Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Page semi-protected
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Bishonen (talk | contribs) at 22:25, 20 October 2023 (→Darker Dreams and Witchcraft: closing with topic ban). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

    Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
    Shortcuts

    This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems.

    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.

    You are not autoconfirmed, meaning you cannot currently edit this page. Instead, use /Non-autoconfirmed posts.

    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

    Competence is required

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

    This case is mostly a content dispute, but Dustfreeworld has failed to discuss as part of the BRD cycle. I am not an admin, but if Vacosea wants to reinsert the information they feel is not covered, I would be happy to support the inclusion temporarily until discussion is completed, acting as an informal third opinion. Be careful not to revert, thereby deleting the many changes that have been made since your edit, simply make a minimal edit which includes the information you wish to see included.
    Dustfreeworld probably needs to show awareness that following a revert which the other user takes exception to, discussion is not optional. Boynamedsue (talk) 06:46, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not like that at all, in my reading. Dustfreeworld has not removed anything put by Vacosea, except take out small details due to BLP issues (changing of "cheated three times" to "cheated", or changing "separated for more than two years" to "separated", as these are sourced to breaking news reports). Has Vacosea done anything wrong? No; these are editorial calls. Is Dustfreeworld required mandatorily to comment on the talk page of the article? Absolutely not. Is Dustfreeworld's warning to Vacosea uncalled for? Well, yeah... I think Dustfreeworld did not realise the impact that such a template may cause to an editor who is excitedly placing, whatever can be sourced, into the article. Like what is mentioned above, it is an editorial issue and need not be discussed here. Vacosea, request Dustfreeworld again to give his pov on the article's talk page. For future disputes, please follow the procedures listed out at dispute resolution. Thanks, Lourdes 07:56, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Dustfreeworld said there was speculation/wrong information, but they have offered nothing to question the reports. Allegations of Rockowitz cheating on Lee and their marriage problem were covered before [6] [7], so they are not breaking news, only Lee's death was. If the problem was sourcing, the same or similar English and non-English sources are used to support their own edits about Lee [8]. Their justifications are all contradictory, but I suppose I can try discussing with them one time. Vacosea (talk) 16:51, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I meant "one more time", see context from previous comments. Vacosea (talk) 16:08, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    For the record, out of the 30+ edits made by User:Vacosea to the article Coco Lee, 16 of them involved removal of content, most of which was added by me. You can see that from the page’s history [9]. And yes, I DO think that “Their justifications are all contradictory, but I suppose I can try discussing with them one time”, too. --Dustfreeworld (talk) 19:09, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    This does not explain their refusal to check with the sources and engage in discussion, and placing a warning template on my talk page about "stop adding unreferenced or poorly referenced" information. It just goes on to show the contradictory and ever changing nature of their complaint. Vacosea (talk) 19:51, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I disagree DustFreeworld answered a reasonable request to discuss with a warning template, that is treading into personal attack territory. Boynamedsue (talk) 16:56, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually no, scrub that, the warning came first, it wasn't warranted, but it wasn't in response to the request to discuss. Boynamedsue (talk) 23:55, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you so much for the clarification Boynamedsue :) Perhaps you can strike that as well? In case people may misread. Thanks again. --Dustfreeworld (talk) 19:14, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually the warning [10] came after the talk section [11] [12]. Vacosea (talk) 19:51, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It would be much appreciated if you can stop confusing people. Thanks. --Dustfreeworld (talk) 22:25, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I must say I’m really surprised to see this discussion about me.
    • 18:58, 12 September 2023 User:Vacosea made this edit:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Coco_Lee&diff=prev&oldid=1175089915
    They misinterpreted the source as “Lee and her husband moved out of their previous home” (in the source it said Lee moved out of their previous home).
    So I added the “Cite check” template to call for source verification:
    • 22:52, 12 September 2023
    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1175121745
    My edit summary: Added { {Cite check} } tag. The page now reads: “Lee and her husband had been separated for more than two years before she died . . . In early 2023, Lee and her husband moved out of their previous home”? And the source cited mentioned nothing about “early 2023”. I think there maybe more. . . WP:GROWNUPS
    What I mean is, if they had separated in 2021, how can THEY moved out of their previous home together in 2023? It’s simply wrong, and the wrong information was added by User:Vacosea.
    After that edit of mine, User:Vacosea posted the “verification” they mentioned above to the article talk page and also edited the article and added a parameter (talk=September 2023 verification) to the Cite check template
    Cite check|date=September 2023|talk=September 2023 verification
    And then, they edited the article again to removed the wrong information they added, per what I had pointed out:
    In short, they KNEW they were wrong on that, had corrected it and had posted a “verification” on talk (that post is somewhat redundant IMHO, but now I know how it can be used). I didn’t reply to that post because the article had been corrected already, and I wanted to save face for them (FYI the latter adjustment on times cheated and separation time is basically another issue). NOW I know I was wrong. I never anticipated that it will turn into an accusation of ME being incompetent. They knew they had put in wrong information to the article and they knew why the template was added but still make such false and misleading accusations (that I didn’t engage on talk and show “incompetence”). I suspect there maybe behavioural issues. --Dustfreeworld (talk) 18:37, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The vast majority of my edits were accurate. After the cite check, I adjusted some details. Moving out and separating are not always the same thing anyway. On the other hand, Dustfreeworld didn't seem to have checked with any sources before reverting other information again, even though I showed the sources for correction, including early 2023/early this year. They placed a warning template, out of nowhere, about "stop adding unreferenced or poorly referenced" information on my talk page. Just because their talk page has received many notices from other editors in the past doesn't mean they should be doing that with mine. Vacosea (talk) 19:51, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Those who are interested in Coco Lee’s marriage and what problematic content User:Vacosea had added may visit the talk page. I have posted some old evidence that support those. If you want the latest BREAKING news, 20 September 2023 (no, not old news), here you are:
    I’m very doubtful about their saying that “The vast majority of my edits were accurate”, respectfully.
    From my understanding, for BLP, wrong or doubtful content must be removed as soon as possible. I SHOULD HAVE removed them and posted warnings on their user’s talk page much earlier. --Dustfreeworld (talk) 20:45, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    And User:Vacosea is still adding the contentious and likely wrong information to the article today. Surely this is not the first time that this user is warned on sourcing and content additions:
    I’m not familiar with the procedure, but a ban maybe needed. --Dustfreeworld (talk) 21:01, 27 September 2023 (UTC)--Dustfreeworld (talk) 06:38, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Vast majority does not mean one or two disputes. If Dustfreeworld wants to engage in good faith discussion [13], they should not have waited until ANI while reverting away in the mean time [14][15], or highlighted their source here without mentioning 6 other sources against them on the article's talk page all this time. Is it also good faith behavior for Dustfreeworld to omit information from my history in order to push for a ban? [16] User talk:Wpscatter#Korean cuisine [17] They have complained about verification, refused to look at verification, warned me about "references", even though the sources have been there all along, complained about me removing content, complained about my accuracy, when are they going to stop? Vacosea (talk) 21:54, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I’ve posted on the BLP notice board as well: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Coco Lee. I believe the issue is important as it may have real life consequences on the financial arrangements of the subjects’ family, and that the dubious information may also be defamatory. --Dustfreeworld (talk) 22:03, 27 September 2023 (UTC)--Dustfreeworld (talk) 23:11, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Dustfreeworld Please don't toss words like defamatory around on Wikipedia. That can have a chilling effect on other editors and may result in a WP:NLT block. I'd suggest striking through that statement, just for clarity. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 17:02, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    "Wikipedia contains over a million articles about living persons. From both a legal and an ethical standpoint, it is essential that a determined effort be made to eliminate defamatory and other inappropriate material from these articles"... It's important for an editor to be able to point out stuff that is potentially defamatory. We might actually be effecting a chilling effect by telling editors to not point out such stuff. Thanks, Lourdes 17:20, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    No. We can do that without using legally-charged words. BLP covers it sufficiently, we do not need to use "defamation" / "libel". — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 17:11, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    “A discussion as to whether material is libelousis not a legal threat. Wikipedia's policy on defamation is to delete libelous material as soon as it is identified.” WP:NLT --Dustfreeworld (talk) 17:21, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Key words: a discussion about, not just lobbing the word into a comment and leaving it there like a ticking time bomb. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 17:06, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    What they wrote about me on that board, "please stop your continual and deliberate false accusations", was baseless and itself potentially defamatory [18]. Their edits there focus too much on linking back to this ANI to begin with. Vacosea (talk) 17:47, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Vacosea May I reiterate what another user said above: “Please don't toss words like defamatory around on Wikipedia. That can have a chilling effect on other editors and may result in a WP:NLT block. I'd suggest striking through that statement, just for clarity”. Thanks :) --Dustfreeworld (talk) 18:12, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The one who is engaging in baseless personal attack is Dustfreeworld, however hard they try to change the subject or reframe around it. Vacosea (talk) 22:42, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It seems that you are trying to make use of the “Goebbels effect” (or “big lie technique”), in the hope that “Repeat a lie often enough and it becomes the truth”. But experiments tell us that it won’t,
    • ″For statements that were actually fact or fiction, known or unknown, repetition made them all seem more believable … the biggest influence on whether a statement was judged to be true was... whether it actually was true. The repetition effect couldn’t mask the truth. With or without repetition, people were still more likely to believe the actual facts as opposed to the lies″.
    --Dustfreeworld (talk) 04:40, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    And IMHO, what’s more important is that, people who are able to make the right judgement (believe the actual facts) may also have very negative impressions on those who keep repeating the lies (no matter those are organisations, governments or individual). Besides thinking that those are liars, people may also think that they are not reasonable. --Dustfreeworld (talk) 09:45, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Some administrator should put an end to this trolling. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 11:25, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I would suggest that, when you are being accused of making personal attacks, it is probably better not to respond by comparing the other party to a genocidal war criminal. Also, ixnay on the rolltay word, would have thought that was obvious, especially here. Boynamedsue (talk) 14:47, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the explanation Boynamedsue. No, it’s not a comparison of any party to anyone, definitely not. The term . . . Effect just come up in a webpage and it sounds like a professional psychological term to me so I used it. I’m just describing a psychological phenomenon. No offence indeed. --Dustfreeworld (talk) 16:11, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Repost just to add highlight:
    From my understanding, for BLP, wrong or doubtful content must be removed as soon as possible. I SHOULD HAVE removed them and posted warnings on their user’s talk page much earlier
    (add: and I believe no consensus on talk is required before the deletion as it’s contentious topic) --Dustfreeworld (talk) 15:34, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Repost just to add highlight:
    I didn’t reply to that post because the article had been corrected already, and I wanted to save face for them (FYI the latter adjustment on times cheated and separation time is basically another issue) --Dustfreeworld (talk) 15:26, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I can't read your mind from edit summaries only or a warning template [19] if you skip discussion on the talk page [20], even though you were active on Coco Lee and other articles and talk pages, including ones I was also editing [21]. The times cheated and separation time were not "another issue" or "corrected". They had been there since early on, through all the time you placed your recent death template [22], was reverted [23], and your cite check template [24]. "No consesus on talk is required before the deletion", while you could argue for it, is a very recent new point. Vacosea (talk) 19:41, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

    What I see is you keep linking to the BLP board.
    No it’s not canvassing. It’s an attempt to let the other user know that, it’s possible that what they had suspected two months ago maybe true. As for your translations, I still find them suspicious after a second look. And I hope you are happy with your excessive linking. If all those continual false accusations against me can make your day, you can keep on, I’m fine with that. :) --Dustfreeworld (talk) 06:09, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Making accusations against another editor, which you have done again, requires evidence. Your personal attack [35] on the BLP board should be mentioned here at ANI, but you should not have brought this ANI to the BLP board [36]. Your edit summary was also inaccurate [37]. Those edits were unrelated to this, and when you attempted to raise suspicion about my translation, you did not comprehend the source material fully. Vacosea (talk) 16:02, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

    If all those continual false accusations against me can make your day, you can keep on, I’m fine with that. :) --Dustfreeworld (talk) 19:59, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Which one was false? Vacosea (talk) 20:20, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Almost all are false. --Dustfreeworld (talk) 11:04, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    More than a week after saying similar things [40], you have not provided evidence. See Accusing others of bad faith. Vacosea (talk) 07:11, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I did assume good faith, but then I know I was wrong and is am deeply disappointed. [41][42] --Dustfreeworld (talk) 13:06, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe you are not getting the point. I'm talking about your claim that I lied or falsely accused you deliberately [43] [44]. Vacosea (talk) 11:12, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia:Assume the good faith assumption that everyone has the assumption of everyone assuming good faith, assuming that you are assuming the assumption of good faith[1] --Dustfreeworld (talk) 12:40, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

    References

    1. ^ Wikipedia:Assume that everyone's assuming good faith, assuming that you are assuming good faith

