Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

Disruptive behavior by UnTixic (and possibly abusing multiple accounts)

UnTixic (talk · contribs) has been warned multiple times for disruptive editing as shown on talk page. Most notably (but not limited to) nominating articles for WP:PROD without a valid reason. Most commonly is stating article has no source when it clearly does. Here is an example just done today.

In addition I believe this user is abusing multiple accounts such as Wyndhan Han (talk · contribs) and PakisOne (talk · contribs). I previously reported it here but WP:CheckUser is inconclusive due to proxy usage. Makes it more suspicious. To summarise

• All 3 accounts were created only in 2023 with not many edits. Front page is also following the one line of text format
• All 3 have posting activities where they would made many edits on one day and nothing for a significant period
• Editing style is similar where they would make a set of supposedly legitimate edits (some certainly are not) and then abuse WP:PROD nomination

Given lack of response in talk pages, I don't see a reason user is going to change behavior for the better.

@The Banner: I am tagging you since you seem to have dealt with this user a bit. Looking for your input on this.

Examples

12 34 5 6 7 8 9

Edit: One more thing to consider is @Liz: has commented on Wyndhan Han's talk page that user has participated in WP:AFD despite only editing for 5 days. So what we are possibly looking at is some user engaging in WP:Sockpuppet for not just these 3 accounts but others that we have not identified yet. But again use of proxy makes this hard to confirm for sure.

- Imcdc Contact 11:45, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

I have the idea that (s)he does not check the links it adds. Resulting in nonsense links. See for example here (a music style confused with a village), here (rescue mission confused with a program against sex offenders) and here (British peer confused with peer-to-peer) and here (a suburb of Milan, Italy, confused with an India tribe). I have severe doubt about the competence from this account. And this looks like plain vandalism. The Banner talk 12:18, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

The bizarre Milan-related link to Barona Group of Capitan Grande Band of Mission Indians is especially weird when the correct link, Barona (district of Milan), is so easy to find. Narky Blert (talk) 18:33, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Second. QRep2020 (talk) 13:09, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

This tickled a memory of a few accounts I saw in 2022, like <this one>. They would mass edit for stretches of time, all visual edits, and just add content to multiple pages - we eventually figured it was machine translated edits (or just sources) taken from other language versions of pages.

These* edits* by UnTixic: <diffs>* are translating content from the German version of that page, some lines are exact matches to Google Translate output.

These edits by PakisOne: <diffs> are translating content from the Swedish version of the page, the citation is also taken from there.

This edit by Wyndhan Han: <diff> is a translated edit from the Swedish version of the page, translation is an 100% match to Google Translate output. The citations however are not from the Swedish version.

I'm not claiming it's the same person, and I haven't looked deeply into most edits, a lot of the behaviour mentioned so far was not something I noticed in those 2022 accounts, but it just reminded me, so I'm mentioning it. – 2804:F14:8085:6F01:B8CB:B95D:1E39:A7B1 (talk) 01:30, 19 January 2024 (UTC) (*edited 01:21, 20 January 2024 (UTC))

The other posters evidence makes me believe the user is not capable of demonstrating WP:CIR. I believe at least a temp block is required and if such behavior still persists, it should be permanent. All of these accounts should be subject to it btw. - Imcdc Contact 16:53, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

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

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

A few highlights from these reverts:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Andrew Tite and IP editor claiming to be allowed to remove AfD tag

Andrew Tite is undergoing AfD. An IP editor, 99.192.32.253, keeps removing the AfD notice and the most recent time used the edit summary to claim "Spoke with Senior Wikipedia Administrator (Brenda) and was advised to remove notice and make specific updates via email. She has approved this update. Additional updates in future to further ensure compliance with Wikipedia standards"

This seems very unlikely to me but I thought I would bring it here in case my restoration of the AfD tag was incorrect. ThaddeusSholto (talk) 23:07, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Hmm, the IP posted the email: "Brendan Conway" appears to represent a paid-editing group. " In case if you need assistance, let me know, I can link you with an internal certified Wikipedia editor from the Wikipedia community. he can provide you a professional assistance, also, he has been working in the Wikipedia community for the past 15 years, he can assist you in improve your page while adhering to Wikipedia's guidelines. Please note that each Wikipedia editor and moderator charges differently for their service, and as you know that Wikipedia is a non-profit organization, so any earnings done by providing services to the relevant clients automatically go to the Wikipedia organization donations." Schazjmd (talk) 23:22, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

The email apparently also said "It's clear that your intention is not to create an advertisement but to share a genuine and modest biography for the benefit of future generations." and that seems very unofficial to me. ThaddeusSholto (talk) 23:27, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

The email also screams ChatGPT to me. Also since when did we have an “Wikipedia AFD Reviewer's team”? Padgriffin ^{Griffin's Nest} 04:51, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

(nota bene for anyone who is seeing the name and wondering -- this is not the misog social media tweetfluencer guy, this is some other dude with a similar name.) jp×g🗯️ 23:28, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

It seems to be someone pretending to be Brendanconway (and not the first time this has happened)... Number 57 23:29, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

I am somewhat at a loss for how this could be made more clear. It's obvious that this person got rolled by an impersonator, but...

Brendan's userpage has not one, not two, but three gigantic red notices with huge warning icons in them saying in paragraphs of bold text e.g. "I don't do paid editing or offer assistance when articles are up for deletion at AFD". Like what the hell additional measures could we possibly take? jp×g🗯️ 23:38, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

If they still haven't worked out that his name is Brendan and not Brenda, then... I like the idea of being a "Senior Administrator" though. How does one attain that rank? Number 57 23:42, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

I think you have to undergo a boss battle against Bishzilla. And win.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 23:45, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

In order to become a "senior adminstrator", you need to pass an RfA and you need to live long enough to become a senior citizen. Age 65 should do it. I did both. Cullen328 (talk) 01:29, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

I have semi'ed the article to allow the AfD to run to closure. There was no issue with your restoration of the tag @ThaddeusSholto Star Mississippi 00:49, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

IP is still going [8]. Daniel (talk) 07:39, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

I'd suggest if they trot out that email again, to whack them for a little while. At this point it's verging on harassment of Brendanconway, and it needs to stop one way or another. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{Source assessment notes} 08:08, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

