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

Competence is required

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

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

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

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

Dustfreeworld said there was speculation/wrong information, but they have offered nothing to question the reports. Allegations of Rockowitz cheating on Lee and their marriage problem were covered before [6] [7], so they are not breaking news, only Lee's death was. If the problem was sourcing, the same or similar English and non-English sources are used to support their own edits about Lee [8]. Their justifications are all contradictory, but I suppose I can try discussing with them one time. Vacosea (talk) 16:51, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I must say I’m really surprised to see this discussion about me.

• 18:58, 12 September 2023 User:Vacosea made this edit:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Coco_Lee&diff=prev&oldid=1175089915

They misinterpreted the source as “Lee and her husband moved out of their previous home” (in the source it said Lee moved out of their previous home).

So I added the “Cite check” template to call for source verification:

• 22:52, 12 September 2023

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1175121745

My edit summary: Added { {Cite check} } tag. The page now reads: “Lee and her husband had been separated for more than two years before she died . . . In early 2023, Lee and her husband moved out of their previous home”? And the source cited mentioned nothing about “early 2023”. I think there maybe more. . . WP:GROWNUPS

What I mean is, if they had separated in 2021, how can THEY moved out of their previous home together in 2023? It’s simply wrong, and the wrong information was added by User:Vacosea.

After that edit of mine, User:Vacosea posted the “verification” they mentioned above to the article talk page and also edited the article and added a parameter (talk=September 2023 verification) to the Cite check template

Cite check|date=September 2023|talk=September 2023 verification

And then, they edited the article again to removed the wrong information they added, per what I had pointed out:

• https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1175233034
  • From: In early 2023, Lee and her husband moved out of their previous home.
  • To: In early 2023, Lee reportedly moved out of her previous home.

In short, they KNEW they were wrong on that, had corrected it and had posted a “verification” on talk (that post is somewhat redundant IMHO, but now I know how it can be used). I didn’t reply to that post because the article had been corrected already, and I wanted to save face for them (FYI the latter adjustment on times cheated and separation time is basically another issue). NOW I know I was wrong. I never anticipated that it will turn into an accusation of ME being incompetent. They knew they had put in wrong information to the article and they knew why the template was added but still make such false and misleading accusations (that I didn’t engage on talk and show “incompetence”). I suspect there maybe behavioural issues. --Dustfreeworld (talk) 18:37, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

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

Those who are interested in Coco Lee’s marriage and what problematic content User:Vacosea had added may visit the talk page. I have posted some old evidence that support those. If you want the latest BREAKING news, 20 September 2023 (no, not old news), here you are:

• https://www.thestandard.com.hk/section-news/section/11/256329/Husband's-'affair'-triggered-Coco's-downward-spiral
  • “The couple started to live separately on October 15, 2022” - you said they had separated for 2 years?
  • “A month after Lee filed the divorce application Rockowitz issued a response through his lawyer admitting his affair in 2017, but not the continuation of the affair his wife mentioned.” - He only admitted having cheated on Lee once.”

I’m very doubtful about their saying that “The vast majority of my edits were accurate”, respectfully.

From my understanding, for BLP, wrong or doubtful content must be removed as soon as possible. I SHOULD HAVE removed them and posted warnings on their user’s talk page much earlier. --Dustfreeworld (talk) 20:45, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

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

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Vacosea&diff=prev&oldid=1158777818
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Vacosea&diff=prev&oldid=1165129803

• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive353#Suspicious_edits

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Vacosea&diff=prev&oldid=1176765896

I’m not familiar with the procedure, but a ban maybe needed. --Dustfreeworld (talk) 21:01, 27 September 2023 (UTC)--Dustfreeworld (talk) 06:38, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

Vast majority does not mean one or two disputes. If Dustfreeworld wants to engage in good faith discussion [13], they should not have waited until ANI while reverting away in the mean time [14][15], or highlighted their source here without mentioning 6 other sources against them on the article's talk page all this time. Is it also good faith behavior for Dustfreeworld to omit information from my history in order to push for a ban? [16] User talk:Wpscatter#Korean cuisine [17] They have complained about verification, refused to look at verification, warned me about "references", even though the sources have been there all along, complained about me removing content, complained about my accuracy, when are they going to stop? Vacosea (talk) 21:54, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

