Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

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

Sure enough, the last few weeks alone, they deleted existing redirects at Terri Libenson, Nell Gifford, Louisa Henrietta de Rivarol and Ena May Neill. A lot worse was their Undeletion of Caroline Elizabeth Newcomb, with the reason "This page was deleted without explanation. She is notable by AU experts. How this missed AfD baffles me. I strongly suspect this was a bit of stalking and they didnt even use their ownname." No idea how they succeeded in missing the rather clear explanation given by User:Justlettersandnumbers at the time of deletion: "G12: Unambiguous copyright infringement of http://adb.anu.edu.au/biography/newcomb-caroline-elizabeth-2238/text2441, https://collections.museumvictoria.com.au/articles/1883". And sure enough, Victuallers succeeded in bringing a copyright violation back into the mainspace...

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

I'm a newish admin, and AFC is not my main cup of tea. Isn't it common practice to G6 a mainspace redirect—one that has only minor history—to make way for an AFC draft publication? That's what happened with Terri Libenson. Victuallers is not credited as the page creator, since another editor created the draft. I haven't looked into the others. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:47, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

At least Rose Edouin was not an AFC accept/move. It was a copy-paste-edit fork from another article, slapped in place after deleting the redirect. - UtherSRG (talk) 16:54, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've struck out Libenson, as that is the only one not deleted to put his own creation. I don't know if this is or isn't standard AfC practice, but in any case it doesn't belong with the others in this report, thanks. Fram (talk) 16:55, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think that Newcomb isn't as clear a copyvio as the original deleter thought - the referenced article it copies from is licensed as CC BY 4.0. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:58, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

SarekOfVulcan, I haven't yet read this discussion (to which I was pinged) in full. I think you may be partially right about the Newcomb article – the museumvictoria.com.au page carries no CC release and is clearly marked as copyright, so may (or may not) fall under their "otherwise noted" exception (wouldn't it be good if institutions could learn how to implement the CC releases they want to make?). But I see no justification for the copying of content from here, and am guessing that that was my principal reason for deleting the page on 28 November 2018. There was then, and still is, a substantial CCI still open for this user (any help much appreciated!). I've removed the residual copyvios from the ADB from Caroline Elizabeth Newcomb. We really need to engrave in stone that G12 deletions may not be restored. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:07, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Further to this comment, I've gone ahead and bolded the sentence "Copyright violations and attack pages will not be provided at all" in the header of WP:REFUND. Victuallers, could you kindly confirm that you understand the potential problems with ignoring that advice, and that you will take care not to repeat that particular mistake? And that if for some (inconceivable) reason it's imperative to undelete a copyvio, you will be sure to clean and revdelete it immediately? Thanks, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 19:44, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Justlettersandnumbers:, I think its implicit in me calling it a mistake. But I'm happy to explicitly confirm that I see why it was a mistake and the need to clean up. I'm happy to help with the CCI. I'm in a Wikipedia training session at the moment, but I'll get on to it. HTH Victuallers (talk) 13:56, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rose Edouin had exactly one edit, creating a redirect. There is nothing else in the history. Anyone with the page mover right would've been able to move a draft on top of it, replacing it. It's pretty standard, and the history didn't need to be recovered. Could some admin check to see if the histories of the Gifford, Rivarol, and Neill articles are the same? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:09, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I undeleted Gifford, as that was a redirect that didn't need to be deleted. I left de Rivarol as it was, because the redirect was created by Victuallers themself. Neill, I'd like a second opinion on. Victuallers created it in 2015. After a couple of edits and a short talk page discussion, it was redirected. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:16, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I undeleted the deleted edits on Neill. They are relevant to the article history, and the first edit was by Victuallers, so that wasn't an attempt to "steal credit" for article creation. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:26, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@SarekOfVulcan: What do you mean need to be deleted? Which need to be deleted, which don't, and which need to be undeleted? The whole point of creating this ability in the page mover right is a redirect isn't meaningful content that needs to be retained. If there's more than just a redirect, it should probably be retained, but not just a redirect. The only real function of undeleting a redirect is to ensure the wrong person gets notified if an article is, say, tagged for deletion, and to ensure that the person who might want to receive notifications about incoming links cannot get them. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:30, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's a very good point about notifications, Rhododendrites. I want to see how this discussion goes, but I may go ahead and re-delete those two edits, and I wouldn't considered it a WP:WHEEL case if somebody overrode me first. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:48, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree it can yield better results in terms of more relevant notifications if redirects are deleted. It does feel a bit wrong if admins use deletion to give themselves creator credit, but {{db-move}} allows anyone to request that, so perhaps it shouldn't feel wrong. —Kusma (talk) 18:09, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I think you will find they are the same. This has been discussed before with the same conclusion as yours Rhododendrites. Victuallers (talk) 17:20, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see a problem with the deletions. I've done similar myself in the past and done similar for non-admins who have asked me to. A redirect is not meaningful history. Undeleting something that was G12'd is poor; @Victuallers you should have discussed that with the deleting admin first and come to an agreement that it could be undeleted. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:07, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fram it sounds like you've been working really hard on coaching this admin but haven't been able to build the positive working relationship you'd like to have or elicit editorial/behavioral changes you think are important. I'm sure we can collectively work out a win-win low-drama solution that moves us forward. What's the most critical issue that needs attention? How can we most help *you* today? jengod (talk) 20:35, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jengod, it sounds like you're using an AI bot and haven't instructed it very well. What is your comment intended to accomplish? Bishonen | tålk 08:16, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think I disagree about the desirability of deleting redirects. There's an attribution issue under the license, I believe? One could say that only matters when there have been substantial edits since creation, but that's a slippery slope: Ena May Neill received 2 small copyedits in addition to one by Victuallers himself before its redirection, and the redirect decision itself constitutes another part of the history that should be transparently documented; the discussion is on the talk page of the article and so was presumably also deleted? Also, it's the responsibility of the editor initiating an AfD discussion or other deletion proposal to notify all substantial contributors to the article. Notifying only the creator may be what you get it you let some automated process such as Twinkle do it for you (and that's already more than some nominators do), but in many instances there are others who contributed to the article and thus should be notified. This is a collaborative project; the norm should be that an article gets worked on by multiple editors, and we are held responsible for our edits, including our interactions with fellow contributors, and shouldn't fall back on automated processes as an excuse (or expect everyone to be monitoring their watchlists, another form of automation; those are often huge, plus the article may have been moved and the nomination thus be for a new title). Yngvadottir (talk) 02:00, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Even in that one article that had more than just the redirect itself -- an article which Victuallers created, but which Fram included in assuming bad faith that Victuallers was "misusing admin tools" to get the credit as page creator -- the only edits that weren't Victuallers did not contain anything copyrightable. Someone ran AWB; another person ran some other script which replaced the name of a template. There's nothing to attribute. I would be curious to hear why Victuallers deleted their own draft instead of just revising the old version, though, because it's odd not because it's insidious. it's the responsibility of the editor initiating an AfD discussion - It's not. Not even the creator is mandatory. Would be nice, but in practice it never happens beyond what's automated. When it does, it's just as likely as not to be labeled canvassing. I know, I know, but these are the times we live in. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 03:37, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So deleting things that don't meet any of Wikipedia's speedy deletion criteria isn't a misuse of admin tools? Huh? * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 04:33, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

