Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems. Before posting: Read these tips for dealing with incivility If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page Try dispute resolution Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly. Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight. When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough. You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so. Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)
Start a new discussion

Mass reinstatement of made up/incorrect information on French election articles

As some of you may have seen, there has been a bit of a social media storm about my removals of unsourced, inconsistent and made-up information from French election articles. A few had to be protected as a result of disruption after the initial storm on Twitter. Unfortunately today there has been a mass reinstatement of this stuff by AlbusWulfricDumbledore (talk · contribs)

A few highlights from these reverts:

• In this one they reinstate an infobox which has different figures to the results table, a results table which is completely different to the source used (the party names are different, the seat figures are different and there are no vote figures in the source), and one with a parliamentary diagram with a different number of seats to the results table. They also removed the addition of a full set of vote figures (including invalid votes and registered voters) from a reliable source.
• In this one unsourced vote figures are re-added to the article which appear to be back-calculated from the number of seats (and so are just made up). The parliamentary diagram reinstated to the article does not match the seat totals in the results table (although it has the same total, if you click through to the image page, the number of seats for parties are different to those in the table).
• Here and here they blindly reinstate a results table and infobox data with figures that do not match the figures in the prose (and in the first case, claim they are reverting vandalism).
• This revert reinstated a results table that is different to the source and in which the vote percentages are clearly back-calculated from the (unsourced) seat totals, and in turn, the vote figures have been back-calculated from the rounded percentages.
• This one restores an unreferenced version, removes the addition of invalid votes and registered voters, reinstates seat figures which are different to the sources used in the referenced version, and removes various fixes such as category sorting. This one is the same.

I asked the editor in question stop with the reverts shortly after they started this series of edits, and then to undo their edits, but while they have undone a couple of their errors on the 1893 article, they now seem to have got bored and moved onto other things, leaving it in a state where the infobox is inconsistent with the results table, and (more importantly) the results don't match the source. They seem to be expecting me to gain consensus for the corrections to each individual article, which is impractical given the scale of the problem here.

Some more eyes on this article series, which was an absolute mess and has been plagued by misinformation on both en.wiki and fr.wiki (where some of the stuff is being copied from), would be helpful. Number 57 22:15, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Replied on my talk page with more details - arbitrary stripping of tens of articles to suit own style preferences. Another point - unsourced content repeatedly removed en masse without any discussion, request for sources, or tags. Was in engagement with user via my talk page, so interesting that it was raised as an incident. Article series really needs oversight for the heavy handed approach taken across several pages. AlbusWulfricDumbledore (talk) 00:37, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

This is not a style preference issue. In nearly all of these of these cases, the problem is that the information does not match the source, is patently made up or is internally inconsistent, and in several cases you removed references that had been added to articles to verify the information. The fact that you are fully aware that you have reinserted such nonsense into numerous articles and removed references and don't seem to care is not good. Number 57 00:44, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

I've stated numerous times I'm supportive of introducing sources as opposed to your undiscussed stripping of numerous pages across this site, to the scale of your disruption is such that there are instances as you have described mistakenly, but you are now mischaracterising the issue and your mission to mould every page to suit your style, and removing reams of information, as you realize there is zero consensus. More input is desperately needed due to your actions in many article series. I have engaged with you in good faith repeatedly so bizarre you're taking it like this, when you know your edits are not universally accepted here. AlbusWulfricDumbledore (talk) 01:08, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

You reverted sources (and more detailed results) being added to at least nine articles in the course of your spree of blind reverts (such as here). And you clearly have not engaged in good faith given your first set of edit summaries were "rv vandalism"[1][2][3] Number 57 01:15, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Yet again you deflect from the main issue : yourself and mass stripping of articles by yourself to suit your tastes and levelling articles of information with zero /consensus, and harassing other users trying to add sources. The sheer scale of this did result in references accidentally being removed as I said. The deflection of this is causing these replies to circle back. Much more oversight is needed over for your heavy handedness across many article series. You are well aware your actions have no consensus among editors. I have replied every time and attempted correct your deflections AlbusWulfricDumbledore (talk) 01:31, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

User:AlbusWulfricDumbledore the onus is on you to introduce the sources supporting the results. Having a stripped back article with correct information is preferable to having one that perpetuates errors. ITBF (talk) 01:35, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Take that point, though the scale of this is huge by @Number 57 with no consensus, tags or even attempts to discuss on talk pages. The main issue behind this is the users mass moulding of pages to suit his taste, which can be seen in replies to other users and the differences in revision. All this with zero consensus. Will try to engage in sourcing soon too if possible in the instance the user has highlighted. Oversight is desperately needed to his arbitrary changes as too many people have picked up on, yet others are tarred as socks or vandals by the user. Thanks AlbusWulfricDumbledore (talk) 01:43, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

There are discussions on many of the talk pages in that series, starting with Talk:1791 French legislative election, Talk:1792 French National Convention election. Number 57 01:53, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

and zero where you have an established consensus. Personal conviction is not consensus btw, your multiple arbitrary stripping of pages needs way more oversight. You refuse to engage simply reverting other user edits and resort to name calling people like socks. Although you are trying to deflect with isolated references, Im fully convinced you realize your actions have no consensus. AlbusWulfricDumbledore (talk) 01:58, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Hmmm... I don't see how doing verification work, one of the core policies of Wikipedia, requires consensus regardless of whether the pages are related, and it ending up with stripping the pages of unverified/unverifiable content. However, it might be courteous to have more descriptive edit summaries (rather than just "Format") or a link in the edit summaries to point to an explanation on a talk page for centralised discussion to occur, given that the work were done for a series of related pages.

On edit warring, the 1898 French legislative election article is the lightning conductor being the subject of two viral pieces of social media content, a Tweet and a YouTube video. I don't see N57 edit warring there; other editors were reverting to have his revision in to a point that it became a disruptive pattern. – robertsky (talk) 08:07, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

May I also suggest that, now it is either contentious or potentially disruptive to introduce changes to these articles, if the numbers you produce, after verifying against the sources, are different and/or displayed differently, discuss first on the talk page(s) per WP:BRD (noting that the ship has largely sailed passed Bold and Revert parts of the cycle). – robertsky (talk) 08:12, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Yes, my edit summary wasn't great, but I never expected removing misinformation would be so controversial. And we are talking about 50 articles here – individual talk page discussions aren't practical (or are just ignored – I put a detailed explanation of the reason for removing the results table at Talk:1791 French legislative election and it didn't help). Number 57 10:53, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

I took a look at sources for the 1988 elections, I left a talk page message there. ChaotıċEnby(talk · contribs) 13:18, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Oversight? — MATRIX! (a good person!)_{[citation unneeded]} 19:32, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

• The balance of evidence here suggests that AlbusWulfricDumbledore has not demonstrated due diligence in reverting. "Number57 was making too many edits" is not an adequate defense for their edits unless they can demonstrate that Number57's edits were equally or more reckless or edit warring, which is not self-evident. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 02:37, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

  They have edit warred, reverting other users changes multiple times, instead calling them socks or blind - a cursory glance at edit summaries shows this. The user has wilfully invited and engaged in edit warring, as well as reckless, arbitrary stripping of multiple articles relating to French legislative elections. Did not say the number of edits was too high at any point but rather the amount of info removed without discussion, tags or warning. Has chosen to force through these very drastic strippings, shared with many other users AlbusWulfricDumbledore (talk) 03:12, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

  You've asserted that there's been edit warring by Number57, but on the pages linked in this discussion thus far I'm not really seeing it. The only exception is 1893 French legislative election, where it's pretty clear that the other editors participating were canvassed from Twitter judging by the accounts' editing histories (and where the edit war appears to have been ultimately resolved by another editor of the page backing Number57's perspective). Number57's edits by and large appear to be a valid application of building consensus through editing; do you have any diffs that provide evidence to the contrary? _signed, Rosguill ^talk 14:44, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

• Is this a behavioral issue, or is it a content dispute? The talk pages on for the articles Number 57 has linked to don't have any discussion on them. If there is a need for a third opinion to resolve disagreements between two editors (Number 57 and AlbusWulfricDumbledore), consider posting to WP:3O. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 04:17, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

  Content was the reason for my reinstatements, the huge amount of content removed with zero discussion, which many users have taken issue with. Both in terms of wholescale removal (with no tags/discussion etc) and his infobox personal preferences. Not just in this article series but many others. Was discussing this with him on my talk page, when the user decided to bizarrely post this as a behavioural issue (have tried to correct references which he is trying to deflect with) (Considered his removals to be wilfully reckless at first glance at the very start). We both agree that more oversight is needed - in my opinion, to bring in much needed reviewing of his changes, which the user is aware there is no consensus on AlbusWulfricDumbledore (talk) 09:28, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

  I would class it as a behavioural issue on the basis that AlbusWulfricDumbledore has reinserted information they know to be incorrect (as well as removing sources from numerous articles). Number 57 10:53, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

• Sorry, but just looking at the first link that Number57 provides shows that AlbusWulfricDumbledore is inserting information that is (a) clearly wrong, because the totals don't add up correctly (2,220,181 + 126,231 = 1,975,144?), and (b) doesn't match the source (look at the number of seats). This is clearly disruptive and AWD needs to stop doing it. Black Kite (talk) 09:51, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

  There are issues with totals which I'm trying to fix/some which other have already, but the issue behind my edits were to revert at first I saw to be reckless (at the very start), wholescale stripping of articles of information with zero discussion/tags (or even notice on many pages). Many others have brought this up on other pages too (in addition to his crusade to force through infobox format changes on many pages). Have stopped similar edits since he brought this up on my talk page, as I would prefer that like he has mentioned, more eyes on this article series and for WP:3O or something similar AlbusWulfricDumbledore (talk) 10:02, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

• Yes, but that's the point - you don't change articles to insert incorrect information, you ensure the information is correct and matches the source and then you make the edit. Black Kite (talk) 11:25, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

• Although Black Kite's clearly correct in what he says, I want to add that the fact that Number 57 is right doesn't excuse edit-warring, and being a sysop doesn't excuse edit-warring. Being right doesn't bypass the need to build consensus for large-scale changes, and being a sysop doesn't bypass consensus either. What's needed here is a consensus in a central place where people interested in France gather, and I'd recommend Wikipedia talk:WikiProject France.—S Marshall T/C 10:15, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
  • I'm all for discussion, and there have been productive ones on a few talk pages. The issue is, how exactly does one go about gaining consensus for removing misinformation from dozens of pages (we are talking around 50 here) and reinstating the sourced figures? Listing them on a page-by-page basis with the proposed change?
  • My concern is also now that any discussion is at risk of being derailed by drive-by comments, given the traffic driven to these articles by the social media stuff and the fact that some editors (such as the one being reported here) simply don't care about veracity. There was a section on the 1898 talk page in which a few drive-by editors simply proposed reverting the edits despite it being pretty clear to everyone else engaging in the proper discussion that the previous info was wrong... Also, in the meantime, we have several dozen articles that are clearly wrong – is this a tolerable situation? Obviously I am biased, but I would want to see the correct versions (even if they are deemed "stripped out") restored while there was a discussion. It's worth noting that the edits to sort these out were made between February and May last year, and have only just been reverted. Number 57 10:53, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
    • How does one go about gaining consensus to change dozens of pages? Exactly as I said: through consensus in some central place that lots of people see. I suggested Wikipedia talk:WikiProject France. Some people prefer RfC, or village pump. I certainly agree that we need to get this stuff right, and I think we should come to understand where these errors come from as well. But when you're proposing large-scale, sweeping changes to longstanding articles, best not to edit war.—S Marshall T/C 12:21, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
      • It just seems like a potentially time-intensive and potentially frustrating process to go through to do what should be a basic thing – correct the articles; I'm not sure a coherent discussion about differing edits on a set of over 50 articles is even possible – and I suspect it would just turn into a complete mess. The real issue here is that a load of knee jerk/blind reverts have come about as a result of a social media storm, and what happens if the process is affected by more drive-by comments? We end up being left with a load of clearly inaccurate information in articles. TBH it's a bit disappointing how relaxed editors seem to be about patently false information being added into articles; I would have thought the most urgent thing would be to remove it and then discuss what to do... As for how this came about, a lot of the issues seem to stem from a series of IP edits around 2016; for example on the 1877 article, the 2015 version matches the source; after the IP edits they don't. Number 57 12:58, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

        Consensus isn't necessarilyy convenient or easy, but it's a core pillar for Wikipedia's process. A discussion might pose that there's been disagreements on sources and what sources say for [the affected election pages] and ask what source is best to cite. That would at least centralize discussion around using particular sources.

        The desire for accurate information is not a bad one, but Wikipedia is about more than sheer accuracy. I think the essay WP:NORUSH is instructive in this case; while we shouldn't be complacent, we can still recognize that in the long run, building consensus is healthy for the project. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 14:48, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

• Just a further update on this, AWD is now adding sources to some of the results tables. The issue is that the sources they are adding do not support the numbers. For example, here they add a source to a results table that states that Clicy Club won 105 seats, Marisards 44 and Thermidorians 28. However, the source linked states is that Reactionaries won 182 seats, Republicans won 34 and candidates with "unclear opinions" won 44. This is one of the articles that I listed in the bullet points above where the information in the reinserted table did not match the prose (which does match the source). Here they add a source stating it "seems" to be where the numbers are from, but which appears to be inaccessible (I have tried opening it on a couple of devices and the data never loads). Number 57 11:21, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

  Hi, was trying to help with the cases you highlighted, would be helped to be tagged so I can respond to your queries, the second source you mention is accessible via the Web Archive which is why I linked it to there with the archive date. Added the first source as it seems to be helpful as its one of the few that give numbers - but the table needs to be updated

  (PS - this whole process is one I was expecting editors to engage in vs stripping/levelling articles without consultation) AlbusWulfricDumbledore (talk) 13:34, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

So you admit you are adding sources to articles that don't support the information in question? Number 57 13:39, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

You found one example and are hanging onto it for dear life, ignoring the multiple other sources I've added. These discussions belong on talk pages, you recognize and can see sources can be found - so undiscussed mass deletions are not helpful or encouraged by almost anyone. These issues should be discussed via the normal channels rather than via an "incident" AlbusWulfricDumbledore (talk) 13:52, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

I have flagged your one example too, as needing citations, as the numbers in the source aren't too clear either - but again, use the talk pages AlbusWulfricDumbledore (talk) 13:53, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

So far you have added sources to five articles. In three of them [4][5][6] the source doesn't load so can't be verified; in one of them[7] you added a source that gives different figures to the ones you are citing; in this one the revised figures you are adding leave the results table not adding up correctly. Number 57 14:01, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

The archived links are attached which you can access - I am sure we can work together to find sources and flag uncited content, instead of wholescale deletions as you have continuously engaged in. Your two examples point back the one isolated example you’re clinging to (which I have flagged). The other figures correspond to citations in body of text - which you can access/find the books I have used - have included quotes where possible to help you. But again - use the talk pages! (Instead of deleting stuff en masse without tagging/consultation) AlbusWulfricDumbledore (talk) 14:08, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

You are missing the point on both these issues: The web archive links work, but the section of the archived page that has the data does not load (so the data is inaccessible). In the 1815 article, you have a results table with a total of 629 seats, but seat figures of 500, 80 and 30-40, which add up to 610–620, not 629. Number 57 14:15, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

It does for me, the flash section does not work, but it still provides seat counts. Am just going with the sources directly for the second part, the 500 is approximate which I will address. Why is it so hard to bring this up in the 1815 talk page? I'm confused. I'll welcome the challenge of sourcing this together with you AlbusWulfricDumbledore (talk) 14:23, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

There are over 50 articles which you have blindly rolled back corrections to; having to have a talk page discussion on each one is a massive time sink after having already spent weeks checking sources and researching to try and correct the articles. For example, here you have just found a source to support the figures in the table. If you had bothered to read the edit summary of my edit to the article, you would have seen that the problem is that there are multiple sources with different seat figures, and 400 is not the most common of these.

What needs to happen is for you to undo the mess you have caused by self-reverting, and then go through the articles you have concerns about a lack of data in, rather than leaving 50+ articles in the state they are now. Number 57 14:29, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Yes, the whole point in hand = the solution is not nuclear, even as an admin to blindly eliminate every piece of info and infobox you personally don't like/need sources for - not how this site works. You should always aim to tag/find sources and invite discussion before deleting. You have blindly stripped numerous sites in your crusade, without inviting any engagement of any sort, your edit on that page case in point. You really need to engage with others to source work instead of stripping - this is widely accepted. Not going to waste time with circular arguments here, I'll see you on talk pages, where this can be worked out. AlbusWulfricDumbledore (talk) 14:35, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

I quite literally spent weeks researching and looking for sources when trying to clean up these articles. The problem for many of the earlier ones is that sources are highly inconsistent and there is no rationale for picking one over another. The source provided on the 1791 talk page states clearly that any attempting to assign seat totals to parties or groupings for that election is nonsensical. Even the article itself says this, but now stupidly contradicts itself by doing so because you have added an unsourced results table (with made up vote figures) back in. Number 57 14:41, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

@AlbusWulfricDumbledore: With these pages' content contended, now is not the time to be persisting in editing them. I encourage you to slow down, let go of trying to make the pages be a certain way on a certain time table, and refrain from personalizing language like saying that user Number 57 is acting blindly or is on a crusade (certainly when you say that without providing diffs or evidence). That kind of personalizing language gets into the territory of uncivil aspersions, which 1) don't help; and 2) make this matter rise to being a behavioral incident.

Yes, this is something that apparently needs to be worked out on talk pages—crucially, before edits are made to the main space articles, including by yourself, AlbusWulfricDumbledore. There are options for this: start a thread on WikiProject France, or ask for a WP:3O, or use the Village Pump, etc. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 14:57, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Understood, tried to help address the specific points he highlighted, but will refrain from this series particularly until something is worked out. Thanks AlbusWulfricDumbledore (talk) 15:02, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

But must add other users edits were reverted by the user without engagement - resulting in numerous sites being stripped, though will lay off this - as I am not the only one highlighting the issues brought about by this admin as advised AlbusWulfricDumbledore (talk) 15:04, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

What is the justification for reverting to a version that everyone agrees has incorrect and/or unsourced information? Mackensen (talk) 14:54, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Because the articles were levelled completely of a lot of info, including the user’s formatting choices, without any real attempt to find sources, invite others to do so, to invite discussion or consensus, but as advised will not be adding to the situation, as I am not the only user highlighting these issues.AlbusWulfricDumbledore (talk) 15:06, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

That's not true. While results tables and infobox details were removed from a few articles (where I was unable to find sources (or consistent sources) after doing research and consulting with other editors), in other cases you reverted changes to the results tables/infoboxes that brought them in line with sources, and in others you removed additional details or referencing that had been added. The issue is that you blindly reverted the changes across the entire election series rather than doing any diligence on what you were doing. Number 57 15:26, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

An indefinite block of AlbusWulfricDumbledore would be appropriate since the user continues to knowingly introduce false and misleading content rapidly, including claims that do not match the given sources. There is no onus on any individual to replace false information with correct and referenced information when they come across it. On the other hand, there is an onus for information in an article to be verifiable. No information is better than misinformation.