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

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

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

No. We can do that without using legally-charged words. BLP covers it sufficiently, we do not need to use "defamation" / "libel". — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:11, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

“A discussion as to whether material is libelousis not a legal threat. Wikipedia's policy on defamation is to delete libelous material as soon as it is identified.” WP:NLT --Dustfreeworld (talk) 17:21, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

It seems that you are trying to make use of the “Goebbels effect” (or “big lie technique”), in the hope that “Repeat a lie often enough and it becomes the truth”. But experiments tell us that it won’t,

• ″For statements that were actually fact or fiction, known or unknown, repetition made them all seem more believable … the biggest influence on whether a statement was judged to be true was... whether it actually was true. The repetition effect couldn’t mask the truth. With or without repetition, people were still more likely to believe the actual facts as opposed to the lies″.
  • https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20161026-how-liars-create-the-illusion-of-truth

--Dustfreeworld (talk) 04:40, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

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

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

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

Thanks for the explanation Boynamedsue. No, it’s not a comparison of any party to anyone, definitely not. The term . . . Effect just come up in a webpage and it sounds like a professional psychological term to me so I used it. I’m just describing a psychological phenomenon. No offence indeed. --Dustfreeworld (talk) 16:11, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Repost just to add highlight:

From my understanding, for BLP, wrong or doubtful content must be removed as soon as possible. I SHOULD HAVE removed them and posted warnings on their user’s talk page much earlier

(add: and I believe no consensus on talk is required before the deletion as it’s contentious topic) --Dustfreeworld (talk) 15:34, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Repost just to add highlight:

I didn’t reply to that post because the article had been corrected already, and I wanted to save face for them (FYI the latter adjustment on times cheated and separation time is basically another issue) --Dustfreeworld (talk) 15:26, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

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

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

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

What I see is you keep linking to the BLP board.

No it’s not canvassing. It’s an attempt to let the other user know that, it’s possible that what they had suspected two months ago maybe true. As for your translations, I still find them suspicious after a second look. And I hope you are happy with your excessive linking. If all those continual false accusations against me can make your day, you can keep on, I’m fine with that. :) --Dustfreeworld (talk) 06:09, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Making accusations against another editor, which you have done again, requires evidence. Your personal attack [35] on the BLP board should be mentioned here at ANI, but you should not have brought this ANI to the BLP board [36]. Your edit summary was also inaccurate [37]. Those edits were unrelated to this, and when you attempted to raise suspicion about my translation, you did not comprehend the source material fully. Vacosea (talk) 16:02, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

References

COI editor Arbomhard

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The comments don't appear to be a direct response to this ANI.

I could have misread

You have also quoted out of context.

but the discussion that was under was only ever quoted by me here, other than that I never quoted it. Did I misread a post-ANI comment about a thread a week ago? Sincere question, I don't want to accidentally be creating drama out of the ether here if I misread something.

Arbomhard is leaning hard on claiming Warrenmck is not an "expert," which makes me wonder if Armobhard might be in a WP:EXPERT conflict.

I've genuinely tried avoiding this specific discussion with him, which is why I haven't responded to it at any point. I don't want to get into a discussion of credentials on Wikipedia. Let me just leave it at "I generally disagree with his statements on this" and that I've been working carefully to build consensus where possible and cite my claims carefully instead. I think it's perhaps a bit risky to consider a page about a fringe theory a WP:EXPERT conflict, however. At least when considering the full context. Warrenmck (talk) 20:46, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Unfortunately, discussion at Talk:Allan R. Bomhard seems to be going downhill. The fact that Arbomhard goes back and forth between using their account and (apparently) using various IPs makes things a bit confusing (here the IP wisely removes a poorly-thought-out attack posted by the account, but less egregious attacks and IDHT behavior are continuing). 57.140.16.56 (talk) 18:53, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I am close to giving up on getting a useful response from Arbomhard there. What I would like: published sources for additional biographical details and an acknowledgement that published criticism of his work is legitimate content for an article largely centered on his work. What I am getting instead: walls of text and unusable links, offers to send primary documents privately but not to make them public, pointers to self-authored potted biographies in his works that appear to be carefully phrased to imply more than is actually the case (that is, not credible as self-published sources), and demands that all of the material on his work be moved to our articles on Nostratic (where it is fringe content and overdetailed). —David Eppstein (talk) 01:42, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