I must be way out of step, then; I've always followed the instructions at AfD and informed all major contributors, and I was pretty horrified when an article of mine was speedy deleted on erroneous grounds (the nominator and the admin had only to look at my first edit summary) without any notification. No, it's not mandatory, but neither is more than minimal civility. It's seriously uncollaborative to ask for people's work to be deleted without the simple courtesy of letting them know (even creators of attack pages should get a templated notification), and automation is a poor excuse. Anyone who can't be bothered to even tell their colleagues that they have asked for their work to be deleted shouldn't be surprised if the level of acrimony and assumption of bad faith on the project continues to rise. (And, as I said, it's a slippery slope. What about the discussion that led to the redirect? What if a non-admin was examining one of those two people's gnoming patterns for some reason, including improving a tool?) It's also wasteful, but I know we aren't supposed to make any arguments based on server capacity. Yngvadottir (talk) 07:11, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My comment was intended to communicate that Fram's first post when he came here looking for help indicated that he believed there were grave issues that needed to be addressed.

>"perhaps some clear final warnings from uninvolved editors may be sufficient?" Fram requested help with coaching. What has he already communicated about that didn't get a response or a behavior change, and what would he like reinforced by other people? jengod (talk) 13:50, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I see from your edit summary @Bishonen that you actually think I used AI

to write that comment? LOL and I strongly deny the accusation! The only time I've ever touched such a thing was at my kid's birthday party they coaxed me to give ChatGPT and I asked it to write a Wikipedia article on cienegas of California and it did a meh job. The kids told me I gave it too long a prompt tho. jengod (talk) 14:00, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What I would like is that other people take a look at their edits (e.g. by removing the autopatrolled right) so I no longer have to inform an admin about copyright violations, the need for attribution and how to do it, that machine translations shouldn't be trusted (or used), ... and that I no longer get the feeling that I'm the only one looking at their sometimes very poor creations (e.g. recently I tried to clean up one paragraph of one of their creations, here, correcting 5 factual errors and some other stuff. I see now that in doing this, I introduced one capitalization error though...). Fram (talk) 08:39, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fram

• Oh my gosh I didn't even know we had a policy against machine translations. I have quoted from a Google Translate version in at least two articles bc I didn't know better! (noting inline that the quotes were machine-translated, of course). A nice polyglot came along and did a proper human translation in one case that made it to DYK, but for all I know my sentence from Swedish on my leopard-trainer article is completely goofily wrong. Do we have a translation helpdesk instead? Or what are we supposed to do if we're monolingual idiots (such as myself) but found a reference to a topic we're covering in a non-English source?
• "the need for attribution and how do to it" - in what way? Like I assume things in new articles created by Vic are referenced...but wonky somehow?
• Copyvios should just be deleted, right?
• Have you tried tagging inline and at the top as a form of editorial commentary? When someone puts a critical tag on an article I'm emotionally attached to I usually jump right on fixes if I see any hope of fixing the problem at my current level of expertise. Judicious editorial criticism is the most precious thing in the world to a writer. We can be trained, I swear!
• What about looping in WikiProject reviewers with project tagging? Or a note on talk page? I know that's slower than we'd all like but no one should be working on any part of Wiki in a vacuum, it's a team project, we all make each other better, etc etc.