    Now with an RfC in progress, they are repeating suggestions [48] [49] about how their comments were "altered". I put their wall of text into sections, that was all, and why would anyone think they began the poll after I began the RfC? Dustfreeworld has also made changes again [50] in a way that makes parts of the RfC no longer match the article, after there have been responses to it already, and after I told them to wait for it to end following their first time at this attempt [51]. What they are saying "much" or "serious misrepresentation" about the RfC, telling "anyone who is reading" not to reply to it, is misleading and unduely influencing the process. Vacosea (talk) 15:58, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    It seems that the kids are still bickering in the back. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:25, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for the links. May I suggest you read these?
    Thanks and regards, --Dustfreeworld (talk) 14:15, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe more experienced editors Lourdes HandThatFeeds CapnJackSp Cbl62 can answer one question, what would you do if someone were to tell other editors not to participate in an RfC, start another section bypassing it, suggest that you have deliberately made false accusations [53], lied [54], added misinformation [55] related to some Chinese entity, or insinuate someone is editing on behalf of it [56]. I think even with "children bickering", there are lines that should not be crossed. Vacosea (talk) 16:55, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Christ, we're dragging this out further? What I would do at this point is suggest you both step away from the article and let others handle it for a while. There's been no appetite for sanctioning either of you up until now, but this should've died out last week. WP:DROPTHESTICK. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 17:19, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I have been following that suggestion and trying to let more editors in. You can check the article's history and talk page from last two weeks to see who held the stick.
    If nothing described here is actually sanctionable, then say so for the benefit of all editors now and in the future who do not understand the mechanisms here as well as you do. Vacosea (talk) 18:01, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Fine. I went through the linked comments. I would propose here that both @Dustfreeworld and @Vacosea can make one final comment to the RFC summarising their points and no more. The rfc is mostly them fighting and is the main pain point here.
    Additional comments regarding the RFC procedure - @Vacosea your last line here [57] regarding what editors should be aware of vis a vis guidelines is not exactly in line with neutral starting statement. Also, you should have structured as votes and discussion separately from the start and if you wanted a change midway, it should only be done with consent of those who had already voted. @Dustfreeworld Im think your comments could also be edited to fit the new format, so it was not exactly the hill to die on.
    About the article in general, it is very poorly written. It doesnt even mention her death in the lead, and weird grammatical mistakes that usually happen when its drive by editing rather than a coherent writeup.
    Beyond this I dont think any action necessary, if participants want to escalate its up to them. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 20:55, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Darker Dreams and Witchcraft

    Considering that a number of supporters for proposal 1 have affirmed also their support for proposal 1A, and considering also several users' expressed concern that (the more narrow) proposal 1 may offer opportunities for gaming, Darker Dreams is topic banned indefinitely from witchcraft, magic, religion, and the supernatural, broadly construed. Bishonen | tålk 22:25, 20 October 2023 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

    Edit warring on Witchcraft:

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

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

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

    Edit warring on Witchcraft (disambiguation):

    Edit warring on Witchcraft (sidebar):

    They created three POV forks of Witchcraft:

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


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

    Netherzone:

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

    Thebiguglyalien:

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

    CorbieVreccan summed it up at ArbCom:

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


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

    Asarlaí has made several accusations with a lot of diffs. The problem is it all ignores several key points.
    1. Asarlaí contends that I am “pushing an unhistorical neopagan-feminist view of Witchcraft.” This is the foundation of their presumption that I’m performing 'tendentious editing,' including seeking to 'right great wrongs,' and justification for a number of their own comments and actions throughout this dispute.
    1a. This is based on the assertion that there are only two valid definitions of witchcraft to be covered; malevolent and Neopagan. (I assume Asarlaí will willingly acknowledge this.)
    1b. This is despite the fact the article contains multiple quoted reliable sources that demonstrate additional definitions as valid, including from a source they have referenced. Addition of properly sourced information is not tendatious or disruptive. All of the other conflicts (and accusations) flow from this
    2 I prefer to work based on edit based consensus. This is in accordance with policy (WP:EDITCON). I would rather put work towards making improvements, rather than talking about making improvements. I have demonstrated on several occasions with multiple people in the witchcraft-related area and elsewhere that I’m willing to start at or move to talk when it’s useful, and more than happy for back-and-forth edits to produce improvement. It’s clear that my preference in this has been profoundly off-putting for some people. I find it concerning that work done in accordance with policy has been treated as evidence of bad faith and a behavior problem.
    3. Several statements have been made that the RfC “didn’t go my way.” I’m deeply unclear where that belief is coming from – my initial edit and major point of contention was de-centering the primacy of one singular definition in what claimed to be a broad-concept article. The removal of malevolence and harm from the first two sentences was in accordance with sources and policy; ie - it was my way. Further, I am concerned that Asarlaí (and, frankly, a number of other people) view this as something I “lost,” like any part of this ongoing dispute is fight to be won.
    I encourage anyone interested to take a deeper look at both Asarlaí and my ongoing involvement with the constellation of witchcraft-related pages.
    I will address individual actions or sets of actions if desired. However, every choice I have made has been to improve coverage based on citable, notable information. - Darker Dreams (talk) 16:34, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I am not alleging bad faith editing on the part of User:Darker Dreams, and I don't think that anyone is alleging that. POV-pushing is good-faith disruptive editing. It is done in order to improve the encyclopedia. It just doesn't improve the encyclopedia, because neutral point of view is the second pillar of Wikipedia. I may address the other points within 36 hours. Robert McClenon (talk) 07:18, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The timing of this report is not so good for me as I am traveling at this time. I will chime in with my thoughts on this matter in the next few days, please keep the report open. Thank you. Netherzone (talk) 15:30, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    As this discussion directly relates to the content of and consensus around the Witchcraft article, I have placed a notice on the Talk:Witchcraft page using roughly the text from the standard user notice. - Darker Dreams (talk) 19:23, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Statement by Robert McClenon

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

    I have read most of the material posted by Asarlai. I haven't read the diffs that were before my unsuccessful mediation. I am particularly concerned by the most recent edit-warring on witchcraft in pre-Christian ancient Rome, both because the clock-watching to game the 3RR rule is obvious, and because the POV-pushing is obvious. They are trying to hide the fact that there was a concept of malevolent witchcraft in a European pagan society. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:03, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    User:Darker Dreams writes: I prefer to work based on edit based consensus.. Yes. That statement is empty, because we all prefer to work based on consensus. The question is what does an editor do when they are in the minority. What Darker Dreams does is to continue to push their POV. I will keep my remaining remarks shorter than sometimes. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:03, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I continue to be surprised by @Robert McClenon's adamance about assuming my bad faith since the failed mediation, including their willingness to admittedly ignore and refuse to acknowledge information.
    1. While stating that I am POV pushing @Robert McClenon has failed to address in any way the core of the issue; that my "POV" is fundimental Wikipedia policy; include sourced material and the "counterpoint" is to remove or suppress that material.
    2. They acknowledge that they have not reviewed the situation prior to the unsuccessful mediation. As such, I assume that when he says "what does an editor do when they are in the minority." they are unaware of multiple editors who were ground down and run off from the Witchcraft article prior to my arrival in the conversation. Corbie Vreccan said bluntly at one point that they repeatedly had the same conversations.
    3. They have repeatedly described my filing at ARBCOM as vexatious and litigatious forum shopping. This is particularly shocking to me because there was nothing about the RfC process I was unhappy with. My only frustration with the DRN process was how much Asarlai and others were uninterested and unwilling to engage with it at multiple points. They were the ones that argued against the process beginning, and regularly did not participate. I have explained previously that I opened the ARBCOM case because I assumed the DRN would be failed after Corbie Vreccan opened a separate noticeboard case against me on a related page. However, @Robert McClenon has never acknowledged that I voiced this concern.
    4. No one prior to this moment has voiced that their concern about removing the Roman history section was that they felt it was hiding a concept of malevolent witchcraft in European pagan society. The summary currently present in the overall witchcraft article is the lead from the European witchcraft article. Those unhappy with the move of the Rome section have not sought to change that intro in accordance with this concern. I have transferred the changes that have been made from one to the other without issue.
    5. The idea that my "clock-watching is obvious" and that I prefer to work on edit-based consensus are part of the same thing; "taking it to talk" has more than once become a place to ignore things until they are pushed with edits to the page. For example, I opened a section on the talk page regarding the move of the Roman material to the European Witchcraft page. @Asarlaí still has not replied on that talk section after more than a week, another editor has replied supporting the move, and choosing instead to open this case.
    As I said when @Robert McClenon comment at the ARBCOM request; I do feel bad that the mediation ended. I deeply appreciate the work they put into it. I think that it was making positive progress, and would have preferred to remain with that process, except that I felt other editors who were vocally unhappy with participating were being litigious and forum shopping in a way that would have failed the mediation. - Darker Dreams (talk) 00:02, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Statement by Netherzone

    In addition to edit warring, incivility, tendentious editing, misrepresenting and cherry picking of sources, one of the things I found most troubling was DD's determination to silence Indigenous voices. When I brought this up on the talk page they denied their behavior, insisting that they did not remove content and sources and replace reliable sources with those of their own choosing. Even more troubling was that they denied removing a large portion of content and the sources; it is inappropriate to lie about one's actions to get one's own way. This is an egregious form of bludgeoning WP:BLUDGEON and POV pushing. They are unable or unwilling to edit in a manner that is respectful of other editors, and only take their own POV into consideration and are dismissive of other editor's comments/actions. Clearly, they are unable to participate with others on a collaborative project. They do not play well with others.

    Diff of talk page discussion [58] and [59]. I don't have the time at the moment to provide all of the individual diffs of their actions, but will be able to get to it if requested within the next day or two. Netherzone (talk) 18:05, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    All text I am accused of "removing" being added (moved) without change or alteration [60]; as I stated. - Darker Dreams (talk) 21:20, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Content and associated citations (references, sources) were removed - deleted - from the witchcraft article.
    • With all of the citations removed from the the section it was left entirely unsourced. Any editor, including you, could then come along and remove the section completely since it was left entirely unreferenced.
    • After I called attention on the Witchcraft talk page pointing out that the section had been stripped of sources, you then added citations a but not the original sources. You added new sources that backed up your POV, and left out the ones that did not support your POV.
    • I then added back some of the older citations to the very brief content that remained.
    I found that behavioral editing style problematic. Whether or not you moved it to a new splinter article you or someone else created during this drama or not is the issue I am addressing. Content and citations were removed from the Witchcraft article. There was no consensus to delete all of that content and move it to another article, especially in an article in which editing by you had been problematic for months. Netherzone (talk) 07:38, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Proposal 1: Topic-Ban

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

    • Support as proposer. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:03, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support We do not need determined POV pushers operating in fringe topic areas. Cullen328 (talk) 00:06, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. This is a consistent pattern of singleminded, WP:SANCTIONGAMING, PoV-pushing disruption within this specific topic-area. But the T-ban should probably also include paganism, lest this behavior just side-shift to a closely-related sphere (an argument can be made that paganism isn't covered by "witchcraft, magic, and the supernatural", and it's not an argument we need to entertain).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:29, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - POVpushing and disruptive attempts to game the system. “Supernatural”, broadly defined, seems to cover religion in general, including Paganism. FOARP (talk) 06:41, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      If we want to include religion and paganism in the ban, we should probably mention them explicitly, just so there aren't disputes on definition down the line...  — Amakuru (talk) 06:55, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - They have been given numerous warnings about their behavior on their talkpage and the Witchcraft talkpage itself; and ignores anybody who tries to stop them from making clearly biased edits with little to no reason besides personal preference Frost.xyz | (talk) 02:06, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose - Like I've said elsewhere, I do not think the problems with Witchcraft are down to any single individual including DD. Browsing the diffs, I also think that OP's characterizations of them range between extremely combative and just false. E.g. I'm not really sure what about this diff moving a few paragraphs is misrepresenting a source to make it seem like it's talking about witchcraft as positive? It's quite clearly about witches using powers to harm, on both sides of the edit.
    The edit warring, on the other hand, I do think is very concerning, but again, that's not solely on DD: you need two sides to edit war. I think there needs to be some sort of page- or topic-wide sanctions and that sanctions on DD alone are just an obvious attempt to remove an opponent from the topic area. Loki (talk) 02:19, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Their changes in that particular edit are outlined here. Two mentions of inflicting supernatural harm were changed to simply "using their power", which could mean something positive or neutral, and which go against the source. – Asarlaí (talk) 15:49, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Proposal 1A: Restated Topic-Ban

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

    • support also this, for the reasons already discussed. FOARP (talk) 07:52, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose - see above Loki (talk) 02:19, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support per above. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 13:09, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support per my support for Proposal 1 and per nom. We don't want to allow opportunities to game the system. JM2023 (talk) 04:13, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - per my statement above and that of several other editors. DD is unable to participate in a collaborative project and behave in a manner respectful and civil manner. They are unable to understand the problems with their own behaviors and seem unwilling to change - this disruption has been going on for months now, and is a huge time sink. I fully support a topic-ban for all articles on witchcraft, magic, the supernatural and religions, broadly construed. Netherzone (talk) 12:42, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support to reduce the opportunities for gaming the system Zippybonzo | talk to me | what have I done (he|she|they) 15:09, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. But am concerned this won't go far enough. Darker Dreams has done some strange edits just ignoring any alleged POV issues, like needlessly searching and linking the word "magico-religious" everywhere and making questionable edits on Magic and religion (a page that needs some deep review from someone not too close to the topic.) SnowFire (talk) 00:29, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - There is a clear gaming of the system on these topic areas by DD. There is obvious POV and pushing and this option will, hopefully, prevent further disruption. --ARoseWolf 17:23, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. I have seen this disruption from a distance. It has been clear to me that Darker Dreams has been set out to change the definition of what a 'witch' is, by erasing the perception of witches as negative. They have not taken things to the talk page as they should have done. SWinxy (talk) 01:59, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. I am involved, and a few of my diffs and comments are included above. Darker Dreams has alienated multiple editors with past unconstructive actions and for those editors it's hard to properly evaluate what this editor is doing and to trust that they are working to improve articles. They just can't catch up. And Darker Dreams' initiatives to reshape the content in these areas are quite hit-and-miss, which has to do with the tendency to interpret sources in highly particular ways. Darker Dreams doesn't deal with disputes very effectively and uses processes quite badly. This creates a bad climate that has to stop.—Alalch E. 17:36, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Bmchedlishvili