I have replied to them on ThaddeusSholto's and their own talk pages. It was very difficult to stay on the right side of WP:NPA. If I have strayed too far then I apologise, and please delete my comments. As Jéské Couriano says this needs to stop one way or another, and if any disruption continues then the only way I can see is with a block. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:51, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Honestly given the context I don’t think you’ve crossed the line, given the repeated refusal/inability of the IP to get the point. Padgriffin ^{Griffin's Nest} 20:45, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

I have no objection to someone taking action against the IP. I went with the semi route to allow the AfD to function figuring a p-block would just lead to IP hopping. Feel free to adjust however anyone sees fit. Star Mississippi 15:05, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Is there actually any evidence that this IP is in any way connected with Tite? It looks more like trolling to me. AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:07, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Hard evidence? No. But in this edit the IP talks about the article "preserving my legacy for future generations" so he implicitly claims to be Tite. We would have to take the IPs word for it. ThaddeusSholto (talk) 16:03, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

I mean, the IP geolocates to the same city that Tite's Facebook says he now lives in (found through the YouTube account that some old revisions linked videos from). Said page also contains a link to the Wikipedia page itself, so Tite's aware it exists at least. – 2804:F14:8085:6F01:A532:9DD:B729:1A30 (talk) 12:33, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

If the IP is not Tite then it is all the more important that this stop. Potential employers are likely to assume that it is. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:18, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Echo1Charlie

Echo1Charlie (talk · contribs) was recently blocked from edit warring [[9]] one of thier first acts was to go back and do it again [[10]] when told that 3RR is not an upper limit, that they are still edit warring their response was this [[11]], I then told then I was not going to report them as [[12]] they replied with a clear threat they might edit war [[13]]. In addition, they are edit warring elsewhere as well [[14]] [[15]] adding a (what looks to me at any rate) to be a non sequitur rebutal.

This seems to be a case of (in this topic area) to be wp:Not behavior. No attempt to get consensus and a clear statement they do not care if they do not, they will revert anyway. Slatersteven (talk) 17:27, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

@Slatersteven: am I missing something, or what was your reason for removing the edit I made on 2019 Balakot airstrike article which you undid? As far as I remember, it had inline citations including Reuters, but you still removed it with an edit summary which I couldn't understand (I'm not a native speaker). I wish to know the reason before being banned from this platform. Echo1Charlie (talk) 17:43, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

It's Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss, not Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, revert, revert. Once someone reverts your edit, you are invited to discuss the reasons for keeping it on the talk page, instead of reverting it back — even if you believe you are obviously in the right! If your edit is well-cited (Reuters is indeed a reliable source) and there still isn't consensus on the talk page, you are invited to ask on Wikipedia:Third opinion to have someone else uninvolved in the edit war take a look at it. Happy editing, ChaotıċEnby(talk · contribs) 19:10, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

You seem to have started it with this, you are arguing with Reuters I think. Secretlondon (talk) 17:53, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

No, I was saying that Pakistan can't block satellite imagery, thus this does not dispute the claim that " Open source satellite imagery has revealed that no targets of consequence were hit", So it seemed to address a claim, we did not make (we do not mention Reuters). Nor does this excuse or explain the threat to edit war if they think they are right. Slatersteven (talk) 17:57, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Yes, it still seems unreasonable to me. What I was trying to add was right. They prevented Reuters and other journals and closed the site for 47 days. But it was removed with an edit summary (which I understand now reading his other comment here) that Pakistan can't block satellite. Let's assume they can't. But what does it have to do here @Slatersteven:? They blocked journalists, right? They closed the site for 1 and half months, right? @Slatersteven: With that edit you made removing the content, I felt I was being targeted. If I was knowingly vandalising that article as some Indians and Pakistanis occasionally do, I wouldn't have felt bad. But this! Echo1Charlie (talk) 18:25, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

This is why you should have taken it to talk and not reverted if you did not understand my reason. Slatersteven (talk) 17:57, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

@Slatersteven: You're confusing here. The consensus needed content is in 2019 Jammu and Kashmir airstrikes, where I didn't make any edit after being blocked. Because I know its futile, on one side its that Pakistani admin who would never allow something against their army and you with wiki policy just like Thor with his hammer and on the other side me, with my broken English, little knowledge about wiki policies and a bunch of sources. What I can do? Nothing! It's much like the wind trying to move a paper with a paperweight!

But you removed my cited content on Balakot airstrike article saying that Pakistan can not block satellite, so I shouldn't add that they blocked Reuters?? Echo1Charlie (talk) 18:37, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

on one side its that Pakistani admin who would never allow something against their army

Right, that's a personal attack. Given the history, I'd say a TBAN from Pakistan/India is the least we should do here. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:46, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

At this point, I wish to extend that proposed ban to a lifetime ban.

PS: Don't take this as a personal attack or mocking. I'm simple done! That's it. Echo1Charlie (talk) 18:58, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Echo1Charlie, your English is certainly good enough for you to understand me when I say that, when an edit is disputed, you should discuss it on the talk page rather than reinstate it. This applies whether the edit is correct or incorrect. No "Pakistani admin" controls everything that goes into this encyclopedia. Of course, if you really want to be banned for life, you can simply stop editing. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:24, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

You are seriously asking for a lifetime ban, because you might get banned from editing this topic area? Slatersteven (talk) 11:34, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

[[16]] , this was after your block expired (and was the first edit you made after it expired [[17]], it was then reverted by me [[18]]. The other issue is separate. We are discussing two incidents. Slatersteven (talk) 11:16, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

As to the PA, I am neither an admin nor Pakistani. Slatersteven (talk) 11:21, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

User: Ratnahastin | Talk Page spam

Repeat spamming of 'Talk' pages, of editors with differing point of view. This may have threatening effect, on editors who are relatively new with no familiarity with regards to what is indeed 'a real concern' versus 'a harmless notice'.

Two long notices left on my Talk page on 6th of Jan 2024, with no specific reference to an Edit I made.

On 10th Jan, I responded to both the notices, asking for context and why they are leaving the notice only on my Talk page among many editors of overlapping topic(s). Also left a notice on their Talk page requesting not to repeat this and to be specific/meaningful in the notes they leave on others' Talk pages.