When a person has the capacity to provide accurate summaries of these elections (which may not take the form of statistical tables if this would be anachronistic or misleading), they can see the full article history to see if it contains any useful sources, information or starting points. — Bilorv (talk) 16:11, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

• I completely agree, and it is clear from a number of the comments above that the editor does not understand the concept of WP:V or indeed reliable sourcing. So AlbusWulfricDumbledore, if you make a single further edit that introduces unsourced or incorrect data into mainspace, I will block you. You need to work on any articles you wish to improve in a sandbox or similar, and ensure that the information is correct, before publishing those edits. Black Kite (talk) 17:07, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
  • In the meantime, can their mass reinsertion of incorrect information be rolled back and this process started from the position of correct information (even if it is more basic)? Number 57 17:15, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

• • • I think you can do that; I would not know which ones are correct and which ones are wrong without a lot of effort, and you appear to be clear on this; I am sure that an admin would not consider removing false information edit-warring in this case - I certainly wouldn't. Black Kite (talk) 10:16, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

I have to agree, especially considering AWD's apparent insistence that "removal of content" is somehow worse than repeatedly introducing incorrect content. This smacks of the old inclusionist/deletionist nonsense we've moved away from. AWD appears to feel You really need to engage with others to source work instead of stripping overrides the fact that they're adding false information to the article, simply for the sake of... adding information. N57 has been providing good sourcing, and removing content that was poorly/incorrectly sourced, not just blindly stripping content as accused by AWD. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:17, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Re-adding verifiably incorrect information and calling it's removal vandalism shows very poor judgement. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:29, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

I agree. It's... really not good. SWinxy (talk) 03:32, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

• Support block, less than indef if they've not been blocked before, more than a slap on the wrist. Yes it's behavioral, because it's about repeated flouting of our core policy of WP:Verifiability. (Non-administrator comment) Mathglot (talk) 20:50, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Discussion on user's peculiar editing

Hello. I'm unsure of how to approach the situation, so I've come looking for discussion or guidance. A user, 2603:7000:2101:AA00:C0ED:88F7:9190:2695 (talk · contribs), 2603:7000:2101:AA00:E5B5:9E51:558D:E0AE (talk · contribs), and 2603:7000:2101:AA00:506:C9E4:CDA7:1CB (talk · contribs), has been making waves of suspicious edits. The user is performing selective content removal under the pretense of removing 'uncited' information. However, the content they remove appears to be based on whim, because they will leave other unreferenced claims untouched. Other times, they leave new uncited information in its place, including replacing entire paragraphs with single sentences of (still unsourced) information. Additionally, they've been adding {{notability}} to the tops of some pages. Based on simple Google searches, it seems less notability issues and more citation issues. No matter, the content removal and {{notability}} changes, though I haven't thoroughly checked, seem to be applied to articles regarding only Iran, making me suspect ulterior motive. I'm looking for further opinions or insight. Thanks. -- Primium (talk) 05:03, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

I'm simply exercising judgment when I delete uncited OR. That explains my not deleting all uncited material, but only select uncited material. Which is actually the preferred approach when dealing with uncited OR. But if you wish to delete any uncited OR that I have not touched, feel free. I'm not adding any uncited material myself. As to those pages which I have tagged for notability, I think if you have looked at them you can see that they appear to be manifestly non-notable. Some are completely uncited, and none of them appear to meet GNG. I'm improving articles, as I do from time to time, with cleanup. Sometimes I see an area which is largely uncited .. perhaps due to some once upon a time editor, such as "parks in Iran," and I look through similar articles which no surprise have a similar problem. Frankly, a lot of these uncited articles seem to suffer from plagiarism, often not even from non-RS publications (which still are used in many of those articles), but evident from their puffery until they are addressed. --2603:7000:2101:AA00:E5B5:9E51:558D:E0AE (talk) 05:27, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

This appears to be the same user who was inappropriately reported in Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1146#WP:BURDEN and removal of uncited content dispute, as all the IP addresses are in the 2603:7000:2101:AA00:0:0:0:0/64 range.
I would suggest talking with other editors, including IP editors, before reporting them to ANI. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:03, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

For this situation and in the future, where's the best place to go for further discussion before reporting? Thanks. -- Primium (talk) 17:41, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

I recognize those edit summaries, that range was blocked for long term abuse right around the time they left a message on my talk page, when I was a clueless newbie and no idea ANI even existed. They were using the exact same edit summaries then too. They have been blocked by User:Ymblanter for this behavior before. v/r - Seawolf35 ^T--C 17:49, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Maybe Ymblamter will explain, the IP has been using talk pages extensively including in the run-up to that block. Primium the users talk page is usually the correct venue, the IP has been pretty consistent in answering questions, or if you revert them invite them to discuss the edit on the articles talk page in you edit summary. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 02:04, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Won't comment on the current edits, but I wanted to give more context:

First, it looks like the message for that block was left here (and unsigned): User Talk:2603:7000:2101:AA00:CDC7:580A:9073:FD34. I'll note that they had gone through 4 or 5 other IPs before that block happened: /64 contribs.

Second, they've also been brought to ANI in 2022 in these 2 concurrent discussions <main discussion>, <other discussion>, which I took part in and which now that I looked at it again, @Ymblanter also took part in. As far as I remember those discussions didn't lead to any administrative actions, but it did cause the IP to stop removing content like that for a while, not that they ever claimed they would stop though (as far as I know). – 2804:F14:8085:6F01:7CD2:A9C0:D928:AB1F (talk) 02:40, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Those discussion like the last one don't show anything that required admin action. If this is an LTA it's one that has stuck to the same /64 IP address for a year and a half while making 14k+ edits. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 04:29, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

The discussions I linked are not of IPs from the same /64 (they are from the same /41?), but it's clearly the same user who was blocked with (at least superficially) similar edits as those in the discussion and, if we assume the /64 is one person, nearly identical "WP:BURDEN" response, which is why I mentioned it. So yes, an editor with even more edits. I was a bit mistaken though, the talk page block message that I found was for a block on a singular IP, not for the entire /64, that one came later. – 2804:F14:8085:6F01:7CD2:A9C0:D928:AB1F (talk) 05:59, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

And in none of these discussions has anyone said why an editor removing what they believe to be incorrect content is against policy. If there is a believe the editor is making poor judgements on what is and isn't OR, that would be a competence issue, but the selective removal of content is normal editting. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:00, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

I remember once we had an IP who was having fun removing large piece of text from the (seemingly random) articles claiming they were original research and uncited. The pieces did not look to me like obvious original research, I tried to engage with them explaining that text must first be marked as such and only after a long time removed, but they disagreed and continued this behavior, and I had to block them. I do not remember any further details, and I do not know whether this is the situation we are discussing now. Ymblanter (talk) 06:44, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

@ IP editor:

Could you please direct me to where WP says selective content removal is the preferred manner of dealing with uncited original research? I can't seem to find it. Nonetheless, according to WP:USI: "Wikipedia's verifiability guidelines require all information to be citable to sources. When information is unsourced, and it is doubtful any sources are available for the information, it can be boldly removed." I don't see what's so doubtful about many of your removals:

"... Kashan dates back to the Elamite period of Iran."

"Another feature of this garden is the design of its roof structure. For the first time in Iran, membrane coatings (ETFE) have been used to cover the roof of this building."

"Sarchashmeh Copper mine is the second biggest copper mine in the world after Chuquicamata in Chile."

All of these seem to me like they could have sources or could be plausible. I was even able to find sources for the first two claims. It took three minutes: [8] [9]. Ideally, I'd ask that you make the effort to prove or disprove, instead of remove, the claims you doubt, providing adequate edit summaries. If not that, then at least tag claims with {{citation needed}}, as others have suggested. – Primium (talk) 18:58, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

You ask where WP says selective content removal is the preferred manner of dealing with uncited original research? and then add and it is doubtful any sources are available for the information, it can be boldly removed. If we assume good faith and that the IP editor is checking for sources then the removals are not against policy. They should absolutely be making thorough checks, for instance it's very easy to verify with a quick Google search that Sarchaseh isn't the second largest copper mine. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 02:04, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I don't think I understand the point in your first sentence. It looks like you're implying I answered my own question, but I didn't. What I quoted has nothing to do with selective removal. Additionally, it says "... and it is doubtful any sources...", not "or", meaning both conditions it presents must be met for bold removal. – Primium (talk) 04:00, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

You asked where is policy it is allowed that content can be removed, and supplied your own answer. It can be removed if it is unsourced and it is doubtful that any sources exist.
What was missed was my last sentence, a very quick check of one of the facts you beleived was plausible showed it was wrong. The assumption of good faith is required, that extends to the idea that the IP has checked and is doubtful that any sources exists. If you wish to show that they have done anything wrong you need to show they are wrong, not just that you mistakenly believe they are wrong. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 09:48, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

... except they were wrong, as demonstrated by Primium finding sources for the first two claims. So the IP isn't doing their due diligence to find sources before removal. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:54, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

That Primium chose those three examples out of many, and was completely wrong in one of those he chose, does not make a compeling case. Nor is this lack of assuming good faith a one off by Primium. Just a couple of instances from the last few days.
On the 21st an IP editor added a random name to O'Riordan[10], another IP editor correctly removed it,[11] Primium then edit wars to retain the random name[12][13] and templates the IP editors twice.[14] Only then to realise they are wrong and revert themselves.[15]
On the 22nd a new editir made this edit[16] to Global Terrorism Index which could have been vandalism or just a lack of knowledge of how Wikipedia works. Not an issue as a couple of IP editors working on the page sort it out and add additional content.[17] Primium mass reverts all the edits[18], templates the new editor and the IP editors for vandalism[19][20][21], only for a few minutes later to realise they are wrong and revert themselves.[22]
Now mistakes happen, not every edit is always going to be correct 100% of the time (that would a very unrealistic expectation), but if you are going to incorrectly templated editors for vandalism you might want to go back and explain or undo your mistake. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 03:27, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

How do you propose we should find out which of the hundreds of edits that this IP user has made with very similar edit summaries are ones where they checked and which are ones where they didn't besides manually reviewing the removals? What makes you think that Primium assumed bad faith at all, in checking over the edits? What part of the good faith policy is about believing that people are following policy rather than just believing that, even if they are breaking policy, they are not doing it in bad faith?

As to the one that Primium was "completely wrong" in thinking it was wrong, a search for "Sarchashmeh Copper mine second largest" (no quotes) on Google brought this doctoral thesis as the second result for me: [23], which the description claims it "was the world's second largest open pit copper deposit in the 1970s" and which, from the link to the full thesis on the right side, claims that Iran held a critical meeting in 1971 to discuss what they "identified as the second largest copper ore body in the world at the time" in that mine. At any rate, WP:PRESERVE would imply that, with reliable sources available, the information should instead be rephrased to more accurately represent the sources, not removed. If the rephrased version doesn't have place in the article then that should be the reason for removing as well, instead of because it's unsourced.

In the content of the reports I linked, which I don't think are relevant to the current one unless the same behaviour is being repeated, the problem I had with their edit was that they were doing mass removals per day, often in a couple minutes they would remove content from just as many pages, all with the same summaries - and upon seeing all those removals in the recent edits and checking some of them, there were problems - problems that, with their haste to remove it all and in their haste to use WP:BURDEN as a first response, could only really be solved by spending the same (considerably longer) amount of time per article that they removed content from finding the proper sources and reinstating the content with a reference.

Now, is that relevant to the current editing? I don't know, I'm just mentioning it because I might as well address your statement to me if I'm going to post here again.
Actually, no. The original reports did not result in any action and I have no wish to revive something from a year and a half ago, bad move on my part.

– 2804:F14:80CE:5201:F9FC:AF87:284F:DAFC (talk) 04:59, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

What part of the good faith policy is about believing that people are following policy rather than just believing that, even if they are breaking policy, they are not doing it in bad faith? I never said anything like this, I said that assuming they are breaking policy without prove and only as a matter of believe was itself against policy.
You right PRESERVE is policy and directly underneath it is WP:DON'T PRESERVE which is also policy.
This report like many others starts with the assumption of guilt and only when pushed tried to find evidence. The actual checking of edits happened after the report was made. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 12:36, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

I believe there might be a misunderstanding. I didn't mistakenly believe they were wrong, rather, I was entirely neutral about the information and held no belief on whether it was correct or not. I was making the point that WP:USI says information can only be removed if "it's doubtful any sources are available for the information". However, as per the IP's edit summaries, this was not their reason for removal. My initial comment was looking for insight, wondering if anything needed be done. I haven't asked anyone to block or ban the user.

I also did not miss your last sentence, and I agree, it was easy to find that information, because I'd also found it, along with the other sources I'd provided above. But the removal was due to lack of citation, not because they were unable to find sources.

WP:GOODFAITH pertains to intention, not due diligence. "Assuming good faith (AGF) means assuming that people are not deliberately trying to hurt Wikipedia, even when their actions are harmful." I would go as far to say we should never assume users are performing due diligence. If we were to assume it, there would never be any reason to verify claims and sources, because, well, we could have faith in the original editor. There would also never any reasons for this IP to remove information, either, because they, too, could have faith in the original editor. Verifying claims and sources remains crucial even if we trust the original editor. At this point, I'm not assuming they're deliberately hurting Wikipedia, but I believe there's room for improvement in the level of care exercised.

Additionally, like I believed that third fact was plausible, the IP believed all three were not, then removed them. Though unlike the IP, you and I looked them up. Out of only three random examples, you and I together have shown the user has an accuracy of 33.33%. This is hardly acceptable for encyclopedic standards and demonstrates a lack of care in their editing. Really, my request is that this user, whatever their IP be now, simply takes greater care in how they operate. – Primium (talk) 19:02, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

I certainly agree that the IP editor should be taking care when removing content, and if it can be shown that they are not and this is a systematic issue of competence in the task they should be stopped.
I think we are reading their summaries differently, if they are removing OR it is because it's doubtful any sources are available for the information. To me their summary is explicitly making that claim.
As I said previously if they are not competent to the task they should be stopped, but two errors out of (as has been noted by another editor) hundreds of edits doesn't show that. It's only two out of the three you chose, and I don't think that's enough to prove your point.
This seems to have been a disagreement over how the original report, and the last one were stated. Editors can, whoever they are, remove content as part of the normal editorial process. To argue otherwise is wrong. That they must do so with care and competence, and that this editor isn't (and prove of such) was what was missing from these reports. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 19:21, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Competence in the English language.

Effects of pornography on young people (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The Other Karma (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Back in November last year, I attempted to discuss issues concerning extensive editing to the article Effects of pornography on young people with user:The Other Karma, the contributor responsible. There were several problems apparent, but perhaps the most serious one was that material was being added which was only marginally comprehensible, or worse. During the initial discussion, [24] another contributor, User:tgeorgescu also raised concerns about the wording, while also noting issues with sourcing, questioning whether the edits were properly supported by the sources cited. Having seen he Other Karma using the phrase I'll purpose less misunderstandable claim at a later time in response to these concerns, I then offered the opinion that The Other Karma lacked the necessary skills in the English language to be able to usefully edit the article, and that it was unrealistic to expect other contributors to have to go through the sort of convoluted dialog we were faced with on the talk page when trying to discuss problems. Given that this seemed to be getting nowhere, I decided to leave the matter for others to deal with, since I was in no mood to engage in endless rounds of miscommunication.

As should be readily apparent from the article talk page, the issues with he Other Karma's poor grasp of English have continued, and meanwhile, further edits have led to the article including such gems as Protecting the youth from fornicating content in Austria goes back to the 17th century..., while attempts to discuss whether the material included is appropriate (e.g. a huge section on 'History of the public debate in Austria'), and whether it has been properly sourced and/or translated have again become bogged down through inadequate communication. Despite these concerns and similar being raised by multiple contributors (myself, User:tgeorgescu, User:Arjayay, User:Mathglot), The Other Karma chose today to nominate the article for Good Article status. [25] As should be obvious to anyone reading Wikipedia:Good article criteria, this proposal would appear to be doomed from the start. If The Other Karma has read the criteria concerned, they surely haven't understood them.

I see no obvious reason to doubt The Other Karma's sincerity, but in my opinion some form of action needs to be taken. The article subject matter is of some significance, and readers deserve better than they are currently being presented with. At minimum, they should expect comprehensibility, and that is not going to be achieved while any attempt to discuss problems with the contributor concerned prove futile, and the questionably-sourced word salad continues to pile up. Likewise, other contributors deserve better than they are being faced with: my latest attempts to explain the issues with both sourcing and language after seeing the GAR nomination led to the following response: Please explain your claims in discussions: Foster constructive and effective dialogue by elucidating your perspectives in a comprehensible way during discussions, and provide examples how something can be improved. If that isn't output from ChatGPT, or from some form of translation software of questionable merit, it is surely satire. And whatever it is, it isn't remotely an appropriate response when having one's language skills questioned. Given recent concerns being raised on this noticeboard concerning civility, I held back on making the response there that initially seemed most apt, and instead started this thread here. I'm not quite sure how the community can best deal with this problem, in that editing restrictions and/or topic bans might well merely move the problem elsewhere on the English language Wikipedia. My personal opinion is that it might be best to politely suggest that The Other Karma restrict their future contributions to a version of Wikipedia in their native language, and that if The Other Karma declines to do so (or at least, if they continue with the same behaviour here) we should consider an indefinite block on WP:CIR grounds. Sincerity is not enough. Communication is required - both with other contributors, and one-directionally, with our readers, who should not be confronted with baffling phraseology concerning fornicating erotica and similar oddities. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:26, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Support the Grump: WP:Competence. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:19, 22 January 2024 (UTC).

I'm not opposed to either editor. Just saying that since I'm not a native speaker, I'm not in the best position to judge the quality of their English. tgeorgescu (talk) 23:46, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Too soon for indef, but I agree with Andy's comment that the "article needs to be edited by someone with greater competence in the English language", and something needs to be done, perhaps a voluntary restriction to editing only Talk pages (no mainspace, or GAR/FAR). I agree that TOK's English is pretty shaky, but I am able to follow what TOK is saying in discussion at Talk:Effects of pornography on young people, where they are arguing their point, but when they translate from Austrian legal wording (legal text in any language can be abstruse, and German is no exception), it's basically incomprehensible. Since this is what they are intent on adding to the article, that cannot stand. As far as whether admin action is required, we might be close to that, but I want to hear from TOK first.

The Other Karma, do you understand that people here are discussing whether to WP:BLOCK you from editing? I think you could contribute to English Wikipedia in some ways, but a certain level of self-awareness about your English is required in order to continue. I think you could definitely contribute at article Talk pages by adding your thoughts there in your own words, but perhaps your English is not sufficient for adding text directly to articles involving translation about specialized German topics using arcane language in the original German such as Austrian legalese. Poor grammar and poor word choice is okay on a Talk page, as long as your basic meaning is clear; but it's less okay in an article. There is something called an WP:Edit request, which is a semi-formal way of asking other editors to make a change for you to an article that you cannot or should not make yourself; how would you feel about limiting yourself to using only the talk pages, where you could discuss as much as you like (within reason), and when it got to the point of updating the article, instead of doing it yourself you would issue an edit request and let someone else do it? Would that be acceptable to you?

I just want to state my bias: as someone who (attempts to) speak foreign languages, it's not an easy thing, and I greatly respect anyone who does or tries to, and so I tend to give maximum latitude to those writing in English as a second language. As far as writing at Wikipedia, there is a minimum bar of comprehensibility, and it's not the same threshold for a Talk page and an article. If TOK agrees to limit themself to talk page contributions, then I think that could work, and if it doesn't, we can take it up again. Mathglot (talk) 03:14, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

It is important to me that I take the time necessary for my colleagues at Wikipedia to respond to the criticism in a solution-oriented manner. However, since a lot has happened on the article and discussion page, and since I can't do everything at once, I may not be able to respond to the issues raised here until tomorrow or the day after, maybe even later.

I apologize for the inconvenience. The Other Karma (talk) 18:37, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

How does that address the problem? Do you intend to continue editing the article, given the concerns raised over your competence in written English? AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:20, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Given the above dismissive non-response, I would like to make it entirely clear that should this thread be archived without further input from The Other Karma, and should The Other Karma continue to edit articles in the problematic manner discussed above, I shall raise the matter here again, with the further proposal that The Other Karma be blocked from article-space editing entirely, until such time as we receive a response which actually addresses the issues discussed here. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:55, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

I will answer you, we have enough time on Wikipedia.
I have asked at VPT, if it is possible that the Lowercase sigmabot III, doesn't archive a section.

You and Mathglot have mentioned a lot, but I need time to look at everything and find solutions that involve not having these problems again. Due to the length of your and Mathglot's critique, I will probably need until the weekend to address all aspects.
You have to keep in mind that I'm tired after work and don't have much energy for Wikipedia. I'm i have also other more important things i have to take care of. I don't plan to edit the article namespace of the article until I have answered here. The Other Karma (talk) 18:52, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

The Other Karma, just so you know, ANI is a rather fast-moving board (this discussion is getting ever nearer the top, and is already #11 of 31 threads) and while RL and taking the time needed for a response are certainly legit, Andy was referring to the fact that by the time you are ready, you may not find this thread here anymore. We may already be at the point where moving this to your Talk page would be wise, where you could take all the time you need, however with the understanding that should there not be an amicable solution, you'd probably find yourself the subject of an additional discussion here, something which it would be better to avoid, if at all possible. A voluntary solution agreeable to all would be the best result, if that is achievable.