jengod (talk) 18:05, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've actually done a few similar undeletions recently (not of Victuallers's work) and I don't really see it as a matter of copyright but of history that's potentially interesting and should stay accessible to non-admins where possible. I think it's interesting to note that Terri Libenson was a redirect for over fourteen years before becoming an article and ditto with Louisa Henrietta de Rivarol (for nearly nine years), and have undeleted them accordingly. I don't think it's quite a deal-breaker and if consensus is that these should be re-deleted I could live with that. An example of a redirect I recently undeleted in similar circumstances was Signe Byrge Sørensen; I found it while checking deleted contributions of Patrick, inspired by this RFC about removal of text about minor edits because the relevant text was added by Patrick way back in 2003. (I went to check his deleted edits from around that time in case I was missing something, and found this edit to "Dating" that I undeleted from around that time). I've found all sorts of things by checking his and my deleted edits, but most of these sorts of deletions seem accidental and almost all deletions I've reviewed by looking at deleted contributions were completely fine. Graham87 (talk) 07:45/08:00, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also re Terri Libenson, I've just discovered that the talk page was created by a bot in 2014, so in that case I feel more strongly that the corresponding article history should be undeleted to show *why* the bot created the talk page way before the article existed. Graham87 (talk) 07:54, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think that having history accessible to non-admins is a laudable goal, but for trivial bits like redirect creation, notifications going to the right person instead of a bot is an equally acceptable goal. —Kusma (talk) 08:43, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I see that as a problem with the tools though (albeit a corner case that's hard to fix). People should take responsibility for every edit they make, either with or without a semi-automated tool, and should check to see whether what the tool is doing makes sense. (Speaking as someone who does all deletion nominations, etc. manually). I've just encountered so many weird cases with so many pages (some random examples) that I barely trust any semi-automated tool here. Graham87 (talk) 09:47, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I fundamentally disagree that redirect creation is "trivial", choosing to redirect a page to another is an editorial decision with equal significance to choosing to create an article at that title. If bots are delivering notifications to the wrong person then that is a problem with the bot not a reason to speedy delete pages that don't meet the speedy deletion criterion and/or declare other editors' work "trivial". We should always fix the bot to work with the encyclopaedia rather than attempting to "fix" the encyclopaedia to work with an incorrectly coded bot. Thryduulf (talk) 10:00, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There's not just bot and Twinkle notifications that go to the page creator, but also Echo notifications for "someone has linked to your page" that go to the earliest editor in the page history. I don't think there is a good way to fix those in software. But it would perhaps be better for everyone if the creation credit for KAIA (group), a redirect that was turned into an article, would be given to the person who converted the redirect to an article, not to me who just happened to create the redirect while gnoming. (As an aside, creating articles about people who become important politicians is a good way to be informed about what they do; my most successful article creation is Ursula von der Leyen and she gets a lot of links). —Kusma (talk) 10:25, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Re the KAIA situation, I agree because you created the redirect before the girl group was even founded, so I moved the redirect edit back to KAIA where it was originally. I've made similar history switches before, such as at "Bardcore". Re echo notifications not going to the page creator: I've experienced it myself but it's a minor inconvenience; for example I think the redirect edit before my article creation in this diff at Kevin Cullen (doctor) is integral to its history. Graham87 (talk) 11:03, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Strictly speaking, the history of KAIA now a bit of a lie, but it makes more sense than before :) I usually leave such situations alone unless there is a good reason to mess with the histories. —Kusma (talk) 12:50, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Vis à vis User:Justlettersandnumbers: Copyright issues; but alerting Victuallers is 'silly [and] nagging'. Also [1]. No brainer. Pull his autopatrolled right. A shame that an editor as supposedly experienced as him needs to be treated this way, but you see, he puts quantity ahead of quality. See UP. Their understanding of INVOLVED was also questioned some time ago. SN54129 13:50, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are being unfair here. Quality is so important that it should never be confused with quantity. Alerts to errors are important, as is fixing them, and they are responded to. I think you are drawing unfair conclusions. Victuallers (talk) 14:45, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

No, I see that it's not, but that admins can grant the right to themselves without discussion. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:33, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Discussion on Autopatrolled user right

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

"planning on declining the CCI" ?? I'm confused. The CCI investigation was refused. Is there another? At some point we need to draw a consensus and decide whether editors working together are allowed create new articles even though another editor doesnt like it. The articles are not unpatrolled, they are all recorded for the review of editors as you can see in the edit histories and the number of views. My quick request about "coaching" said "Coaching is a partnership between coach and client" - we shouldnt misuse the word here. I'm not sure that anyone has ever become a successful coach by insisting that they need to be involved. Victuallers (talk) 22:59, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Victuallers Sorry, I left out the detail about the CCI already being declined. I was planning on declining it and then opening a discussion in a different venue, but I got busy with other stuff and it was declined by someone else before I could do this. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 03:47, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am willing to WP:AGF on Victuallers deleting redirects, but restoring a copyvio article without removing the infringing text is hard to do. I wasn't able find evidence of any further errors on Victuallers' part, but a thorough review may be needed. Until then, I am undecided on whether to revoke Autopatrolled status. Scorpions1325 (talk) 23:46, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

• 64.141.33.27 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 209.171.85.239 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 66.244.248.162 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

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

Thanks for the ping. I'd like to add that, based on the page history for Ottawa, User:2607:FEA8:D55E:6F00:50FC:255E:F8A5:F824 could possibly be a block evasion of the same user. Besides that, I don't have much to add (although I agree that page protection might be in order). Sincerely, Novo Tape (She/Her)^{My Talk Page} 03:12, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just popping in to note that Sawdust was protected by Favonian.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 18:25, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Sauljnewman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 82.6.50.239 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 192.76.8.82 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 192.76.8.75 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

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

I've semi'd it for 2 weeks. Just giving the rope here for them to try to get consensus on the talk page. Thanks, Lourdes 15:33, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please allow criticism of the Blue Zones on the basis of government data to be posted on the page.

This is simply not WP:OR. I am citing CDC sources, which are stated by Wikipedia as an example of trustworthy soures, that clearly dispute the central claim of the Blue Zones that individuals have extraordinary lifespan. I am also citing Japanese government statistics bureau and the EUROSTAT database, which likewise show that the lifespan in 'blue zones' regions is not remarkable. The Psychologist Guy is claiming, absurdly, that these independent sources of evidence cannot be cited on Wikipedia because they do not explicitly name-check the Blue Zones. I have repeatedly asked hum why this is necessary, and why govenrnment statistics cannot be cited on wikipedia. He has not been able to state why, and keeps taking down these edits.