    Moved to Wikipedia:Conflict of Interest/Noticeboard#Bmchedlishvili

    Drsmoo and WP:BATTLEGROUND behaviour

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

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

    Please note more battleground behaviour. TarnishedPathtalk 13:07, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Please reference this edit in which Drsmoo refers to me as being upset as more evidence about WP:BATTLEGROUND behaviour. TarnishedPathtalk 13:32, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Please WP:Boomerang this. I have not made a single personal attack or battleground post and I have no idea what Tarnished Path is talking about. Another editor made a post about “convincing” them, to which I replied that Wikipedia was not about opinions but reliable sources. Tarnished Path asked me to strike my post, so I changed personal pronouns “you” to general one’s “if one”. Tarnished Path continued insisting I was making a personal attack. When I asked, out of genuine confusion, what they were upset about so I could modify it, they took that as a personal attack and started this. I have been trying to edit collegially with Tarnished Path, if they are going to take a gentle question about why they’re upset as an attack then I don’t see how constructive editing is possible. Drsmoo (talk) 13:17, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

    @Drsmoo, I suggest you strike that comment. The diff you presented shows that I neither insulted you nor threatened you. TarnishedPathtalk 13:38, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    TarnishedPath, nothing Drsmoo said in that discussion was a personal attack or an insult. I suggest you drop this before it becomes a WP:BOOMERANG. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 16:53, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @HandThatFeeds, telling editors that they are biased and not fit to edit topics is not personal attacks or insults now. OK, I'll take your advise on board. TarnishedPathtalk 01:06, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi @TarnishedPath, as pointed out above, I had already edited my post to clarify the point as a general one well before you started this AN/I. I’m not sure why youre repeatedly bringing up an edit prior to its modification? Drsmoo (talk) 04:11, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Drsmoo, you originally wrote "Not interested in your opinions, nor in “convincing” anyone. Wikipedia is based on reliable sources. If your biases cause you to edit against reliable sourcing you are not fit to edit in this topic."
    Which you then edited to "Not interested in your opinions, nor in “convincing” anyone. Wikipedia is based on reliable sources. If your biases cause you to edit against reliable sourcing you are not fit to edit in this topic."
    It's clear that you had already clarified what you meant by that point.
    Your final edit you wrote "Not interested in your opinions, nor in “convincing” anyone. Wikipedia is based on reliable sources. If your ones biases cause you them to edit against reliable sourcing you they are not fit to edit in this topic."
    So as a general point are you not interested in anyone's opinions? Again you've been warned for WP:BATTLEGROUND behaviour previously in regards to the Arab-Israeli conflict and the discussion was in regards to that very topic area. TarnishedPathtalk 05:01, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, that’s correct, Wikipedia is based on reliable sources, not about “convincing” anyone. In the future, please use the current text when making a report. Drsmoo (talk) 07:19, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Saying that you believe someone has a bias is not an insult or a personal attack. Saying someone is not fit to edit a topic is rude, but a single instance is not enough to bring sanctions IMO.
    At this point, I'm going to say again: WP:DROPTHESTICK and move on. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 12:23, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Calling people biased is incivil, particularly when no evidence is presented in furtherance is such aspersion. As you also note calling people "not fit to edit" is rude. Both are part of battleground behaviour and this is not a once off.
    Note all of these discussions from what I can gather have resolved around disputes to do with articles in the Palestine-Israeli topic area. TarnishedPathtalk 14:25, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    So you're digging through years-old incidents to try and get a person topic-banned, all over being called "biased." This really seems like you're trying to get someone topic-banned to win an argument, and I won't be surprised if you're hit with a WP:BOOMERANG. Count yourself lucky if this just gets archived for inactivity in a few days. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 15:45, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I also modified my edit very quickly so that I wasn’t calling anyone biased. Drsmoo (talk) 20:34, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    There's immaterial different in editing your to ones and you to them when your comment was still directed at Kashmiri. If you were sincere about recanting it, you ought to have struck the whole thing. TarnishedPathtalk 23:17, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Please WP:AGF and don't case WP:ASPERSIONS. This is not about trying to "win an argument". This is about not walking past an established pattern of behaviour spanning a period of time. Additionally they didn't call me biased, their incivility and rudeness was directed at another editor. TarnishedPathtalk 23:15, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Further instances demonstrating a pattern of ongoing behaviour:
    Again these appear to be in regards to be in disputes that arose out the Palestine-Israeli topic area. Including what I've linked above this is eight instances, that I've found, demonstrating an ongoing pattern of behaviour. TarnishedPathtalk 01:54, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive38#Per WP:ARBPIA, User:Drsmoo in Gilad Atzmon That's from 14 years ago? I'm struggling to see the relevance of such ancient history. BilledMammal (talk) 01:59, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    All of the entries span their continuous editing history. This demonstrates an ongoing pattern. TarnishedPathtalk 02:12, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Imo, this should be taken to AE. Selfstudier (talk) 16:02, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll consider it. Since my last comment Drsmoo has engaged in further incivility towards another editor. First he WP:STRAWMAN'ed them, only striking it when I called him out, them and then he called them "bigoted" which he still hasn't striked. The fact that he might have not referred to them directly by name is irrelevant, the target was obvious from the context of the discussion. TarnishedPathtalk 02:33, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That editor, CarolMooreDC was permanently banned from Wikipedia, btw. If you want to use her tirades against me from 14 years ago, go right ahead. @HandThatFeeds, since your post, Tarnished Path has tripled down, and now other users are quoting old revisions of struck diffs and 14 year old tirades. Drsmoo (talk) 16:38, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, this is getting ridiculous. I'm about ready to suggest an interaction ban, if TP isn't wiling to drop this. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 16:40, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That's ridiculous. WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT, is not grounds to call for an interaction ban. I have no problems interacting with Drsmoo, most if not all of of our interactions have been quite cordial. It's their interactions with others that are the issue here. In the last 24 hours they've WP:STRAWMAN'ed another editor (now striked) and then called them "bigoted" (not striked). If you don't see issues there then I really don't know why you're commenting. TarnishedPathtalk 02:47, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    No I did not. This is WP:Harassment at this point, motivated by Tarnished Path bizarrely taking offense to me asking what in my post offended them. This in particular is strange to me, and I’m not sure how it lead to 14-year old forum shopping from a site-banned user being brought up. Drsmoo (talk) 07:25, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @HandThatFeeds So Tarnished Path has now not only quadrupled down, he is threatening to go to AE. Special:MobileDiff/1180671937, in what would then be a case of WP:Forumshop I’m wondering how long this WP:Harassment is going to continue. And a personal attack like “If you don't see issues there then I really don't know why you're commenting.” should not be acceptable Drsmoo (talk) 08:05, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Drsmoo, you need to read WP:Harassment. before carrying on this pattern of WP:INCIVIL and casting WP:ASPERSIONS without evidence. The issues I've documented isn't a single incident from 14 years ago and spans your time editing on Wikipedia. TarnishedPathtalk 08:09, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Why are we letting Drsmoo off the hook here? It doesn't seem like they're editing with an NPOV as clearly they have a pattern of rude, battleground behavior especially around this specific topic; Not letting TP off the hook completely but does WP just tolerate general rudeness now? PHShanghai | they/them (talk) 14:27, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The posts brought up at the beginning of this thread are not a violation of WP:NPA. Curt, yes, but not enough for even a WP:TROUTing. Everything else is old and stale. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 15:06, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Suggest 1-Way Interaction Ban

    Per the above intractable discussion, I suggest a 1-way interaction ban against TarnishedPath, due to targeting another user in an editing dispute, and refusal to WP:DROPTHESTICK when not getting his way.

    Oppose - Unreasonable. I don't think we should be completely letting Drsmoo off the hook here as some of TP's evidence is pretty damning; that being said, everyone here should just chill. PHShanghai | they/them (talk) 14:24, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Edit warring - UA0Volodymyr

    UA0Volodymyr has been edit warring for over a week on Crimean Tatar language, making multiple POV edits and removing sourced material. They've been reverted by three users:

    but have refused to participate in talk. (Disclosure The last reverts today were both by me - my IP jumped from 37.245.43.126 to 37.245.43.164)37.245.43.164 (talk) 12:49, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    As stated at the top of the page you are required to alert someone when you have started an AN/I thread regarding them. I have done so for you. GabberFlasted (talk) 12:52, 17 October 2023 (UTC) Whoops! Didn't realize I arrived here just after the section went up. Struck above, deleted my (now duplicate) alert. GabberFlasted (talk) 12:58, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I was doing so - I was still editting the above! 37.245.43.164 (talk) 12:55, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I submitted a report on WP:AN3. I did not see that a discussion was started here, but I think this can be closed and moved onto there. Mellk (talk) 12:59, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Surely this topic, and specifically the edits that UA0Volodymyr is performing is covered under the broadly construed section of WP:GS/RUSUKR? I know they're now (just) past 500 edits, but seems they've returned to their editing patterns from before the 500 mark and are quite willing to edit war to get their viewpoint. Canterbury Tail talk 13:24, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I note now they've been blocked for the edit warring by Bbb23. I'd perhaps suggest removing their ECP and seeing if they can contribute in a collegial and non-edit warring manner for when they return. Ultimately from their comments and edit sumamries I don't believe they're capable of editing anything to do with Russia and Ukraine in a neutral non-POV manner. Canterbury Tail talk 14:02, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Bbb23 has blocked them for a week via AN3. If this is their usual MO then a topic ban is called for, if not an indef. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:24, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    They are certainly stirring up a good deal of conflict for someone who's been around less than a month. Ravenswing 14:37, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Why do I have the feeling this isn't their first rodeo here? RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:45, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Note this edit while blocked, which they reverted, otherwise I would ask for an indef. I am not taking accusations in whitewashing genocide lightly. Ymblanter (talk) 16:47, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah I saw that. I suggest both removing ECP and topic banning them from Ukraine and Russia related edits broadly construed until such time as they can show they're willing and able to edit in line with Wikipedia's policies. However I think they may just be here to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. No objections to a straight up indef. Canterbury Tail talk 17:02, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I do not think one can remove ecp (one technically can, but the first edit of the user would automatically restor it - at least this is my understanding). Ymblanter (talk) 17:38, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh well that sucks. Other options are still on the table then. Canterbury Tail talk 18:00, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The user's very obviously problematic editing was reported by an IP, a week or so ago. The IP noted that the user had begun to indiscriminately revert all the IP's edits, as an act of revenge after the IP reverted one of the user's harmful edits. Despite the user being guilty of extremely blatant hounding, User:Ymblanter blocked the IP, giving very clear support to the user's campaign of harm. They should really explain themselves. 86.187.234.156 (talk) 20:58, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You are now demonstrating clear inability to get the point. Ymblanter (talk) 21:01, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    and that point is what, exactly? 86.187.231.21 (talk) 20:53, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    LTA aka WP:BKFIP blocked; the next IPs will be immediately blocked as well. Ymblanter (talk) 21:26, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Edit warring on Kazakhstan and personal attacks User:GreatLeader1945

    This user repeatedly claimed I'm "fan" of "authoritarian regime" of Kazakhstan, and I'm trying to "white-wash" them.[66]

    1st edit: First he comes with[67] Kazakhstan is undoubtfully an authoritarian state with little to no political pluralism (source trust me argument)

    2nd edit:[68] Are you seriously comparing an EU member country with a Cetnral Asian dictatorship? (other stuff exists argument)

    3rd edit:[69] like the countries I listed (again other stuff argument)

    4th edit:[70] Stop white-washing its government first personal attack.