David: i use a software package (VPN) called Private Internet access that randomizes my IP addresses. Allan Arbomhard (talk) 19:30, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Proposal 1: Three-Part Caution

I have read the discourse on the article talk page and the other discussions, and think that a caution to User:Arbomhard is in order for several interrelated reasons:

• 1. Arbomhard is being rude and overbearing in asserting his own expert status on the subject of Nostratic languages against User:Warrenmck.
• 2. While Arbomhard is an expert on Nostratic languages, mainstream historical linguistics considers the Nostratic hypothesis to be a fringe theory that should be described in detail in Wikipedia as a fringe theory.
• 3. Arbomhard, like any active academic, has a conflict of interest in promoting his own scholarship and hypotheses.

For these reasons, User:Arbomhard should be formally cautioned.

• Support as proposer. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:01, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

I think it's worth pointing out that the behaviour that caused this ANI has been ongoing since the ANI was opened, even with me intentionally not engaging with any of the talk page drama. At the slight risk of WP:BLUDGEON, I'm not sure how a formal caution helps when this is clearly a single purpose self promotion account that refuses to engage in good faith and opens multiple noticeboard posts over a specific issue while refusing to engage with anyone. Right now his presence in various talk pages has wholly derailed the good faith attempts to clean up those articles and he's so avoidant of engaging in good faith that we can't actually make any progress, even when we're trying to work with him. It's very clear that @Arbomhard is attempting to skip consensus to get his preferred version of the article, and his preferred version is very weasel-y, with his insistence on certain statements about his status as a linguist or academic while refusing to provide sources for the meaning of that status (i.e., "retired linguist" or listing where his degrees were obtained but not what qualifications were obtained, something he has explicitly stated he won't provide information for in a verifiable way while still wanting mentioned). I think he's attempting to use Wikipedia to sanitize his own academic reputation as well of that of his theory, rather than anything even resembling building an encyclopedia. Warrenmck (talk) 19:33, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for the diffs, User:Warrenmck. User:Arbomhard - Editing your biography while logged out appears to be trying to conceal your conflict of interest. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:42, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

I'd say that escalates things into deserving a pageblock from his article, and potentially from Nostratic languages. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:21, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

I agree with User:HandThatFeeds, but it is probably also necessary to semi-protect the pages in question against logged-out edits. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:03, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

I'd actually suggest against that. If Arbomhard is pageblocked, then edits while logged out, that's effectively socking around a block & can result in a siteblock. Then semi-protection can be added to prevent further abuse. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 13:32, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

That seems reasonable. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:04, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

• Support P-block per THTFY. A caution might suffice if there was a single issue, but a cocktail of COI, LOUT and BLUDGEON demands something further. Basically, continuing the behaviour that takes one to ANI while one is at ANI demonstrates either incredibly poor judgment or a complete disregard for community behavioral expectations. Serial 18:10, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
• Support P-block per Serial and Warren - I agree that the only purpose of the account has been promotional, while their disruptive behaviour has been continious. Though Arbomhards apology is respected, I'm having a hard time seeing how a page block wouldn't be needed here. NotAGenious (talk) 13:29, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
• I am inclined to close this discussion as passing the proposed caution, but have first sought input from the editors at WP:FRINGEN who have dealt with this subject within the past few months. BD2412 T 17:58, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