Not only did they remove/archive the notice I left on their Talk page within a day, with no response whatsoever, they also left a new notice with long verbiage on my Talk page on 11th Jan, while still not fully responding to questions I asked about their previous notices.

Note that the editor didn't follow through with similar due diligence for editors who share their POV and involved in editing of the same topic (Shambuka) in same time-frame. One example is ArvindPalaskar who made many edits and got banned for 2 weeks on 12th of Jan 2024. Interestingly, the same ArvindPalaskar, supported the case of Ratnahastin to remove the topic-ban on Ratnahastin on 'caste related articles' in Dec 2023.

I'm afraid the edits made by Ratnahastin 1 to the Shambuka story, and their stalling attempts 1 2 in RfC on the topic's Talk page or Admin noticeboard initiated by Redtigerxyz and Carleas, may go against the very confession they made in their topic ban appeal ("I will avoid making any edits that might be deemed promoting a POV. If I get reverted, I will seek consensus on the talk page and refrain from edit warring . I will not accuse or cast aspersions against any fellow editor. I will maintain civility and take additional time to seek the consensus."). Phule lulu (talk) 20:20, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Hello! I realize that these long messages might look threatening for new or unfamiliar editors. To be clear, they are not warnings and do not imply any concern about your editing, and the messages even say on the first line It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date. (emphasis not mine). These notices are usual for people starting to edit contentious topics, as these topic carry more restrictions on editing due to their nature.

I see that both you and ArvindPalaskar had already got such messages in 2020, maybe Ratnahastin saw the previous notice on Arvind's page but not on yours?

(Also please warn other editors when you open a discussion on ANI. Not against you specifically but please there's a big red warning telling to do it.) ChaotıċEnby(talk · contribs) 20:31, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Sorry there has been a delay in posting the warning on Talk page, as I was trying to understand how the template works and putting the links together. Phule lulu (talk) 20:40, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

No worries, thank a lot! ChaotıċEnby(talk · contribs) 20:41, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

"maybe Ratnahastin saw the previous notice on Arvind's page but not on yours?" - That line of thinking doesn't sit well with me when they are specifically targeting an editor with differing point of view while conveniently overlooking the editor with same point of view (and with a history of support-vote in the past, to lift a topic ban). Is there a good faith when there is no personalised context in the notice? Neither was it provided when I specifically asked for it. Phule lulu (talk) 21:45, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

They responded twice to your questions on your talk page, when you specifically asked for context, a fact that you left out. And that's despite you calling it copy-paste of random verbiage in your question. You were the one who didn't assume good faith to begin with. ChaotıċEnby(talk · contribs) 22:41, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

As for the other point I highlighted in the ANI, that Ratnahastin made repeat edits/reverts on a caste-related topic, Shambuka, after making a confession "If I get reverted, I will seek consensus on the talk page and refrain from edit warring" just a month ago, amounts to violation of their confession. Wouldn't it merit a discussion on revisit of topic ban, and enforcing it again? Thank you for your inputs thus far. Phule lulu (talk) 21:50, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Ip range 2601:3C2:8281:5C90:0:0:0:0/64

Can an admin add 2024 Arizona Wildcats football team to the block list for this IP range please due to the same behavior that to the other blocks which is IP address hopping and long-term edit warring. This person keeps adding a section for "coaching staff additions" when this is already covered in "coaching staff changes" section and each time it's under a new IP address in that range.--Rockchalk717 21:54, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

 Done Mackensen (talk) 14:09, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

@Mackensen: Awesome. Thank you so much, I appreciate it!--Rockchalk717 18:04, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

WP:NOTHERE behavior by Melroross/Melrorross on Flamenco page

User:Melroross has continuously and chronically shown disruptive editing behavior on the Flamenco page. He constantly edit wars the article to remove any reference of Romani people, going against the consensus that was established on the talk page through extensive discussion, including with administrators[19] (see ‘Consensus paragraph in lede’). Melroross refuses to use the talk page to seek a new consensus and just continues to edit war the article by deleting well-sourced information that they don’t personally agree with[20][21] (btw using a second account User:Melrorross to avoid edit warring consequences), adding disruptive citation needed tags on sourced content[22], replacing well sourced content from actual historiography with fringe undergraduate theses[23] and even going so far as to erase part of a quote in a citation from a well respected scholarly source because he did not agree with it[24]. I tried starting a talk page conversation myself and was only met with aspersions cast on me and unwillingness to discuss sources and reach consensus.

• I won't entertain this kind of narrative whereby Flamenco is attributed to the Roma people- which it isn't. It is Southern Spanish and I shall, with more time and passing this sort of watchdog censorship.. This was the first response I got when I started the discussion in the talk page. This demonstrates a clear unwillingness for discussion and analysis is sourced and instead just plain pov-pushing and detailing his plan of slowly edit warring the article for the past year without discussion, which he has done.

• sound very desperate to try and impose YOUR tunnel-vision viewpoints. Research and researchers can manipulate the truth if looking for or trying to discard specific data… Again more aspersions cast on me and clear soapbox mentality which preferences his own POV over academic sources which are “manipulated.”

This has been going on for over a year now, with this user switching between his two accounts and edit warring the page, despite me constantly asking and pleading with him to use the talk page in the discussion I already started. He instead accuses me of vandalism for my edits [25] and despite my numerous requests to him to use the talk page and discuss the sources, continues to do as he pleases. This is clear disruptive editing, Melroross changes sources to fit his own POV, erases sourced consensus content multiple times to replace it with fringe content without discussion, and admits himself that he will continue to do so until mentions of Romani people in the art forms origination are gone because to him that is ‘hearsay’ and my ‘deluded fantasy’[26], this POV-pushing and aspersions casted on me most stop, he is not here to improve the Flamenco page. TagaworShah (talk) 22:37, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

I'm not too well-versed to comment on the edit war part but the sockpuppetry alone is a pretty bad offense. No, you don't get to use two accounts to pull this stuff. ChaotıċEnby(talk · contribs) 23:37, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

I also don't have the time to delve into the long and complex history of this issue, but can't help wondering why the origin can't be both Roma and Southern Spanish. Are Roma people living in Spain not Spanish? Phil Bridger (talk) 09:09, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

