summaries). Judging by his user talk this was not an isolated incident, R Prazeres, David notMD - please chime in. Alaexis_¿question? 19:07, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

He could just be incompetent, but he definitely looks like he's deliberately pushing a POV to me. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 19:13, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, lovely. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 20:05, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah Shutup [sic] you fake editor is hardly an appropriate response to a CTOP notification regarding the Israel - Palestine conflict. As they've also gone way over the 1RR in articles in that area, some kind of block is necessary here. I would support an indef block or topic ban. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:19, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Treated to an indefinite vacation, or us from their edits. Star Mississippi 21:44, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jord656 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Seems to be willfully? CIR? something? misrepresenting sources repeatedly and getting into arguments about it. See [67][68] and compare with sources Jord gives themself at Talk:Ada_Lovelace#Ada Gordon or Ada Byron as birth name., and [69][70][71] on Akt (charity) and compare there with the source. I don't have the patience or desire to delve deeper into this person's edit history. Also their behavior on talk pages with bizarre "no you" or tu quoque or something mirroring of warnings they get. —DIYeditor (talk) 22:13, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, you just go round reverting everything ive done even with sources. You just seem to dislike my contributions for no legitimate reason Jord656 (talk) 23:08, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

DIYeditor's reverts seem to have legitimate reasons. The findingada.com source doesn't seem sufficient to contradict the other sources that state her name was Ada Byron. Your changes to Akt (charity) were both ungrammatical ("being chased multistory") and not supported by the source (no mention in it of being chased). Schazjmd (talk) 23:16, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well having known Albert's foster mum and been privvy to the evidence that was submitted, i feel that is suffice Jord656 (talk) 08:21, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

oh and I apologise for my dyslexia, it causes me more problems then you Jord656 (talk) 08:22, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jord656, your personal relationship with the subject will therefore subject you to our WP:COI guidelines, which would in effect stop you from editing that article directly. Also, your personal knowledge of anything is not acceptable on Wikipedia articles. Any material you add should be attributed to reliable sources. I would advise you to not edit the said article from hereon and to use the talk page to post any material that you may wish to be added to the article. This is not to reduce your editing experience, just to ensure you are aware of our guidelines and are able to follow them. Thank you, Lourdes 08:51, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi Jord656, hope you are well. While ANI will not adjudicate on content issues, it would be well if you read up BRD and dispute resolution. In summary, when your change has been reverted, you should go to the talk page of the article to gain consensus rather than revert again. If you instead simply revert to your preferred version before consensus has been reached, that may be considered disruptive editing. Additionally, not all sources that document news are considered reliable. You may consider reading up on reliable sources once more. Again, don't revert once your addition to an article has been challenged and rejected by another editor. Have fun editing here, and don't get too hassled by all of it. Thanks, Lourdes 06:18, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Do you see [72]? Revision history says it's +682,088 bytes.

And the first edit at User talk:Cursed Peace is +341,234 bytes. Something is not going right. tgeorgescu (talk) 07:00, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There were some 300,000 instances of an invisible Unicode character (didn't bother to check which) at the beginning of their signature. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:06, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe an exploit for some browsers? tgeorgescu (talk) 07:13, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I use a Dutch keyboard, perhaps it is a unicode thing? C͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏u͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏r͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏s͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏ed Peace (talk) 07:14, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I watched a speech by a representative of Fox IT (internet security company), and he said in IT one must act having a healthy dose of paranoia. Something unusual happened, and I reported it here. tgeorgescu (talk) 07:27, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not clicking that but the user should be blocked at least temporarily and it reported to WMF right away... —DIYeditor (talk) 08:14, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cursed Peace, I have identified all the unicode characters you used deliberately, once while creating your user talk page and then doubling up the effort at RSN. You try this one more time and that would be it for you at Wikipedia. Lourdes 09:27, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am reporting the IP user:

• 2601:248:4D02:B3C0:C26:CAC1:EFA7:FA64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

for unconstructive edits and legal threats, on the following article:

• Bob O'Dekirk (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

The following is what the IP user above has been writing in the edit summaries, as well as the subsequent edits (after being reverted) of the article: Potential lawsuit with titles and words that were used being misrepresented! Articles being labeled here will go with the federal lawsuit! — AP 499D25 (talk) 10:44, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not too clear what they are trying to say, but I have blocked for a month. Also close to a 3RR violation. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:47, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The Italian IP range from Puglia that adds too many external links to YouTube videos/audio is back and disruptively editing articles once more ([73][74][75]). Everything had been done to communicate with this IP, including a talk page discussion and a partial block to force them to talk to us, but it looks like they refuse to listen. For reference, here are several other involved IPs:

• 62.211.233.175 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 87.20.7.191 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 82.51.12.168 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 79.18.74.229 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 79.47.17.39 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

As you can see, a rangeblock is not the most effective solution here, as they'll hop to a new one straight away. ResPM (T🔈🎵C) 11:13, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The 62.211.233.175 IP was partially blocked as the outcome of this ANEW thread that I created.

Another issue with this IP user besides them adding excessive external links and failing to discuss the edits, is that once reverted, they often edit-war to restore these superfluous external links back, such as here, here and here. — AP 499D25 (talk) 11:51, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Martha223 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

After a complete set of four escalating warnings for WP:NOTAFORUM violations at Talk:Mini Hatch and Talk:Mini, they just did it a fifth time. I think it's an issue of communication as they are editing from a mobile device and probably have not read their talk page.--Jasper Deng (talk) 11:59, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]