  It doesn't look like the proposed caution has as much support following continued poor behaviour post-ANI? Again, I'm cautious of trying to avoid bludgeoning the process but given a single purpose account openly refusing to engage in good faith I'm not sure what the caution would achieve; Arbomhard's continued presence in those articles is providing very little of substance and is massively derailing efforts to improve them. While I understand the need to tread lightly when the subject of a BLP is involved, the behaviour in question seems systematic, egregious, and unchanging. They never even engaged with this ANI, though continued to engage in casting aspersions and personal attacks since it was posted. If it was a normal editor who had a stick in their craw about a very specific issue it'd seem sensible to me, but this account has one purpose and one purpose only as far as I and the other editor engaging him can tell at this point, which is to promote himself, his theory, and particularly himself as it pertains to that theory. (Also, you may have better luck seeking input from the Linguistics wikiproject, this one is a very niche topic and didn't get much traction at FTN when I brought it up there) Warrenmck (talk) 21:28, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Let me begin by offering sincerest apologies to Warren and David. I tend to call things as I see them -- not to be abrasive but to be as straightforward as possible. It was not my intention to be rude or disrespectful to either of you. However, it is and has been my on-going intention to express displeasure about the changes that had been made to my Wikipedia biographical entry and to press, as strongly as possible, for the restoration of an earlier version. That was the only Wikipedia entry I actually tried to edit, not the entry on Nostratic, though I did express my opinion on that entry. Trying to edit my own biographical entry was, indeed, a COI, but, in my own defense, I did not realize that I was violating Wikipedia policy at the time. I now know the rules a little better, and I should not have tried to edit the entry myself. And, yes, of course, I have a vested interest in seeing that both me and my work are portrayed fairly and accurately. That has been and remains my sole agenda. Thank you, at least, for allowing me to present my case. Allan R. Bomhard.— Preceding Arbomhard (talk) 04:43, 11 October 2023 (UTC)unsigned comment added by Arbomhard (talk • contribs) Arbomhard (talk) 16:02, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

• Considering the above response, I believe we can call the subject of this discussion appropriately admonished. As they appear to have recognized this, and the COI issues, this can now be closed. BD2412 T 19:09, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

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

Indian IP User: 49.37.249.99 has been consistently vandalizing articles.

User: 49.37.249.99 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:49.37.249.99) has been consistently vandalizing articles without reading the cited sources and presenting a collection of nonsensical and unfounded statements as legitimate edits. They tampered with the Toxic Cough Syrup article (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toxic_cough_syrup), which I subsequently corrected with the help of another editor. They also vandalized the Controversies section of the Zydus Lifesciences article (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zydus_Lifesciences#Controversies).

I reverted their malicious edits (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zydus_Lifesciences&action=history) on September 30, 2023, and advised them not to engage in such behavior on Wikipedia. Unfortunately, they have now returned, interspersing their malicious edits between a bunch of minor and nonsensical edits that they have concocted to mask their true intentions.

I take care to ensure that my contributions are supported by the cited sources, and this kind of malicious behavior is disturbing. I no longer have the time to fix their malicious edits, as it's become evident that their intention is to vandalize the Controversies section of the article. I hereby request admin to undo his edits and block his IP range.

(tl material... if someone is terribly interested...Lourdes)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Here are just a few of their malicious edits that I was able to quickly identify. The article cited is here, https://www.livemint.com/science/health/the-dangerous-failure-to-stop-tainted-remdesivir-11640197634967.html 1. I wrote, Zydus responded by saying they had not seen similar adverse reactions to their remdesivir elsewhere—a false statement. This is clearly supported by the source, as it says Cadila responded saying they had not seen similar adverse events elsewhere—an incorrect statement. 2. I wrote, Due to the lack of follow-up data from those who received Zydus' tainted remdesivir during the chaotic period of the COVID-19 pandemic, it may never be possible to determine the total death toll resulting from the use of Zydus' tainted Remdesivir. These stories played out in states all over India. This is also clearly supported by the source, as it says: 2a. Pal and his colleagues realized that some ingredient in this batch of the popular antiviral was triggering the reaction. But it was tough to say what. It was a chaotic period, Pal recalls. Hospital beds were full, and doctors had little time to investigate further. "Managing so many covid patients was already a challenge. So, when the drug-reaction occurred, all we could do was to report it and treat it." 2b But what happened in Jhansi was just the tip of the iceberg. Unknown to Pal, in May 2021, over a dozen hospitals across Uttar Pradesh, Rajasthan, Maharashtra, Gujarat and Bihar reported patients falling similarly sick after getting remdesivir. The batches and formulations overlapped, and the manufacturer was always Cadila.