It can be and that’s the way it’s reflected in most reliable sources, there’s been long discussions on this topic on the talk page but i’m not going to go into it now because this is more about an editor’s behavior and not a content dispute. TagaworShah (talk) 14:11, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Serial reverter, not communicating

• OllieE2b (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Sprout editing history

Encountered this yesterday when fixing infobox parameters. They're hellbent on restoring this article, despite apparent past discussions to merge the defunct channel into the current Universal Kids. This user does not communicate, no talk page contribs, no response to numerous warnings. Zaathras (talk) 22:56, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Additionally, this user has a very similar editing history to 168.220.175.223, a blocked IP. ~ Eejit43 (talk) 23:17, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

I am going to indefinitely block as WP:DE and WP:CIR EvergreenFir (talk) 01:19, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Their commons behavior concurs with these observations. DMacks (talk) 09:29, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Persistent incorrect SYNTH

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

User continues to add WP:OR and incorrect or POV WP:SYNTH to articles with a focus primarily on Nigerian rap artists. User was briefly blocked several days ago for the same issue. -- MacAddct1984 ^{(talk | contribs)} 00:05, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Reverted them earlier for adding uncited material. It seems they've done it again at M.I Abaga after three (!!) final warnings, but were reverted by an IP editor. Schrödinger's jellyfish ✉ 02:05, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

I noticed them on my watchlist. I've gone and indefblocked them as an unresponsive user. Maybe there's a reason they're trying to make so many edits, but if so it's probably not a good one ... Graham87 (talk) 04:14, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Discussion on user's peculiar editing

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

@ IP editor:

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

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

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

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

All of these seem to me like they could have sources or could be plausible. I was even able to find sources for the first two claims. It took three minutes: [27] [28]. Ideally, I'd ask that you make the effort to prove or disprove, instead of remove, the claims you doubt, providing adequate edit summaries. If not that, then at least tag claims with {{citation needed}}, as others have suggested. – Primium (talk) 18:58, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

Addition of unsourced content by IP

The IP 82.18.231.228 has been adding unsourced content about Islamic people to articles about European countries, often overinflating numbers about Islamic people or changing country names despite being warned. See [29], [30], [31], [32]. — MATRIX! (a good person!)_{[citation unneeded]} 16:04, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Blocked at AIV. — MATRIX! (a good person!)_{[citation unneeded]} 17:23, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

User:Filedelinkerbot is malfunctioning

Hi, I visited the Sylvia Lefkovitz page last night to cross reference a date on a photo for an ongoing archival project I am working on and noticed that all the photos had been removed by a bot last November, and the self-portrait I took of the artist’s painting was removed in January of this year. All the photos that were on that page had permission to be there. What photos I didn’t take myself, I got permission from galleries and the Lefkovitz family. I’m not at all sure why they were removed as they were all properly attributed. Why did this happen, and how can they be restored? Thanks, Michelle — Preceding unsigned comment added by MichelleMacNeill (talk • contribs) 18:37, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

 Courtesy link: Sylvia Lefkovitz

"Had permission to be there" is the reason. Commons does not accept fair-use images, and the lot of them were deleted off Commons for that reason. We emphatically do not seek or accept permission for images; they need to be either public domain (on Commons), under a valid copyleft licence (on Commons) or have a valid fair-use claim (on Wikipedia) for us to use them. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{Source assessment notes} 18:45, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Note that filedelinkerbot is functioning perfectly: the files were deleted from Commons, and so the bot removed the broken links from the article. If the files were deleted in error that would be a Commons issue, but the deletion seems to be correct to me. If the Lefkowitz estate really intend to freely-license images of Lefkowitz's work, I believe they will need to go through the process at Commons:COM:VRT. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 19:56, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

The estate could also make a website, publish images there, and clearly mark them there with a Commons-acceptable license. Some people do that. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:59, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Fwiw, I uploaded a non-free WP:LEADIMAGE. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:21, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Pepper-0

Pepper-0 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user has edited sporadically for many years. Recently they posted a comment on the merits of white supremacy ([33]). Last year, they scare-quoted the word "child" when referring to Emmett Till ([34]). Much earlier, they drafted some Chris Chan–related nonsense in now deleted sandbox draft (User:Pepper-0/sandbox). I think their way of occasionally popping in to say something hateful is disruptive. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 20:51, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

So two arguably racist edits over the course of years? Check roger, Boss I'll do better in the future. Pepper-0 (talk) 21:25, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

There is really no room for "arguably" here. This comment is as straightforwardly white-supremacist as it is possible to be. Generalrelative (talk) 21:33, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Blocked indef per WP:HID. Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 21:37, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

I endorse the block and would like to add a couple of notes. First, the use of the word "arguably", besides being incorrect, is legalistic and hardly an apology. Second, "the course of years" is misleading as, however, many years it's been since the user first started editing, they've only made 40 edits during those years. Finally, the "check roger, Boss" stuff is flip, again indicating they take no responsibility for their remarks.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:43, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Competence in the English language.

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

Back in November last year, I attempted to discuss issues concerning extensive editing to the article Effects of pornography on young people with user:The Other Karma, the contributor responsible. There were several problems apparent, but perhaps the most serious one was that material was being added which was only marginally comprehensible, or worse. During the initial discussion, [35] another contributor, User:tgeorgescu also raised concerns about the wording, while also noting issues with sourcing, questioning whether the edits were properly supported by the sources cited. Having seen he Other Karma using the phrase I'll purpose less misunderstandable claim at a later time in response to these concerns, I then offered the opinion that The Other Karma lacked the necessary skills in the English language to be able to usefully edit the article, and that it was unrealistic to expect other contributors to have to go through the sort of convoluted dialog we were faced with on the talk page when trying to discuss problems. Given that this seemed to be getting nowhere, I decided to leave the matter for others to deal with, since I was in no mood to engage in endless rounds of miscommunication.