If you do make it back here in time, here is the proposal I'd like to hear your thoughts about: I propose that you avoid editing mainspace directly, and post the edits you want to make to an article to its Talk page instead, asking for feedback. If other editors say your content looks good, or if they are willing to fix up the wording until it is acceptable, then you can post it in the article; otherwise not. Would you be willing to accept this as a voluntary restriction? With experience over time, it may become clear that your proposed wording for articles on legal topics or marine naval warfare are unacceptable, but your wording for articles on seaside resort towns and Thai cuisine are just fine, and the restriction can be removed by consensus for the latter, meaning you can edit them directly again. Do you understand this proposal, and do you accept? Mathglot (talk) 03:02, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

I'll respond you tomorrow, i have today, no time left, but I'm nearly done with the response. And on Friday i'll respond Andy. The Other Karma (talk) 21:29, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

@Mathglot In my opinion, this is overkill, as most of the text in the article is based on English-language sources, which are correctly formulated. I can send you a review of the demographics and predictors part, where I can also show that everything is adequately substantiated. (In comparison to the previous text, my problems are peanuts, I can send you a review, i have to note the that the problems would have stayed for many more years without me.)

I have also looked again at the legal part where there were problems, most of the text from the source are not complex legal texts, so there should only be 6 cases where I have not translated optimally (and not a massive occurrence at every claim). Including the word “fornicating”, where I especially tried with best practices to translate it correctly e.g. using dictionaries (in German it means "Unzucht/Unzüchtig", meaning offensive sexual behavior), [1 [2 I even often linked the word to show the correct meaning. (It seems here to be more the fault of the available resources (dictionaries) than me). (I am aware that the dictionaries suggest sex offence as a translation, but I probably came to the conclusion while translating that it means Sexualdelikt (sexual crime)).

I would therefore suggest that in future I no longer translate a complex legal text into English without checking with others, which I was planning to do anyway after the criticism. Translating a complex legal text into English is not something I usually do, this was an exception, and I'm not planing to do translate complex legal text in the near future. Is this a solution for you?

Regarding the 6 non-optimal translations, I can offer you that we talk about it in a Discord meeting, such a meeting is in my experience the most efficient and fastest solution method, with the least effort. I can also prove you my English language skills and prove to you that I can use both languages (English and German) without any translator. But you don't have to help me if you don't want to! Otherwise, I would look for someone else willing, but that will take longer (months to years). And they probably wouldn't be the descriptions you would like best. The Other Karma (talk) 19:10, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

First of all: this is the Administrator's board noticeboard for discussing user behavior, not the board for discussing how to improve translations or how to improve any content in an article, so I'm not going to respond to your comments about how to translate this or that word or expression; if you wish to expound on that, you can continue that discussion at the article or at your talk page.

Unfortunately, your last comment hasn't helped your case, because it underlines your *lack of self-awareness* of the level of your ability in English and in translation, which became evident to me especially at this discussion (and other discussions on that page), and which is more serious imho than the actual weak English command itself because you are unable to see where your weakness lies. Much worse even than that, is that when this is pointed out to you by native speakers, you argue with them, compounding the appearance of lack of self-awareness, and without that awareness you are severely handicapped in your writing as you are unable to tell when your output is good enough, and when you need assistance because it is incomprehensible, and I think you won't disagree that we can't have gobbledygook in our articles at English Wikipedia.

While I am always happy to help ESL speakers and to fix up their minor errors without comment, I am not going to get drawn into a tarpit with you arguing here about what is or is not correct in English or why, and I urge others to resist the temptation as well. That is not the point of this board, and that is why I decline to respond to your specific comments above about translation. If you want to help your case here, please stop discussing individual words or translations, and focus on the fact that you are at risk of possible sanctions and either address that, or perhaps in your case not saying anything might be a better strategy, as this discussion may very well just blow over without action—the likeliest course at this point imho, if you don't hurt your own case further. Mathglot (talk) 20:31, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

I can offer you that we talk about it in a Discord meeting

No, that's not going to happen. For transparency reasons, discussions need to take place here on Wikipedia. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 20:33, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Uh, you're confusing me, I showed you my self-awareness about not being able to properly translate legal text, exactly here?:
I'm, sorry i didn't want to enrage you!

I would therefore suggest that in future I no longer translate a complex legal text into English without checking with others, which I was planning to do anyway after the criticism.

The text implicitly says exactly what is important to you? That I'm totally aware that I can't translate legal texts well enough, that I don't want to make more work for others, as well that I'm teribbly sorry that this happened, and that I'm not interested in such problems happening again. And as a solution, I would never again translate such texts in enWp without an external check. The Other Karma (talk) 14:18, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

The phrase "Protecting the youth from fornicating content in Austria goes back to the 17th century" is not legal text. It is however nonsensical. It should never have been placed in article space. It wasn't written by anyone fluent in English. And frankly, I doubt that it is a product of human translation at all. The Other Karma, have you been using machine translation (a) in article space, and/or (b) on talk pages? And if so, what have you been using it for? AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:36, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

(uninvolved non-admin)@The Other Karma: I am sympathetic to ANI vs real life, but I think you fail to understand that you could be blocked here and Mathglot is offering you an alternative. I actually think the cited text is readable, and I have definitely seen worse, but what it is not is standard English. So my friendly advice is to quit arguing with native English speakers about whether they can read your English output, accept that at best the results you are getting from whatever you are using are jarringly quaint, and work out something along the lines of what Mathglot proposes. Ideally you would team up with someone who translates from German to English. That isn't me in this case, as my German is disused and limited, and I have no interest in the topic, but odds are better than 50/50 that you could find such a person at de.wiki. I strongly suggest that you let Mathglot help you. Elinruby (talk) 15:08, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your friendly advice! But now I'm confused even more. .-.
Isnt that what i have been doing is this discussion from the beginning on?
I can also explain my underlying thoughts if this is needed, if it is, tell me. The Other Karma (talk) 15:43, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

until now it sounded like you were trying to explain why there wasn't an issue and the English was fine. If you now accept that it isn't, the question is how to deal with it. AfC already has a lot on their plate. You could make edit requests on a talk page maybe? @Mathglot: may have a better idea. Elinruby (talk) 18:16, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Partial block.. I have some sympathy for The Other Karma's lack of Wikipedia time, but the fact remains that their evasiveness has eaten up a lot of the time and patience of constructive editors even just in this ANI thread. The last straw for me is that they now, after undertaking to reply to Andy "on Friday" (=today), have replied, sort of, but still have not engaged with any of Andy's or Mathglot's suggestions (e.g. that they be blocked from article space, and/or that they edit the Wikipedia in their native language instead, and other helpful ideas) or questions. Instead they insist that they have already acknowledged that they're not good at translating legal texts — which is only a miniscule part of the problem — so what else do we want? This is a waste of Wikipedia's prime resource, which is the time and patience of skilled editors. I have partial-blocked The Other Karma indefinitely from article space. Bishonen | tålk 20:14, 26 January 2024 (UTC).

@Bishonen I think you might have put the wrong settings on that block? You seem to have blocked account creation from their IP address instead of partially blocking from article space? 86.23.109.101 (talk) 21:45, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Oh dear. I have made quite a few page-blocks without running into problems, but never a namespace block before. Trying again... OK, it looks like it worked the second time. Thank you very much, IP. Bishonen | tålk 22:34, 26 January 2024 (UTC).

RudolfoMD

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

---

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

RudolfoMD is a relatively inexperienced user (<1000 edits since their first here in April 2023) who appears to be on something of a crusade. Since an early trip to ANI in August last, he has complained at BLPN that we reflect the consensus view of the Burzynski Clinic (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ([26]), tried to delete {{User rouge admin}}, accused Valjean (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) of deceptive editing, and me of copyright violation, vandalism introducing deliberate factual errors and personal attacks, but, rather more to the point, changed "Although these studies often report remissions, other investigators have not been successful in duplicating these results" to "These studies often report remissions", based on a source that says "No randomized controlled trials examining the use of antineoplastons in patients with cancer have been reported in the literature. Existing published data have taken the form of case reports or series, phase I clinical trials, and phase II clinical trials, conducted mainly by the developer of the therapy and his associates. While these publications have reported successful remissions with the use of antineoplastons, other investigators have been unable to duplicate these results and suggest that interpreting effects of antineoplaston treatment in patients with recurrent gliomas may be confounded by pre-antineoplaston treatment and imaging artifacts. (emphasis added) ([27]), which appears to be an unambiguous violation of WP:NPOV on an article subject to intermittent astroturfing for decades.

Taken as a piece with edits like "Fauci used taxpayer money to finance a Chinese laboratory where [SARS-CoV-2 was [perhaps] developed is NOT "a baseless conspiracy theory" per reliable sources these days"], and his failure to understand what deleted contributions are, rather silly revert warring over fixing an unsigned comment, plus possible stalking of another user to other articles ([28]), I wonder if this user might be better keeping away from fringe theories, at least, until they have more experience editing. Guy (help! - typo?) 10:35, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

• For me the most worrying edit is this[29] where they declared with a "LOL" that they were going to add some Burzynski "advertorial" to our Brainstem glioma article, and then duly followed through, linking to a totally unsuitable source with the completely made up claim that there has only been one case of long-term survival for children with the this cancer.[30] Not quite sure what's going on with this account, but it's not good. There is also a strong whiff of sock. Bon courage (talk) 11:17, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

  And see Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Template:User rouge admin and User talk:JzG#January 2024. The editor probably won't respond until around 17;00 London time, so maybe I should wait until they responds for what looks like an inevitable NOTHERE block. Doug Weller talk 11:53, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

• Yes, I too have encountered some difficulties, and rather nasty ones at that, with this editor. I reverted a deceptive edit here and cautioned them about it here, which they refuse to admit or correct. Instead they have repeatedly defended that edit. I also tried to give them some advice to tone down their personal attacks and stop their templating of us old timers. Their templatings are often retaliatory.
  I'd just like to see more light than heat from this editor. We do not need seemingly pro-fringe editors trying to defend people like Burzynski by doctoring quotes from eminently reliable mainstream sources so they appear to defend blatant and dangerous quackery. This may not exactly be the problem, but it's close: Texas sharpshooter fallacy. Cherry picking is probably more accurate. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:44, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

• support a final warning but I was close to blocking last night when I closed that ridiculous MfD. Pro-fringe time sink and IMNSHO, not new either.

Star Mississippi 17:36, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

• Granted I don't know my antineoplastons from my elbow, but this looks like straightforward WP:NOTHERE. I'm willing to give it some time for the user to respond, however. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 17:58, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
  • LMAO! Antineoplastons are made from piss. Yes, Burzynski figured out how to make money from pee. Not sure if this is related to urolagnia or not. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 18:44, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
• I thought the writing was on the wall enough already to justify an alt-med or pseudoscience topic ban, but the MfD puts it over the top with WP:NOTHERE battleground behavior. When I see someone going out of their way to pursue editors like that, it's time for something WP:PREVENTATIVE beyond a warning when it's clear they haven't been taking warnings about their behavior seriously so far. I'd say an indef is likely, but at least cut the disruption with a topic ban through CT if nothing else. KoA (talk) 02:57, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
• It's been two days now, I think we should try and resolve this one way or another just in case they're not posting to avoid scrutiny in a hope that this will archive (not saying it's what happening, but I have seen that tactic before with editors.) Either way we should be able to make a determination right now, it seems many above have fully come to a conclusion. Canterbury Tail talk 20:41, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

  @Canterbury Tail Blocked as NOTHERE. Doug Weller talk 08:41, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

  @Canterbury Tail: Happened to be in the neighborhood after opening an ANI report. Disclosing that I was the user who previously reported RudolfoMD in August 2023 after recognizing their disruptive behavior. It appears that this has now gone on unremedied for months, so I support a block per WP:NOTHERE.--WMrapids (talk) 01:36, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

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

Biryani

As these two reports involve the same users and article page, I have condensed them into a single section. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:17, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

User TheCherryPanda engaging in Pov push

User TheCherryPanda is engaging in constant pov pushes in article Biryani. He is pushing his 'muslim origin of biriyani' saying it has reached from the talk , but realit is opposite. From the talk discussions editors has rejected the claim that 'biriyani originated from muslims'. Please see the archieved talk here : [31]

All those accounts who put forward of 'muslim origin of biriyani' has been blocked of sock puppetry

Suspect that this account is also a retuning blocked sock account. Afv12e (talk) 14:04, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

@Afv12e: Don't accuse another editor of being a sock without evidence, and if you have evidence, then take it to WP:SPI.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:13, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

@Afv12e, I don't see where this has even been discussed? Please instead of making your arguments in the edit summaries, go to the talk page, ping the other editor, and discuss. Valereee (talk) 15:10, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

It has been discussed from 2016.

please see this discussions also :

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Biryani/Archive_1#Biryani_and_Muslims.

Afv12e (talk) 15:20, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Biryani_and_Muslims - talk

Afv12e, consensus can change, and the fact something was discussed six years ago doesn't mean you aren't required to discuss instead of simply reverting. Go to the article talk, ping the other editor, and discuss. Valereee (talk) 16:35, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

He is telling that 'this has been debated for a long time and from the talk page the consensus has reached' which is a lie and the thing was opposite.

No one in the past agrees to it.

If he has any argument let him come in talk page and discuss instead of editing without references and pushing his pov and original research

Again he made these vandal edits[32] now, which i removed. Afv12e (talk) 16:38, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Those edits are obviously not vandalism, and simply calling them that does not mean you can then continue to edit war. MrOllie (talk) 16:43, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

And Afv12e is in violation of the 3RR. A boomerang might be in order here. MrOllie (talk) 16:49, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

It was a removal of sourced content, so restored.

Apologies if i made a mistake, as I never did like this beofore Afv12e (talk) 16:50, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Not ware of 3RR, just now realised, apologies and promise that i won't repeat this mistake again of 3RR Afv12e (talk) 16:51, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

I've fully protected for two days. Afv12e, you are in the wrong here. If you continue to edit war after this protection lifts, I will p-block you from editing that article. Valereee (talk) 16:50, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, I promise not to repeat 3RR Afv12e (talk) 16:52, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

I seriously recommend, @Afv12e, that you develop a habit of making only a single revert before taking it to the talk page. Valereee (talk) 16:54, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Poor editor etiquette and seeming unwillingness to improve.

I am requesting that action be taken against the user @Afv12e. Following a minor edit dispute, they refused to start a dialogue on the talk page and instead reported me to administration. Any future edits I made until the “Biryani” article was locked were referred to by the user as invalid due to my supposedly being under “admin review.” At the same time, that same admin review backfired and the admin Valereee said “Afv12e, you are in the wrong here.” After the article was placed on a permanent block and the user was repeatedly told to take their dispute to the talk page, the user and I talked under an edit request I made. They were further chastised there by the admin MrOllie for making empty threats against me. Despite my attempts to clarify my viewpoint and the reasoning behind the edits I am trying to make, I was repeatedly accused by the user of having an agenda or of making claims that I was not. Furthermore, instead of putting their efforts toward elaborating their opinion more strongly beyond rehashing the same accusations repeatedly, they launched what I can, from my perspective, only describe as a one-main smear campaign against me, going through the history of my talk page to find any evidence of problematic behavior of my own, only able to pull up a single article concern from nearly 5 years ago. This behavior has gone well beyond obstinacy and I am now increasingly uncomfortable engaging with this user who has repeatedly called my values and motivations into question in unsubstantiated ways, even though their behavior has been criticized numerous times by administrators and they have told my administrators that they are at risk of being banned from the article. I am requesting that this user be banned or that some kind of action be taken against them. The relevant links of evidence are the “User TheCherryPanda engaging in Pov push” discussion at the page Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents and the “Protected edit request on 23 January 202 discussion at the page Talk:Biryani. Thank you. TheCherryPanda (talk) 21:58, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

I should not that although the user has only had an account for 6 months, this is already the second or third time that this has become an issue. Regarding a previous issue, another administrator left a notice on their talk page with the following: “Now this here is a warning because multiple editors do seem to take issue with your editing. Stop WP:SEALIONING. Learn the content guidelines. Read the cites. Continued complaints about content that is cited and in keeping with our guidelines is disruptive and may lead to a block if it continues.” TheCherryPanda (talk) 22:01, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Firstly, I reported the issue because there was a disagreement over the content in the "Biryani" article. Specifically, I noticed that sourced content was being removed, and a claim about the "Muslim origin of biryani" was being added without proper consensus or discussion on the article's talk page. This led me to raise the issue with administrators.

My intention was to ensure that content in the article remained properly sourced and that significant claims, such as the "Muslim origin of biryani," were discussed and agreed upon collaboratively by the Wikipedia community.

Subsequently, I created a section on the article's talk page dedicated to discussing the topic of the "Muslim relation to biryani," providing a space for a constructive dialogue among editors. However, despite this invitation to discuss the matter, you chose to report the issue on the administrative noticeboard.

I want to emphasize that my primary objective has always been to maintain the quality and neutrality of Wikipedia articles by adhering to Wikipedia's content guidelines and policies. I believe in the importance of discussing and achieving consensus on significant content changes, especially when they pertain to the cultural and historical aspects of an article.

I am open to engaging in constructive discussions to reach a resolution on this matter, but I strongly urge all parties involved to follow Wikipedia's guidelines and policies while doing so. Let us work together to improve the quality of Wikipedia articles and ensure that content is accurate, well-sourced, and agreed upon through consensus.

Thank you for your attention to this matter. Afv12e (talk) 16:55, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

I am amazed by the change in writing style between this posting and what you have been posting on the talk page, for example this. Did you use ChatGPT to write this? MrOllie (talk) 17:08, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

I'm not a native English speaker , corrected my grammar and usage using an ai tool so that users from all over the world can understand, when someone is blatantly accusing without any proper reason and bombarding with his long paragraphs.

Ai for good! Afv12e (talk) 18:40, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

No, it's not good to use AI to post your responses here. Especially since you have no idea if what it's saying is accurate. If your English proficiency is low enough you have to rely on AI to explain yourself, you should not be editing the English Wikipedia. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:22, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

I'm proficient in English, but used to correct few grammar mistakes, like how people use auto correct functionality.

I'm fully aware of what I'm speaking here. Afv12e (talk) 13:52, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

AI is never a good idea on Wikipedia. Don't use it here. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:32, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

User:Lemabeta

• Lemabeta (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Adjarians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I think this needs to be evaluated by the community. Editor, with 298 edits working in ECP area, removing content and posting personal attacks on other editors claiming they are "inciting hatred".[33] + see edit summaries in diffs below

• [34],[35] removing sourced content with PA in edit summary.
• [36], content was restored and removed again with PA in edit summary.
• [37] more removing sourced content
• Warned on talk page about personal attacks, responded by repeating them. User talk:Lemabeta#January 2024
• Three editors (including myself) have objected to this editors changes, the EW could be ignored, but the personal attacks claiming editors are "inciting hatred" cannot be allowed.
• See other warnings at User talk:Lemabeta.