The CDC does not need to name-check every fad diet out there in order for it to be cited on wikipedia. The idea is absurd.

The idea that I cannot post Japanses government/EUROSTAT/CDC data to wikipedia, because reading the number from a map or database is 'original research', is equally absurd. Yet these are the objections being put forward here. Sauljnewman (talk) 08:47, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sauljnewman has been told many times that their edits are WP:OR, check the Blue zone talk-page, it has been explained many times why their edits are unreliable. None of the sources they are adding mention "blue zones". Unfortunately this user is also using an IP address on the talk-page claiming the same nonsense which is now resulting in some personal attacks [9]. I believe this user and their IPs should be blocked. There is blatant disrespect for consensus, policy and other editors here. Psychologist Guy (talk) 10:21, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You don't seem to understand what is being said. Wikipedia relies on secondary sources, not primary sources that you have found. If you read No original research, you will find that your edits are against policy:

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

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

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

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

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

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

I wasn’t trying to be obsessed with her article, and her page. I know what I did was wrong, and I say sry bc I understand what I did was wrong. I have ceased on the emojis part, and someone said I shouldn’t give up. Now I don’t know what to think at this point and I thought I was loved for trying to be a good editor. I know I have said I wasn’t good or have said I was stupid, and I know what RS stand for now. Someone explained it to me, and suggested I read the biographies of living persons. This is the last time I will say sry, and I’m really sry for messing everything up for u guys. I may be a failure, and have failed at editing but I understand why I’m indefinitely blocked now from editing Ainsley Earhardt’s article. Plz accept my apology, and thank u 🙏🏻 for helping me. Dandielayla (talk) 00:55, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Oh ok, and I will read the guidance to be unblocked. Thank u for the link, and for the tips. Dandielayla (talk) 01:21, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Update. Dandielayla took my and others' advice and tried to improve other articles. They worked from the list of suggested newcomer tasks, but sometimes strayed from or didn't understand the specified task: for example here an attempted image addition and an attempted end date addition tagged as copyediting. They also tried the Teahouse, but unfortunately focused there on the Earhardt article and their block. Some of their problems undoubtedly come from being on mobile—I suspect that's why they keep trying to add inline links. But their talk page also demonstrates that they are finding it very hard to understand and absorb all the information we've been trying to give them. And now after further warnings their indefinite block has been made sitewide by Yamla. I don't know what else we can do; Zaathras appears to have been correct at the outset, CIR. Yngvadottir (talk) 12:10, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Note also that the user repeatedly promised to stop what they were doing, only to immediately continue. --Yamla (talk) 12:25, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It does look like competence, but I'm also going to suggest that using the mobile web interface actively makes editing harder and adding rookie mistakes easier. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:31, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Cullen328 said it best here, "We would all be better off if the WMF shut down all these poor quality smartphone/mobile apps, which are an impediment to collaborative editing. I cannot imagine the amount of money that has been wasted on these crappy apps over the years, but "small fortune" comes to mind". Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:04, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please don't withdraw talk page access. They are not doing any harm by continuing to try to understand and responding to people who try to explain things (most recently an IP deserves a tubful of thanks, but not only can I not use the thanks function for an IP, it's one of those newfangled semi-infinitely varying IPs so not worth starting the talk page to do so). They've started to figure out the unblock template; they'd never manage UTRS. Yngvadottir (talk) 00:34, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Newfangled IP in question here; thanks received! And I agree that withdrawing talk page access would be a mistake. The user seems legitimately confused and trying their best to understand the various policies and templates and practices at play here. Sure, this might well still end with CIR and the standard offer, but they've done absolutely nothing so far to merit revoking their own talk page access. If any admin is tempted to do so, perhaps that admin's time would be better spent responding to the user's nearly-two-days-old-and-counting unblock request with some tangible guidance. 2600:1700:87D3:3460:8C27:D611:283D:EEB6 (talk) 02:02, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

Logical quotation is acceptable but not mandatory. That's because the MoS is the consensus view of what should be done -- in other words a guideline -- and is not policy, and therefore not mandatory. Editors should keep this distinction in mind and not elevate MoS to de facto policy status. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:44, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter if it's not mandatory, there is no good reason to remove them. This makes this user's edits WP:DISRUPTIVE. --Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 21:50, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't agree. The "good reason" is a simple preference: which is all the MOS is anyway. Thousands of edits a day do nothing more than establish one editor's preference in phrasing, word choice, formatting and flow over another's. I want a significantly better rationale to call an editor's edits disruptive than that you don't like them. How, precisely, are these edits being disruptive, and what diffs do you proffer as to specifics? Ravenswing 23:16, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

First and foremost, these edits are disruptive because they disregard the consensus-building process. Guidelines such as the Manual of Style reflect community consensus, and editors "should attempt to follow guidelines" in the absence of specific reasons to make exceptions. Burvegas's edits do not follow the community's consensus about the use of quotation marks in articles, as seen in [10], [11], and [12]. Burvegas has not justified these edits beyond stating in the edit summaries and on their talk page that typographer's quotes are preferred in American English, a position that does not align with community consensus on variants of English (at least as concerns writing on Wikipedia). They have not attempted to develop new consensus by discussing punctuation styles on the talk pages for the articles in question or the Manual of Style itself, despite being specifically asked to do so here.