Not everyone recovered from the seemingly-tainted drug. In 69 reports of adverse events from Uttar Pradesh that Mint reviewed, doctors recorded the death of one patient. This number is likely an underestimate, because the doctors filing these reports didn't always note whether the patient recovered fully from the symptoms. Turk185 (talk) 16:53, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

Turk185 You need to assume good faith with other editors. Saying such things as "interspersing their malicious edits between a bunch of minor and nonsensical edits that they have concocted to mask their true intentions," is not going to end well. Whatever this IP is doing, it's not vandalism. JML1148 ^{(talk | contribs)} 04:11, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

@Turk185: Regarding your examples above from the Zydus Lifesciences article, I'm pretty sure the IP was justified in making some of the changes they did. The second example is definitely WP:SYNTH, you interpreted "This number is likely an underestimate," as "it may never be possible to determine the total death toll". The first example is more marginal. Maybe they were concerned that saying it was a false statement would be editorialing? It would be good to hear the other side of the story. Anyway, I don't see any evidence that the IP has been editing disruptively. JML1148 ^{(talk | contribs)} 04:25, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

@JML1148: I am grateful for constructive edits to my articles, and I thank all such contributors. But malicious and disruptive edits are disturbing. The idea of spending time writing an article only to go through a reporting process that consumes much more time than the initial article writing doesn't make sense.

more tl material...Lourdes
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I'm familiar with how Indian companies manipulate Wikipedia entries to remove criticism in the guise of legitimate edits: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adani_Group#Manipulating_Wikipedia_entries. This person's first edits in the Zydus Lifesciences page with edit summaries like "rm BS unattributed claims..." completely butchered the Controversies section without even bothering to read the cited source. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zydus_Lifesciences&diff=1177914163&oldid=1177626250. This was not a constructive or factual edit, and it showed a lack of respect for other users. I only wrote this much here because the subject is related to medicine, specifically contaminated and adulterated medicine. This problem is widespread in this region and has a great impact on the health and well-being of people worldwide because Indian medicine is exported globally. Regardless of where you buy it, generic medicine is predominantly of Indian origin. I wouldn't care every much if the topic was about shoes. When people encounter tainted medicine, it's important to ACCURATELY record the incident. These pages may NOT be very popular, but they are essential. Given the billions of US$ at stake in global medicine sales, Indian companies have strong incentives to eliminate any criticism of them. Therefore, Wikipedia may or may not be the appropriate platform for recording such historical records. Assume Good Faith is a templated answer that's easy to drop after reading a few lines and without understanding the issue. It would be nice if a senior Wikipedia editor could kindly share their thoughts on this matter. Maybe I should have provided more examples to support my case, and maybe it's necessary to read the whole cited article to understand the malicious edit #2 that I outlined earlier. All of this is time-consuming; it took me a few days to compile this. It turns out that Brandolini's law is true. This person has never taken the time to research and write an article (new content); they haven't written anything longer than a few words (Their Toxic cough syrup edit https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Toxic_cough_syrup&diff=1178044776&oldid=1177727585 was the longest. It was messed up and had to be redone, and I'm unsure whether it belongs in that page because it's not about syrup containing toxic ingredients). From their edits in Zydus Lifesciences and Toxic Cough Syrup, it's obvious that they haven't even bothered to read the cited articles before making their edits. Their contributions are limited to minor edits, where they have consistently removed well-sourced content and replaced it with nonsensical information. I have provided seven examples of malicious edits below: 1. Zydus Lifesciences: (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zydus_Lifesciences&diff=prev&oldid=1177626250). They butchered the entire edit with a nasty comment. I undid this edit and warned them. 2. Zydus Lifesciences: (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zydus_Lifesciences&diff=prev&oldid=1178272575) They deleted something that is explicitly stated in the cited source. The source says, Cadila responded saying they had not seen similar adverse events elsewhere—an incorrect statement. (see malicious edit #1 that I described earlier) 3. Zydus Lifesciences: (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zydus_Lifesciences&diff=prev&oldid=1178272151). An Ahmedabad doctor stated that "in the confusion of the pandemic, it was hard to attribute the death to either underlying covid co-morbidities or to the medicine". Their edit is not a replacement for the death toll of the contaminated Remdesivir, which they deleted with a nonsense edit summary. It is explicitly stated in the article that the death toll of Zydus' conaminated Remdesivir is an underestimate because of the lack of follow-up data from those who received the tainted medicine during the chaotic period of the COVID-19 pandemic. (see malicious edit #2 that I described earlier) 4. Zydus Lifesciences: (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zydus_Lifesciences&diff=prev&oldid=1178273531). They removed an award for Cadila Pharmaceuticals as non-notable. The award has a Wikipedia Page: Welcome Trust. A simple Google provides multiple sources for the award, like this one: https://www.apnnews.com/cadila-pharmaceuticals-secures-wellcome-trust-award/. 5. Zydus Lifesciences: (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zydus_Lifesciences&diff=prev&oldid=1178273876). You can figure out that they made a bad edit here, and their edit summary is nonsense. Their other edits on the Zydus Lifesciences' page are similarly questionable, as they seem to disregard well-established and verifiable information. 6. Toxic Cough Syrup: (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Toxic_cough_syrup&diff=1178044776&oldid=1177727585). Their entire edit was messed up, as they didn't even bother to read the articles they cited. Part of their edit wasn't even related to Toxic Cough Syrups (they talked about contaminated heart medicine). I fixed it with the help of another editor—Most people can tell that this was not a good edit. 7. ETC: (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pakistan_at_the_2022_Asian_Games&diff=prev&oldid=1177153375). Most of this edit was good: The Pakistan Sports Board (PSB) confirmed that they are sending 222 athletes and 65 officials to the event. Unfortunately, the Pakistani gymnastics and baseball teams will not be able to participate in the tournament due to lack of funds which the sports board had refused to allocate. A simple Google search provides a source for the above information: https://www.bolnews.com/sports/2023/07/222-pakistani-athletes-set-to-compete-in-asian-games-2023/, but he removed the entire edit and the information about the athletes who will not be able to participate has been lost.