    5th edit:[71] Stop white-washing again. Beshogur (talk) 15:39, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    @Beshogur You literally have no arguments; for the N-th time, the Wikipedia page about Kazakhstan itself supports my claim. Reverting edits without arguments to prove your claim while, at the same time, mine is supported by the said page itself IS an edit war on your part. As for the "personal attacks" - I won't even comment that, as this isn't a personal attack. GreatLeader1945 (talk) 16:16, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Presidential republics tend to be authoritarian. Are you going to edit every authoritarian government here? Hungary is a democracy, yet its government is authoritarian. So what?
    Per Template:Infobox country, "authoritarian government", "dominant party" are not government types. Effective dictatorships (eg Belarus, NK, Turkmenistan) might be an exception, but neither Kazakhstan, nor Uzbekistan are dictatorships. You claimed three times I'm trying to "white-wash" a government I'm apparently "fan" of it. That's a personal attack. Beshogur (talk) 16:24, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Beshogur "but neither Kazakhstan, nor Uzbekistan are dictatorships" - They are. And you literally changed the infobox info of Uzbekistan a few days ago to remove the fact that it's a dictatorship/authoritarian government. "Presidential republics tend to be authoritarian" - False, presidential republic =/= often a dictatorship, some of the most well-known examples of Presidential republics are not dictatorships - the US, France (yes, semi-presidential, but still), Mexico, whole of South America, South Korea. Uzbekistan is objectively super authoritarian, there's little distinction between it, Turkmenistan, Russia and Belarus ... and, of course, said Kazakhstan. GreatLeader1945 (talk) 16:35, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not going to discuss some cherry picking. It's clear what I meant. Yes on Uzbekistan, I removed your exact same edit because Shavkat Mirziyoyev and Kassym-Jomart Tokayev aren't dictator but reformists. Beshogur (talk) 16:36, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Beshogur I didn't write in Uzbekistan's infobox that it's an authoritarian dictatorship (check out the edit history), and mind you, this same classification is present in Russia and Belarus's infoboxes. They're "reformists" (biased POV) as much as Serdar Berdimuhamedow is a reformist. GreatLeader1945 (talk) 16:41, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    POV? Maybe search what they've done. Nobody claims Berdimuhamedow is a reformist, stop bringing random stuff. Beshogur (talk) 16:44, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    They are dictators and their gov'ts are authoritarian, period. It's as clear as a day. They even make Ergogan seem like a liberal fella. That's why I was saying that you keep white-washing them. I know that you're of Turkic origin and have an interest in this region but you can't argue with facts, it's literally stated in the respective pages. GreatLeader1945 (talk) 16:54, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Note I tried page protection, anti-vandalism etc. Beshogur (talk) 16:20, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    What I was doing wasn't vandalism, vandalism would be if I deleted some whole parts of the page, or wrote some gibberish etc. GreatLeader1945 (talk) 16:37, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It's quite simple. Adding content that has been challenged repeatedly without also adding high-quality secondary sources that state what you are claiming can be considered vandalism after repeated attempts. Go find a source or two that is reliable and states the country is authoritarian and then add both. You will go much further with that strategy than readding challenged content and ascribing motives to other editors. spryde | talk 20:45, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've fully protected the article for four days to stop the edit warring. Both editors get a trout for not using the talk page. GreatLeader1945, I'm going to drop a warning at your user talk page about personal attacks: "whitewashing" is borderline, as is commenting unnecessarily on the ethnic/national origin of other editors. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:58, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      @Firefangledfeathers " "whitewashing" is borderline" - how could such a persistent action of his be called in this specific context then? OK, let it be "probably trying to white-wash" then.
      "as is commenting unnecessarily on the ethnic/national origin of other editors" - it has to do with the specific context of this situation, and I've literally said it very clear in said comment. Anyway, I won't waste my time with this debate and I won't further participate in this edit war. GreatLeader1945 (talk) 17:11, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      It is very, very easy to make the same point without making it personal. "I think this new phrasing presents [X] in an inappropriately favorable light" is one of a dozen different ways that I can think of. --JBL (talk) 00:54, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Al-Ahli Arab Hospital explosion

    Help and eyeballs needed at Al-Ahli Arab Hospital explosion, please. Abductive (reasoning) 21:24, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    And this is exactly why we're WP:NOTNEWS. Canterbury Tail talk 22:01, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It seems pretty neutral at the moment though. Nythar (💬-🍀) 22:08, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:NOTNEWS does not say what some editors think it says. Read it, please. The relevant policy language is: Editors are encouraged to include current and up-to-date information within its coverage, and to develop stand-alone articles on significant current events.. Wikipedia covered the September 11 attacks in its very early days, and has covered every historic news event since. Cullen328 (talk) 22:18, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    And it's a shame it dose. If we forbade creation of an article on a news event until it's been out of the headlines for 30 days, we'd reduce traffic at ANI by 50% and release incalculable quantities of editor time for useful pursuits. Readers can and should find out about current events from news sources. EEng 01:09, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    News source can be paywalled and have many articles as the event progress, while Wikipedia only have one article and its sub article (summary style). As a reader myself Wikipedia has been a great place to avoid propaganda/misinformation/disinformation in this current conflict. Hddty (talk) 02:23, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Personally I wouldn't put too much trust in that method, considering Wikipedia is wrong due to the fact its material comes from the same sources that propagandize. It is only natural that Wikipedia includes the biases of sources. Whether Wikipedia waits or does not wait in cases like this, there is no immunity from sources (while waiting can allow time for clearer source consenses to develop, there is no guarantee that those sources are any more truthful than original reports). JM2023 (talk) 06:34, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Beyond Hddty's comments, no one compels editors to follow or participate in the various drama boards. You are entirely free -- as is every other editor -- to spend your time in such other useful pursuits as seems to you good. Never mind that forbidding creation of articles on news events would just divert incalculable quantities of time into playing whack-a-mole. Ravenswing 03:35, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @EEng:, I suggested exactly that, once, at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)/Archive_191#Moratorium_on_recent_events. It was not a happy episode. I think the culmination for me was "No. This is one of the weirdest suggestions ever put forward". It was quite a while before I ventured back into the village pump area! I still hold that trying to be a newspaper as well as an encyclopaedia creates a lot of editorial difficulties; we have to write on subjects without the perspective of distance, which needs a totally different skill-set. Elemimele (talk) 09:27, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Ha! I probably should have read this thread, and the one you linked to, before opening this: Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not#WP:NOTNEWS/unfolding news stories. DeCausa (talk) 09:57, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Super Ninja2 and WP:NOTGETTINGIT

    Apologies if I stumble on anything, as this is the first time I've ever opened an ANI case.

    Anyhow, User:Super ninja2's behavior regarding the Al-Ahli Arab Hospital explosion has been nothing short of disruptive, repeatedly disregarding the consensus and advice of other editors seemingly in order to enforce their own view of the subject. I've divided their behavior into a few sections below:

    The initial RM:

    1. Super Ninja2 opens a RM, requesting the page title be changed from "Al-Ahli Arab Hospital airstrike" (as it was at the time) to "Al-Ahli Arab Hospital massacre."

    2. After multiple editors suggest the user might be jumping the gun, considering the disputed responsibility and lack of reliable sources referring to it as a "massacre," the closure of the RM is suggested by SelfStudier, to which Super Ninja asserts that SelfStudier has "no right" to do.

    3. After the RM is SNOW closed due to overwhelming opposition (namely on the rationale in point #2), Super Ninja2 unilaterally reopens the RM, asserting in the edit summary that, "You don't have the right to close the it! Don't take the decission (sic) by yourself without asking for a consensus!" They also assert the same in a comment, removed by the undoing of the reopening. For the record, there were nine official oppose votes with rationale, as well as several other unofficial "this is premature" comments; comparatively, there was just one other support besides Super Ninja2 as nominator, and that support argued for the change seemingly on emotional grounds rather than rational ones.

    4. In the meantime, the article title is uncontroversially moved to "explosion" rather than "airstrike," again owing to the reporting of reliable sources and disputed resonsibility. An aborted RM (closed as the page was moved anyways) further backs that move as uncontroversial.

    Blanking Al-Ahli Arab Hospital explosion

    Super Ninja2 then blanks the page, redirecting it to Al-Ahli Arabi Baptist Hospital airstrike, stating that "no consensus has been made." As the airstrike link was already a redirect to the explosion, this created a redirect inception, with no actual article.

    User talk page warnings and incivility; failure to get the point

    1. At approximately the same time of the page-blanking and redirecting, I placed a Template:Uw-disruptive2 warning on User talk:Super ninja2 due to the reopening of the RM. Nearly immediately afterwards, I see the page blanking, and place a Template:Uw-disruptive3 warning instead.

    2. After SelfStudier seconds the latter warning, Super Ninja2 accuses him of censorship.

    3. Super Ninja2 similarly does not react well to my warnings.

    An RfC to move the page, again

    1. Half an hour after the warnings, Super Ninja2 opens an RfC to change the page name to "massacre," despite the prior RM being SNOWed.

    2. Unsurprisingly, the RfC is quickly closed due to further opposition, the above SNOWing, WP:NOTGETTINGIT reasons, and procedural reasons regarding the use of RMs vs RfCs.

    3. Super Ninja2 then again unilaterally reopens the RfC, stating that, "can you not close the RfC because no one outside of the page watchers has seen the discussion yet, right?"

    4. The RfC is swiftly re-closed.

    5. Super Ninja2 then complains about the RfC closure, claiming that they wanted a "third opinion," but, "litteraly no one aside from User:Cullen328 participated in the disscussion as a third opinion because all of them have already voted in the disscussion above! Closing it like that making RfC with no use!" Again, consensus had been firmly against their proposed move.

    While I was typing this, a new issue

    Super Ninja2 then, against consensus, asserts blame for the attack based on one (non-RS) source. This also broke the page due to an open ref template. This last bit's more of a content dispute, but it doesn't hurt to include.

    So in total, they've been a wildly disruptive presence on the article and its talk page, repeatedly refusing to get the point and/or accept others' viewpoints despite being repeatedly warned and told off. As I'm again fairly new to ANI, I don't know if a warning, TBAN, total block, or whatnot is appropriate, but I'd greatly appreciate everyone's input. The Kip 22:41, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    While I have not been a participant in the drama in question - although I've done edits in regards to the war, like creating the page for Battle of Sderot - I find the current name for the article to be outrageous frankly ("explosion" instead of "bombing", almost making it sound like it was an accident when someone clearly bombed the hospital), and considering emotions understandably raise to a fever pitch in such situations, I feel like maybe we ought to be a little bit more tolerant towards users who act this way in this situation relative to what we would do during "normal" times. A disruptive user would be someone who's intent on ruining parts of Wikipedia, but we have to really ask ourselves if the user in question intends to do that or is simply pushing for a better article. Just my two cents. --Dynamo128 (talk) 23:04, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The user is just pushing for it to be called a "massacre", without any sources. Selfstudier (talk) 23:07, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    But the very first source quoted in the article, Al Jazeera, opens up the article by saying: "Israel-Hamas war live: Israel kills 500 in Gaza hospital ‘massacre’". So how can there be no sources? --Dynamo128 (talk) 23:20, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That's in quotes and its also WP:HEADLINES. not RS. Selfstudier (talk) 23:29, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    If they had simply proposed the RM and moved on after it failed, or opened up a larger discussion on the talk page, I’d have no issue; what’s made it disruptive (and not simply pushing for a “better” title) is the repeated hammering of the issue despite consensus going against them, in responding to said failure by unilaterally reopening the RM, blanking the main article, opening an RfC, unilaterally reopening that after it also failed, reacting angrily to the talk-page warnings, and in general failing to accept the wider consensus initially generated on the RM. The Kip 00:19, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    editors are supposed to wait until they are calmer to act. going against consensus, unilateral re-openings and other actions, blanking the page, and acting in the cited ways toward other editors is disruptive. regardless of the emotional state of the user due to their beliefs and investments into the conflict, the behaviour is still disruptive. JM2023 (talk) 06:39, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    My main issue was with closing the discussions too fast instead of giving it a chance for other people other than page watchers to participate. Page watchers act like they don't want any other users to participate in the discussion. The discussions did NOT have a fair chance. And as Dynamo128 stated, explosion is not a fair name for the article. Plus, consensus is not a vote count, so even if the majority of the voters voted against the move, one can't just "SNOW close it" only because the majority voted with "oppose".
    I didn't make disruptive edits, I participated my rights when I made the RfC and the RM.☆SuperNinja2☆ 23:19, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Plus, consensus is not a vote count, so even if the majority of the voters voted against the move, one can't just "SNOW close it" only because the majority voted with "oppose".
    As has been explained to you repeatedly, on both your talk page and that of the article, the consensus was not just vote count but the fact the opposes had solid rationale (RSes not reporting it as such, disputed blame, fog of war, etc) and the supports did not (simply arguing “well it was a massacre.”). If you still fail to see that, you’re either intentionally being obtuse or we’re approaching WP:CIR territory. The Kip 00:10, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Given this falls under ArbPia, the disruptive behavior by SuperNinja 2 is really problematic. I'd be lenient but a 48 hour ban from the article and talkpage seems reasonable. Also, Dynamo128, please keep unrelated content discussion on the article page. ANI really doesn't need that. Jeppiz (talk) 23:22, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Got it, I just felt that in this case, a little bit of context was necessary, but I digress. I agree that the article renaming is not something that should be discussed here otherwise. --Dynamo128 (talk) 23:25, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    From what I have seen yesterday the user needs an ARBPIA topic ban. May be someone can take the issue to WP:AE? Ymblanter (talk) 08:32, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm unfortunately not familiar enough with AE processes to do so competently, but if someone else wants to do so I'm all for it. The Kip 16:52, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Edit warring and 1RR/3RR violations

    1. 18:16, 17 October 2023 Blank and redirected Al-Ahli Arab Hospital explosion to Al Ahli Hospital massacre
    2. 19:51, 17 October 2023 Blank and redirected Al-Ahli Arab Hospital explosion to Al Ahli Hospital massacre
    3. 22:33, 17 October 2023 Switched perpetrators from "Disputed" to "Israel"; who to blame had been subject to considerable edit warring from various editors.
    4. 10:43, 18 October 2023 Restored Guardian quote, partially reverting this edit.