As should be readily apparent from the article talk page, the issues with he Other Karma's poor grasp of English have continued, and meanwhile, further edits have led to the article including such gems as Protecting the youth from fornicating content in Austria goes back to the 17th century..., while attempts to discuss whether the material included is appropriate (e.g. a huge section on 'History of the public debate in Austria'), and whether it has been properly sourced and/or translated have again become bogged down through inadequate communication. Despite these concerns and similar being raised by multiple contributors (myself, User:tgeorgescu, User:Arjayay, User:Mathglot), The Other Karma chose today to nominate the article for Good Article status. [36] As should be obvious to anyone reading Wikipedia:Good article criteria, this proposal would appear to be doomed from the start. If The Other Karma has read the criteria concerned, they surely haven't understood them.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

User: Materie34 disruptive edits on psychiatric medications

Hello, upon editing the article for Psychiatric medications i noticed this inappropriate excerpt added by this user,

One aspect of psychiatric science is in much but not all cases to work exclusively with just the psyche, somehow then when it comes to the psychiatrist he then works mostly on a pharmacological basis. In public view these psychiatrists face many stereotypes, for example the cliche of a doctor randomly giving different medications a bit like "Russian roulette" combined with the stereotype of overshoot the patient making him nearly retarded. For many people psychiatric science is difficult to conceive without relying on arguments they see. Second, it is at first generally difficult to get familiar with very much information centered around substances. First, where arguments like retarding are, at least, in schizophrenics are simply wrong, as they improve cognitive functioning significantly, also with the substance case, even with maybe thinking that the classical main ideas are simple it must considered to provide a professional setting to the substance, from which the patient profits, there has to be much well thought context.

they had been blocked/left notices on their talk page previously multiple times and received a one week ban, but have resumed making disruptive edits to pages about psychiatric medications and subjects this month, and continued to disruptively edit an article they had previously been left a message about. Thank you

Sydpresscott (talk) 01:15, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Note that the hyphens do not appear to be part of the original edit (not that it makes it any more comprehensible). There's definitely a WP:CIR issue here, and their persistent attempts at including blatant OR, personal anecdotes and borderline incomprehensible ramblings lead me to believe that they've ran out of their WP:ROPE. Padgriffin ^{Griffin's Nest} 01:54, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! Apologies for that, when i copied and pasted it automatically added those for some reason, seems like they have been indefinitely blocked. Sydpresscott (talk) 23:10, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

User: Pierrevang3 naming of an area dispute on various articles. Talk page going nowhere.

Please read the talk page of Trà Vinh province. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.43.160.10 (talk) 02:00, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

As discussed in the talk page[37]

User Pierrevang3 decides to add in a random name that is unfounded and using an arbitrary number of the population to enforce said name onto articles.

User Pierrevang3 is adding in unfounded names onto Vietnamese articles such as Trà Vinh province Special:Diff/1192555158 Special:Diff/1192684551, Trà Vinh Special:Diff/1192554934 Special:Diff/1197478991, Sóc Trăng province Special:Diff/1192553623 Special:Diff/1192685228, Sóc Trăng Special:Diff/1192553247 Special:Diff/1197479458

Please advise on what to do and further elaborate wikipedia's policy on this, since talk page couldn't come to a resolution. Thanks. 1.43.160.10 (talk) 02:47, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

This concerns Pierrevang3 (talk · contribs) and a disagreement regarding whether Khmer names should be added to Vietnamese articles. Has there been some kind of central discussion (perhaps an WP:RFC) on this? That is what WP:DR leads to. Johnuniq (talk) 04:52, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

One of the examples above is diff. That added {{lang-km}} and {{lang}} templates after the Vietnamese title for Trà Vinh province. I suspect that such additions are against guidelines but the only firm statement I can find is "Do not include foreign equivalents in the text of the lead sentence for alternative names or for particularly lengthy names" at MOS:LEADLANG. I seem to recall a big discussion about this in the last few months. Johnuniq (talk) 05:39, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the guide. I just opened an RFC.[38] 1.43.160.10 (talk) 08:06, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

It should be more generic than just for that one article. I was hoping that someone here would say more about my above MOS:LEADLANG comment. @Kwamikagami: Do you know whether the diff I mentioned above is permitted or disallowed by a guideline/discussion? Johnuniq (talk) 09:50, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Trà Vinh is 30% Cambodian. IMO it's reasonable to include the Khmea name, just as New Mexico has the name in Spanish and Hawaii has the name in Hawaiian. (But then, I know Cambodians who live in that area.) A language or two shouldn't overly clutter the lead. If it gets to be too much, it can be moved to a footnote, as we often do for Chinese place names where the transcriptions start getting long and involved.

LEADLANG does say 'one' language, but that's a guideline. When an area is bilingual/binational, I think it's only fair to include both.

I don't know about a big discussion a few months ago, but there was one for India a few years back. There the situation got so ridiculous that we banned using Indian languages alltogether. But that's an exception; I can't imagine Vietnam getting to be like that. — kwami (talk) 10:05, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

That depends if the name is legit. The khmer name is not even established enough to even be listed. New Mexico and Hawaii have a history documenting their names in the past. The khmer name does not. It seems like a random word that popped out of nowhere, and is actually based on Trà Vinh province and not the other way around. Trà Vinh is already an established name recorded in historical Vietnamese records and in French documents, which does not seem to be the case for the khmer name.[39]. You also need to list out what number is the threshold enough to warrant such an inclusion. 1.43.160.10 (talk) 10:20, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

It is not about including a foreign name for the region but rather mentioning a local name (the Khmers are a local population), all the more so when it refers and is used by a 30% of the population that is indigenous. Vietnam is a multi-ethnic country and the Khmer are part of the 54 ethnic groups recognized by Vietnam, obscuring their presence is pointless, they are an integral part of Vietnam. Putting the local name in the local language won't give the territory back to Cambodia, it is just highly relevant considering the huge Khmer population in the city (whether who between the Vietnamese or Khmer name came first is not the point, there wasn’t an etymology section added, the Khmer name gives 57,000 results on google so its use is pretty attested). Tra Vinh and Soc Trang have both a huge Khmer population and a 1000-year old Khmer heritage, which make it legitimate to mention the Khmer name. In opposition, it is pointless to mention the Khmer name of Ho Chi Minh City for example (despite the fact that the city was part of Cambodia for centuries) as there aren't a significant Khmer population there. The same thing goes for all of southern Vietnam, which was centuries ago part of Cambodia, putting a Khmer name for the region would just be sheer irredentism. Putting the Khmer name is only relevant in Soc Trang and Tra Vinh and I can't see why the topic should be sensitive as both articles already mention the significant Khmer population and multiple images in the articles show Khmer pagodas. Here is a non exhaustive list of places with alternative local names:

St Ives, Cornwall in England - Cornish heritage.