 // Timothy :: talk  22:53, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Hello,
After a quick look through their contributions, I definitely think that they do have a tendency towards personal attacks. I think that the user should be careful in their edit summaries especially, and think about if their conduct could be construed as a PA. I would like to see their response here as well. Geardona (talk to me?) 00:26, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

@Geardona It wasn't a personal attack. The page mentioned that Georgians view Adjarians(sub-ethnic group of Georgians) as a second class turkicized citizens, which isn't true even if some author wrote it. Is it not inciting hatred? It was my Adjarian friend who told me he viewed it as an insult to their ethnographic group by the editors who included it. Therefore i deleted it. Writing that they are viewed as a second class turkicized citizens isn't a personal attack on the whole ethnographic group but me saying it's inciting hatred between us is? Lemabeta (talk) 12:10, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

They are not mutually exclusive. Both can be true at the same time. Geardona (talk to me?) 13:19, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

@Geardona So why am i getting scolded meanwhile the offensive text that incites hatred between Georgians that Adjarians are second class turkicized citizens is still up? It's not a personal insult nor did i have any desire to insult anyone. But i don't see any respect in that text towards the Adjarians themselves. Should i go in the streets and ask Adjarians what they think about this text? And if they feel like they are treated any different than other Georgians? Even if the text is cited, that doesn't change the fact that it contains hateful content. and it has no place in the front of the page. Lemabeta (talk) 14:07, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

I agree, hate has no place on wikipedia, but it should be removed with a edit summary like " removed POV". I am not saying don't remove it, just moderate, like EI C says. Don't sink to their level. Geardona (talk to me?) 15:26, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

@Geardona Can you delete it? On the Adjarians page, it says it.. I don't have patience to put up with the 3 guys that are one by one changing it back, so they can accuse me of edit war and many stuff. Thank you Lemabeta (talk) 16:23, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Content dispute, take it to the talk page. Don't ask others to edit for you, that can still constitute edit warring. Get consensus on the talk page. Canterbury Tail talk 16:28, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

@TimothyBlue: tbaned in plain text, really (diff)? But, yeah, likely to end that way if Lemabeta doesn't moderate their language and avoid edit warring. El_C 06:38, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

This kids edit warring over at Ilia Topuria now, despite the conversation in the talk page not being closed. I get he's proud of being Caucasian, but his edits likely violate MOS:ETHNICITY/WP:INFONAT. Nswix (talk) 19:13, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

@Nswix Calling me a kid is a personal insult, therefore a personal attack. Which violates the guidelines of Wikipedia. Lemabeta (talk) 19:26, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Oh, to be called a kid! A shop assistant called me "young man" recently and I was cock-a-hoop for weeks. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:35, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

User:Wikidrifterr ECP gaming

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

---

A quick look at the contributions of Wikidrifterr (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) shows that after a string of ~150 grammar edits in the span of two hours (which caught my eye), they reached their 500th edit and immediately edited the ECP-protected page K. Annamalai. This is clear WP:PGAMEing. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 03:46, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

@AirshipJungleman29 I wanted to edit the page and improve it, true. Since I felt that page needed major improvement.

I have been editing Wikipedia for a long time now.

But all of those 150 grammar edits that I made were improvement to the pages and correct.

if you think I am at wrong I will revert those changes and not further edit the page in concern.

Sincerly trying to learn here and improve Wikipedia, which was also my motive to edit the page in concern Wikidrifterr (talk) 04:03, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

But all of those 150 grammar edits that I made were improvement to the pages and correct. Um, not really. Some were unneeded: [38], [39], [40], [41] etc. Some were just plain wrong: [42], [43], [44], etc. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 04:11, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

The edits do seem very rushed. This one added "and killed" as "context" (edit summary) to a sentence which already mentioned that there was killing. Some engvar and per/cent among them too. CMD (talk) 04:29, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Many of your "grammar" edits were improvements, but not all of them were. I just reverted half a dozen of them that were wrong. Largoplazo (talk) 12:26, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

K. Annamalai has been frequently hijacked over the past year; see the page history and Talk:K. Annamalai#Page protection. Curbon7 (talk) 05:30, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

That possibly explains why the information about legislative elections was removed in the "Added college and current work details" edit. CMD (talk) 06:41, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

I think it does. Right at the start of the series of edits is this, which created a redlink to the salted K Annamalai. CMD (talk) 06:53, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

That article has a tortured history, best (and most recently) covered at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2023 November 2. Daniel (talk) 10:26, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

First thing first would be Wikidrifterr responding to the conflict of interest disclosure I posted on their talk page (link). I also left them an introductory alert to contentious topics (WP:ARBIND). El_C 06:25, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

I;'ve removed ECP, obvious gaming and their statement above seems to admit that. Doug Weller talk 10:29, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

• At the DRV linked above, it was clearly stated "The AfD (deletion) is endorsed, and recreation (under any title) is disallowed, pending submission of a competent draft to DRV.". So shouldn't this version be deleted (and possibly salted) as well? Black Kite (talk) 11:35, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

  The K. Annamalai article is apparently for a different K Annamalai, however the salting might be interpretable as a cause to revdel the hijacking. CMD (talk) 12:38, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

I would personally support indef blocking on WP:BATTLEGROUND and WP:CIR grounds. A few days ago they baselessly accused me of vandalism in an edit summary [45], and refused to retract this allegation. They have been repeatedly warned about copyright, which has seemingly not been heeded. Hemiauchenia (talk) 14:55, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

• Blocked indefinitely by Doug Weller. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:33, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

  I have looked through a number of the rushed edits manually and reverted most of those that I looked at. They are neutral at best, many introduce errors as noted by AirshipJungleman29 above. If there are no objections I will rollback the remaining 145ish. CMD (talk) 02:24, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

I see that "gaming ecp" has been included in the block log. This is helpful. It would be useful to be able to reliably select all users where gaming ECP was one of the reasons for the block without having to deal with lots of variations of the terminology. Standard-ish descriptions (like the standard "checkuserblock-account" log entry) would be even better. Sean.hoyland (talk) 03:44, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

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

Ethnic slur at ITN

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

Ouro has used what appears to be an ethnic slur against Russians at ITN: Casual mention of NK support for russkee criminal acts in the Ukraine (diff). I confronted them about it, saying that the ethnic slur was inappropriate and should be struck (diff), to which they responded simply I acknowledge Your opposition to my honest and open usage of this term (diff). Considering the doubling-down I consider this beyond my capalities to solve, so I believe that it should at least be brought to the attention of administrators. WP:CIVIL is a pillar and I'm pretty sure editors aren't allowed to use ethnic slurs, regardless of our takes on the Russo-Ukrainian War. JM (talk) 11:07, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Post to a user last May about an ITN issue [46] "Hello, Knight! Didn't mean to bite, but I just ... get negatively emotional when it comes to that country beginning with r, You know... Will compose myself in the future. Cheers! --Ouro (blah blah) 17:21, 21 May 2023 (UTC)" Same ITN post ]https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:In_the_news/Candidates&diff=prev&oldid=1156145521] "*Close just close just close and stop listening to those people. --Ouro (blah blah) 11:59, 21 May 2023 (UTC)" Although I think Russia is a threat to the West, it does look as though this editor can't edit Russian or Ukraine-Russia related articles without pushing their pov. And ever since their first post in Nov 2009 all their edits are marked minor. Doug Weller talk 11:27, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Asked them to stop marking edits minor, gave them a General sanctions notice for the topic area of the Russo-Ukrainian War and the CT alert for the Balkans or Eastern Europe. Doug Weller talk 11:56, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for all the notifications. As for the marking of my edits as minor, I will refrain from doing that. Promise to read into WP:MINOR. As for any other topics that might be mentioned, rest assured I will not make any edits to topics surrounding the Ukraine, because I know that I have a particular point of view. You need not worry about that. --Ouro (blah blah) 12:00, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

I had heard the word used in movies but never looked it up. I just did. Dictionaries seem to agree on "disparaging" and "offensive". If this were about any other country/ethnicity, the response would be an immediate indef. So, I hope we can at least get an acknowledgement of the problem and assurance to stop. Usedtobecool ☎️ 12:17, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

• Acknowledgement of the situation. --Ouro (blah blah) 13:11, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

  Notice the use of the word "situation" instead of "problem", and no assurance to stop. JM (talk) 13:13, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

  You've already stated your concerns. Let the community vet the situation; otherwise, it will appear that you are overeager to get Ouro punished. By the way, the Wiktionary link you provided in the OP doesn't actually say that the term in question is a slur; it states that the term is "usually derogatory;" I consider that to be a substantial difference in nuance (and yes, our article does describe the phrase as an ethnic slur, but you didn't argue based on our article). It is best for all editors, including Ouro, to refrain from using that term; it would also be best if you, JM2023, would refrain in the future from making strong claims without proper support. (One could also question whether this incident really belongs in the category of urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems; hopefully you won't make a habit of running to ANI every time you disapprove of something.) LEPRICAVARK (talk) 16:43, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

  1) The link actually does say it's an ethnic slur: (usually derogatory, colloquial, ethnic slur), so your concerns about "strong claims without proper support" and "substantial difference in nuance" are moot;

  2) My account is about a year old and I've brought something to ANI only once before, four months ago, when I was specifically told to do so, and which resulted in an (unlogged) warning against the person I made the case against and an apology made to me (see here), so I don't have a "habit of running to ANI every time [I] disapprove of something";

  3) Someone just brought an IP to ANI in a similar case last week and it resulted in a month-long block of that IP (see here), which is what motivated me to go here when I saw someone double-down on an apparent ethnic slur after being called out on it. JM (talk) 18:09, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

  As the person who brought up the previous IP, I can agree that this one should also be blocked, ethnic slurs shouldn't be considered acceptable. ChaotıċEnby(talk · contribs) 19:17, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

  Also agree they should be blocked. Nil Einne (talk) 01:36, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

• Apt observation.--Ouro (blah blah) 15:19, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

• Is ruskee an ethnic slur? I don't know. I thought it was simply a short/nick for Russians. —usernamekiran (talk) 12:21, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

  Yup according to the article we have on the term. RickinBaltimore (talk) 12:25, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Language is confusing. Isn't it the Russian word for Russian i.e. русский? Sean.hoyland (talk) 14:16, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

The Polish word for themselves is "polak". Go to downtown New Britain, say that, and see how many people jump you. I don't get it either. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:54, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Slurs depend entirely on context. Use by the in-group is fine, as it's usually either self-identifying or an attempt to "reclaim" the term. Use by out-groups is pretty strongly rejected as reinforcing the insulting use of the term. At the very least, it's impossible to tell if an outsider is simply unaware of the insulting use of the term, or is relying on "I didn't know" as a get out of jail free card. Either way, best to avoid it. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:29, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

And how about those times I'm now remembering where I said it as a single word greeting to new neighbors I was seeing for the first time while out walking the dog and thought might be Russian (and were). Do I need to move? Sean.hoyland (talk) 18:57, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

I mean, if you haven't been beaten and thrown into a ditch yet, you're probably okay. They may just have put you in the former category. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 20:42, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Or the later, I mean even if someone used a slur, most people are just going to minimise future contact etc. Some might be used enough to it they're probably going to forget it happened, so depending on how long it's been there might still be no point bringing it up.

Getting back to the original post I think an important point here is we're not simply referring to a case where an editor used the term to refer to someone with no reason to think anything was meant by it. It's possible that this editor thought "I want to refer to criminals but I'm going to use the most neutral term I can for them". But let's be realistic, there's a very good chance this isn't what happened and they chose the term precisely because they intended it as a slur.

I'd also note that there's no indication from the editor's responses above that they were not aware it was a slur, I mean even their assurances not to repeat it are decidedly lackluster.

Nil Einne (talk) 01:34, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

P.S. Relating to my other post below, my impression is Russki, while generally seen as a slur has far-less use and recognition as such that say a word like Jap or Paki. So I suspect people offended by being referred to as such are far more likely to just think maybe they just didn't know. For that reason I'd probably often not necessary to do anything about it later.

Jap and Paki however are well recognised as slurs nowadays, so very people who actually use them especially Jap when used in the US and Paki when used in the UK, are not going to know. So if someone did use such terms without realising, it's probably well worth considering whether as uncomfortable as it may be, it's worth bringing it up and apologising next time you see these people.

I'd note that especially with things the way they are now, it's probably quite risky to make assumptions anyway. If you refer to Ukrainian even a Russian speaking one as a Russki, you might very well find you cause great offense but for different reasons. I'm reminded of the joke about someone in the UK calling someone who looks British Asian a Paki and the person who's from modern India not Pakistan responding something like, "I'm not a Paki I'm from India, I hate Pakis!"

Nil Einne (talk) 04:14, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

I'd also emphasise it's important not to get distracted by the origins of a word. This can sometimes be the cause of a word being a slur, but the way the word has been used historically is often far more important as to whether it might be a slur. And yes, a term which is perfectly fine in one language may be a problem when translated or transliterated to another. And even within the same language, it can depend on region etc.

Jew is a term that can be used even by outgroups without being seen as a slur, but can also be a slur or pejoratively depending on how it's used etc. Edit: Jew (word) goes into this a bit as well as the history of the word which makes it clear it was not originally intended to be offensive but given a long history of anti-semitism has also long been used in offensive ways. Paki (slur) might be short for Pakistan or Pakistani but because of the way it has been used, it's well accepted as a slur. Shortened forms of accepted edit: words are often used as slurs e.g. Jap is another one. I suspect, but have never looked for evidence, that is in part because slogans etc work better when shorter, e.g. Japs out or Pakis go home. Flow may be another factor, and I wonder if this is partly why Ruskee is a slur.

The n word, negro and black all ultimately come from the terms referring to the colour black. But the first one is well recognised as one of the worst slurs to the extent many people just do like I do and use the euphemism even when simply talking it, when used by outgroups. And even when used by ingroups is generally spelt and pronounced different. The second one is often consider at best antiquated in much of the English speaking world. The last one can still be acceptable when used by outgroups depending on context and group, although as mentioned by our article, some groups historically found it more offensive than negro.

Gay has a complicated history, you still get the odd person insisting it should only have the original "happy" like meaning. But while it has been used as a slur or pejoratively at various times and there is a a more recent rise of it's use in a new pejorative manner (I think this trend might be dying down a bit, but I suspect it's something many people who played games with online chats are familiar with), it's often still acceptable even by outgroups depending as always on how it's used.

Queer meanwhile is sometimes considered a reclaimed slur and does have a fairly long history of being used as a slur. It's use especially but outgroups is often still controversial. However while it has been used as a slur for a long time, the perception of it being clearly a slur is as I understand it, more recent and indeed it was used by ingroups non pejoratively before it became to be seen as a clear slur let alone reclaimed Queer#Early 20th-century queer identity.

I think there are very few people who would say 'I'm fine with gay because it it's fine to be called "happy" but I don't like queer because I don't like being called "strange"'. That's nothing to do with the reason why the terms are seen as they are now.

Nil Einne (talk) 03:28, 25 January 2024 (UTC) Edited at where marked 04:57, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

P.S. I apologise to anyone who dislikes seeing any of the terms I used spelt out like that, but I felt in the interest of clarity it was my best choice. Nil Einne (talk) 03:42, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

I have three problems with the way you spelled the first three words of paragraph three, but they're all minor capitalization, hyphenation and frankness concerns. On the whole, good explanation! I'll note that the R-word (in question here) is quite prevalent in American media, especially from the "Cold War era", and a lot of that shit still gets played in Canada (at least). You hear people use the P-word often enough, but not the mainstream media. I'm pretty sure the J-word has fallen out of fashion everywhere since Japan (and all its J-Stuff) became cool in the capitalist sense. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:58, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

P.P.S. Yankee is a particular interesting one since in contemporary usage to refer to specific people it can often be a slur or at least pejorative. But precisely which specific subset it's used against varies depending on who's using it. Nil Einne (talk) 04:14, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

In this particular case it seems reasonably clear from the responses elsewhere and in this thread that Ruskee was specifically used as a pejorative slur, "honestly and openly". CMD (talk) 04:25, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Yup, and based on that, I'd say a NOTHERE block is appropriate. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:31, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

• Looks like this discussion has totally died down. I'm not trying to act like an admin or be punitive or anything, but here's a summary: there's three people explicitly supporting a block, and four others explicitly finding the behaviour problematic, without including me in either. The rest never expressed an opinion on Ouro's use of the slur. And in all this there's been no apology or retraction of the slur, or even an acknowledgement that it shouldn't be used. What happens next, if anything? JM (talk) 08:10, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

  Thing is, admins are still volunteers, so none of them is required to do something just because it may need doing. I imagine it does not need explaining just why admins may not be acting here? And, I wouldn't go so far as to say admins didn't do anything. One of them posted notice on Ouro's talk page about Russo-Ukraine CTOP. I think that means that if they repeat the same behaviour, you could report them to WP:AE, which is generally less forgiving.

  Once upon a time, you were supposed to think it was just not actionable and forget about it, if no admin did anything before the report got archived. But Wikipedia has changed a bit since. So, you can probably afford to make a post to AN asking that an admin review the discussion. Of course, it depends how much you care. And it would make more sense to request review/closure at AN if you actually proposed something here formally and turned it into a !vote. Personally, I would let this be. They didn't acknowledge it but we can assume the message has been received. You can always start a new report if they do it one more time. Usedtobecool ☎️ 14:56, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

User:Wjmadisonlee

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

---

Call me unnecessarily paranoid, but this user quickly made ten trivial edits then stopped. That sounds like somebody gaming autoconfirmed. Could I get a checkuser needed , please? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:42, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Personally, I think doing a check would be too big an escalation (for the moment at least). I have seen a few editors who appear to be gaming autoconfirmed by making ten trivial edits just not show up again after they do so. To give the all-important benefit of the doubt and without indisputable evidence of intended misuse, I would just keep an eye on this account's contributions so that you can take decisive action if it does turn out to be disruptive. Wait and see if they start gaming autoconfirmed. Though this is just how I see things, and a CU can do what they wish if they believe this is enough grounds for a check. The Night Watch (talk) 15:32, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

As a checkuser, I don't think that's sufficient grounds for a check. PhilKnight (talk) 15:36, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

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

A user from an IP address is accusing my account of belonging to a sockpuppet farm

Hi, a user from IP address is targeting my account. I don't know who this person is or who the blocked sockpuppet farm operator is. You can see the ip address' contributions here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/89.151.38.106

You are welcome to run a check on my ip address or account and see for yourself that it's not connected to any farm whatsoever.NamanNomad 17:07, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

What does “targeting my account mean”? Also, you are required to leave a notice on their talk page, per the note at the top of this page. Celjski Grad (talk) 17:38, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

I think "targeting my account" refers to all five of the IP editor's edits accusing NamanNomad of being part of a sock farm. TSventon (talk) 17:54, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

I'm trying to assume good faith and ignore IP's "sock farm" accusations, but when I look at NamanNomad's contributions - excluding their interest in Jeffrey Epstein - they frankly look like the typical contributions of an undisclosed paid editor. Cavarrone 07:21, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

@Cavarrone the user NamanNomad has been recently blocked for sockpuppeting per SPI case. You were right - they were doing undisclosed paid edits. 91.230.98.228 (talk) 10:34, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

146.199.218.132, unsourced additions, personal attacks and inappropriate talk page messages

This IP user, 146.199.218.132 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), has been adding unsourced content to three pages - GWR Toad, Class 508 and Merseyrail. This in and of itself is of course not exactly egregious, but after being reverted and notes being left on their talk pages, they have left aggressive and inappropriate edit summaries (diff: [47]), and inappropriate talk page messages (diff: [48] - now reverted, as I have no intention of replying to such a message), despite being warned on their talk page not to direct personal attacks to editors (diff: [49]. Quite frankly, I don't want to interact with the editor after the message left on my talk page, so I would rather someone with more experience look at this. Danners430 (talk) 18:31, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

In fact, since writing this report, they left a second message on my talk page, which I am again about to revert - "rub salt in the wound", really? [50] Danners430 (talk) 18:33, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

And another... [51] Danners430 (talk) 18:51, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Before this ends up getting archived, is someone able to look at this? Danners430 (talk) 12:59, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Yeah that definitely fits under WP:NPA. ChaotıċEnby(talk · contribs) 13:42, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

I have removed the userlinks template from the header because that causes issues with jumping to that header. NW1223<Howl at me•My hunts> 14:02, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

*sigh* There he goes again

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

---

Suspected sockpuppets of StealthForce

• 2601:84:8D00:1E9D:0:0:0:0/64 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 2601:84:8D80:22:0:0:0:0/64 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• Tools: Editor interaction utility · Interaction Timeline · SPI Tools

There he goes again. It's that guy once again, StealthForce, and please, DON'T LISTEN to what that guy says. He's just going to rant and make out that I'm the enemy here, and do his "screaming" method of talking; both IP ranges trace to New Jersey, once again. I'm sorry, but this is just frustrating. Please, PLEASE do what you can. He just never learns his lesson. Thank you.