    BilledMammal (talk) 10:59, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    How is this 3RR violation? Editing controversial content is not prohibited. ☆SuperNinja2☆ 11:51, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It doesn't really matter if it isn't a 3RR violation; 1RR is the restriction applied to this topic area.
    However, each of these is very clearly reversing the actions of other editors, and none of them are such that you wouldn't be aware that you were reversing the actions of other editors. See here for the definition of revert: The term "revert" is defined as any edit (or administrative action) that reverses or undoes the actions of other editors, in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material, and whether performed using undo, rollback, or done so completely manually. A series of consecutively saved reverting edits by one user, with no intervening edits by another user, counts as one revert. BilledMammal (talk) 11:55, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    To be fair, as far as I can tell Super ninja2 has never been given the 3RR warning. I've done that now so they can see what it means in full. But as you say 1RR applies on that page. DeCausa (talk) 12:00, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    with no intervening edits by another user, counts as one revert. This does not apply to 22:33, 17 October 2023 and 10:43, 18 October 2023 edits. ☆SuperNinja2☆ 12:05, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    There were 243 edits between those reverts? BilledMammal (talk) 12:07, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Who said there should be 243 edits between them? ☆SuperNinja2☆ 12:11, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    No! BilledMammal is saying there are edits of others between each of your reverts which means that the 4 reverts listed above are treated as 4 separate reverts! You seemed to be claiming that 2 of your reverts could be treated as a single revert. they can't. DeCausa (talk) 12:15, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    This is well beyond the pale, and the absence of a warning for this particular article is no excuse. Anyone trying to edit it is met with a big red warning informing them of the 1RR in place on the article. All of this, together with the facts already established above prior to BilledMammal´s report, makes it clear a topic ban from ARBPIA is in order. I´d recommend not being too strict, and go for a time-limited topic ban of one month, hoping SuperNinja2 can use that month to edit constructively in other areas. Jeppiz (talk) 12:22, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Anyone trying to edit it is met with a big red warning informing them of the 1RR in place on the article Wrong. There's none. ☆SuperNinja2☆ 12:28, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It is not red, it is yellow, but it is there. Ymblanter (talk) 12:32, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I just added the formal edit notice but that's not really an excuse. +1 to a sanction, Arbpia first offense (1R breach) for a newish editor is usually a warning but the behavior here appears to go beyond that. Selfstudier (talk) 12:34, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You need to follow the Arbitration Committee news to be familiar with the 1RR on Arab-Israelie topic. I am not very active editor on Wikipedia. I don't follow up with the updates of the rules here. And I am not a member of any project. I only do edits every now and then. So, a warning in this case is necessary for me to know about the rule. Else, how can I know about it? ☆SuperNinja2☆ 12:45, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Notification given here plus it is on the talk page in a big box at the top. In any case that deals with just the 1R aspect. Selfstudier (talk) 12:55, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The notice was sent on 21:03, 2023 October 17. There are only two controversial edits after this notice. One of which is not a revert (22:33, 17 October 2023) and the other was of good intention as I didn't see this edit. So, I didn't violate the 1RR. ☆SuperNinja2☆ 13:47, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    plus it is on the talk page in a big box at the top they said. I'm sure Israel-Palestine has had a 1RR restriction for at least a decade. "I didn't know" is not an excuse for violation. JM2023 (talk) 06:43, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry for the confusion. 22:33, 17 October 2023 edit is not a revert. ☆SuperNinja2☆ 12:26, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Of course it is. An editor had put in the word "Disputed" against the Perpetrators parameter in the Infobox and you reverted that to insert Israel. What are you talking about? DeCausa (talk) 17:10, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Getting back on topic - discipline proposal

    Considering the list of incidents initially provided, the ARBPIA circumstances, the newly accused 3/1RR violations, and the continued refusal to get the point regarding all of the above, I'd like to propose a temporary topic ban from Israel/Palestine-related articles for Super Ninja2. The exact length of that ban is up for debate, but I'd believe at least 1-3 weeks to be appropriate. As SelfStudier mentioned above, while an editor with no prior history would typically only receive a warning, I feel that the conduct here has gone above and beyond that point in its disruptive nature. The Kip 16:50, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    This seems pretty clear cut to me. If this is a problem here because of the venue I don't mind moving this all over to AE as long as I don't get accused of forum shopping or something. Selfstudier (talk) 17:13, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    My only issue with that is to put it bluntly, I'm not well-versed enough in AE's procedures to competently open a case there. If you or another would like to do so, however, I'd be happy to support it. The Kip 17:57, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I've indef'd. Not an AE block. Happy for it to be lifted if they're willing to drop the stick and do something useful. But this thread shows an attitude incompatible with editing contentious topics, and their talk page and block log sugest it's not just one topic. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:17, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Wowza. That was unexpected, but I can't say I disagree.
    Thanks for the prompt response! The Kip 18:52, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I've been following the article and this thread so it's not quite as out-of-the-blue as it seems. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:56, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Blatant POV editing by Eladkarmel

    Eladkarmel has this morning uploaded a series of gross violations of WP:NPOV, WP:V, and pretty much any other policy one could care to mention, in relation to the recent event at Al Ahli hospital in Gaza. The first edit was on Disinformation in the 2023 Israel–Hamas war and attempted to stand up the Palestinian narrative as "disinformation", in contrast to the Israeli narrative. To be clear, this is early stage news, and none of the sources are currently at the stage of what is or is not disinformation. The second edit added material to the event page itself from Abu Ali Express, a known psychological warfare and propaganda platform set up by the IDF, and some other IDF-connected site hosting raw uploads of video footage, i.e. not a source at all, let alone a reliable one. This level of editing, and Eladkarmel's attempts to push fringe sourcing, is unacceptable. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:55, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    As you can see, I added reliable sources to every edit I made.
    The link from Abu Ali Express is a sharing of a photo published in the Shehab News Agency so I don't see it as a bad source.
    the recording published by IDF officials is an important source for understanding the war of versions between the parties.
    Regarding Disinformation in the 2023 Israel–Hamas war, there is no doubt that the incident at the hospital is a clear example of disinformation. From one side or the other (and it is worth discussing), the event is a classic case that fits the article. Eladkarmel (talk) 08:08, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi Iskander, the first edit you have linked seems absolutely okay on NPOV. The second and third seem primary (if I were to go by what you mention). These discussions are best taken on the talk page of the article, not here (unless there is evidence that you can show of repeated fringe pushing behaviour over a long-term). Thank you, Lourdes 08:14, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Seriously bad faith report by Iskandar323. Like Lourdes, I find the first edit perfectly fine. Abu Ali Express is not reliable, but this comes nowhere close to being actionable. Jeppiz (talk) 08:19, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Objecting to the use of propaganda sources is not bad faith. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:34, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The first edit is totally unverifiable: none of the source involved mention misinformation or disinformation. How does this not fail WP:V? Sources merely questioning certain narrative is nowhere near demonstrating that there was misinformation or disinformation. I'm sorry, but this is absolutely WP:OR. We don't get to just pick and choose random debates over information in news sources and declare it a case of misinformation or disinformation before there are any kind of resolved facts. This is serious cart-before-horse editing. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:33, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It was a rather poor edit, we agree. Nowhere near enough for action to be taken. Jeppiz (talk) 08:36, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The first edit has now been restored by @LUC995 with an edit summary containing the words "We'll find out who's wrong and who's right soon." - ok, then why are we adding any information now? WP:NOTCRYSTAL. LUC995 has incidentally made 500 gnoming edits on geography articles followed by 100+ largely ABRPIA or vaguely related edits. That's just a pure description of their editing. I have absolutely nothing more to say on that. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:54, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed. I see no real problem with Eladkarmel's editing, while LUC995's comes across as a bit more problematic. Jeppiz (talk) 08:57, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeffed LUC (since renamed HaNagid). For fuck's sake, Tombah. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 06:18, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Is there a single source that says the explosion was "disinformation"? Because none of them are cited. So no, the first edit does not "seems absolutely okay on NPOV". This should have gone to AE, a user placed in an article on disinformation an event that not a single source said was part of any dis-(or mis)-information campaign. That is OR and it is non-NPOV and it misrepresented the cited sources by claiming they support that it involved disinformation. Even here they say "there is no doubt ..." Well you can doubt what you like, but we dont base our articles on your lack of doubt. We base them on sources, and there were no sources that supported the inclusion there. nableezy - 13:58, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Id also add continued edit-warring at Israel without even an attempt at discussion. See here and here where a long-standing consensus is repeatedly reverted out. Then see if you can see that username at Talk:Israel. nableezy - 18:11, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Ali36800p misrepresenting sources

    Over at Talk:Iraq_War#Result Ali36800p (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) keeps on insisting they have sources supporting this edit [[72]] they have (despite being asked more than once) [[73]] to produce a quote all they do is posts wall of links [[74]] (while promising to provide quotes if we ask), that fail, wp:v (which they claim to know [[75]].

    It is a huge time-sink. when all they have been asked to do is to quote and provide 1 source that backs their edit. Slatersteven (talk) 12:34, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    ok ok, go to Talk:Iraq_War#Result and i'll quote from every source, just please chill out Ali36800p (talk) 13:06, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The point is you have been asked to do so (3 hours ago [[76]]), and not done so. Slatersteven (talk) 14:28, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I may be blind, but this [[77]] is a violation of V as it does not support either that the US was defeated (only that it had not yet won) or that they were overwhelmed. Read wp:or and wp:synthesis. Slatersteven (talk) 15:28, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    And wp:cherrypicking, as removing the last few words of a qoute to alter its meaning is a violation [[78]] (full quote "These DOD sources indicated that U.S. and coalition forces were overwhelmed by the number and size of these sites,..." it goes on to talk about ammo storage sits nothing to do with insurgents). Slatersteven (talk) 15:42, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    And you have still not read wp:or [[79]], it does not say anything about an American defeat. Slatersteven (talk) 17:35, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    i cant quote more if you want Ali36800p (talk) 23:39, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    source: https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/us-war-iraq
    quote: "the U.S. military was unable to defeat the insurgency in Iraq, which continued to cause violence and instability in the country even after the U.S. withdrawal in 2011." The report goes on to describe how the US-led coalition forces were successful in many battles, but the urban fighting was costly and the insurgency persisted. Ali36800p (talk) 23:42, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Here are some additional sources that explicitly mention the fact that the US failed to defeat the Iraqi insurgency:
    A report by the Watson Institute for International and Public Affairs at Brown University, which states that "the US-led coalition was unable to defeat the insurgency that emerged in the wake of the invasion, and the country descended into sectarian violence and civil war."
    An article by The Guardian, which describes how "the US-led coalition was unable to defeat the insurgency that emerged in the wake of the invasion, and the country descended into sectarian violence and civil war."
    A report by the Congressional Research Service, which notes that "the U.S. military was unable to defeat the insurgency in Iraq, which continued to cause violence and instability in the country even after the U.S. withdrawal in 2011."
    These sources provide further evidence that the US was not successful in defeating the Iraqi insurgency and that the insurgency continued to cause violence and instability in the country even after the US withdrew its troops.https://watson.brown.edu/costsofwar/costs/human/civilians/iraqi https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/mar/19/iraq-war-10-years-on https://fas.org/sgp/crs/mideast/RL31339.pdf Ali36800p (talk) 23:44, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Need I say more, they have not read or understood wp:v, wp:cir. Slatersteven (talk) 10:08, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    who me? no you're just not understanding Ali36800p (talk) 11:57, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]


    And now edit warring. Slatersteven (talk) 14:07, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Ali36800p has been made CT aware here and these edits [80], [81], [82] and [83] would indicate edit warring and disruptive conduct. Cinderella157 (talk) 22:04, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    And now dishonest edit summaries [[84]] And at 3rr at the moment (for just today, not the last 24 hours). Over them removing sources they themselves added (i just noticed). Slatersteven (talk) 16:24, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    it was an empty source citation problem but now it's fixed Ali36800p (talk) 21:59, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    WP:ARBPIA and unreliable claims