While "thousands of edits a day do nothing more than establish one editor's preference [...]", those editors are expected to engage in dispute resolution should another editor express a competing preference. Multiple editors have expressed a competing preference here ([13], [14], [15]) and attempted to engage in talk-page discussion, and Burvegas has not responded with anything substantive outside what was already included in the edit summaries of the disputed edits, and continues to make similar edits.

The non-MoS edits here are also at least slightly disruptive in their own right; straight and logical quotes are considered best practices for technical and clarity reasons, respectively, and copyediting Wikipedia to conform to the Manual of Style is considered an accepted practice, so making edits that serve only to reduce compliance with the MoS will frustrate the work of those other editors. However, I think the core issue here is the refusal to engage in dispute resolution.

Box of wolves (feed) 01:21, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Did you look at the edits? It's obvious. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 01:29, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

They're disruptive because there's no valid reason to make the change. They're disruptive in exactly the same way that changing a bunch of articles written in American English into British English would be. In both cases it's part of the Manual of Style, is it not? --Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 04:52, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

They're also in violation of MOS:CURLY, causing unbalanced pairs of quotation marks. This is the only kind of edit they seem to make. Is it necessary to prove this is disruption? It is by no metric constructive. Folly Mox (talk) 01:28, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I understand disliking MOS guidelines but changing the right and not the left double quotation mark to curly (while making no other changes) when others have asked you not to seems facially disruptive. Mackensen (talk) 02:17, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with that, changing only one side of a pair of quotation marks is disruptive. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:57, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 [24] [25], so they are not breaking news, only Lee's death was. If the problem was sourcing, the same or similar English and non-English sources are used to support their own edits about Lee [26]. Their justifications are all contradictory, but I suppose I can try discussing with them one time. Vacosea (talk) 16:51, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 [28] came after the talk section [29] [30]. 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
• 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)[reply]

Vast majority does not mean one or two disputes. If Dustfreeworld wants to engage in good faith discussion [31], they should not have waited until ANI while reverting away in the mean time [32][33], or highlighted their source here without mentioning 6 other sources against them on the article's talk page all this time. Is it also good faith behavior for Dustfreeworld to omit information from my history in order to push for a ban? [34] User talk:Wpscatter#Korean cuisine [35] They have complained about verification, refused to look at verification, warned me about "references", even though the sources have been there all along, complained about me removing content, complained about my accuracy, when are they going to stop? Vacosea (talk) 21:54, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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]

What they wrote about me on that board, "please stop your continual and deliberate false accusations", was baseless and itself potentially defamatory [36]. Their edits there focus too much on linking back to this ANI to begin with. Vacosea (talk) 17:47, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@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 in deed. --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]

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

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

A majority of the hoax drafts appear to be coming from the 142.162.35.37 IP- I'm highly inclined to believe that all the drafts regarding 'Untitled Scooby-Doo! and _________ film' and 'Untitled Jetsons/Flintstones and Bill Nye the Science Guy/Neil deGrasse Tyson film' are completely made up.

I would personally suggest a block on the 142.162.35.37 IP (as they are the one currently still actively contributing to this issue) and doing a purge of hoax drafts create by both IPs. Magitroopa (talk) 10:49, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also worth noting... just seeing now that both IPs have previously been blocked once for this same disruptive behavior. Obviously nothing has changed. Magitroopa (talk) 10:53, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Blocked User:142.162.35.37 three months for creating hoaxes. See also their talk page for prior warnings. The two IPs listed above are both from Newfoundland. Let me know if you notice other IPs continuing this activity. EdJohnston (talk) 23:58, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

@TheFriendlyFas2

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

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

Relevant examples:

[41][42][43]

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

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

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

It looks like there are similar edits done more recently; specifically [44][45][46][47]. While they are from five months ago, when combined with the diffs provided by OP they do make it seem like there's a long-term POV-pushing issue here. Hatman31 (talk) 15:22, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

Yet again, this user has shown disregard for behaviour "branding" edits idiotic here [48]. User:Bgsu98 has been reported to this noticeboard on numerous occasions but nothing is ever done, no warnings are ever given. The way this account continues to get away with ransacking articles and edit summaries that border on harassment.2A00:23EE:19E0:8088:F103:6825:D453:5EC9 (talk) 02:20, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

His revisions are a blatant violation of WP:NPOV-[49]. It goes against the consensus that was achieved on how to best characterize the subject in the lede [50]. His first edit also used a false edit summary of removed disambiguation and he refuses to discuss his edits on the talk page even when pinged [51]. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 03:42, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

You do realize that on top of the RFC [52], it states and was closed with There is a consensus that proposal #1 is better.? I'm not the one who initally added that to the lede.

Can you provide evidence for all your other claims? Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 04:00, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also even if someone was a "revered freedom fighter", Wikipedia would never allow such flowery language to be used on an article, no matter how commendable the subject was, especially not in the lede, that too in Wikivoice instead of attributed to someone. At best, they could be called a revolutionary. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 04:04, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for reaching out again. Although i have been nothing but respectful till this point, i feel you are bit agitated. I am more than happy to provide you with evidence for all of my claims. Aside from that, on the subject of flowery language, if you don't like the phrase "revered freedom fighter.", i am more than happy to change it to a revolutionary which be more appropriate than the word militant which is very disrespectful for a man of such caliber. Please ponder upon this without the element of hate and bias. Regards Procrastinater (talk) 04:13, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Southasianhistorian8 This is Wikipedia. This is not your little kingdom where you can spread your propagated information. Procrastinater (talk) 04:29, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can tell, you have failed to keep a neutral point of view, as there's not one, but five, sources all describing Jarnail as a militant in the opening paragraph. Instead, you're pushing your own POV, as you have failed to cite a source that backs your argument of Jarnail being a freedom fighter or revolutionary. You are casting aspersions, and have failed to communicate, instead choosing to now be in violation of WP:3RR. - HotMAN0199 (talk) 04:44, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please Review these sources Aswell, all news present on the web is not absolutely authentic. This topic is very controversial, as I promised I will provide authentic sources here are the links, one of them is from Reuters the best news agency.