Enclosed is another blocked IP range to prove that this is consistent with his past actions: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2601:84:4501:5B21:0:0:0:0/64 174.61.189.42 (talk) 23:11, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure who you are or why you didn't take this to WP:SPI, but I've blocked the range that has edited recently for one month.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:39, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

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

Meredithw2024

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

---

• Meredithw2024 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

It's been almost a full a year since I last warned Meredithw2024 about adding uncited genres to music articles, but they are still going strong. Take a look at their contributions. You can see a lot of questionable edits. They often mark their edits as minor when they in fact make major edits by adding unsourced content ([52]). They almost never disambiguate when they link ([53][54][55]). For some reason, they feel the need to link random subsections when all they do is edit the infobox or lead, like they're trying to mislead us or something ([56][57][58]). If you look at their talk page, you can only see two types of messages: those from DLP bot telling them they added dab links, and warnings from me, the only user who has done so. I'm astounded nobody else has taken issue with their edits. Meredithw2024 has completely ignored all messages and warnings and continues to make problematic edits. I believe it's time for an intervention. ResPM (T🔈🎵C) 02:36, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

I have blocked Meredithw2024 from article space. The editor is free to make well referenced edit requests on the talk page of any article. Cullen328 (talk) 05:15, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

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

Editor Augmented Seventh – request for rollback of reverts

Godfather, I have a stone in my shoe which only you can remove. My issue concerns the article Cave wolf and the actions of the User:Augmented Seventh.

• On 24JAN24 I updated the Cave wolf article with information contained in Diedrich 2022 that was published in English only this month, and from Marciszak 2023 that was published 11 months ago. The material was properly WP:ATT through WP:CITEs to WP:RELIABLE sources.
• On my final edit at 5:01, this one being diff: [59], it contained the word “Relationshits” – it should have read “its”, however the word “Relationsh” crept in as an error from part of a prior deletion I had made. This was my fault.
• While I was proof-reading the entire article, at 5:03 user Augmented Seventh reverted 11 of my edits, and left a message on my talk page stating “i went ahead and reverted your recent edits, because vulgarity.” Please be aware that the message that was originally left on my talk page has since been amended. Talk page discussions between us did not resolve the issue.
• The word “Relationshits” does not exist in the English language, however the word “mishit” does – nobody regards that word as a vulgarity. Augmented Seventh could have reverted just that one final edit, or perhaps corrected the minor error before I found it during the proof-read.

Request

I would be grateful if a responsible editor could:
(1) roll back Augmented Seventh’s 11 reverts on the article Cave wolf
(2) in that article, amend the word “Relationshits” to read “its”.
14.2.205.177 (talk) 06:48, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

@Augmented Seventh: and 14.2.205.177 4.2.205.177, I note that the Talk:Cave wolf, which created in 2017, has no recent activity. Perhaps it might be best to start a discussion there first? Shirt58 (talk) 🦘 09:17, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

• I restored the removed material. It is obvious that Augmented Seventh saw that one accidentally slightly vulgar-looking typo, and directly flew off the handle by reverting a dozen perfectly fine content edits. Not justifiable, does not need to be dicussed on the talk page, and probably deserves a trout to the neck. Oh, and I fixed the typo as well... --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 16:49, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

  thank you for taking the time to look at these edits.

  have a wikipedia day, Augmented Seventh (talk) 17:19, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Abuse of editor power and fake/misleading articles

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

---

Going to be long read but very important. Our user here is Imperial^[AFCND] .

I will narrate the whole issue below.

• Gajapati invasion of bidar - he created | 1 on 26 november 2023.

To start with the whole article is problematic/based on fake interpretation on cited sources . Our user has cited " R Subrahmanyam , NK Shahu , R.D Banerjee , Satish Chandra in the citation for the context of the article.

However a quick read of these sources gives a complete different story, to what is actually written in the article.

All these scholars has completely rejected this notation of the so called surrender of gajapatis , one of them even question if such invasion ever happened.

For instance ,the actual assessment R subharmanyam gave towards the battle after narrating the primary source .

" On the very face of them the account of Muslim historians show that that they were not giving a correct picture of the events , ferishta account bears the stamp of untruth to it " - - - - continued

Source - the suryavamshi gajapati of odisha . Pg -56 (link not available atm)

What our user did he deliberately added the part where the author was narrating the primary source and then ignored the actual assessment of author. Remarkable

N.K Shahu , Banerjee and manhabat whose work are cited has given the same remark His statement : | shahu remark. Banerjee

The whole article is based on such mess . It's remarkable no editor verified what exactly was given in citations.

This exact situation is true for the article " bahmani invasion of odisha" , but wont discuss here right now

This user has been POV pushing for a very long period of time and has been active in pretty much all the hindu related battles pushing it Muslim POV . Often times changing the results of a Hindu victory to a stalemate and a draw or removing the result Maratha Mysore war ,[Maratha invasion Bengal] , battle of singoli , battle of mandalgarh , battle of talikota and hundreds of more , not only that vandalizing pages of kings as well lalitaditya , hammira deva. And then he uses his privilege of being a high edit user to revert back any edit he didn't likes , makes accusations of vandalism as well [ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Lalitaditya_Muktapida 7] All of this needs to be noted

Keeps on making hundreds of edit of battle where Hindus were defeated but on the other hand tries his best not a single one is done opposite way . All this could be seen in his edit history.

Would like the administrators attention here to take some action on the user or look into his edit history, he has been on spree of such articles/edits. Philknight , Utcursch , Trangabellam , kautilya3Summerkillsme (talk) 08:07, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia operates on the principle of collaborative editing, allowing users to create and edit articles based on verifiable information from reliable sources. If there are concerns about my involvement in editing articles, kindly specify the exact reasons. The issue related to the "Gajapati invasion of Bidar" has been addressed. Regarding "Lalitaditya Muktapida," I've been awaiting a response from an editor for weeks (refer to its talk page). Given the contentious nature of the subject, users might perceive bias. I consistently seek input from experienced editors in disputed areas rather than unilaterally resolving conflicts. Imperial^[AFCND] 08:38, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

While I am on a break, I welcome any concerns regarding the edits I've made. Please review the talk page and edit summaries of the articles I've edited. If you still have concerns, bring them to the talk page with the expectation of input from someone more experienced in these areas. If I fail to provide satisfactory answers, feel free to proceed with your accusations, and I am willing to address them. Imperial^[AFCND] 08:45, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

things that I have referred here is quite different than what apparently you had called being already addressed in talk section. These two are different.

Anyways top administrators will look into it . We shall see. Summerkillsme (talk) 09:03, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Hello, two of the users you mentioned (TrangaBellam and Kautilya3) are not administrators, just for your information. ChaotıċEnby(talk · contribs) 09:32, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

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

Personal attacks from User:Skyerise

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

---

I would like to bring attention to a recent incident on Tollens (talk · contribs)'s talk page, where Skyerise (talk · contribs) grossly overstepped the boundaries of civility to outright personal attacks -- which she was recently blocked a couple months back for. This includes calling Tollens an idiot and suggesting he doesn't belong on Wikipedia as well as accusing him of not having a college education several times. This is in addition to casting WP:ASPERSIONS and refusing to assume WP:GOODFAITH. Tryin to make a change :-/ 12:29, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Small typo, the links to Skyerise's uncivil comments should be Special:Diff/1197651043 and Special:Diff/1197663279, the ones you gave display the versions before the respective comments. Full agree that these definitely cross WP:NPA. ChaotıċEnby(talk · contribs) 13:46, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

The OP doesn't include a diff, just a link, but your diffs don't show the comments referred to.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:04, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Fixed, I made the exact same mistake and linked the diffs from before the edits. That's definitely a Self-trout for me! ChaotıċEnby(talk · contribs) 14:23, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

This appears to have been addressed and they apologized already User_talk:Skyerise#Yikes..While not excusing the comments, without any indication the behavior continued, I see no reason to block now. Star Mississippi 14:14, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

She did address it but did not apologize to the editor in question, and even if she did -- this seems to be a recurring problem with her. Tryin to make a change :-/ 14:28, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

I agree with Star Mississippi, there's no reason to block for this incident, and we are not going to use it as a launchpad for allegations of a pattern; it's unfair.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:35, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

I will admit I am biased here as I was the one who was insulted during her last block. I will defer to admin opinion on this. Tryin to make a change :-/ 14:41, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Actually, I did apologize directly to the user in question the next day, pinging them. This was before the conversation on my own talk page. However, I would like to question why @User:Mychemicalromanceisrealemo is hounding me. I served my time for insulting them, is it proper to continue to hold it against me to the extent that they now seem to be inappropriately following my edits? Skyerise (talk) 15:49, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

The policy you link to notes that fixing [...] violations of Wikipedia policy is a [c]orrect use of an editor's history and that wikihounding has no overridingly constructive reason. Reporting another user's personal attacks -- especially one who has a history of making personal attacks -- is not a frivolous or meritless complaint. Furthermore, I have not been following your edits -- much the opposite.Tryin to make a change :-/ 15:56, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Says the editor who just reverted me twice at Western tulku. Skyerise (talk) 16:30, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

This is very disingenuous when the edits you made were contentious and already being discussed on the talk page. You also didn't edit the page until after this report was made -- did you think that this would bolster your claim of WP:HOUNDING because you knew I would rightfully revert your edits? You seemed content to wait for other editors until I made this report. Tryin to make a change :-/ 16:35, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

• I'm a little curious why we're giving someone with multiple blocks for personal attacks a complete pass here. Those are really shitty things to say to someone, and the "apology" was just for the "tone". If there weren't two admins above saying they think everything is fine, I'd have blocked for 3 months. or even indef, as an "enough is enough" block to solidify in their mind that this. has. to. stop. now. Even if we ignore everything else, considering people without college degrees inherently inferior to you is a significant character flaw. And I'm unimpressed by the complaint of hounding. If you don't want to be brought to ANI, perhaps keep your smug elitist bullshit to yourself. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:06, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
  • @User:Floquenbeam Shouldn't you be blocked for that last phrase, then? Skyerise (talk) 16:14, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

    You're kind of missing the point here. Floquenbeam (talk) 16:19, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

    @User:Floquenbeam So are you. I apologized twice. Once the same day, then again the next day. Both before this report. I haven't heard an apology from you, and you haven't even struck your own personal attack. Skyerise (talk) 16:26, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

User Floquenbeam, please do not use WP:UNCIVIL language like smug elitist bull****. Be mindful of WP:BOOMERANG. It's entirely possible to disagree with other commenters on an ANI thread without personal attacks or rudeness (just as I will say to Skyerise that it's entirely possible to clarify WP:GENREF without calling another editor an idiot), including against the reportee's alleged character rather than their behavior. Since I'm not aware of a long term pattern of chronic and intractable misbehavior, I'd hope a WP:TROUT is sufficient in this case. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 17:11, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Making comments about an edit (as opposed to about an editor) cannot be uncivil, regardless of whether you disagree with the language used; Floquenbeam's opinion was fairly accurate. Skyerise has got a long history of doing this stuff and really needs to stop doing it. Having said that, evemn a half-arsed apology is better than no apology. Black Kite (talk) 18:24, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

• I'm glad apologies have been offered & personal attacks withdrawn. It's not nice to equate lack of a college degree with WP:CIR, on this project. GoodDay (talk) 16:18, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

I second GoodDay's statements. @Skyerise, since incivility has been a pattern, do you have any thoughts on how you'd avoid it the next time you have a bad day?

@Mychemicalromanceisrealemo, I would like to hear how you came to be aware of that interaction on somebody else's talk page. What it looks like is that you were keeping tabs on someone with whom you had a dispute in the past, which is not a good look.

I agree that, provided Skyerise gives some assurance that there won't be such egregious incivility the next time they have a bad day, this could be closed. MCRIRE may be reminded that this noticeboard is for urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems; Skyerise had apologized and that particular episode ceased, so it was clearly not urgent. It may be chronic, but the apology suggests it may not be intractable, especially with some action plan in the event of a bad day. If Skyerise has no way to prevent a recurrence, or if such incivility does reemerge, THEN would be a time to propose sanctions. EducatedRedneck (talk) 16:44, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I should have just fixed it without making any comment. It's what I would have done if I'd not already been having a bad day. Skyerise (talk) 16:49, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

That's good enough for me; if, the next time you encounter an abrasive situation and are having a bad day, you correct without comment (or comment only after you're feeling better) that is enough for me to believe it's not worth any action now. EducatedRedneck (talk) 17:11, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

As for how I became aware of that interaction, I was going to make a separate report at WP:AN3 about Skyerise re-opening an edit war at Western tulku and I saw the scolding from Butwhatdoiknow (talk · contribs). Tryin to make a change :-/ 16:50, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Great explanation - except that at the time you filed this report, I hadn't edited Western tulku since January 17 and there was no call whatsoever for a WP:3RRN report. That actually supports my contention that your intent is to hound me! Skyerise (talk) 16:54, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

You can keep making this accusation, but hounding doesn't apply even if I was (or am) keeping tabs on you -- which, despite being a bad look, isn't against policy. Tryin to make a change :-/ 17:02, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

It may not be technically against policy, but it is a bad idea to treat Wikipedia like a WP:BATTLEGROUND nonetheless. MrOllie (talk) 17:07, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps this would be a good time to discuss @User:Mychemicalromanceisrealemo apparent ownership issues with that article, as evidenced by their edit summaries when reverting and the talk page discussion? I am just trying to apply sumarary style: I get that Emo doesn't like my particular summary, but rather than improving my summary, they just repeatedly wholesale revert me. Is this because they created the article and think that gives them special privileges with respect to it? Skyerise (talk) 17:18, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

I think that this is actually a horrible place to discuss that page. If you genuinely think I have acted against policy because I disagree with your unilateral merge -- and don't want to wait for consensus or other editors to weigh in -- then you can file a report wherever you like. Which you have threatened several times and have yet to follow through on. Tryin to make a change :-/ 17:23, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

I opened an RfC this morning, which is the only thing I have said, not "threatened", that I would do. Perhaps you haven't noticed yet? Skyerise (talk) 17:25, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

You threatened making a report at ANI here and said you've already opened a report at ANI here. As you saw with the original Western tulku page, you are free to do as you please within policy. Tryin to make a change :-/ 17:30, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Wow, you think that mild post from mid-December is a "threat"? Perhaps you should read our no personal attacks policy yourself? It's not even about the article in question! Skyerise (talk) 17:34, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Hi! Just to avoid misinterpreting, the second comment appears to say she brought up the topic on this ANI report, rather than making a separate new report. ChaotıċEnby(talk · contribs) 17:34, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Could be the case; I assumed that she was making a separate report and carrying out the necessary requisites. Tryin to make a change :-/ 17:36, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

I clearly emphasized WP:BOOMARANG, which in case you are not familiar with it, implies that posting a complaint on ANI might end up exposing the complaintant's own bad behavior. You've also just supported my argument by showing that I complained about WP:HOUNDING directly to you over a month ago, and yet you are still doing it. Skyerise (talk) 17:44, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Doesn't appear to be explicitly ownership, more like run-of-the-mill edit warring from both sides. ChaotıċEnby(talk · contribs) 17:23, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

• For what it's worth, the comment mentioned in OP about not wanting a user on Wikipedia is about concern that a user being a vandal and disrupting bibliographic formatting contrary to WP:GENREF. This of course doesn't excuse calling someone an "idiot" which is still an aspersion, and it's also not appropriate to assume that unfamiliarity with alphabetizing bibliographies is a symptom of one's level of education (in any case, I've encountered college graduates who also don't know how to format bibliographies). I only mean to be precise, and I think user Skyerise's apology matters a lot in this case. Another user mentioned that the apology was just for the "tone"—but isn't that precisely what's being reported? Skyerise is not wrong that per WP:GENREF, bibliographies on Wikipedia are usually sorted by the last name of the author or the editor, so it is understandable if Skyerise wants to clarify that they are not apologizing for alphabetizing a bibliography, but are apologizing for being WP:UNCIVIL while discussing that on the talk page. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 17:11, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
• BTW - This report shouldn't have been made by a third editor. Only @Tollens: should've done so, if they wanted to. GoodDay (talk) 17:26, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

  I'm sorry, I wasn't aware of this policy. Do you have a link for future reference? Tryin to make a change :-/ 17:31, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

  Not a requirement, but it's good practice. GoodDay (talk) 17:34, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

  I think that this discussion has come to an end and I'll drop out now -- I'll refrain from making third-party complaints in the future. Tryin to make a change :-/ 17:44, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

  No, I think we should continue to discuss your hounding, which you have above pointed out that I complained about directly to you on December 15, yet here we are. Skyerise (talk) 17:53, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

  I will not reply to you further: the complaint you made to me were about edits that have since been held up by consensus. It is ironic that you complain about page ownership but consider a move that was clearly warranted to be hounding despite having very little, if anything, to do with you. Tryin to make a change :-/ 17:57, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

  I'm quite happy to drop it, once you agree to stop hounding me in the future. Skyerise (talk) 18:08, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

  @Skyerise Given that you are convinced of hounding and want it addressed, may I suggest starting a subsection and populating it with diffs for administrative review? It would be useful to establish the pattern of behavior for easy viewing, and would allow this section (regarding the incident on Tollens' talk) to be closed if the rest of the community agrees that your apology was sufficient. EducatedRedneck (talk) 18:12, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

  @User:EducatedRedneck, I agree this section can be closed. I'll file a report against Emo if and when it happens again. Skyerise (talk) 18:14, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

  I'd prefer you make a report now instead of 'waiting' and threatening me with it. If I'm hounding you, report it. (Yes, I broke my own promise.) Tryin to make a change :-/ 18:19, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

  Nah. If that's what you want, I'd rather wait. Skyerise (talk) 18:21, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

  In other words, you aren't making these accusations in good faith. Tryin to make a change :-/ 18:25, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

  No, I have complete good faith, that's why I am giving you the benefit of the doubt until it happens again. Skyerise (talk) 18:28, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

  P.S. There's a big difference between a "threat" and a warning. I have never "threatened" you, only given you fair warning. This, and the above, are simple warnings, not threats. Skyerise (talk) 18:24, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

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

Personal attacks by User:Zoeleephine43935

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

---

User:Zoeleephine43935 has directed 2 personal attacks to me (because I reverted their addition of unsourced promo and deleted their copyvios at Commons). I was going to just ignore it and I reverted my talk page, but there is another one on their user page. I feel an official warning (or other disciplinary action) and removal of the content on their user page is required. Thanks. -- P 1 9 9  ✉ 14:40, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

I've removed the comment from their userpage and left an "only warning" about personal attacks on their Talk page.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:49, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

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

Disruptive editing patterns by Danielg532

User in question: User:Danielg532 (talk • contribs)

• The user's talk page contains four warnings against removing AFD deletion discussion headers (1, 2, 3, 4), which did not prevent a fifth removal earlier today at 01:05, 25 January 2024.
• WP:RS and WP:V concerns. Specifically, the user has a penchant for making unsupported claims asserting Russian military control over settlements in specific areas in Ukraine. For example, see Kocheriv and Verkhnia Rudnia.
  • The pattern of adding unverifiable claims to articles has been observed by editors in other areas. (Most recently here. Much of the talk page deals with unverifiable claims in live articles or drafts submitted for creation without any sources)
  • Sometimes, in "support" of the claims, the user adds deceptive references that make it appear that the information is sourced, but do not actually contain any information relevant to the claim. See the "sources" for Staseva, Syrnystia, Selezivka, Zaporizke, and much of Russian occupation of Zhytomyr Oblast.
  • When I added citation needed / failed verification tags to this editor's excessive unverifiable claims on Russian occupation of Zhytomyr Oblast, they were later reverted without explanation. See: 04:28, 19 January 2024.
  • The user also referenced a self-published source that appears to be self-published in a very literal sense, as it is a user-generated map by somebody with a similar screen name. See: 03:58, 7 May 2023

SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) 16:40, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

• Interestingly, I've just observed, entirely independently, that the first source cited in Mayfield West, Ontario (AfD discussion), created by this account, is false sourcing. Sourcing Alton, Ontario and Caledon East to tourist board advertisements is not good, either. Bearcat, did you know about this? Uncle G (talk) 18:42, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

I caught that the source wasn't good — obviously, since I nominated it for AFD — but I hadn't noticed that it was outright false, and I hadn't noticed their edits to the other pages. I first came across Mayfield West because it was filed in wrong categories, i.e. directly in Category:Canada, which would be entirely unnecessary since it has much more specific subcategories for things like Mayfield West, and had the obviously improper title "Mayfield West, Canada", which I moved to its proper title. But I didn't otherwise peruse their other edit history apart from that. Bearcat (talk) 18:48, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