    Users Ottomanor and Bojo1498 have been inserting a highly contentious claim into the article Mark 84 bomb. While normally outside WP:ARBPIA, the claim the two users keep inserting clearly falls well within ARBPIA. As their claim blaming Israel is sourced to Iran Press, it clearly fails WP:RS. For Bojo1498, it looks like a good faith edit of just being a bit too trigger happy with no bad intent. That can happen to anyone, so no problem there. For Ottomanor who came up with the contentious claim, has been edit warring over it, and is not allowed to make edits related to ARBPIA, it is highly problematic. Jeppiz (talk) 12:45, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Since my report, and despite having been warned, Ottomanor has now inserted the contentious claim for a fourth time in just a few hours [85]. I suggest that Ottomanor be blocked, the contentious claim removed, and the article protected by 1RR as it is being used as a tool in WP:ARBPIA disputes. Jeppiz (talk) 13:03, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Here´s the list of Ottomanor´s extensive edit warring over this claim
    18 October 9:27
    18 October 9:50
    18 October 14:17
    18 October 14:55
    18 October 15:07
    The last two reverts were performed after having been warned of 3RR 18 October 14:36 Jeppiz (talk) 13:20, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Ottomanor has now been given a short block for the edit warring. Could an admin please formally warn them they are not allowed to edit ARBPIA-related topics until meeting the normal ARBPIA criteria? Jeppiz (talk) 13:25, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) I have blocked Ottomanor for 48 hours for violating 3RR. However, I don't understand why you say that they have fewer than 500 edits; they have over four thousand.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:26, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Bbb23, apologies, my bad! I took a quick look while on my phone and somehow messed that up. Then they are of course allowed under normal rules to edit ARBPIA. (Whether they should be allowed to in the future is another matter, after edit warring this extensively to push a clearly discredited source.) Again, apologies for that mess-up. Jeppiz (talk) 13:32, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I think 48h is too light. This was edit-warring, to insert a statement sourced to an Iranian disinformation site (it repeats a viral social media hoax, that the WSJ attributed the explosion to an Israeli MK-84. The WSJ never said that, per Newsweek, and accredited fact-checker Maldita.es). The other cited source is WP:GUNREL. The edit warring was accompanied by a strange threat in an edit summary, and now block evasion. A large amount of warnings for vandalism and POV-pushing were added on their talk page over the last few years (some removed); there's a sustained pattern. DFlhb (talk) 20:40, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Obvious sock created to continue

    Ping Bbb23. After you blocked Ottomanor, a new account was created with the sole purpose of continuing Ottomanor's edit warring [86]. It's getting a bit much. Can I suggest the 48h be extended, and the article semi-protected? Jeppiz (talk) 15:14, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    For the record, I blocked the sock, and Courcelles protected the page. Ymblanter (talk) 05:24, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Block evading IP

    IP is CU blocked and TP Access is revoked --Lenticel (talk) 05:32, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

    More harassment of Philomathes2367 from block evading IPs at WP:RSN. Ip is 216.239.170.134 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). Please dispense blocks and semi protections as required. MrOllie (talk) 17:00, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    CU-blocked; TPA revoked by RickinBaltimore. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:12, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    TompaDompa, Cakelot1, and Doom

    User:TompaDompa and User:Cakelot1 have repeatedly reverted edits in regards to the 1993 video game Doom, as well as the greater Doom franchise, on the article Mars in fiction.

    This began when I made a minor edit to clarify incorrect information present in the article, only to have my edit reverted by TompaDompa. I then remade my edit, citing the original Doom manual, only for TompaDompa to delete the passage about Doom entirely for WP:PROPORTION.

    A long and lengthy discussion took place on the article's talk page, with numerous attempts at finding a compromise and numerous attempts to explain how Doom, a game franchise that prominently features Mars, is worthy of being mentioned in the article, but it all fell on deaf, goalpost-moving ears.

    TompaDompa in particular is taking Ownership of the article and discouraging contribution despite a general consensus that Doom belongs as a mention on the article. I would like a more official consensus on this instead of myself and others continuing to debate this fruitlessly.

    Unawoken (talk) 18:14, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    For the record, I've only reverted one of your edits and clearly (hopefully at least) explained why I did so both in the edit summary and on the talk page. I think some amount of OWN on TompaDompa's part is understandable seeing as he completely rewrote it from a very bad article that amounted to a list of every time something is mentioned and turned it into an FA. Per WP:FAOWN a certain amount of care is needed when adding content to articles that have gone through a FA review, particularly if the source for said edit is a primary source such as a game manual. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 18:27, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Something being "understandable" does not make it acceptable in any way. Unawoken (talk) 18:30, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • This forum is not for content disputes. If you cannot come to an agreement on the talk page, you can try dispute resolution. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:39, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      My complaint has to do with how TompaDompa is handling this content dispute. Unawoken (talk) 18:42, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      They are doing a good job at keeping mentions of Mars in fiction that are not recognised as important in scholarly literature about Mars in fiction out of the article. Mars appears in thousands of works that are important for various reasons, but do not have recognition in works about Mars in fiction. This was widely debated at the FAC. We can't use our own judgement of what is important and what is not without engaging in WP:OR. —Kusma (talk) 19:06, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      (edit conflict) I don't see anything wrong with their actions. Wikipedia works by WP:CONSENSUS, which means that generally all content decisions are decided by discussion and agreement. You proposed an edit, some editors agreed and some didn't, and now you're discussing. That's how things are supposed to work. I don't see anything wrong with TompaDompa or anyone else holding this featured article to a high standard for what is and is not included, and they suggested a way forward: that you provide a high-quality source which discusses Doom as an important example of a fictional depiction of Mars and why, rather than simply demonstrating that it's a popular video game which coincidentally is set on the planet. These standards exist so that our articles feature high-quality content relevant to the topic, rather than endless lists of tangential topics with little context or relevance. I don't think you have provided that source yet, but that should be your next step if you want this to be included. If you don't agree, you can try dispute resolution, but if you still haven't located a source then I don't think your arguments will go very far. But at any rate, I don't see how there's anything for admins to do here. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 19:15, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      He repeatedly insisted I should bring this to your attention if I felt he was taking ownership of the article, which I feel he is. Unawoken (talk) 19:18, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Plenty of editors have already tried to explain that they're not. If you take a look at the WP:OWNERSHIP policy, you will find a section below the descriptions of ownership behaviour titled Ownership and stewardship, which better explains the activity here. Featured articles go through a vigorous peer review to be considered the "best" Wikipedia articles, and it's reasonable for an experienced editor like TompaDompa who has done the work of improving the article to that level to be considered an authority on maintaining that article's featured status. Stewardship can degrade into ownership if experienced editors begin to reject reasonable improvements, but in this case I don't think that's happening. TompaDompa has outlined a very reasonable method for you to demonstrate the relevance of your proposed addition (by providing a context-appropriate reliable source, really a bare minimum for wanting to add content) and you have not done so. If you do find such a source, I'm sure they'll be willing to discuss it with you. If they don't, then come back here. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 19:38, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      (edit conflict) Yes but at some point you need to pick up on the fact that no one is agreeing with you. It is too bad that you have devoted all your energy to explaining why you think TD is wrong, instead of to listening and understanding why they are correct. --JBL (talk) 19:39, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      There are other people making similar edits and debating this with similar arguments to me on the talk page. If that doesn't count as "agreement", you and I must both clearly fail to understand what is. It's disappointing to see an admin get snippy about "devoting all my energy" when this is clearly a much bigger point of contention for someone else who is not me. Unawoken (talk) 20:07, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      I am not an admin.
      It is not surprising that fancruft gets added by multiple fans (this happens all the time all over Wikipedia); the fact that several people have added it does not mean that the addition is good, and moreover in this particular case very strong reasons have been given for why it is not good. You called my comment snippy, but in fact it was entirely sincere: I hope that you continue to edit and improve Wikipedia, and while you do so I hope you learn that an important part of helping here is allowing yourself to be convinced by what other people have to say. --JBL (talk) 21:13, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • TompaDompa seems to have very patiently tried to explain the essence of WP:PROPORTION to Unawoken, to no avail. There is no "general consensus" on the talk page, and no "deaf, goalpost-moving ears" as alleged above. No action necessary for a fairly well-handled content dispute. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:02, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      +1. --JBL (talk) 19:17, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      My edit and others have been disregarded and reverted for numerous reasons that have increased in pedantry since this discussion began. First it was an incorrectly flagged minor edit, then it wasn't relevant at all, then others made similar edits and were told their edits lacked sources before being told that they were in the wrong section, and then I was told that adding it to the "See also" section was irrelevant. All of these were issues already present in the article, but they only became noteworthy and worth discussing when a 30 year old video game was mentioned. Unawoken (talk) 19:23, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      WP:PROPORTION was outlined in TD's first reply; the fact that you don't think it worthy of mention in your list is certainly indicative of the lack of attention you are paying to others. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:06, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Choosing to needle your own point as your sole method of acknowledging anything I have said in my above comment also reflects poorly. Unawoken (talk) 20:11, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      As you wish. Let's analyse the "increasingly pedantic reasons" for reverting your edits.
      First it was an incorrectly flagged minor edit referring to this edit, marked as minor. As explicitly said on your talk page, this revert was not because it was incorrectly marked, but instead "had to do with the sourcing". Thus, the above "reason" clearly misrepresents other editors.
      then it wasn't relevant at all see WP:PROPORTION above, mentioned on many occasions, and each time ignored. Let's mark this down as classic WP:IDHT.
      then others made similar edits and were told their edits lacked sources before being told that they were in the wrong section you may remember this is a simplification; the problem was not "lacking sources", but rather that the 1993 Doom manual is the "high-quality reliable sources" demanded by the FA criteria. On the sections—no, 1993 is not the third millennium, but I think we can AGF your conduct on this.
      then I was told that adding it to the "See also" section was irrelevant indeed you were - you were provided with a relevant quotation from MOS:ALSO, which you didn't feel the need to reply to, instead stating "I have no option but to escalate this to the admins". Again, classic WP:IDHT, maybe with a small dash of WP:RGW.
      and finally, All of these were issues already present in the article, but they only became noteworthy and worth discussing when a 30 year old video game was mentioned. which makes no sense whatsoever, and we should probably move on from it quickly lest we move into WP:COR territory (if you can come up with an explanation of how it makes meaningful sense Unawoken, that would be much appreciated).
      So, there you go. I've substituted my needle for a hammer, and hopefully banged your jumbled mess above into some sort of comprehensibility. It's been a very fun exercise in source analysis, so thanks for providing me with the opportunity and materials. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:01, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Brilliant work. Unawoken (talk) 21:42, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Do the editors want to request moderated discussion at DRN ? McClenon mobile (talk) 20:54, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I have suggested that twice or maybe three times above, but Unawoken does not seem interested. As they said, a few editors in the talk page discussion did refer them here, I think mistakenly. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 21:38, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I am interested and willing to cooperate. Unawoken (talk) 21:41, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    One of you needs to file the case request at DRN. You should be aware that I will tell you to "Comment on content, not contributors", because the purpose of content discussion is to improve an article. I will not be interested in the past editing of any article, and will begin by asking each of you what you want to change in an article, or what you want to leave the same that another editor wants to change. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:12, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Undisclosed paid editor (again)

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

    Possible COI or undisclosed paid editor adding promotional text to a government official of Maldives. One of their edits implies that they are a close member of the government. 24.211.70.219 (talk) 19:52, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    I think this is a bit premature. This is an account to keep an eye on, but I think the message on my talk page may just have been poorly worded, indicating that Mariya Didi is a "close member of the government." As of my writing this, this editor has made no further edits to the article since their last warning. TornadoLGS (talk) 20:03, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    They are actually back editing again. I haven't reverted but if they've been given a final warning then a block could be in order. --CNMall41 (talk) 20:40, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I was just going to say, they have sources this time, but the tone is still promotional. This editor has received a level-2 warning and a notice for paid editing, but no level-4 warning. TornadoLGS (talk) 20:43, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Makes sense. Could be a WP:CIR issue but it always lights up my COI suspicions when I see such large edits from a newer editor. --CNMall41 (talk) 20:57, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I am genuinely trying to improve this article. I have taken your criticisms and tried correcting them. I believe I have removed much puffery and added citations where needed. Please let me know how I can further improve this article as I believe the existence of it helps advocate for women in politics in underrepresented nations. TheoryGames (talk) 21:00, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Page preview images vandalism

    Posting here as the vandalism page asks for a user/IP which I do not know as this is quite a sophisticated vandalism case.

    Go to a page in the Organised Labour portal, such as Labour movement, with page previews enabled and start hovering over links in the "Part of a series on Organised labour" template on the right hand side of the page.

    Many previews in this section seem to be using a very disgusting image of Vomit on a plate from Commons, and I have no idea how they managed to do that, nor what remit it falls under as none of the pages themselves seem to have been edited for this to happen.

    I am not sure of the technical process behind how these preview images are shown, but it appears someone has managed to abuse it in order to vandalise link previews over a wide range of pages. The pages affected seem to not have a lead image on the page itself. I do not have the expertise or experience to figure this one out, so please if you could investigate it would be much appreciated.