What is the Khalistan movement and why is it fuelling India-Canada rift? | Reuters

Jarnail Bhindranwale: Slain Khalistani separatist leaders seen in Pakistan’s Kartarpur video: Who were they? | India News (timesnownews.com) Procrastinater (talk) 05:43, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Furthermore, I agree I was wrong here, because i reverted it by accident. It was not intentional. Procrastinater (talk) 05:44, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Im sure im diving in deep and this is going to get me some pushback, but wouldnt a term like "controversial revolutionary figure" work pretty well here? Googleguy007 (talk) 12:45, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Procrastinater, the reality is that Wikipedia has a steep learning curve, so learning the basic in contentious areas rarely works out. Are you even aware that Wikipedia works by WP:CONSENSUS? Because when Southasianhistorian8 linked that specific consensus discussion for you in their edit summary (diff), but you reverted with un untrue edit summary that read: User:- Southasianhistorian8 engaged in spreading disinformation on this topic, well, that looks bad. And because you're learning the basics in a contentious area, you don't even realize that it looks bad. But it does. It is sanctionable misconduct, in fact. El_C 06:05, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It is widely agreed upon in the Sikh community.

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

Looks to be quite obvious POV pushing, followed by backtracking when they got into trouble. Claiming their edit war to be an "accident" is laughable, especially in light of this comment

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

The mental gymnastics used to justify the POV is astounding.

I think a block might be too severe given that the account is fairly new, and a TBAN from Indian subcontinent might solve the issues. This will also allow them to edit in less controversial areas and possible come back to editing more constructively. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 07:16, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Will You be kind enough to explain how was it mental gymnastics, when i already admitted that it was by mistake Procrastinater (talk) 07:31, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It has already been explained to you above what is wrong with your editing. I agree that it would be better for you to focus on other areas of Wikipedia that are not as political or controversial. _{Duly signed,} ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 18:29, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am assuming you know the meaning of mental gymnastics, (already been explained to you above what is wrong with your editing), I already admitted my mistake, check the whole conversation, i am not playing dumb to the fact that I bypassed some rules. But blatantly accusing me of mental gymnastics is just disingenuous. Procrastinater (talk) 03:58, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Procrastinater, It would look better for you, in this case, to accept what this community of editors is saying at face value without claiming that anything they are telling you is disingenuous. From what I see they have been patient in explaining the issues without a rush to judgement. Consensus is paramount on Wikipedia. Without it every discussion devolves into shouting matches. Because you are relatively new to Wikipedia and show a willingness to discuss issues I think that's why you see a softer approach here. Don't take that for granted. Accept all criticism. Take that which will help you learn and grow and apply it. Let the rest roll off but don't discount it whether you think it's disingenuous or not. You were wrong this time. It's okay, we've all been there. Don't let it discourage you and don't fight against it. Above all else, move forward, find some other area less contentious to edit in and contribute constructively. The editors here obviously think enough of you to give the opportunity. Use that opportunity wisely. --ARoseWolf 13:03, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

After a sock of "维基中二群体代表" was locked again by Sotiale and one article got speedy deleted by G5, User:92.88.117.66 then appeared and re-created the previously deleted entry, as well as editing {{Chinese New Left}} and a few other wikis' related entries (idwiki, kowiki and ruwiki). ときさき くるみ ^{not because they are easy, but because they are hard} 10:45, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Diffs, although the contribs are fairly self explanatory: [59] [60] WindTempos ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:28, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Similar thing at User_talk:Blablubbs#Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Market_America_(3rd_nomination). Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:06, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Block evasion by Kingshowman. Blocked for a week. — Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 15:21, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Ingenuity: 50.174.57.242 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has just popped up to continue the disruption. What a nightmare. WindTempos ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:34, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Although there was some discussion on Talk, there has been no consensus on the additions and it seems Squeakachu was never contacted. It seems that Harold G. Hillam has now been semi-protected by Ponyo. I think this matter is resolved for the time being. Toadspike (talk) 19:01, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to say WP:ONUS applies, but the IP/64 has been blocked for 72hrs. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 19:44, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just noting that I saw this shortly after it was posted but got sidetracked with IRL stuff, so no harm done by the lack of notification. I've commented at the article talk page but if any further input is needed here feel free to ask. Squeakachu (talk) 21:40, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 Looks like a duck to me. I've blocked both /64s for six months. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:03, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Blocking a /64 on a mobile IP range for six months is a bad idea. It's just going to cause collateral damage without impacting the sock puppeteer much at all. If you're going to block a mobile IP range, you need to do a much wider block. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:33, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

It's hard to say. It depends on the ISP, really. In many cases, either 31 hours or a week. Some ISPs, like AT&T Mobility, dump a lot of their customers on a /64. If you block a /64 on AT&T Mobility, it could very well block a significant portion of editing from an American city, but individual customers will likely stay on that /64. So, it's a balancing act between trying to stop LTA vandals from editing vs mitigating collateral damage. Verizon Wireless, on the other hand, generally dumps people on a /40, and I suspect blocking a /64 won't do anything to stop them from editing. I think all they have to do is press one button on their smartphone, and they're back to editing from a different IP address on that /40. A short 12 hour or 31 hour block might discourage impulsive vandalism, though. On Jio, there's probably going to be a lot of collateral damage whatever you do, but that goes 10x for any ISP in Nigeria. I try to do short blocks on Jio when I can, maybe around 31 hours or even a week, and I try not to do any range blocks on Nigerian ISPs if I can help it. For Indian and Nigerian range blocks, I often leave account creation enabled if I do a block longer than 24 hours unless it's an LTA vandal who needs to be stopped from creating new accounts. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:15, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your insights! I think it'd be good if these details were to somehow be integrated with the documentation @WP:/64 (whose #P.S. only touches on AT&T and Verizon). El_C 04:11, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