A1FanGirl

The user keeps reverting my redirect and the redirect was approved by an AFD Toketaa^talk 17:36, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Looks like they've been blocked already. ChaotıċEnby(talk · contribs) 17:53, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

User:Scorpoin125 - account with less than 10 edits closing AfD

User:Scorpoin125 appears to be an account with less than 10 edits and which was apparently started today - there is some confusion about this because there are messages on the talkpage which go back many years. Anyway, they are clearly not in a position to close AfD discussions on a day-old account.JMWt (talk) 18:44, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

anyone can close afd. Instead of worrying about who closing worry about if they closed against consensus. --Scorpoin125 (talk) 18:47, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

How can you possibly even know what those terms mean on a day-old account? JMWt (talk) 18:48, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Yes, but if you know how to close AfDs, that implies you've previously edited using a different account. That requires disclosure of the previous account(s) on your user page. Skyerise (talk) 18:49, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Those older comments were because the user started the talkpage by cloning Talk:data. I nuked them. As others observe, this is certainly not a new editor. DMacks (talk) 18:50, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Checkuserblocked as an LTA (see AGreene1117, MagicSoiuret etc.). If you see any more of these pop up, just block them with talk page and email disabled.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 18:59, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks :) JMWt (talk) 19:01, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

@Ponyo: He's back as Scoripon126 with basically the exact same name reverting my reply for some reason while also closing a just-relisted AfD using another user's signature as a disguise [60] JM (talk) 15:18, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

That's an interesting tactic I haven't seen before, gives the impression for anyone casually glancing at his page that he's not brand new. Not to dwell on it for WP:BEANS reasons, but I wonder if it might be a good idea to set an Edit Filter to monitor for something like that. It should be possible, and I can't think of any good reason a new editor would need to subst anything into their userspace. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 19:30, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

They're here again as User:FlightMasterr and RE, who To BeFree and I've blocked but a few others floating. If someone has time to come play whack a sock and fix the AfDs, it would be very much appreciated. @Ponyo if you happen to be around for some CU pixie dust, that would also be appreciated. Star Mississippi 18:53, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

• I stumbled upon this while doing routine vandal patrol... at first I just saw improper/incomplete relists and bad NACs and thought this was an overeager misguided newbie... then I noticed the signature forgery and realized this is far more serious. Taking Out The Trash (talk) 19:05, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Mass category creations and additions by Ernsanchez00 without discussion

This user has been mass adding categories like Category:American male sitcom actors and Category:American sitcom actresses to various actor articles, almost all of which are violations of WP:OVERCAT or WP:PERFCAT or both. They recently created categories like Category:American male comedy actors, which were deleted due to the aforementioned WP:OVERCAT and WP:PERFCAT, and they tried to go around it by creating the aforementioned categories, which are the same violations. The categories mentioned here are just some examples, as there are quite a bit more. Almost all of these are unnecessary and overcategorization. And this is borderline WP:DE. Amaury • 20:10, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Hi Amaury, sorry about that, I did not realize that the category of American sitcom actors are related to the category of American comedy actors. I just did it by huge mistake. Ernestine Sanchez (talk) 20:25, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

As a show of good faith, you might nominate your own created categories for deletion. I've just found several more, including Category:English male sitcom actors, which were not captured in the current CfD. You were advised of the prior CfD and acknowledged the notification, so it's hard for me to understand how you could not be aware that the new categories you created might be problematic. It's concerning to me that you would embark on this kind of effort without consulting with anyone, and my inclination would be to ask that you be banned from category creation either until you've gained more experience editing or stipulate that you'll discuss the creation of any new categories prior to creating them. DonIago (talk) 21:34, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Okay, Donlago. I will nominate the categories that I've created for deletion including the category of English, Scottish, and Welsh sitcom actors. Ernestine Sanchez (talk) 21:57, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Just wondering, Amaury, did you try discussing this situation before deciding to bring it to ANI? It seems like an issue that could have been addressed on a User talk page instead of coming to a busy noticeboard. I'm familiar with Ernsanchez00's categories because they often tag them for CSD C1 speedy deletion when they realize they created one by mistake. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:20, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for understanding my concerns and acting to address them. I do appreciate it. DonIago (talk) 18:55, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

@Doniago It seems as if similar instances are still occurring even after this discussion. Elvisisalive95 (talk) 20:31, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

You should probably provide diffs. DonIago (talk) 20:56, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Edit warring on Kaaren Ragland

Kaaren Ragland (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Basically a user with the same name as the page is constantly edit warring and using IP addresses to continue the disruption. I have tried to make them quit disrupting, but they seem to continue, and they have been warned about legal threats about reporting me to my residence state’s department and still refers to me as an "unidentified person". She is basically getting upset over me cleaning up her own article and she is continuing to make unsourced statements, which is NOT permitted in the BLP policy. She also is accusing me of defaming her (which isn’t the only reason why I came here, only to report), and ruining her "own" biography. On the most recent comment on her talk page, I tried to explain to her that she cannot be doing all this, but she continues to get away with it. Otherwise, I want a comment on this, or something else. TheGreatestLuvofAll ( chat with me ) 23:13, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

They were also warned about WP:COI. TheGreatestLuvofAll ( chat with me ) 23:16, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Does this edit summary constitute a legal threat? There have been multiple attempts to edit , libel and defame me by unidentified parties which has been brought to the attention of the legal department of Wikipedia accordingly. Schazjmd (talk) 23:59, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

I did not mean that one, but this edit summary does an example of threat towards me and also another user[61] TheGreatestLuvofAll ( chat with me ) 00:05, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

She was actually accusing me of defaming her, which is not true, but she could be likely to threaten suing me to my state residence's department, as stated above in my reasoning. TheGreatestLuvofAll ( chat with me ) 00:07, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

(not an admin) Diffs would be helpful so that people don't need to go searching, but from your description, it seems to be at least WP:COI, WP:OWN, WP:WAR, and WP:NOTHERE. JM (talk) 00:21, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Here Special:MobileDiff/1199064790, Special:MobileDiff/1198122958, Special:MobileDiff/1198090998 (using an IP address in this one), Special:MobileDiff/1198061885,

Special:MobileDiff/1198035129 TheGreatestLuvofAll ( chat with me ) 00:25, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

In these edits, she was adding unreferenced/poorly sourced content that was removed. TheGreatestLuvofAll ( chat with me ) 00:26, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Blocked for the really obvious legal threats, and I'd also suggest an unblock might involve identity verification through OTRS; it wouldn't be the first time someone impersonated an article subject. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 00:40, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Indeed. And having gone and read the edit summaries, I can confirm the accuracy of the policies I referenced above. Additionally, it's also a failure to WP:AGF on her part. Multiple possible legal threats - depends on whether she means to pursue action though internal Wikipedia mechanisms or through external legal mechanisms. If it's the latter, it's a legal threats in violation of WP:NLT. She also apparently wants Wikipedia to give her the real-life identities of the users editing her article, which probably violates something. Just as an example of one of her edit summaries [62], she says I have given you the best information the actual Ct docs., not hearsay dubious articles. Also my first hand information. Obviously she would be using a primary source with the court documents, but also note that unreferenced "first hand information" from the article's subject (who hasn't even proven that identity as far as I know) is obviously not compliant with WP:BLP. Finally, calling an editor This bizarre entity is a violation of WP:NPA. Multiple standalone reasons for an indef. JM (talk) 00:42, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

She also had done the same to Marybrewster (talk · contribs), and 2603:8000:9f0:8370:13b8:cae8:b2aa:284b (talk · contribs) who were adding information. Thanks. TheGreatestLuvofAll ( chat with me ) 00:45, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

She was also already blocked for 48 hours for edit-warring and upon the block expiring immediately returned to disruptive editing. So there's another reason for an indef even without the legal theats. Just saying this because even if she somehow successfully appeals the WP:NLT block, she should still be blocked for all the other reasons I listed. JM (talk) 00:48, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Yes. I reported it to WP:RFPP/I TheGreatestLuvofAll ( chat with me ) 00:50, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

I laid that out on her talkpage. Anyone looking there should be able to see the legal threats were just the most egregious of several major issues. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 00:51, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

correct, because the page has 83 views for people to see that. TheGreatestLuvofAll ( chat with me ) 00:54, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

@The Blade of the Northern Lights: Block evasion seems likely with B2TheShack. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 23:17, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Blocked. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 00:12, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

@The Blade of the Northern Lights: she's back as an IP claiming she's a different person, claiming I have a personal issue with her (I have no idea who she is or what the Supremes even are), demanding I unblock her Special:Contributions/2603:8000:9F0:8370:1082:AD22:F848:99FD JM (talk) 03:56, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

It could be WP:MEAT since they are claiming to be someone else with the same COI. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 03:59, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Based on the close similarities in the writing style and hyping-up I doubt it's a different person, but the user is assuming bad faith and block evading regardless. JM (talk) 04:02, 27 January 2024 (UTC) I've now noticed they both use the unique phrase "full stop" at the ends of some sentences. I have very little doubt that this person is this Kaaren woman evading a block. JM (talk) 04:35, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Activist editing by NoonIcarus

In a previous ANI report it was detailed (perhaps too detailed) that NoonIcarus was engaged in activist editing in support of the Venezuelan opposition and attempted to make things personal by deleting an article I created. If you would like to jump into their editing history in that report, it provides a thorough background on their civil POV pushing behavior. This disruptive behavior has, unfortunately, continued. As a disclosure, I have said before that it takes two to be involved in edit warring and I have acknowledged my previous misbehavior in disputes with this user, but please allow me to provide information on how NoonIcarus continues to be disruptive.

NoonIcarus persists with making things personal by WikiHounding my contributions, removing[63][64][65] or driveby tagging[66][67] (a user has also raised concerns about NoonIcarus' tagging)(Edit:--WMrapids (talk) 08:47, 26 January 2024 (UTC)) information minutes after it is placed. It was this revert here that was the last straw regarding the continuous hounding; NoonIcarus removed the information (minutes after it was placed) based on previous discussions they had with Storm598, a blocked sockpuppet user who provided inappropriate references (such as opinion articles). This is similar behavior to NoonIcarus' "stable version" argument where NoonIcarus inappropriately enforced a "stable version" by reverting any new content that they didn't deem "stable". In the past, NoonIcarus has justified WkikiHounding behavior by saying that an article is on their watchlist, but when such behavior happens constantly for every edit (especially within minutes) and even devolves into defining a shakedown, it becomes plainly disruptive and makes editing feel hopeless.

In addition, NoonIcarus does not seem to have learned from their previous sanction regarding block deletions on the United States involvement in regime change article, blanking material and moving the goalposts once more by demanding opinions from users on the inclusion of Venezuela in the article (this same issue has been going on for over 4 years) after other users adequately laid out the scope of the article on the talk page.

A previous WP:0RR sanction and the most recent ANI report has done nothing to remedy NoonIcarus' behavior, so something else has to be done. As I have said before, Venezuelan articles already have limited participation, and it sure doesn't help when you have a user like NoonIcarus hounding, removing and stonewalling the work of other contributors.--WMrapids (talk) 01:28, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Can you link to a diff/section of the details of NoonIcarus's WP:0RR sanction please? When was this placed, by whom, and has it ever been violated? –Novem Linguae (talk) 02:05, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

@Novem Linguae: You can see this in a previous ANI where the closer says about restrictions placed on NoonIcarus:

essentially, this custom restriction limits [NoonIcarus] to 0RR when they have been reverted, absent consensus, and 1RR otherwise.

This restriction was placed by User:El C in January 2020 for a period of one year. As for if the restrictions were violated, I have not gone back that far as interactions with the user only began within the last year. WMrapids (talk) 02:18, 26 January 2024 (UTC) Edit--WMrapids (talk) 02:22, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

 Comment: After reviewing the closing comment from January 2020, I noticed that User:El C notes:

this note by Jamez42 was probably the wrong call. I'm not sure I would call it canvassing outright, but it certainly skits its boundaries.

Well, it seems that NoonIcarus did not learn from this warning either and has continued their apparent borderline canvassing by listing POV tags they placed on WikiProject Venezuela's talk page. Most of these tags were placed by NoonIcarus shortly after edits I performed.[68][69][70][71] This not only shows possible attempts at canvassing (NoonIcarus could have always listed POV tags in a sandbox or user page so they "can remember") but also that NoonIcarus is attempting to maintain a particular POV.--WMrapids (talk) 02:49, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

 Comment: I'll try to come back later with more time, but SandyGeorgia, who I linked in the last report and was also accused of COI and hounding, offers a good overview: I interpret your posts here as an attempt to intimidate me with "ownership" (with no valid diffs yet), and where you are intimating COI, as you are doing with NoonIcarus with "advocacy", based on your apparent misunderstanding of WP:COI. (User talk:SandyGeorgia/arch120#Ownership edits on Venezuelan topics).

WMrapids wishes to include a section about Venezuela at the United States involvement in regime change article, but another editor challenged this two months ago ([72]), ReyHahn. Last week they started a discussion about scope, asking about threshold and definitions but never about Venezuela, and yet another editor, BobFromBrockley, said that the section should not be included until the discussion is sorted out ([73]). WMrapids clearly doesn't have consensus for the inclusion and omitting this information is deceptive.

I should also warn about not throwing stones, since just this week I also warned the user against blanking ([74]). --NoonIcarus (talk) 04:30, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

NoonIcarus, I will respectively only reply to you once in order to avoid bludgeoning and another wall of text.

• I shared concerns with both you and SandyGeorgia about your editing. Other than being frank, it was in no means an act of intimidation as we needed to clear the air at the time following months of disputed edits.
• "another editor challenged this two months ago" Yes. The editor used the same argument ("explain how verbal support is regime change") that you have also been trying to make since 2019 ("neither of them go into depths about any actions (which and how), only intent"). Clarifying this concern about "verbal support" occurred in this discussion where it was determined that reliable sources saying that the US was involved in soft power or hard power tactics to enact regime change was sufficient for inclusion. This is why I placed the information back and later cited the snowball clause since I genuinely believed the dispute was over. You, ReyHahn and Bobfrombrockley were the few who opposed the inclusion of Venezuela and the consensus of the scope for inclusion (such opposition has been persistent since 2019) while 6–8 other users support the inclusion criteria that would allow the placement of the Venezuela section. So accusing me of being "deceptive" is casting aspersions and is more evidence that you are taking this personally.
• If we want to talk about omitting information, why did you not provide my rationale on why this information was removed (undue and possible conflict of interest) and instead provided your diff accusing me of blanking? Also, why did you omit that a separate user supported my rationale for removing such information?[75][76]

It's clear that you have taken your interactions with me as being personal, which is evidenced by you nominating an article I created for deletion without any rationale, WikiHounding my contributions, placing questionable tags on my edits and now calling me "deceptive". Honestly, you simply stopping this behavior would be enough for me, but given your pattern of ignoring warnings, we are beyond that. WMrapids (talk) 08:43, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Bad faith user.

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

---

User: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Hob_Gadling

Relevant Article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Robert_F._Kennedy_Jr.

He consistently is bad faith; strawmanning, condescending, bullying, etc....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Robert_F._Kennedy_Jr./Archive_1;

"If you find a reliable source that agrees with Kennedy's defamation of people who disagree with his crazy anti-science stance ("false claims both Anthony Fauci and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation are trying to profit off a vaccine"), then you can come back and contest the word "false"."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Robert_F._Kennedy_Jr./Archive_2;

"Are you making WP:LEGAL threats?" -- Be sure to read Lindosland's comment Hob responded to.

"If you do not agree with what the sources say or with the way Wikipedia works, that is your problem."

"In short, you have two conflicting accounts from two differents sources: the scientific community and Wikipedia on one hand and Kennedy and his antivax troops on the other. And if source A and source B contradict each other, obviously source A must be wrong. Which, in this case, is the scientific community and Wikipedia. Sound logic, as always in this area."

"We have reliable sources calling him an anti-vaxxer, and we would not be "a credible source of information" if we omitted that information. Your pharma shill gambit fools no one here."

"The article says he made false claims about Fauci. That is correct, according to reliable sources. What is your problem? You want that fact hidden?"

"Bullshit. Go to some forum to whine. This is not a forum."

"This article is based on reliable sources. They say Kennedy's stance on vaccines is wrong. End of story."

"You have "disproved" nothing. If you can give a good reason why any of the sources used in the article should not be regarded as reliable, bring it. Otherwise, go away."

"Exactly what it says: Let's see what other users think. I don't know what is so hard to understand about that."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Robert_F._Kennedy_Jr./Archive_3;

I think things like the next three quotes are noteworthy because even if they don't necessarily qualify as 'bad faith', nobody is going to read that and think, "yes, this is a conversation where I'm going to learn something." Nor, "this is about to be a fruitful conversation."

"Next."

"Instead of such empty rhetorics, bring sources."

"Not depicting antivaxers as the pseudoscientists and quacks they are would be WP:FALSEBALANCE."

"Your proposed edit Who are you talking to? The indentation says it is me, but I did not suggest any edits. Neither did M.boli. And the one above that one, which actually does propose an edit, seems to be you yourself."

"Why? It seems kind of important that if this guy becomes the Democrat candidate, Americans will have to choose between two people who live in parallel fantasy universes. (It's probably a given that the Republican candidate will be no better. Their sane wing has been tiny and weak for several decades now.)" - Hob knows to keep things related to improving the article (archive 2, "This page is not a forum. It is for improving the article.") yet he is taking shots at RFK Jr and Trump here.

"His "Children's Health Defense" regularly equates mainstream scientists with Nazis." - evidence?

"Yeah, he also sleeps and eats every day, which is also something far different. So what?"

"Nobody cares. Discussions are not about the discussers' positions, they are about their reasoning"

"What happens if these government "experts" are wrong and that's not revealed until a decade from now Come back when that happens. Until then, we will use the knowledge we have now (which is that Kennedy's disinformation is spreading disease and killing children by convincing their parents and the parents of their neighbors not to protect them by vaccination). See WP:CRYSTALBALL" -- I think the use of crystalball here is excellent, but everything Hob said leading up to this is bullying, condescension, and borderline harassment of anyone on the page who disagrees with him.

"Can we stop this? This is not a forum, see WP:NOTFORUM. Go acquire competence (see WP:CIR), and come back when you know how to use valid reasoning."

Finally I've reached my first interaction with him. Throughout the interaction he is straw manning;

"I did read OR. I'm not applying my own thoughts -- making a claim. Please re-read my OP." - this quote is of me.

"'I didn't say' Yes you did."

and being extremely rude;

"That may be the case in a very few cases, but in general, it is just the Dunning-Kruger effect."

"You do not understand how Wikipedia works, and it seems are not even trying to understand it."

"Maybe you should gather more Wikipedia experience before jumping into contentious topics. A few more points: The lead of an article does not even need any sources - see WP:LEDECITE. The same things are sourced further down in the body of the article. It is consensus in science that Kennedy's ideas about vaccination are false. The rules say that we can only use sources that actually mention Kennedy. Those will not go into depth because it is common knowledge among science-literate people that his antivaxer crap is crap. The sources in articles like Andrew Wakefield, Thimerosal, MMR vaccine and autism go into detail about that."

"Not continuing this losing battle is a great idea, although the reason for it is bad because telling an inexperienced person that they are inexperienced is not an insult."

That's only Archive 1, 2, and 3 of one Wikipedia article so I could continue, but I think that is sufficient evidence that Hob Gadling is bad faith and shouldn't be taking part in Talk tabs because so many of his discussions are disruptive to the progressive flow of the article. I would also like to add that I believe he should have his editing privileges removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cmsmith93 (talk • contribs) 01:54, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

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

Prolific socking on Jannik Sinner

• Jannik Sinner (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Sinnertruthtold (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Thisisallthereis (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Succeedalways (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Let'sdoitnowforsure (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Isthisreallymeoh (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• NoDjoksonlyNoledge (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Several new accounts have popped up adding the same weird, borderline unencyclopedic content to Jannik Sinner. These seem like obvious socks. I figure that blocks and a page protection might be in order. MaterialsPsych (talk) 08:31, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

The accounts have obligingly made their WP:NOTHERE disruptive behavior very obvious by repeatedly deleting this ANI thread about them. This has likely been noticed already, but for the record's sake, and since I have the tabs open, here are the diffs: by Thisisallthereis, by Succeedalways, by Let'sdoitnowforsure, by Thisisallthereis, by Isthisreallymeoh, by Succeedalways, by NoDjoksonlyNoledge, by Isthisreallymeoh, by Thisisallthereis, by Succeedalways. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 09:06, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Materialscientist has blocked and tagged all these accounts (and some others) as socks.