    B4shful (talk) 21:56, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    AFAICT, it's due to Ginasandie who vandalized {{Labor}}, among other templates, and has been blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:01, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I see, that makes sense. Strange that it's still appearing considering it was reverted at 02:48 UTC. Is there some sort of caching being done on the backend that would somehow need cleared? B4shful (talk) 22:08, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You might try purging the page. If that doesn't work, please tell us exactly what you hover over that still displays that image.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:12, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I could try purging, however I found this from MediaWiki: Extension:PageImages - Image choice - How can I purge a bad image?
    This seems to suggest purging won't work... B4shful (talk) 22:22, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Not the image, the Labour movement article. You still haven't said which link displays the image.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:34, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It is many links displaying the image, in fact, even hovering over the link you just sent to the Labour movement article displays the vomit on a plate image. Here are a few which I have found by hovering over links in the Organized labour template, but the page preview image doesn't just display when hovering over it on the template, it displays anywhere where there is a WikiLink to the page and you hover over the link:
    New unionism, Proletariat, Social movement unionism, Collective bargaining, Equal pay for equal work
    Many, many more links can be found by hovering over links in that template, and I expect the same can be said for any page preview images for pages which use the other templates the vandal had previously vandalised. So, I can't really say which link displays the image because there are dozens upon dozens. B4shful (talk) 22:53, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It appears to be something at your end. I turned Navigation popups on in my Preferences (I have it off because I find it very annoying), and when I hover, everything looks good. Possibly another editor with more technical knowledge who sees this thread will be able to help you. You can also try WP:VPT. Good luck.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:27, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    This is not about Navigation popups (I have always had them turned off), it is Page previews, which is under Preferences -> Appearance -> Reading preferences -> Enable page previews (get quick previews of a topic while reading a page)
    Page previews and Navigation popups are two separate preferences. If you wish to try again after this information, feel free to let me know, as I don't think it's an issue at my end. B4shful (talk) 23:39, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Just noting that I have page previews turned on and do not see any image at all in the Labour movement preview. Is it possible your browser has cached the offensive version? Or I suppose mine has cached the harmless version. EducatedRedneck (talk) 23:56, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I fixed that one - DFlhb (talk) 23:57, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    One of the remedies in the MediaWiki FAQ is to add/remove a wikilink, and/or reverting the change to reset the image cached for the individual page. What I can say is that it works for the pages listed above. – robertsky (talk) 01:41, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I have gone through the internal links of the three templates that blocked user had vandalised and updated affected pages manually. A more systematic approach without going through Phabricator would be using AWB with bot permission to automate appending a dummy page link and removing the dummy page link in two succeeding edits. – robertsky (talk) 06:20, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    See the wub's post near the end of this previous report for a more automated solution. 57.140.16.27 (talk) 14:22, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Is there any way at all to address this systemically? Maybe an edit filter for images in includeonly tags in Template namespace? In recent months I've started seeing complains about this on big mainstream online forums; there's a reputation risk.
    Also, this isn't "Navigation popups" in Gadgets, this is "Enable page previews" in the Appearance tab; I checked and removing/re-adding a wikilink in the affected article fixes it. Since purging doesn't work, I assume this won't go away on its own, and will need to be done to all articles that transclude {{Labor}}? DFlhb (talk) 23:39, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    There's some amusement inherent in the vomit image resisting purging. EEng 12:59, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    See the MediaWiki link I posted in a previous conversation: MediaWiki: Extension:PageImages - Image choice - How can I purge a bad image?
    It I think says that in some cases to submit a Phabricator ticket, but that is beyond my expertise.
    Also yes, indeed it is Page previews, also important to note that Enable page previews is turned on by default for non-logged in users, thus increasing the potential exposure to this sort of vandalism dramatically. The most likely people to have this feature turned off are the very people who would be equipped to deal with it (in other words, many logged in users may have Page previews turned off without even noticing). I know that I had it turned off without noticing, because I often do general reading of articles without being logged in, and when I logged in to report this I noticed it was turned off on my own profile. B4shful (talk) 23:46, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Disruptive editing by UnbiasedSN

    UnbiasedSN had been making disruptive edits on the page Battle of Kartarpur pushing an overly aggrandized, embellished version of religious history based off wholly unreliable sources. It was explained to him and the article's creator on the talk page that primary sources from the 18th century as well Raj era sources are not to be used on Wikipedia [87] , [88] and later again reaffirmed here [89]. Despite this, it appears as he is continuing to do the same thing, this time logged out, and apparently with a proxy. See edits on Battle of Patti and similar edits on my talk page-UnbiasedSN's copy paste of the message I posted on his talk page and IP's message-[90]. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 12:35, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Did you genuinely make a false accusation that I used a proxy IP address? I've never even visited that page, yet I can't help but suspect that you may be engaging in the same biased content promotion here as you do on other pages, and you've just decided to pin the blame on me to get your way.UnbiasedSN (talk) 17:37, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @UnbiasedSN: Note the words "appears" and "apparently." You haven't been accused of anything. CityOfSilver 17:52, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Then why mention it? UnbiasedSN (talk) 17:53, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @UnbiasedSN: It's extremely suspicious that you and the anonymous editor are making similar, highly contentious edits. Suthasianhistorian8 probably wants an administrator to investigate whether you and that anon are the same person. CityOfSilver 18:00, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @CityOfSilver: Can you clarify on the edits? Other than Battle of Kartarpur & Battle of Rahon. Even when Battle of Rahon was reverted I reread the source and accepted that there was a case to be made. Then can you kindly gander on his edits and see how he engages and pushes his agenda vehemently.[91] UnbiasedSN (talk) 18:08, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @UnbiasedSN: The striking similarities are in the links in this thread's first message. The last two, both made to Suthasianhistorian8's talk page, are almost exactly the same even though one came from you and the other came from the anonymous editor. CityOfSilver 18:13, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    An unbiased SN? What? How dare any serial number be unbiased on my watch!  ;) Serial 18:18, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    LOL! It was supposed to stand for social network, but I can see how people can take the "Unbiased" personally when editing. I'm new here and I just make minor edits most of the time. UnbiasedSN (talk) 18:27, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Not even the same format as what I posted on his talk page. It's evident he engages in this type of behavior with many other users. If anything this is establishing that they are a polarizing passionate individual with an agenda. UnbiasedSN (talk) 18:22, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @UnbiasedSN: From my point of view, the first message and most of the second message are exactly the same thing but I'm not an administrator so if you deny that you and that anonymous editor are the same person, that's that.
    Suthasianhistorian8 has made a lot of contentious edits to sensitive articles in this topic area. Thing is, though, they regularly appear at articles' talk pages to explain themselves and move towards compromises; see Talk:Battle of Lahira and Talk:Battle of Rahon (1710). Why not start a new thread at Talk:Battle of Kartarpur? (Although before you do, please read WP:FOC.) CityOfSilver 18:54, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It's now proven beyond any shadow of a dobut that HaughtonBrit is behind at least the 65* proxy and likely UnbiasedSN. See this comment on Courcelles' talk page where the 170* IP/proxy geolocates to and has the same ISP (FedEx) as HaughtonBrit's confirmed sock IPs-[92] and [93].
    Can an admin please block these sock proxies being abused by HaughtonBrit-[199.81.206.0/24], [192.189.187.0/24], [
    170.170.200.0/24], [216.126.35.0/24]. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 14:56, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Really going for a two for one. UnbiasedSN (talk) 15:30, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    WP:CIR issues with User:Luvigas36437

    I have some concerns about Luvigas36437's competency, specifically with regards to their grammar.

    From their talk page:

    • "Please ban 79.66.43.34, he or she add fake idea, in on pages, most in cartoons."
    • "No news about this, but still wait sources."
    • "If no discuss, move request will cancelled."
    • "I'm sorry, I'm added fact, maybe is true fact."
    • "But, I'm socked users, when not updated info."

    From their edits or edit summaries:

    Is a block in order? The Grand Delusion(Send a message) 13:44, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Please don't block me, I apologize for the bad grammar. Luvigas36437 (talk) 13:56, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Those are some classic quotes. A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 13:56, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Luvigas is a native Latvian speaker. I left him/her some suggestions on their talk page. The Wikipedia movement can use this person's enthusiasm if channelled properly.
    Spoken English is relatively forgiving of mistakes -- there are many ways to get one's point across. That's one reason English has become the global lingua franca.
    By contrast, written English is deceptively treacherous and tricky. The written rules of English grammar are inconsistent and often illogical. Then there are many unwritten rules of English usage that aren't taught in classrooms but nevertheless expected in formal writing. I still find writing English text challenging and I'm a native speaker.
    I think this dichotomy (spoken vs. written) is one reason we get enthusiastic editors with poor language skills here.
    --A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 14:46, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Disruptive editing and POV pushing by Suthasianhistorian8

    Suthasianhistorian8 had been making disruptive edits on the page Battle of Kartarpur offering a his own version of religious history, driven by personal preferences while overlooking substantial sources. An examination of the user's edit history and interactions on their talk page reveals a notable pattern of receiving numerous complaints and engaging in similar behavior with multiple users. Persistently advocating their personal agenda and beliefs, they frequently find themselves embroiled in editing conflicts with others. Their willingness to resort to falsehoods as a means to achieve their objectives is evident from their talk page. [94] It is imperative to address this disruptive behavior to ensure a harmonious online environment. UnbiasedSN (talk) 17:25, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Reads like an AI/LLM-generated retaliatory report to #Disruptive editing by UnbiasedSN, above. Schazjmd (talk) 17:40, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Ponder at their talk page. [95] It's a wonder they haven't been banned yet. If known about this board earlier I would've gladly have posted it sooner. UnbiasedSN (talk) 17:48, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: the user's correct spelling is Suthasianhistorian8 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), not Southasianhistorian8.
    --A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 19:10, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Please see [96] and my message on Courcelles' talk page [97]. It seems extremely likely that this is HaughtonBrit trolling as usual. He has an extensive history of trolling and intimidating people to push an overly aggrandizing narrative of his religion. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 04:18, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Classic coming from the fact that majority of your edits being one sided to one religion. Do you even edit anything else that doesn't promote your agenda? And can you stick with one user rather than going at scorched earth policy with anyone who goes against your beliefs. UnbiasedSN (talk) 15:32, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    A plethora of drafts

    I am bothered by Immanuelle's approach to draft space. First of all, they have created a truly amazing number of drafts--3,946 and counting. But their talk page shows that tons and tons of those drafts are lingering, and many were signaled as such, to which the editor responded, in a number of cases, by staving of deletion by adding nonsense categories, such as here. After I called them on that, they made edits like this followed by this, which is just as pro forma. Just now, I noticed they are still adding one-sentence drafts, but now at truly astonishing speeds: a half a dozen of em per minute, making me wonder about automated editing. I really don't know what to do about this; their answers are evasive but they claim to be working on them--I wonder how that's humanly possible, when they're still creating them at lightning speed. Pinging Firefly, whose bot has been working overtime. Drmies (talk) 00:57, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm not aware of any issues with this. I'm making drafts of things I believe are notable so I can work on them over time and eventually either afc submit them or let them expire if they either consistently fail AFC or I decide they are not notable. I have been letting quite a bit of them delete, and you will see a large amount of deletions after a week or two. Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (talk to the cutest Wikipedian) 01:06, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I do not wish to do so as I feel it will make us lose potential articles, but if it causes the bot issues then I will stop bumping the ones I see as having a lower probability of success or am unsure about.
    My previous approach has been one of bumping articles if I was unsure about them since as I saw it, such reminders would give me a later opportunity where I might deem it worthwhile Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (talk to the cutest Wikipedian) 01:24, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You're skipping over an important one: how do you create six such drafts per minute? Drmies (talk) 01:30, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) That's... a lot of drafts. But also I'm seeing that most of them are 1-sentence articles on specific characters in the list of Jōyō kanji (see list here), which makes me wonder... WP:NOTDICT? See here, here, here, and here for some examples. We're always glad for people creating articles on notable things, but then I'm a bit worried about the quality of the drafts, and it might cause congestion with bots and users, like @Drmies said. My problem isn't really about the time frame of the creation, because how long should it take to copy-and-paste what was here, and put it into here, change the name, and press publish? Under a minute, apparently. ‍ ‍ Relativity ‍ ‍ 01:24, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) While this is certainly odd, likely a massive waste of Imamanuelle's time, and probably at least technically a WP:NOTWEBHOST violation, the process of deleting these old drafts is, by my understanding, fully automated. Is this actually placing a strain on the bots resources? I would be surprised. If not, this seems… probably harmless. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 01:25, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Compassionate727 Alright, I guess it won't hurt the bots. But still, we would have to decide if some of the drafts were to be deleted, if there would be a ban from draft-making, etc... ‍ ‍ Relativity ‍ ‍ 01:29, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    A "ban from draft-making" might as well be an indef, since the user is already under editing restrictions due to concerns over machine translation, ability to assess sources and claims, and related issues. Indignant Flamingo (talk) 01:37, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Indignant Flamingo I was not able to defend myself well in that past issue. I am making a lot of drafts because I figure since I can only make articles with AFC, it's best to have a draft on everything I conceivably might want to make an article on and whenever I learn something new on the topic add to the article so I can eventually put it through AFC and hopefully get an article on it. Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (talk to the cutest Wikipedian) 01:53, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I know this might be a bad time to bring it up but I would very much like a second chance. If I was not so source starved from editing restrictions then I would fel no need to work on so many drafts, since I'd be able to fairly easily and reliably find the necessary sources instead of keeping up an article in the hopes I may someday get the requisite english language sources necessary for getting past AFC.This would be an example of such a draft that I could easily get past AFC if not for the restrictions Draft:Tainan Shrine. Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (talk to the cutest Wikipedian) 02:11, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Since I was pinged: To be blunt, this encyclopedia doesn't need more editors citing sources they can't actually read in order to add content they can't actually verify. Something other people do in this situation is contribute in areas where they can speak the language and verify sources. Which, for an English speaker on the English Wikipedia, is most areas. Dekimasu and other editors spent a lot of time trying to craft restrictions that would allow you to contribute constructively. Creating thousands of draft articles in areas where problems were already identified seems like a step backward. But others may have different opinions, and I look forward to seeing those. Indignant Flamingo (talk) 03:13, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I am of the belief that I am able to interpret sources a lot better now than I used to be, especially since making drafts like this has made me more cautious.
    I do not think a full reversal is necessary, but I'd like to be free with draft sources, perhaps a probationary period or something. Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (talk to the cutest Wikipedian) 03:26, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    A few hours ago you started Draft:Dannozuka Kofun as "Dan's Kofun", repeating that translation in the first sentence. How did you come up with that original translation? Indignant Flamingo (talk) 06:28, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Compassionate727 in the event that this actually does cause strain on not resources then I will let most of the future ones I get expire. But @Firefly seemed to indicate what I was doing was acceptable earlier so my impression is it did not cause any resource issues for the bot Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (talk to the cutest Wikipedian) 01:31, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Immanuelle I'm not so concerned about User:FireflyBot running overtime as I am concerned about the quality of the drafts. We can't just have mass amounts of one-sentence drafts that will likely never end up in mainspace created without some sort of repercussion. I don't know if there's anything more serious than wasted time that will happen as a result of this, though. ‍ ‍ Relativity ‍ ‍ 01:36, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Well aside from the Joyo Kanji I believe most of my drafts are almost certainly notable topics, and I have been letting drafts expire and deleting ones I deemed not notable. Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (talk to the cutest Wikipedian) 01:46, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You've said that a few times already, but how do you create six such drafts per minute? Drmies (talk) 01:48, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Pretty sure, copy-and-paste. But who knows? ‍ ‍ Relativity ‍ ‍ 01:49, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah copying and pasting Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (talk to the cutest Wikipedian) 01:55, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Drmies Okay, never mind. You could be right. How is there stuff like this there? (edit conflict) You can't copy-and-paste that quickly. ‍ ‍ Relativity ‍ ‍ 01:55, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm just worried about stuff like this. Then afterwards, the same thing is created— no citations, nothing but that single sentence and a template. ‍ ‍ Relativity ‍ ‍ 01:51, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Compassionate727 & @Relativity: Drafts are not automatically deleted after 6 months. This task is carried out by admins manually in most cases. The automated portion of the process would be Firefly's bot notifying users a month in advance that their draft creation will be deleted if left unedited for 6 months. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:14, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Also as an aside @Drmies Those two ones you described as Pro forma were at the request of @Anomalocaris in order to fix lint errors. I stopped adding nonsense categories as a method of bumping, although there were a few times I accidentally introduced a misspelled category and may not have fixed it. Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (talk to the cutest Wikipedian) 02:32, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Immanuelle, I’m not an admin but as a fellow editor I’m going to request you stop making more drafts and work on ones you’ve created already. Whether bots can handle this or not, our goal is decent articles, not 4000 tiny draft articles. Don’t become the metaphorical cat lady of drafts. Go take some of your drafts, flesh them out and get them properly referenced. That’s what we need.