Biarritz in France - Basque and Occitan heritage.

Gungnae, Wunü Shan, Yanji in China - Korean heritage.

Hohhot in China - Mongolian heritage.

Stung Treng City in Cambodia - Laotian heritage.

Nantes in France - Breton heritage.

Juneau, Alaska in the United States - Tlingit heritage.

Marrakesh in Maroc - Berber heritage.

Brno in Czechia - German heritage.

Pierrevang3 (talk) 12:21, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

To sum up the advancement of the issue:

- The claims put forward by Special:Contributions/1.43.160.10 about the supposed randomness of the Khmer name have been cleared (cf [40] or [41])

- The claims put forward by Special:Contributions/1.43.160.10 about the supposed randomness of the percentage of the Khmer population in the region have been cleared (cf )

- There has been precedents on wikipedia of including the local name without the need of an explicit "threshold" concerning the percentage of local speakers; good faith and common sense are more than enough to see the relevance of representing 30% of the population. (cf St Ives, Cornwall, Biarritz,Gungnae, Wunü Shan, Yanji, Hohhot, Stung Treng City, Nantes, Juneau, Alaska, Marrakesh, Brno)

- The mention of the name does not clutter the lead sentence, all the more so with the Vietnamese name not being in parentheses as it uses the latin alphabet.

Therefore why would one want to hide the Khmer name of the region that is being used by 30% of the population? Doesn't it improve the clarity about the context and bring more informations about the article which is the very aim of wikipedia? Pierrevang3 (talk) 00:04, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Nothing's been cleared off. You still don't understand and this is the 4th time I had to repeat. Why is 30% the threshold for inclusion of ethnic minority names, that's fhe arbitrary number you randomly threw out and followed through with it yourself. A majority of the ethnic Khmer barely speak and understand Khmer anyway since the common language is Vietnamese. 1.43.160.10 (talk) 02:15, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Let's ask the question the other way around, why are you opposing the inclusion of 30% of the population when it doesn't seem to bother you with Hawai and New Mexico? What threshold was used in Hawai and New Mexico that made you complacent?

Things have been cleared out, you need to acknowledge what was provided by other contributors, if you don't want to believe the reliable sources @Phil Bridger provided then it's on you, but don't bring your agenda onto wikipedia.

On what sources do you base your claim "ethnic Khmer barely speak and understand Khmer anyway"? This is an "arbitrary" opinion and you can't bring that on wikipedia. Wikipedia need sources and reliable references not personal opinions and nationalistic agenda. Pierrevang3 (talk) 16:20, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

The Khmer name of the province can easily be sourced (take your pick of reliable sources from [42] or [43]), so the only question is whether it should be included. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:45, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

I don't understand why it shouldn't be included. I mean why opposing the adding of an information that sheds light on the topic. The more informations the better, all the more so when the additional information does not make anything overcrowded. That's literally improving the article, why wanting to hide the Khmer name when it's used by 30% of the population of the province? That's counter-intuitive. Pierrevang3 (talk) 19:17, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Even for Saigon, assuming the name is well-established in Khmer, the Khmer name is of historical importance. — kwami (talk) 19:20, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

It is indeed but I think putting it in the lead would be a bit misleading considering the overwhelming majority of Vietnamese speakers in the city. Mentioning it in the history or etymology section though would be relevant indeed and I think it's already the case. Pierrevang3 (talk) 19:25, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

There's been a discussion on that many, many years ago. Some Vietnamese articles in the past like Phú Quốc and Ho Chi Minh city were vandalised with khmer names in the lead and in its table, with a khmer centric view. There's a reason why it's not there anymore. Just going in their talk page archives gives an insight to the madness those past edit conflicts were to the point an editor had to make Names of Ho Chi Minh City. 1.43.160.10 (talk) 01:52, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

The matter concerns Soc Trang and Tra Vinh, stay focused, don't go down on whataboutism. Pierrevang3 (talk) 16:30, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Do we call cities - villages of what they were called 1000 years ago? Explain the historical importance. 1.43.160.10 (talk) 02:03, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

So 3 pages worth of books and its only used as a reference. It's strange how most results are only from the 2000s, considering khmers believe it has 1000 years of khmer heritage. Googling its actual khmer name gives no academic resources. So can we just call any state in the world its ethnic minority language? An example would be when when Melbourne's Chinese population gains dominance in academic spaces and a shift in the language and local dynamics change to the Chinese one. The Chinese name of Melbourne will become legitimate and must be used in all types of mediums and outlets. USA and Europe has a bunch of ethnic minorities and is set to increase. Should we call their states in their ethnic minorities' local language? 1.43.160.10 (talk) 01:45, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

And if you only list preah trapeang the results are less than 10. OP included Vietnamese lexicon Trà Vinh. 1.43.160.10 (talk) 04:35, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

That's unrelated, Khmer people have been in the region before Vietnamese people, that's not recent immigration. If you don't believe that then it's on you, but you can bring your beliefs on wikipedia, there's plenty of sources proving this point, again read Nam tiến, Mekong Delta, History of Vietnam. We are not here to provide you your education and if you refuse to face the truth, then refuse it on your own but don't block the building process of wikipedia.

Again what don't you understand in the fact that no etymology section was added? The point is that this name is used by Khmer people, nobody wrote an etymology section.