Although, @Materialscientist, is the sock master account you tagged on these supposed to not be blocked? It currently isn't. – 2804:F14:80CE:5201:55BF:F510:80A3:EA00 (talk) 10:19, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

I tagged the sockpuppeteer, and he hasn’t blocked them yet. TheGreatestLuvofAll ( chat with me ) 12:18, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

I left a message at Materialscientist's talk page (note that he has disabled notifications for pings). He forgot to block the sock master, and the account has now been blocked. No further action is needed. MaterialsPsych (talk) 07:48, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

IP from France

This IP keeps coming back. While most of their edits seem to be genuine some of their edits involves adding false cast members such as retired actress Babita [77]. Here they add three actors that definitely are not in the film: [78].

This weird behavior first started at Gulabi (1995 film). Upon watching the film, all of the cast members in the film are already in the actor but the IP goes on to add [79] more actors. See Talk:Gulabi (1995 film), where User:Archer1234 has been reverting unsourced edits. It is unclear what their motive is as they are making Wikipedia both reliable and unreliable at the same time.

A problematic edit is shown here where they add Bengali actor Tarun Kumar Chaterjee to a film he was definitely not in [80].

The IP should either respond to talk page requests (Archer1234 tried at Gulabi talk page) or stop making false edits. Basically when two people have the same name, IMDb links the popular one even if they didn't appear in the film. I think the IP is sourcing their edits from a database because it is highly unlikely that they have access to every low-key Telugu film.

Here [81] the IP adds a film more than ten years before the actor debuted. There is no way to verify this since the film is not online. The IP has been using different IP addresses but most of them are similar [82]. DareshMohan (talk) 10:19, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

In addition to the lack of communication, the IP does not appear to source any of their edits. And they often (always?) forget to italicize film titles.

These are the IPv6 ranges from which I have seen them operate actively:

• 2A02:842A:1BF:1901:0:0:0:0/64 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))
• 2A01:E0A:21:130:0:0:0:0/64 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))

Plus this IP4 range:

• 81.65.88.0/21 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)) going back to at least August 2023.

They are very prolific, so it will take a lot of effort to scrutinize their edits to separate the wheat from the chaff. It appears that a block on their ranges would have little to no collateral damage.  — Archer1234 (t·c) 13:23, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Some edits cross into Bangladeshi cinema and bring to mind sock Symon Sadik.  — Archer1234 (t·c) 18:39, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Another 19 edits today at 2A02:842A:1BF:1901:3832:5A3C:98AB:172B. None are explained. Some are correcting errors (good), but many are introducing new claims with no sourcing. Here's one of the unsourced ones adding a film to an actor's filmography: [83] (note, as usual, they do not italicize the film name). Still no communication. Can we get a block with the purpose of encouraging them to discuss our concerns with their edits?  — Archer1234 (t·c) 15:08, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Now they have also jumped over to 81.65.93.69. Same MO: unsourced additions to filmographies and film cast lists. All of the IPs used (IPv6 and IPv4) center around the same metropolitan area.  — Archer1234 (t·c) 17:40, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

IP 63.115.31.130 making attacks on me

Hello, administrators. This IP continuously keeps telling me to "cry about it" after I reverted their edit yesterday. Today, when I was just browsing through some pages, the IP once again told me to cry about it and stop "acting like a wuss." I left a warning about personal attacks on their talk page and the response I got? They blanked the talk page by telling me to "cope harder." You can view this in the talk page history. I recommend putting a temporary block on this IP and also possibly revoke their talk page access for a while. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 14:07, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Ok, never mind. The IP has gotten their 72-hour block. Thanks. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 14:15, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

@Writ Keeper This IP has been blocked 5 times in the past, twice without talk page access. The last block lasted for a year - it expired at the end of December and now disruption has started again. Given the long term disruption from this IP, the history of blocks and the content of the recent edits a longer block than 72 hours might be called for? Perhaps another 1 or 2 years? 86.23.109.101 (talk) 14:46, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Fair enough, IP, though I don't necessarily want to keep talk page access turned off for the whole year. I will leave the block as is for now with TPA disabled, and will then reblock with TPA enabled for probably about a year. (Any admin is free to extend the block now, of course, if they feel that's a better solution.) Thanks. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 16:18, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Is McStrats here to build an encyclopedia?

Hello, there is a user named @McStrats who has edited the page on chess strategy, adding a small piece of text saying, "Use the McStrategy." There is obviously no such thing as the McStrategy. I reverted the edit as vandalism, as I didn't know what to pick for a user adding something telling users to use a strategy. That would probably fall under the category of guides. I put the ANI notice on their page. Here's the diff link: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chess_strategy&diff=prev&oldid=1199230412 - The Master of Hedgehogs ^{(always up for a conversation!)} 14:52, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Not here, blocked. Someone just having their version of fun which has been stopped, no reason to spend more time on this. Canterbury Tail talk 15:35, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Think that Skibidnoilet is related to Jared Boon.

@Skibidnoilet edited at the exact same time as Jared Boon's socks and has a username similarity to one of those socks. Toketaa^talk 15:27, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Yup, pretty obvious. RickinBaltimore (talk) 15:44, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Also to add there appear top be some sleepers, blocking those as we speak. RickinBaltimore (talk) 15:46, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

User:Bharatpediahk

User:Bharatpediahk This user is copying userbox from other pages and pasting the same in his own userpage without changing anything. He also copied mine. This editor was also in a sockpuppet investigation today but he was not a sock. Moreover, this user is displaying Master Editor (Platinum Editor Star) Award on his user page but he is actually not entitle to display the same. So, kindly look into this! Thanks! TheProEditor11 (talk) 15:57, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Honestly, no one cares if you display userboxes that you may not be entitled to. There is no process for managing userboxes like that, they're fluff with zero meaning or value. The only thing I'd be concerned about is if they're impersonating other editors or claiming to be an admin when they aren't. There could be an argument that they're copying within Wikipedia without attribution. Canterbury Tail talk 16:14, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

To be fair, while the user awards are fluff that doesn't have any actual weight, the fact that they're linking to another user's actual YouTube and Twitter accounts and claiming them as their own could count as impersonation, so that's a little more concerning. ChaotıċEnby(talk · contribs) 16:37, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Yeah that would be impersonation, which is a no no. I never actually looked at the page. Canterbury Tail talk 16:39, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Is there any indication they're here to be a useful editor? Star Mississippi 18:07, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Guys, I don't care about the awards but I am concerned about why that editor has copied userbox without changing info? It is kinda impersonation.. TheProEditor11 (talk) 04:28, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Strange editing from Uskudar University

Both Asmahadad23 and Lenah_aldalati claim to be editing on behalf of Uskudar University [84] [85]. Both have been adding walls of text that appear to only have a single source at the end, and often that source has no bearing on the subject.

Asmahadad23, on Diagnosis of autism, added a whole paragraph about misdiagnosis of autism spectrum disorder (ASD) with percentages and reasons and it was referenced by an article about misdiagnosis of hernias in children.[86] Nothing at all to do with ASD. Another paragraph on the same subject was referenced to a paper on "Misdiagnosis and mistreatment of uterine myxoid leiomyosarcoma" which, again, has no bearing on ASD.

Lenah aldalati, on Nervous system disease, removed sourced material and replaced it with four paragraphs that had a single reference at the end to an article entitled "Wound infections: an overview" that has nothing to do with nervous system diseases.[87]

I don't know if this is an actual school project or how many editors may be involved but the edits aren't actually helping the articles. ThaddeusSholto (talk) 16:09, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

This is already being discussed at WP:Education noticeboard#Student assignment at Uskudar University editing medical articles. That may be sufficient management for now. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 16:12, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

I suppose content disputes are handled on article talk page, unless it’s suspected that the students are acting in bad faith? --Dustfreeworld (talk) 16:56, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

It's less about the students being in bad faith, and more that they may be told to edit Wikipedia with no guidance, and their grade depends on it, so adherence to the rules is lower on their priorities. The entire education program can wind up here on ANI when it becomes clear there's no real mentorship going on, and whatever program it is needs reined in.

Otherwise, normal content disputes should be handled on the article talk, yes. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:55, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

“So adherence to the rules is lower on their priorities” I can’t agree with this assumption. If they don’t adhere to the rules, their edits will get reverted and they may even be blocked, how can they get good grades? --Dustfreeworld (talk) 18:15, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

And I don’t think I see any student violating the rules *deliberately*. All I see is, *no one* bothers to tell them the rules.

They might have completed the “ Wikipedia training modules”, I don’t know much and can’t comment on that. Anyway, I believe medical editors can do a better job to guide our new comers. --Dustfreeworld (talk) 18:17, 26 January 2024 (UTC); 18:55, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

This is one of the big problems with student editing in general. They're often given requirements by the instructor that do not match those of Wikipedia. (In this case the instructor has apparently told them that anything and everything they find on PubMed is usable, which is clearly wrong). When they get told otherwise they stick with the person who is grading them. And no one should blame them personally for this - they are being put into an impossible situation, where their grade depends not only on their own work and their instructor's beliefs, but on the actions of third parties (that is, every other Wikipedia editor). MrOllie (talk) 18:25, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Ah... I don’t think the instructor is suggesting that *everything* in Pubmed is usable. If the instructor really *do* think so, I think it’s time for us to review our wording in WP:MEDRS to see why it gives users such an impression. Again, all these don’t belong to ANI IMO. I don’t see there are any conflicts between getting good grades and making great contributions to Wikipedia.

Agreed that no one should be blamed personally. --Dustfreeworld (talk) 18:51, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

That said, I believe our usual practices to safeguard the accuracy of our content are still essential. There are absolutely times that reverts are needed. Just that I think students shouldn’t be labelled as more problematic than other new users. --Dustfreeworld (talk) 19:00, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

It's a side-effect of having seen this happen repeatedly with poorly run education projects (aka the "Ah, shit, here we go again" phenomenon). It happens often enough that people immediately bristle when a cluster of students start editing against policy, because they know it's going to be a mess to fix & the educator likely won't have their backs.

It's well and good to not WP:BITE the newbies. It's incredibly frustrating when this keeps happening because of a project that has no controls & no recourse for correcting the inherent problem. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 20:25, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Not necessarily “poorly run education projects”, it’s probably about “how good Wikipedia is run” (by us?).

• How do we welcome new medical editors

--Dustfreeworld (talk) 15:01, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

User:Piermark

This globally banned user created a username on the Bulgarian Wikipedia, by copying part of my username in revenge. Most likely he has edited that Wikipedia. Catfurball (talk) 18:31, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

English Wikipedia admins don't have any authority on other websites. What would you like to happen here? Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:34, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Never mind, I updated the page, Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Piermark. Catfurball (talk) 19:02, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Muhtasib Page

Hello,

The oage keeps getting edited by a troll who is wrongfully removing the historic Muhtaseb family name from the article. What are my options here? The person gives no reason for removal. 173.70.68.245 (talk) 19:15, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

The editors involved, one of whom is probably the IP above, were at 8RR and 9RR on the article; both are now blocked. Please read WP:LOUTSOCK before you do anything else. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:31, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

To answer the question generally: if a user removes information that you added and you don't agree with their reasoning (or they didn't give any), you should try to discuss it with them. If they revert you again without responding, you should stop and ask for assistance. You can start a discussion on the article's talk page, you can try dispute resolution, request a third opinion, report the user for edit warring, or post here if all else fails. What you will get blocked for is trading reverts with them and saying things like "I can go all day" while you do it. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:37, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

User:Amongusgamer123

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

---

Most likely using chatGPT to respond to me in their talk page. Edits are bad faith. Toketaa^talk 19:28, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

I could get to a destination multiple ways; vandalism, disruptive editing, NOTHERE... the destination is the same. Blocked. Courcelles (talk) 19:31, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

2 minutes in and they already made an unblock request. sigh Toketaa^talk 19:37, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

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

User:The Banner keeps harassing me

It started somewhere in 2023. I don't know why, but The Banner keeps harassing me. He accuses me of breaking the rules. He keeps undoing my edits. Sometimes even without giving any reasons whatsoever. And now he threatens me with losing editing privileges. I don't know if he even is admin or not. He knows I don't know the ins and outs of Wikipedia so he just bullies me and do whatever he wants, without giving any explanation. In July [[88]], he again accused me of bad behaviour, but when I confronted him with the truth, he just stopped replying on my talk page. And now, he keeps accusing me of pushing point of view. But the reality is, HE is doing this, not me. Let me explain: There is a legal dispute between football clubs FCSB and CSA Steaua Bucuresti. It spans many years, court-cases and even articles on Wikipedia. As a side note, FCSB used to be named "Football Club Steaua Bucuresti", but lost this name in favour of CSA Steaua. FCSB was stripped of the "Steaua" brand and deemed to never had the rights to legally use the "Steaua" name. It's a fact acknowledged by Wikipedia for years. So obviously, I tried to redirect https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=FC_Steaua_Bucure%C8%99ti&redirect=no from FCSB to FC Steaua București records dispute as seen here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=FC_Steaua_Bucure%C8%99ti&action=history. He doesn't approve. How I am pushing for CSA Steaua point of view (like he accuses me), when my edit is focused on the neutral article regarding the "Steaua vs FCSB" dispute? He wants it to redirect towards FCSB, which is clearly intellectual property theft. I also tried to redirect this: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:UEFA_Champions_League_winners&action=history. Again, it's the wrong name and the record is disputed. It's a well known fact. I only tried to redirect it to the article regarding the dispute. He is accusing me [[89]] of pushing Steaua's point of view (and VANDALISM?!) while, in fact, he pushes FCSB's point of view and encourage intellectual property infringement on Wikipedia. Why, I don't know. I always tried to respect the rules, to give sources and to explain my edits. But I don't have the time or the energy to keep arguing with him or be subjugated under abuse. Please do something about this. Dante4786 (talk) 20:21, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Look, I get you think you're right. But you don't get to accuse another editor of intellectual property theft because they dispute the change you want to make. It's not property infringement for us to use that redirect to the club. The rest of this is primarily a content dispute. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 20:37, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

It's not about him disputing the change I want to make. It's about intellectual property theft because FCSB can't use or be associated in any way with the "Steaua" name. It's like stating on Wikipedia x is innocent when he is fact convicted in real life. It doesn't reflect reality and it encourages (not is, per se) intellectual property infringement. Also, it just isn't a neutral aproach to push the FCSB-POV. CSA Steaua literally fought in court for FCSB to be stripped down of that name. Shouldn't Wikipedia acknowledge the outcome? Why push forward an edit that is confusing and that violates the rights of CSA Steaua? One team has the right to use the name, the other doesn't. At least redirect the page to the article about the dispute. Also, AFC Steaua (Asociatia Fotbal Club Steaua Bucuresti) is arguably a different team, that also used the ,,Fotbal Club Steaua Bucuresti" name between 1998-2003. Dante4786 (talk) 21:05, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

If anyone is harassing anybody here it is you, User:Dante4786, accusing those who disagree with you of intellectual property theft in what appears to be attempt to dictate content. These sorts of accusations have a distinct chilling effect and verge on legal threats.Nigel Ish (talk) 21:14, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

I am only stating what the Romanian law is stating. https://www-economica-net.translate.goog/clubul-patronat-de-gigi-becali-nu-mai-are-voie-sa-foloseasca-numele-steaua_130606.html?_x_tr_sl=ro&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en&_x_tr_pto=wapp. I am not accussing, I am explaining why this sort of edit can't stay as it is. I am explaining my reasoning. And third parties are also obliged to comply with court decisions. I am also asking you, shouldn't Wikipedia reflect current affairs? Shouldn't Wikipedia respect the legal rights of other entities? Shouldn't Wikipedia avoid confusion by redirecting readers to a suitable and neutral article about the dispute? Dante4786 (talk) 21:48, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:No legal threats is a good page if you want to have a read. ChaotıċEnby(talk · contribs) 22:04, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, but there is no need. I don't work for either entities, I couldn't sue even if wanted to :) I'm just explaining my reasoning about a LEGAL debate. Dante4786 (talk) 22:07, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, sorry for the confusion! It's always better to make it clear as it could've been misinterpreted that way ChaotıċEnby(talk · contribs) 22:12, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

There was a long discussion about to clean up the confusion around Steaua București, resulting in FC Steaua București records dispute as a compromise. Dante4786 did not take part in that discussion. After a break, he immediately starting objecting against the consensus. To the point he started changing a template to his own wishes without any prior discussion (here and later again (again reverted but not by me). Dante demands that I explain why I revert his unexplained changes. I see no need for that with unexplained edits. In my humble opinion, the edit in the template is vandalism, or at least POV-pushing. The second edit on the template (that I did not see earlier), came with a curious legalese summary: Wrong name for FCSB. And the record is disputed. Wikipedia doesn't encourage intellectual property infringement. The same demand for explanation came for this unexplained edit. Maybe I am too harsh, but breaking open the long discussion to reach consensus in tough to witness.

@Scolaire:

The Banner talk 20:53, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

What are you talking about? I am in favor of there being an article about FC Steaua București records dispute. From my understanding, somebody proposed for the page to be merged with FCSB and I wrote on the talk page that I disagree. Also, really, are you going to bring up consesus achieved on 2nd January, by a handful of people? Did you even check who was involved? One of the users involved is currently banned. Another IP made his second edit ever right on that debate. How is this any fair? @Scolaire: challenged my position in a fair manner and I responded with PLENTY of sources. I replied with 3 pretty big paragraphs, arguing against all his point, not letting anything behind. You, on the other hand, started acussing me directly from the get-go and undid my edits even AFTER I gave my reasoning. Like I said, I was triyng to edit something that was a clearly known fact. You undid my edit, I edit it back, gave my reasoning and YOU UNDID IT AGAIN. So it doesn't matter to you if my edit was explained or not. You decided from the start that I was wrong and nothing that I can say could change your mind. And when I reported the unfair treatment on my talk page and your talk page, you ignored me. Only after I said I will report you, you gave a pseudo-explanation. Dante4786 (talk) 21:39, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

I had never seen your threat of bringing me to AN/I until I got the notice of it. The Banner talk 22:18, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

I admit, I had overlook that threat. And I even overlook your comment You are pushing point of view and you encourage intellectual property infringement. on my talk page. A second time that I see that legalese argument. The Banner talk 22:24, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Hi again! The process is usually "bold edit → revert → discuss". If someone reverts your edit, instead of editing it back with your reasoning, the best course of action is to write your reasoning on the talk page, and then wait for other editors to give their opinion (otherwise there's a risk for it to end in edit warring). ChaotıċEnby(talk · contribs) 22:14, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

@Chaotic Enby: Ok, thank you for the suggestion, but the problem is, he already ignored my reasoning, when I tried to edit the second time. And it isn't the first time he read my position on the subject and replied with false accusation, only to stop all together when I challenged him with valid counterarguments https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Dante4786&oldid=1167705437 As you can clearly see here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:FC_Steaua_Bucure%C8%99ti_records_dispute&oldid=1199302981, I am willing to discuss with other editors. But if he ignores me and nobody else replies, should his incorrect edit stay for ever? This is why I reported it here, for a 3rd party to see. I don't want to argue with anybody, I tried to ignore and forget (since July), but what's the point when he does the same thing again? It's tiresome to have a dialogue with somebody who doesn't really want to listen. And I do like Wikipedia, that's why it bothers me when he insists with something which is misleading. Dante4786 (talk) 04:07, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

This is a new one, I've never seen anybody interpret a disagreement over a redirect on Wikipedia as theft. I've left the OP a warning for personal attacks. Acroterion (talk) 00:40, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Like I said on my talk page, I'm only defending myself. I reported an abuse. And please explain how can I present my point of view regarding a LEGAL dispute (Steaua vs FCSB), without using LEGAL reasons??? The SUBJECT involved is ABOUT intellectual property. One party stole (the name) from the other party. It was never my threat, it was never A threat. Like I said before, I don't work for the entities involved, I CAN'T sue even if I wanted to. Please don't put words in my mouth, I never threated with legal actions. I only explained how articles on Wikipedia shouldn't break the legal rights of other entities. Again, shouldn't Wikipedia reflect current affairs? Shouldn't Wikipedia respect the legal rights of other entities? Shouldn't Wikipedia avoid confusion by redirecting readers to a suitable and neutral article about the dispute? Please explain how any of this is an attack. I literally commented on the content, on the use of "FC Steaua Bucuresti" regarding a team who is forbidden by the law to be associated with that name. It's literally a fact, it isn't my opinion, it isn't an attack on any editor. I gave sources (and until now, no one challenged them), I explained my position with plenty of details, what more can I do? I am blamed of pushing a POV by somebody who actually is at fault of this. Dante4786 (talk) 03:45, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't a court where such things are adjudicated. I think some muddled language concerning the naming dispute may be an issue here, but ANI is not where this can be resolved. Take it up on the relevant talkpage, and be extremely careful to frame any argument around sources, not what you perceive other editors to be doing. Your comments up until now give the impression that you are blaming other Wikipedia editors, or are accusing them of harassment for disagreeing or not understanding what you're trying to do. Acroterion (talk) 04:08, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

@Acroterion: No, Wikipedia isn't a judge. But Wikipedia does try to reflect reality and current affairs. Am I wrong? Yes, English is not my native language, sorry about that. But please, answer me this. If x person is convicted in real life, can an article on Wikipedia state the contrary, that he is innocent? That is the equivalent of what I am trying to express. The current redirect doesn't reflect the present and, besides this, is also confusing and misleading. Because the subject is complex, I tried to make a redirect towards the article which is focused on the dispute between A and B. I didn't try to push for either A or B. But I am accused of being unfair. And when the false accusations persist, when my edits are undone without justification, even after I explained myself, when my questions are ignored and I receive only threats of being banned and so forth, am I not even slightly entitled to feel harassed? I literally gave sources and nobody challenged them. Should I just wait and let the article spread misinformation? I apologise if this wasn't the correct place to report the abuse. Like I said, I do try to respect the rules but I don't know the the ins and outs of Wikipedia. Dante4786 (talk) 04:27, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Not knowing the ins and outs of Wikipedia isn't an offense, but accusing people of not following a farfetched, tortured interpretation of a lawsuit that we're not a party to, in a court that has no jurisdiction here, in order to to further a result not in accordance with Wikipedia's rules, certainly is.