    Otherwise, if you’re only using them as a sort of collective work list, then just consolidate these 4000 drafts to lists of article ideas in your user space.

    Thanks, —A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 02:21, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    @A. B. I believe that there's also the problem of possible automated editing now, not just the sheer amount of drafts @Immanuelle has created. Although, I personally agree with you. ‍ ‍ Relativity ‍ ‍ 02:31, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I have not been engaged in automated editing. I have been strictly using copy and paste. Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (talk to the cutest Wikipedian) 02:33, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Immanuelle But how are you supposed to create 15 drafts using copy-and-paste in one minute?? Even though the drafts are pretty much the same thing over and over (with a different subject), you would have to be really, really, really fast to be able to do that. It takes a while to create a draft, even if it's just copy-and-paste. ‍ ‍ Relativity ‍ ‍ 02:36, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Relativity By opening a bunch of tabs already and doing it all relatively quickly. That's completely within human dexterity levels. Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (talk to the cutest Wikipedian) 02:40, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Alright, I can see that happening. I'll WP:AGF. ‍ ‍ Relativity ‍ ‍ 02:44, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (talk to the cutest Wikipedian) 02:58, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    To re-iterate what I mentioned above, deleting the G13 drafts is an admin task, not one carried out by bots. The bot notifies users that their drafts are a month away from being G13 eligible. Expiring drafts are typically deleted by Liz, Explicit, and myself. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:20, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    As far as I can tell, all the kanji in Jōyō kanji link to wikt. So creating them locally is not a good idea. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 02:40, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    @SarekOfVulcan Yeah I do not think in retrospect it was a good idea. I believe some need articles such as Draft:男, but it was a mistake overall. I do very much like the kanji project on French and Ukrainian wikipedias, but it is a lot more limited on each, and the amount of kanji I'd consider noteworthy but not already covered by our radical articles to be limited. Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (talk to the cutest Wikipedian) 02:44, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    What's the point of Draft:Immanuelle talk staggering, Draft:Immanuelle/Japan trip, Draft:Immanuelle/tt, ...? Fram (talk) 07:05, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Immanuelle, would you voluntarily agree to a six month editing restriction on creating new drafts? In that time, you can focus on transforming the best and most promising of your drafts into actual policy compliant encyclopedia articles about notable topics. That's why we are all here after all, to write encyclopedia articles, not brief sketchy unreferenced drafts. I admit that I have lots of unfinished sandbox pages in my userspace, but they are well referenced and, if I die tomorrow or next week, other editors could easily write policy compliant articles based on my sandbox pages. I have nowhere near 3,946 such sandbox/drafts in my userspace, which is a staggering number that is indicative of a serious problem. Far less than that. What motivates you to create such an astonishing number of uncompleted drafts? Are you willing to rethink your approach and work on improving your drafts for mainspace, instead of creating more drafts at a rapid clip? Cullen328 (talk) 07:35, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Cullen328 yes I'd be happy to go with that restriction. It's roughly what I was planning on doing anyways. Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (talk to the cutest Wikipedian) 10:10, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Six months will be a good time period for me to focus on improving my drafts instead of making new ones. Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (talk to the cutest Wikipedian) 10:11, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    @Immanuelle I didn't take any position really on whether what you were doing was acceptable or not, as I'd not looked deeply into the issue. Nearly 4000 drafts, created at a rate of around 6 per minute is definitely not a good idea. I would support Cullen's idea of a six-month editing restriction, preventing you from creating any new drafts. firefly ( t · c ) 11:50, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    More adventures in copyediting

    With increasing frequency, I'm encountering new-ish accounts devoted to rapid copyediting with mixed results. For many, I'm guessing English is not the native language. One such account is LevMax10 (talk · contribs), who has received notices since April regarding speed of editing, inability to discern promotional content, trouble with WP:ENGVAR and MOS:OVERLINK, and gratuitous changes that don't really improve anything, among other issues. Speed and not proofreading their own edits may account for numerous grammatical errors, though many edits suggest basic grammatical difficulties--by way of demonstrating, I offer a few, mostly from the last week: [98]; [99]; [100]; [101]; [102]; [103]; [104]; [105]; [106]; [107]; [108]; [109]; [110]; [111]; [112]; [113]; [114]; [115]; [116]; [117]; [118]; [119]; [120]; [121]; [122].

    Not gross violations, but an example of encyclopedic quality being pecked to death, a nibble at a time. The latest volley of edits--notwithstanding determination to continue wikilinking names of countries--looks better. But their belated response isn't terribly encouraging, and they appear to be plowing ahead, regardless: [123]; [124]. I don't think they get it. Does anyone believe this is a capable copyeditor? 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 03:44, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    WP:CIR. Looks like a problem here. ‍ ‍ Relativity ‍ ‍ 03:51, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:CIR, if someone does not have a sufficient grasp of the English language to be copyediting then they shouldn't be copyediting. This is an increasingly prevalent sitewide problem. JM2023 (talk) 06:21, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Editors who are engaged in copyediting on the English Wikipedia while lacking basic English language competence should be warned, and blocked if they persist, and advised to edit the Wikipedia version in their first language or their truly fluent languages. Any editor who can write comprehensible, well-referenced, policy compliant new content should be encouraged and forgiven for writing non-standard English prose, because that is easy for fluent English speakers to correct. But attempting to carry out a function that requires excellent English language skills without possessing those skills is a non-starter. Warn, and block if the disruptive edits continue. There is a widespread notion among people not fully fluent in English that the English language Wikipedia is the "mother version" or the "master version". We need to disabuse such editors of that notion at every opportunity, and encourage such editors to contribute instead to the language versions where they are actually fluent. Cullen328 (talk) 08:09, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    rev-del request

    This edit, which at the bottom includes a horrible aspersion about other editors. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 09:54, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Gone. Courcelles (talk) 14:28, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Iammb8

    Iammb8 has now created at least three times this Patange (2023) on a non-notable film, and I don't want to keep draftifying it. I believe they have a COI as one of the makers of the said film; I've asked them to disclose this, but so far nothing (that I can find at least). --DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:25, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    I moved it to Patange (film) before noticing it was being discussed here. Any objections to me simply raising an AFD for it? There doesn't seem to be a damn thing about it online apart from notices that it exists on Plex, YouTube, etc. I'll try to find RS coverage in other languages in a WP:BEFORE search first. Wikishovel (talk) 11:42, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Too late, just been speedied A7. Probably just as well. Wikishovel (talk) 12:49, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    I just blocked the editor for blatant promotional editing. It's quite obvious from their edit summaries, the name on theiruser page and edit history that this is their movie that they're just here to promote. Canterbury Tail talk 16:54, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Repeated COI OR page creation spam regarding Bradley/Bradlee family tree and descendants

    User:Quinnbradlee, formerly User talk:Qbradlee82 and User talk:Qbradlee (see User talk:Quinnbradlee § November 2021 per Smartse), has been repeatedly creating original research pages with bare citations about their family members:

    Including past contributions to the pages

    • Ben Bradlee, presumably the main figure to the family, despite
    • and Quinn Bradlee, their own page if their username is to be believed.

    It doesn't make sense to post a collection of the Diff links when you can see a complete history of the abuse and disregard on all three talk pages. Following the warning yesterday, I'm concerned I'm now involved and want to bring this to the attention of the admins. I've simply tagged the recent article for deletion at AfD.

    Note: I've pinged admin User:Smartse who originally caught the multiple usernames issue. Thanks, microbiologyMarcus (petri dish) 15:05, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks for starting this User:MicrobiologyMarcus. This has been going on for 12 years now and despite numerous warnings, they have still not got the message. All of their edits violate WP:NOTGENEALOGY. If I wasn't somewhat involved, I'd have blocked them already, so I urge someone else to do so. SmartSE (talk) 15:13, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeffed with a note that it applies to them, the editor. Not just this account. I've left Qbradlee82 unblocked as they haven't used it in 11 years but heads up to @Deepfriedokra: who blocked the other account. Star Mississippi 21:04, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    In looking over User:Quinnbradlee's comments on the Nathan Bradley AfD, if this is indeed the same person, Mr. Bradlee has to be employing a battery of ghostwriters for his extensive bibliography. Ravenswing 21:13, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Extra Eyes Please on Nakba denial

    Experienced editors are kindly asked to keep an eye on this recently recreated article dealing with a highly controversial subject with significant potential NPOV issues. Article has been EC protected by another admin. Full disclosure I am WP:INVOLVED. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:05, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    The article is currently being discussed at WP:NPOVN. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:39, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Continuing COI and likely block evasion at Pir Syed Nazim Hussain Shah and Pir Syed Zagham Abbas

    Articles about father and son--if memory serves, previously blocked accounts identified as Abbas. DoctorImam (talk · contribs) and Medical786 (talk · contribs) were both created just after Hussaini7246 (talk · contribs) was blocked. Current protection of Shah may be insufficient, and if Medical786 is proven to be a sock, Abbas can be deleted as WP:REVERTBAN. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:E13F:8936:C820:C22A (talk) 16:16, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Multiple violations, not following policies and hounding also user is removing cited information without explaination

    The 2023 Asia Cup was hosted by both Pakistan and Sri Lanka. It is cited with reputed references and even the matches which were held in Sri Lanka can be found in the schedule. However user @Pirate of the High Seas has removed the co-host Sri Lanka here without any reason - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2023_Asia_Cup&diff=1180253758&oldid=1180236968 which was reverted.

    And then again the user did the same here - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2023_Asia_Cup&diff=1181003179&oldid=1180996765

    The user has a history of using IPs to hound and was blocked from editing for a week - Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Pirate of the High Seas/Archive

    The user also nominated an article unnecessarily for deletion (The article was first added by me, maybe that could be the reason) - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Global Biofuel Alliance

    Also the user is reverting improvement made by me to this article, the user did that for three times - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mizoram_bridge_collapse&diff=1181002544&oldid=1180592203


    Requesting administrator intervention in the user not following 3 revert rule, removing cited information without explaination, hounding and nomination notable article for deletion Thewikizoomer (talk) 16:58, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=1181111538"