He's been on 2603:8080:A402:6894:0:0:0:0/64 for a few months. Possible he's moved to the other one and could move again though. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 07:37, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Well, yes, there's a lot of that. In this case, I'm referring to David Madbellics (talk · contribs), who previously edited as Charlesviibrown (talk · contribs) and JamesDavidson-Madison (talk · contribs). In the most recent incarnation, we have edits like [61]; [62]; [63]; [64]; [65]; [66]; [67]; [68]; [69]; removal of AfD tag [70]; and as an IP [71]. None of these are Wiki felonies--rather, they display a lack of competence in syntax, punctuation, capitalization and formatting that has left a small trail of clean up. I've attempted to broach the subject [72], and another note was greeted with similar lack of understanding [73]. Intentions appear to be good, but this doesn't seem to be their native language, and they're not proficient to copyedit effectively. I'm at a loss as to how best to proceed, without sounding harsher than I already have. Mostly, I'd prefer to hand this off to others, rather than task myself a solitary vigilance. Thanks. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 02:21, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ok thanks, I underst

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

I've tried to offer a few words at their talk page, to explain that their English is not good enough for copy editing on the English Wikipedia. Not sure if that will be sufficient, though. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:02, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

OK, David Madbellics has agreed to stop trying to copy edit, improve, or rewrite article text. That seems good enough to me, at least for now. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:25, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Considering that one of your most recent edits (even from after this discussion here started) is adding an enwiki mirror as a source for the same enwiki article, I have to say no, you should refrain from those as well. Fram (talk) 10:28, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

hello, sorry for repitions but, what's wrong in citation that I gave for that article? David Madbellics (talk) 11:37, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's a Wikipedia mirror (see WP:MIRROR). It's a copy of the Wikipedia article - and you can't use a Wikipedia article as a source for itself. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:19, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

I'm telling you that the source must not be Wikipedia itself! If that is not obvious, I really don't think you should be editing here at all. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:09, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Propose CBAN

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

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

I just indeffed the user. I hadn't seen your proposal. I'm, there's no reason why such a proposal cannot continue despite my block.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:16, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Or maybe after you addressed their contributions as "stupid stuff" before removing it from the article? I'll put in a note to them to stop this retaliatory wave (it is uncalled for); but would advise you to consider using such words less. Thanks, Lourdes 16:54, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User:Lourdes Thank you for taking time on this, I have explained myself to User:MarcGarver, It was a misunderstanding on my part. I'll be careful with my contributions. Thank you two for showing me where I was wrong. bɑʁɑqoxodaraP (talk) 09:07, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

CONTEXT: Impeachment inquiry against Joe Biden

I noticed that

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

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

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

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

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

Valjean, you provided a clear warning, and I followed that with a CTOP notice; there have been no edits since, so I'm not sure why this has been escalated to here?-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:50, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This was written at the same time that you were also writing there. Maybe the warnings will be enough. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 00:00, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Perhaps the tea house advice should have been to consider WP:SPI instead of ANI? The history of Will (TV series) includes multiple single-purpose editors attempting the same addition of Hayter. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:42, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Theres no suckpuppet there. I tried as well as seen someone else tried to add him until i was told to get him into an article which i had worked on that with help of 4 reviewers who proved his notability. Then one of them added his name to the cast and when i saw the draft was accepted i added back his name without noticing it was already added. Then the user removed all that. But thats not just that they also harassed and accused me of a COI as well as editing with multi accounts which i dont have and even explained it on my user talk. The user is trying to delete the article of Hayter now Veganpurplefox (talk) 00:56, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I mean when i saw there was his name twice, i removed 1 and then the user removed all after Veganpurplefox (talk) 00:57, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@David Eppstein: That seems to me like an even worse place to pursue this? How would that help them?

As far as I see it, MrOllie said they are going to start a deletion discussion (WP:AfD) for Edward Hayter, so the most appropriate response to at least that part of this is to wait for that discussion to be created, discuss in it and then respect the result. In fact I don't see the attempt at talking with MrOllie as having gotten out of hand, it seems to me that Veganpurplefox just does not know what WP:AfD's are, doesn't know the processes of how to solve disputes and when asking at teahouse got given the not good advice to come here.

SPI and ANI are both not the answer here. – 2804:F14:80BD:BF01:D85F:3C72:7CA4:BA29 (talk) 01:00, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

then can someone just help me out and explain the next steps. No one explained this to me and tea house said I should come here. Veganpurplefox (talk) 01:16, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Veganpurplefox, you are obligated to inform MrOllie about the report you made here. Since you have not done so, I have informed MrOllie myself. Cullen328 (talk) 01:30, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

You could continue asking for clarification at teahouse. In fact others commented on your question there afterwards: Generalrelative pointed you at WP:DR, the page which documents the dispute resolution policy. The link I just gave you to AfD(WP:AfD) includes a detailed description of all aspects of the discussion process, from creating one to how they are closed and how to contribute to one.

I'll admit that I don't have much experience with either of these things, as I jut avoid them, so I can't help you (and this board isn't for that anyways). But nothing is stopping you from continuing to ask questions at the Teahouse, as long as they are in good faith, that's what the teahouse is there for. Perhaps the person who initially indicated you here just severely misunderstood what was going on.