@Johnuniq@Kwamikagami@Phil Bridger Can you please advise on the matter, his claims were cleared but he is just refusing the truth and the process. Pierrevang3 (talk) 16:28, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

References

Constant SOAPBOXing, POV additions, adding own blog content by SquirrelHill1971

• SquirrelHill1971 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Virtually every contribution by them is WP:SOAPBOX and ends up being reverted, including their talk page contributions which are largely linking to unreliable sources and then suggesting they need reflected in the article. Their recent contributions to Diversity, equity, and inclusion were deleted as copyright breaches, but according to their talk page comment it was actually them copying text from their own partisan blog without attributing it. They seem clearly WP:NOTHERE. JaggedHamster (talk) 09:14, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

• In the long list of things Wikipedia needs less of, fans of the Oath Keepers who read The Blaze ([44]) is pretty high on my personal list. Do we offer remedial courses in sourcing? Guy (help! - typo?) 10:50, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

  User:Meters gave them an NPOV warning last month, and User:Sangdeboeuf gave them some CT alerts this month. Doug Weller talk 12:15, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

  I am not a "fan" of the Oath Keepers. I do read the Blaze. I also read Huffington Post, the Nation, and the Atlantic. I like to read a diversity of viewpoints from all across the political spectrum. I self identify as a libertarian, but I am quite happy to read all points of view. SquirrelHill1971 (talk) 17:09, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

There was no copyright breach. I wrote the content for my blog, and then I later added it to wikipedia. Please note that "Squirrel Hill" appears on the blog and in my wikipedia user name. SquirrelHill1971 (talk) 17:02, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

I will go along with whatever the talk page consensus for those articles says. SquirrelHill1971 (talk) 17:01, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

I added that content based on Wikipedia:Be bold. I am happy to read the feedback from those of you who disagree with my additions. SquirrelHill1971 (talk) 17:11, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

I've blocked this account as an obvious sock of User:Grundle2600. Prolog (talk) 18:12, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

RudolfoMD

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

RudolfoMD is a relatively inexperienced user (<1000 edits since their first here in April 2023) who appears to be on something of a crusade. Since an early trip to ANI in August last, he has complained at BLPN that we reflect the consensus view of the Burzynski Clinic (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ([45]), tried to delete {{User rouge admin}}, accused Valjean (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) of deceptive editing, and me of copyright violation, vandalism introducing deliberate factual errors and personal attacks, but, rather more to the point, changed "Although these studies often report remissions, other investigators have not been successful in duplicating these results" to "These studies often report remissions", based on a source that says "No randomized controlled trials examining the use of antineoplastons in patients with cancer have been reported in the literature. Existing published data have taken the form of case reports or series, phase I clinical trials, and phase II clinical trials, conducted mainly by the developer of the therapy and his associates. While these publications have reported successful remissions with the use of antineoplastons, other investigators have been unable to duplicate these results and suggest that interpreting effects of antineoplaston treatment in patients with recurrent gliomas may be confounded by pre-antineoplaston treatment and imaging artifacts. (emphasis added) ([46]), which appears to be an unambiguous violation of WP:NPOV on an article subject to intermittent astroturfing for decades.

Taken as a piece with edits like "Fauci used taxpayer money to finance a Chinese laboratory where [SARS-CoV-2 was [perhaps] developed is NOT "a baseless conspiracy theory" per reliable sources these days"], and his failure to understand what deleted contributions are, rather silly revert warring over fixing an unsigned comment, plus possible stalking of another user to other articles ([47]), I wonder if this user might be better keeping away from fringe theories, at least, until they have more experience editing. Guy (help! - typo?) 10:35, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

• For me the most worrying edit is this[48] where they declared with a "LOL" that they were going to add some Burzynski "advertorial" to our Brainstem glioma article, and then duly followed through, linking to a totally unsuitable source with the completely made up claim that there has only been one case of long-term survival for children with the this cancer.[49] Not quite sure what's going on with this account, but it's not good. There is also a strong whiff of sock. Bon courage (talk) 11:17, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

• Granted I don't know my antineoplastons from my elbow, but this looks like straightforward WP:NOTHERE. I'm willing to give it some time for the user to respond, however. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 17:58, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
  • LMAO! Antineoplastons are made from piss. Yes, Burzynski figured out how to make money from pee. Not sure if this is related to urolagnia or not. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 18:44, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
• I thought the writing was on the wall enough already to justify an alt-med or pseudoscience topic ban, but the MfD puts it over the top with WP:NOTHERE battleground behavior. When I see someone going out of their way to pursue editors like that, it's time for something WP:PREVENTATIVE beyond a warning when it's clear they haven't been taking warnings about their behavior seriously so far. I'd say an indef is likely, but at least cut the disruption with a topic ban through CT if nothing else. KoA (talk) 02:57, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Obi2canibe - Refusal to communicate and continuing insertion of problematic claims with references that fail to support them

Obi2canibe (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - (Diff of notification: Special:Diff/1197947592)

Obi2canibe has, since at least March 2023, been adding claims both unsupported by references and at least WP:FRINGE-adjacent (I'll refrain from litigating the content issue here, but the reliable scholarship I've overviewed either fails to support or directly contradicts the claims) into Finnish Civil War-related bios. Example diffs of removals, as additions are in page creations: diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff. These claims are consistently cited to references that fail to verify them, with some of these references are also unreliable as master's theses (See WP:SCHOLARSHIP).

Ignoring these content issues, I find their complete failure to communicate troubling: I've brought these issues to their attention on their talk page both in July 2023 and December 2023 and most recently two days ago. Despite the numerous talk page messages, they haven't acknowledged the issues in any way and continue insert the unsupported claims into the articles they create to this day, invluding just hours after I last messaged them on their talk page (insertions at diff and diff).

I'm largely at a loss in terms of what to do here: taking the issue to somewhere like WP:FTN seems pointless given the complete lack of communication, but neither does it seem reasonable to just have the same pattern continue. -Ljleppan (talk) 14:59, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Obi2canibe is very senior editor and has a good record of communication and has been editing since 2008.The issue in Finish articles is a content issue.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 15:25, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

They might have a good record of communication in general, but in this matter I haven't been able to get them to communicate at all. Please let me know if I've overlooked some communication/discussion method I should have attempted before taking the issue here. Ljleppan (talk) 15:38, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Suhaib-Mahdi1

Suhaib-Mahdi1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user vandalized a lot of pages.[50][51][52][53][54][55][56][57][58] Hajoon0102 💬 16:31, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Also, SuperMarioMan and I warned Suhaib-Mahdi1.[59][60][61] But, the user removed warning discussions. Hajoon0102 💬 16:35, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Blocked, returning vandal editing on a soft-blocked range. --Versageek 18:46, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