Playing fake internet lawyer is not an exception to WP:AGF and you're skirting on the very edge of WP:NLT. Just because *you* don't have the ability to personally engage in a lawsuit doesn't allow you to use legalese as a threat to attempt to shut down another editor's ability to post or skirt Wikipedia's consensus-making apparatus.

Your best bet would be to apologize, agree to drop the subject, and withdraw the complaint. I would guess that it's your best chance to avoid sanctions. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 04:50, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Excuse me, but what farfetched and tortured interpretation of a lawsuit are you talking about? I literally gave sources. Many sources. For you and others to read them. Here, on my talk page and on other talk pages. What more can I do? Nobody is challenging the content of what I am disputing. The redirect points are misleading and I was unfairly treated. And how can I give my reasoning on a LEGAL debate, without using LEGAL reasons? It's not a threat. Again, the whole subject is about intellectual property. A legal dispute between two entities. I don't think the redirect points present the LEGAL dispute in a fair and neutral manner. How can I explain this without providing LEGAL reasons? If the subject is about intellectual property, of course we are going to have to talk about intellectual property infringement. It shouldn't be taboo, it's a logical consequence when talking about a LEGAL dispute. I don't know how else I can put this. And no, I won't apologize for reporting harassment, which in good faith, I tried to ignore for months. But I do apologize for reporting it, in the wrong place, if that's the case. Dante4786 (talk) 05:10, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

You haven't provided *any* valid legal reasons. The court literally ruled that a specific defendant couldn't use plaintiff's intellectual property when connected with their business. That's all. It has nothing to do with anything on Wikipedia.

What we call entities is determined by consensus from reliable sources and our policies, not an extremely tenuous interpretation of a court case that, even if accurate (which I highly doubt), would have zero effect on us as there's no jurisdiction here. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 06:11, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

I did provide valid legal reasons. And here's another one: Full Faith and Credit Clause. And in European countries, principles of legal enforceability and judicial authority underpin the obligation for third parties to respect court decisions. I gave sources and I explained my reasoning. I can't contradict you when you don't give counterarguments. You just state "no, you didn't". I also explained from a non-legal point of view, explaining how the current redirect points spread misinformation and more confusion and contradicts other articles on Wikipedia. And to reiterate, both in EU and in USA (and in pretty much every civilized country), 3rd parties are obliged to respect the decision of the court and the intellectual property and rights of other entities. To explain this with a more recent case (it's not the same thing, but maybe this makes it easier to undertand): some gave developer released a new videogame. Everybody describes it in an informal context as "Pokemon with guns", but it's not a Pokemon game. The game developer doesn't use these words and neither do Steam, Sony, Microsoft and so forth. They, as a 3rd party, have to respect the rights of the real owner. And even YouTubers hesitate to show a patch for the game (a patch that install pokemons), because it violates the rights of the real owner of the brand. Unfortunately, you already stated that you doubt what I'm saying, without further elaborating. You don't assume good faith. And Wikipedia redirect points doesn't reflect the current reality. Another example would be this: On Amber Heard articles, to state that she and her ex-husband DID NOT accused each other of domestic abuse. Or worse, to state that she was NOT found guilty of defaimation. It's not about opinions, it's not a personal interpretation. It's about FACTS. To acknowledge or not the current state of a present legal debate. A debate where there already is a final decision regarding the name. Dante4786 (talk) 15:08, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Redirects point to whichever target the reader that types that title is more likely to be looking for. You should make the argument on that and other grounds relating to how it would serve most readers best by taking them directly to the information they are looking for. If legal issues arise from what Wikipedia editors do using their best judgement, legal department of the WMF will handle it. That's where the legal arguments should be directed. Where exactly is the problem with your approach? It is here: Shouldn't Wikipedia respect the legal rights of other entities? We can't worry about that stuff with every edit. There are established matters where we take legality into account, copyright violations for example. At other times, we do what's right, irrespective of whether or not it's legal in a certain jurisdiction. It only matters whether it is legal in the US most of the time. I am sure there are many state parties that would consider some of Wikipedia's coverage of religion, sexuality, national policies and international disputes as illegal. But they can't touch Wikipedia because it is under US jurisdiction. So, they block Wikipedia in their countries. They may prosecute editors in their own country if they identify them. That is why editors are advised to take such personal risks into account when contributing. It's bad enough without having people come into discussions talking legalese. We as a community have decided that we won't have it. Either edit here without bringing in legal arguments or don't edit here and persue legal dispute with the WMF.

You are making legal threats. Admins are being nice to you by trying to explain instead of blocking you. Either drop that stuff, or go to WMF legal with your concerns. We will consider taking legality into consideration if and when WMF legal advises that we do so. Usedtobecool ☎️ 05:02, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

"You should make the argument on that and other grounds relating to how it would serve most readers best by taking them directly to the information they are looking for." Exactly! Thank you! That's what I was trying to explain, until people got focused on the intellectual property infringement part. Like I said, the subject is clearly very complex and confusing, especially for foreign readers. I believe this discussion here proves my point even further. That's why I'm asking for the redirect points to be towards the article focused on the dispute. In this way, the redirect points will be helpful and people will read by themselves and chose which side to believe. Currently, the redirect points encourage FCSB's point of view and are not consistent with the articles on Wikipedia. I'm asking for the redirect to be neutral and not push the POV of either parties, FCSB or Steaua, but towards the article focused on the dispute. "Either edit here without bringing in legal arguments" This is literally not possible. How can somebody explain their reasoning about a LEGAL dispute, without giving LEGAL arguments? And please stop interpreting dialogue as a threat. It was never the case. LEGAL arguments are a logical consequence when talking about a LEGAL dispute. Dante4786 (talk) 05:30, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Just because you can't figure out how to do something does not mean it's impossible. Read WP:REDIRECT. Then try to formulate your argument wholly on the basis of its guidance. If you succeed, start a talk page discussion (then, there's WP:RFD). If you find you can't make that case, edit something else. Usedtobecool ☎️ 06:39, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

So your suggestion is basically to not explain my reasoning about a legal dispute. You can not formulate your arguments without diving in legal terms. You can't talk about physics without using a specific terminology, you can't talk about biology without using arguments which arise from biology and so forth. You can't answer "how to put out a fire" without actually explaining how to put out a fire. Dante4786 (talk) 15:16, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

You can describe the dispute in an encyclopedic way with legal terminology, but not use this legal terminology as arguments about what to write about. It's a use-mention distinction, in the same way as you can use biological terms to talk about biology, but not argue that's it's biologically impossible to write the article. ChaotıċEnby(talk · contribs) 15:32, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Potential editwarring at Israel-related topic

This is nominally a dispute over flag icons and MOS:NONSOVEREIGN but involves a highly contentious topic under sanctions and is right on the threshold of editwarring.

• [90] flag icon removed 20 Jan
• [91] reinserted 23 Jan
• [92] removed 25 Jan
• [93] reinserted 25 Jan
• [94] removed 26 Jan
• [95] reinserted 26 Jan
• [96] removed 26 Jan (mine)

The concern is that only two editors are using the discussion on the article's talkpage, which was begun in good faith on 26 Jan by one of the editors in the diffs above, to try to resolve this peacefully. Disclosure: one of the diffs is mine, made before I realized how significant this situation has become. ☆ Bri (talk) 21:32, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

I've full-protected the article for a few days to give a chance for discussion to take place. If edit warring resumes, please file a request at WP:AE. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 21:46, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Legal threats and block evasion by 2603:8000:9F0:8370::0/64

2603:8000:9F0:8370::0/64 is evading a block of Kaaren Ragland and is continuing with similar legal threats. The account also admits to COI and block evasion. The edit summaries include additional legal threats. If you look at the edits, it's clearly a WP:DUCK. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 06:05, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Here's another IP from there, probably the same person again, still badgering about Kaaren: Special:Contributions/2603:8000:9F0:8370:C407:21B3:A48:B8E9 JM (talk) 09:15, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

@Justlettersandnumbers: I saw you blocked one of the addresses, but they already moved to a different address on the same /64 and have been using other addresses on the same range. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 20:09, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

ChatGPT AfD participation

KarKuZoNga has been making obvious AI-generated comments on AfDs: [97], [98]. When challenged about it, they lie: [99]. Here's an example of their genuine writing, if there was any doubt: [100]. -- asilvering (talk) 08:19, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

If true, why is it an issue? Is there something they are meant to do that they haven't done, like make a note about the AI they used? Obviously it's not easy to verify that anyone's statements accurately reflect their true beliefs. Sean.hoyland (talk) 09:17, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

I think it’s an issue because their comments are effectively pointless. They seem to just be feeding the discussion to an ai, and saying “generate another comment in the discussion”. The AI just agrees with other users, and badly summarises what other people have said. It doesn’t make a contribution that’s actually based on guidelines for retention of articles, it doesn’t actually go and check sources to see if they’re WP:SIGCOV.

In several comments, their comments state that several sources are significant coverage, are secondary etc, but the AI is just summarising what other people have stated- Karkuzonga hasn’t actually gone and checked whether they are or not, so the contribution is misleading and unhelpful for the discussion. GraziePrego (talk) 09:39, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Yes, this is the problem - like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/East Cobb Baseball which is effectively just copying another editor's comment with slightly different wording. In Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Josh Wilson (producer), "their" comments even repeats comments made by a SPA editor who clearly has a COI. In the end, since none of these comments contain anything that has originated from KarKuZoNga themselves but effectively plagiarize previous content, none of them add any value to the debates whatsoever. IMO, they should all be struck and the editor cautioned to stop doing it. Black Kite (talk) 10:27, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

I agree with what the others have said, and could add other reasons for why AI-generated comments are unacceptable, but I think the most relevant point is that using AI and lying about it is not acting in good faith. We could have a conversation about the use of AI here, but I don't think we need to, since what we already have is an editor who is deliberately trying to mislead other editors at AfD. -- asilvering (talk) 10:52, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

What if the writing style of the AI matched the writing style of the user? What then? What would be the basis for striking the statements given that things like pointlessness, agreeing with other users or restating their argument in a different way, not adding any value, deliberately trying to mislead/manipulate other editors to get a preferred outcome and not ensuring consistency with policies and guidelines are not unusual? I'm not disagreeing with any proposed courses of action, and I think provably dishonest editors should just be blocked, it's just that this is obviously a can of worms and is likely to become quite common (and undetectable). And it's not great that we will be being better at identifying cases like this involving people whose native language is not English than native speakers. Sean.hoyland (talk) 11:12, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

I think the biggest issue is that you are purporting to release your contribution under CC-BY-SA, implying you own the copyright and can choose to do that. In the US, where WMF is based and where the majority of the wikipedia servers are, that's an open question on several levels, from whether AI output is eligible for copyright at all to whether it constitutes copyright infringement of the data used for training. It's really something we want to avoid being on the forefront of and wait for law to be settled. There's more of the thinking behind that available at the essay Wikipedia:Large language models and copyright. -50.234.188.27 (talk) 14:04, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Sean.hoyland, this specific argument continues to confound me—just because behavior isn't always identifiable doesn't mean it's acceptable or a fait accompli. It seems totally unacceptable to put forward the impression that I'm talking to a person expressing their actual opinions regarding operation of the site—at least in large part—when I'm not. I don't find simple machine translation or other aids for ESL editors to be comparable to this qualitatively. Are we just meant to discard the pretense that we might expect to be talking to other human beings online? — Remsense诉 14:11, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

To editor Remsense: I find the whole issue confounding. To clarify, I'm not saying that deception is okay. It's not okay. Editors who use deception shouldn't be here. Whether it's about misuse of LLM output or pretending to be a legitimate editor rather than a banned editor for example, seems immaterial. As for LLM misuse specifically, my point was really that it is going to be become very difficult to know whereabouts on the axis from real-Wikipedian to deliberately-deceptive-Wikipedian-operated-LLM-avatar to AI-agent someone/something is located just by looking at the statements. And there is obviously a lot of legitimate use middle ground on that axis, especially for non-native speakers. I wasn't suggesting we throw our hands up and accept it as a fait accompli. More that responses to these situations should maybe be mindful of our detection limitations and bias, inability to reliably decide whether something is a legitimate use case or not (due to incomplete information) and that we should be even handed - AI-generated/assisted AfD comments that appear low value are not worse than human generated AfD comments that appear low value. How about some counterfactuals. What if Karkuzonga's denial was not something they expected anyone to take seriously? What if they had said "Yes, I used an LLM to clean up my language and the output accurately reflects my view, more or less"? What then? Sean.hoyland (talk) 16:06, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

That's a totally different situation, and I'm not sure why you've been trying to argue a hypothetical here. This isn't a Village Pump discussion about AI in general. This is an ANI thread about a particular contributor who was obviously acting in bad faith. If they were acting in good faith, GraziePrego would have had a chance at a useful conversation with the user, which could have had any number of different results. They were not, so we're here instead, and the user has been indeffed by CU. -- asilvering (talk) 19:49, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

I find myself agreeing with Sean.hoyland: there is nothing, really, in Wikipedia policy or guideline forbidding this, and I quite agree that we don't just automatically strike low-value comments at AfD (or anywhere else) solely on the basis that they're low-value. I would expect a closing nom to take as little notice of AI-generated blather at AfD as with human being-generated blather. Obviously there ought to be a broader conversation about AI usage on Wikipedia, and guidelines to go along with it. ANI's not the venue for that discussion. Ravenswing 16:24, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

It looks, at a glance, like they have a very poor grasp of English. Normally this would raise WP:COMPETENCE issues... but based on their edit history, the editor is aware of this and has confined themselves to stylistic edits and finding sources, all of which (aside from their recent AFD comments) seems appropriate at a glance. I think perhaps someone should just explain to them that it's fine to write "keep / delete per X, Y, and Z" to support another user's comment without having to write much more - it seems like that's the actual intent of what they're doing here, they've just chosen the worst possible way to do it. (Though the denial that they're using AI when they clearly are is concerning.) --Aquillion (talk) 11:42, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

If @KarKuZoNga does not immediately start making their own useful contributions to AfD instead of just summarising what others have said so quickly that it looks like they used AI, they should be topic banned from AfD. These non-contributions to the discussion are worse than nothing. The likely use of AI isn't even the main point here. —Kusma (talk) 16:33, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

• Indeffed, as a CU action. They've posted a fully-formed promotional article about a basketball player turned entrepreneur in between those small, innocuous edits; the English there is substantially better than in their self-written comment, all of which would seem quite consistent with posting other people's promotional text on their behalf. Bulk, basically content-free AfD participation and huge numbers of tiny edits to build edit counts are also consistent with COI sockfarms. Finally, they're blatantly spoofing all sorts of things in an obvious attempt to evade CU. --Blablubbs (talk) 17:43, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

User:Byte-ul

I made a contribution to Kaspersky bans and allegations of Russian government ties on 7th Jan 2024. Four days later this was reverted by the new user Byte-ul.

Byte-ul claimed my contribution was vandalism and malicious, despite it being on topic and referenced. They reverted a fourth time from their IP address rather than signed in (they claim by mistake - User_talk:Byte-ul).

I opened a new topic on the Talk:Kaspersky_bans_and_allegations_of_Russian_government_ties page, asking them to explain their reverts. That unfortunately went nowhere, and my DRN and 3O requests were both closed due to there being issues of user conduct as well.

Byte-ul has engaged in disingenuous reverts and making blatantly false and hypocritical accusations that I made edits to settle personal disputes and harassment.

I request that my contribution be restored, with the two edits suggested by me on the Talk:Kaspersky_bans_and_allegations_of_Russian_government_ties page, as the article is now extended-protected.

Ilike2burnthing (talk) 13:18, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Warned: User talk:Byte-ul#Warning. El_C 14:30, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Please don't doxx another editor's off-wiki account again, including if you are continuing here an argument from that site (which isn't advised to do in general). ChaotıċEnby(talk · contribs) 16:28, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

@Chaotic Enby see my response to User_talk:Ilike2burnthing#c-A_smart_kitten-20240127175800-A_smart_kitten-20240127175300. Ilike2burnthing (talk) 18:30, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

I don't know who, if anyone, is right here, because much of the discussion appears to be WP:OR based on interpretations of primary source documents. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:24, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

I don't really see how, as it is just 'person X asked FOO, entity Y replied BAR', all being referenced.

If the objection is to the phrasing, "[...] citing reports from Germany, France, and Belgium which found no evidence of this," then I suppose this could be changed to just directly quoting from the first reference, "[...] Germany, France and Belgium do not perceive any problems with cooperation with the firm concerned[.]" Ilike2burnthing (talk) 20:20, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Gustovonin's legal threat against Wikipidea and the administrators involved with the page Ram Mandir

I was scrolling through the talk page of Ram Mandir and saw the user Gustovonin , claiming that Wikipidea and many admins were Hinduphobicand that he will file a legal complaint against Wikipidea in courts of India (see this) , this clearly violates WP:SUE, so action must be taken against him. Harvici (talk) 17:14, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:18, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Persistent IP-hopping disruption

36.235.0.0/16 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · block user · block log)

This IP range has been active for months. IPs change within this range regularly, and always after a warning is given. I gave a final warning two weeks ago for this hoaxing (adding a nonexistent vehicle to the list). Whoever is behind this IP has never provided a source for their changes nor used an edit summary to explain them. Lists of an automaker's vehicles are a favorite target but it is rarely clear what they're trying to accomplish with their edits. Sometimes unexplained blanking, sometimes unsourced tampering with dates and list order.

On other articles, it's sometimes clear misinformation vandalism ([101], [102]), sometimes unexplained removal of content ([103], [104]).

Some of this user's edits appear that they may be productive, but some are clearly disruptive and the user refuses to explain themselves or otherwise communicate, so a rangeblock seems to be the only way to stop the disruption and get the user's attention. --Sable232 (talk) 18:40, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 2 weeks. El_C 19:45, 27 January 2024 (UTC)