Just try to approach the dispute and your questions, like it says at dispute resolution: "Focus on article content during discussions, not on editor conduct; comment on content, not the contributor".

What I recommend you do in the meantime though, is formally withdraw this report (by commenting saying that you do).

– 2804:F14:80BD:BF01:D85F:3C72:7CA4:BA29 (talk) 01:36, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

I still think that Vesyray (talk · contribs) / Vessyray (talk · contribs) are related to Veganpurplefox, (just look at User talk:Vessyray) but I didn't bother with SPI at the time because they seemed to get the message and knock it off after a warning. As to the deletion, I'll most likely start an AFD, but not until I have time to recheck the sourcing. That is the way to resolve this. MrOllie (talk) 01:33, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you believe so much that me and that other username are both me then just go compare our IP addresses and you'll see how none of youre allegations against me are true. I only have this account and sometimes forget to login to my account so my IP address appears but that's all accidental. Also, the Will series has been discovered by many Jamie Campbell Bower fans last year bc of his role of Vecna and plenty of fans have made fan edits of that series which is how I discovered Ed because of Jamie kissing Men for his role including Ed. There's a petition to get the series having a season 2(with 2020 signatures). I process to research him and he became one of my fav actors. Then I made a fan account of him which now has hundreds of followers (fansofedhayter), with the Wikipedia links in the bio so anyone could have seen the draft as well as the article accepted. Vesyray and I may have the same interest of the Will series and Ed but we doesn't even have the same writing pattern. I find it wasteful to even start with a "hello..." or end the conversation with "have a good day". While they do that. And why would I have more than 1 account? Aren't Wikipedia a place for everyone contributing???in Wikipedia we can edit all kind of articles from all our interests,while on a website like Instagram we'll I do have plenty ones cause there's my main as well as owning many fan accounts that aren't about the same things so that's fair enough to have multi accounts while here it's not. And I'm autistic so I may be direct but i don't lie. Lying is just make the society worse and get them issues and I don't want to be involved with that. And that's why we, autistics, are never believed cause neurotypicals are so busy lying all the time. Veganpurplefox (talk) 09:41, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

neurotypicals are so busy lying all the time Autistic or not, I strongly suggest that you strike that inappropriate personal attack. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 11:32, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You are very much not the only autistic editor on the site, it is no accuse for disruptive editting or making negative personal statements against other groups. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 13:30, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Before this becomes something more than I think it is, I read that statement differently. I don't believe the editor was saying any particular group is lying all the time. That's just how they feel they are looked at being part of that group. It is more a statement of how they personally feel they, being autistic, are viewed by others than a personal view they hold of autistic people. I would caution the editor that WP:AGF is a thing and we need to maintain the approach that every editor is acting in good faith until there is evidence they are not. MrOllie made an assessment based on their perception of what they felt was evidence of a link between the accounts. That is not necessarily proof of anything. I think that would still need to be tested at SPI before action was taken, likewise the AFD process will determine if the article stays on Wikipedia. The best thing for the OP to do is take a deep breathe, trust the process and go edit somewhere else on the project. That was clearly bad advice at the Tea House. This discussion should probably be closed. --ARoseWolf 13:58, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes thank you, you interpreted my opinion well. How can i proove it that im not the same user of the other? How can i start to ask them for proof so they now will believe me when i say im not the same user cause im really tired of being accused of things i havent done. Veganpurplefox (talk) 14:06, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

I read we, autistics, are never believed cause neurotypicals are so busy lying all the time as an unambiguous, and demonstrably false, statement that people like me are unremitting liars. I suppose, ARoseWolf, that we'll just have to disagree on that being a personal attack against an entire group of people. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 14:46, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

noting for the record that the teahouse thread in question is Wikipedia:Teahouse#Issue with cast, and the person who suggested to come here is @thealienman2002. ltbdl (talk) 03:14, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I meant to link to systemic bias, not systemic racism (which is a redirect). That is a big mistake on my part, so sorry about that. Regardless I don't think it changes the meaning that much; I neither implied nor stated that you're personally biased or racist, rather I pointed you there because your comment, specifically the phrase how many films at these awards were in English or known outside India, unintentionally falls into that category: Although we are the English-language Wikipedia, we cover global topics, no matter if they are from non-Anglo-speaking places; hence, my full original comment being Frankly, we don't give a rat's ass that this is not a primarily English award.

All that said, apologies for frustration on my end, some comments in that thread had quite irked me (especially this). Curbon7 (talk) 07:57, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• I've blocked Daikido (72 hours) for their subpar conduct at WP:ITN, which I refuse to let be as some kind of a free-for-all: User talk:Daikido#Block. Anyway, I don't know why all the OP's diffs are broken for me, but I read that thread indent. And I think that, in light of its content, and taking into account Curbon7 explanation and apology, a warning to take a pause when things get heated, suffices. An approach which would be more effective at countering Wikipedia:Systemic bias, at the least. El_C 08:41, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

To whomever it may concern,

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

Revision as of 14:18, 27 September 2023

Revision as of 03:09, 28 September 2023

Notice: Template:Editnotices/Page/Bharatiya Janata Party

Accusation of me being disruptive.

Accusation of spamming when asked to specify.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Therefore I am forced to make this complaint.

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

I seek remedial action. Thank you

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I told him here that this is not a consensus.

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

His reluctance that he has gained consensus.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Pin Scrabble has repeatedly posted content to their talk page that is WP:NOTWEBHOST material ([91], [92], [93], [94], [95]), despite multiple notices/warnings. I'm requesting that they be blocked as WP:NOTHERE and have their talk page access revoked immediately, as that's where they are posting. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 16:22, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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