User:Alkherly1993

User:Alkherly1993 has created a series of BLPs with promotional tone, and after much discussion with them at their user talk, declared a COI for one of the bios: [62], and ceased editing that article (Sule Abdulaziz). But COI declaration so far has only been for that one, and the unsourced, promotional additions have continued at other bios, notably at Hussaini Ishaq Magaji. Repeated reverts, cleanups of promotional text at that article, and the many warnings at their talk page have been mostly ignored: [63]. Now the've undone the latest reversion of an unsourced section there an hour ago, following a level 4 warning: [64]. Wikishovel (talk) 18:21, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

• There's a lot of promotional bios there [65]. I've just AFD'd one, but I suspect an indef for undeclared paid editing wouldn't be controversial here. Black Kite (talk) 19:39, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

  It doesn't even seem like UPE, their user page outright says that they're a paid editor. I deleted a few as attack pages. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 02:46, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

• I've indeffed as NOTHERE. The history at Hussaini Ishaq Magaji was enough for me - slow edit warring to repeatedly insert the same unsourced, promotional guff into a BLP, after numerous requests that they desist. Girth Summit _(blether) 20:16, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

User:51.253.41.12 - almost entirely disruptive edits

Nearly every edit from 51.253.41.12 (talk · contribs) has been an unnecessary or disruptive change. Basically every change they've made has been reverted--Special:Contributions/51.253.41.12--and they've not responded on User_talk:51.253.41.12. They've even tried to blank the warnings on their talk page. - Parejkoj (talk) 19:42, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

I haven't looked in to the other edits, but I would point out that removing edits from one's own talk page is perfectly legitimate. Maybe it would be a good idea if someone talked to this editor as a human being, rather than continually sending templates? Phil Bridger (talk) 20:14, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

I've now looked at the other edits, and tend to agree with the OP that this editor is disruptive. There doesn't seem to be any redeeming feature that would lead us to talk to them as a human being as I suggested earlier. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:03, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

I see two possibly related rangeblocks in the logs: 51.253.0.0/17 for three months in 2020 and 51.253.0.0/18 for six months in 2022. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:43, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

IP Address issue

I'm OK on English Wikipedia (so far). And I only use my account name. But I just got messages on Commons, Wikisource and Wikidata: "Your IP address is in a range that has been blocked on all Wikimedia Foundation wikis." What's going on? Hope I can log in to English Wikipedia tomorrow. This is strange. I left a message on Village Pump about this. — Maile (talk) 02:29, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

This has been handled at VPT. Johnuniq (talk) 04:18, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

User TheCherryPanda engaging in Pov push

User TheCherryPanda is engaging in constant pov pushes in article Biryani. He is pushing his 'muslim origin of biriyani' saying it has reached from the talk , but realit is opposite. From the talk discussions editors has rejected the claim that 'biriyani originated from muslims'. Please see the archieved talk here : [66]

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

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

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

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

It has been discussed from 2016.

please see this discussions also :

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

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

Biryani_and_Muslims - talk

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

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

No one in the past agrees to it.

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

Again he made these vandal edits[67] now, which i removed. Afv12e (talk) 16:38, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

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

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

It was a removal of sourced content, so restored.

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

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

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

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

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

LingoSouthAsia

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

I'll make it short and concise;

User has been long term edit warring and pov pushing (more info on WP:AN/3 [68] and [69]) at Saraiki language, trying their best to hide the word "Lahnda" (literally the name of an article) and replace it with the name they prefer ("Western Punjabi Language variety" or something similar) while still keeping the link.

They are basically trying every trick in their sleeve to have their way, even previously lying that they received "consensus" (as seen in the WP:AN/3 report) from two users who literally opposed them. Now their one-week block has expired, and they're still trying to have their way [70], resorting to personal attacks [71], WP:CANVASSING [72] (where they are randomly claiming I am anti-Pakistani.. wut), and WP:HOUNDING [73] (I've already told them twice to leave my talk page alone twice before that, where they had also attacked me [74] [75]). They were even initially suspected of being a sock due to sharing the same disruptive edits as this one [76]. --HistoryofIran (talk) 14:20, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Mario98632

Mario98632 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The user (coming from Wikipedia in Spanish) comes to vandalize, trying to cover it up by "acting" as a reverter. I don't know where to file the corresponding complaint, that's why I'm doing it here. The user said in one of his summary that he was coming here so he could continue with his thing. Fact: The user wanted to delete the complaints that I made previously.--FosforitoFernandez2001 (talk) 14:30, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

@FosforitoFernandez2001 blocked at es/wiki, last edit hear reverted a blocked editor but changed what should have been a plural to singular. Reverted here but reinstated. Doug Weller talk 14:56, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

you did not alert the user, so I did. Babysharkboss2!! ^{(Hells Bells (Talk Page btw))} 15:11, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Repeated additions of unsourced content to WP:BLP articles

Editor User:PJTikalsky seems to like adding unsourced content to WP:BLP article(s). Can somebody have a look. This is the third time I would have warned him. I'm sick to death of it. No communication. scope_creep^Talk 16:08, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

They don't seem to have discovered their own talk page. I've p-blocked from Paul J. Tikalsky; if that doesn't work, ping me. Valereee (talk) 16:41, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks Valereee. Drmies (talk) 16:50, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks Valereee. Drmies. Prompt action. scope_creep^Talk 17:40, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Vandalism in country/state/geographical area

SkibidiToilet303 has been quietly introducing deliberately incorrect geographical area data and occasionally accompanying those edits with false references. See my reverts [77], [78], [79], [80], along with reverts by Gadfium [81] [82]. I've just warned the user for the first time, but unless I'm missing something, I'm thinking it's worth an indef block for WP:NOTHERE point #6.

I'd have brought this to AIV, but it seems more useful to have a more accessible record of the issue in case anyone has seen similar vandalism. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 18:21, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

I don't quite agree. I think this user may simply be making mistakes. And he's not always wrong. Wizmut (talk) 18:52, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

CU-confirmed with Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/RussianFanboy2010; I'm doing the paperwork. Thanks Ed--hope you're doing well. Drmies (talk) 18:52, 23 January 2024 (UTC)