Turk185 (talk) 07:06, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

• Turk185, this is a content dispute. ANI is not for content disputes. Just for your benefit, I have gone through all the edits. It seems the IP has a better editorial understanding of how articles should be written than you (or I) have. Leave them alone, is the best advise I can give you, and let good editors like them do their work without editors like us getting in their way. Thanks, Lourdes 09:31, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

  Same. I didnt check every link, but from my cursory overview I dont see anything egregious enough to be sanctionable. @Turk185 in future, if you are filing an ANI report, instead of a long story style format, give a short summary of the other persons edits and why each one is a bad edit (remember, disagreeing on content is not sanctionable, but reckless disregard for policy is). Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 09:39, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

  Their edits look good superficially. I won't dispute content, as I've wasted enough time here. I explained why I did it. Peace. Turk185 (talk) 19:20, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Phallic Vandalism Network

I have noticed that several IP addresses and accounts that have been posting pornographic imagery mostly involving phalluses for the past few months appear to have characteristics that suggest that they are based in Sweden and are the same person (same nature of images and threats of police action to impose their edits). Is there a possible way to pinpoint the exact location and to determine how extensive is this possible sockpuppet network? Borgenland (talk) 12:25, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

Off-topic, wrong forum Dronebogus (talk) 19:00, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

i really wish we could find a quick and easy way to stop this. it's not fun to have to open every page with the screen facing away from others just because of the possibility of someone who thinks they are funny putting a phallus where it doesn't belong. DrowssapSMM (say hello) 13:51, 6 October 2023 (UTC) Part of it is the photos should be deleted at Commons, but that's fighting a losing battle. RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:52, 6 October 2023 (UTC) maybe group the ability to add photos to articles as part of the extended-confirmed ability bundle? that could provide a temporary solution until we identify the sockmaster (might be overkill though) DrowssapSMM (say hello) 13:55, 6 October 2023 (UTC) It would also be nice if the right to self-blank a user talk page is made stricter. A lot of these accounts try to hide traces of their activity by blanking their warnings and pretending to be innocuous users. Borgenland (talk) 15:58, 6 October 2023 (UTC) For this sort of vandalism, just ignore the talk page; porn vandals can be blocked without any warning. Go straight to WP:AIV. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 20:09, 6 October 2023 (UTC) @Borgenland I agree. You find someone's talk page that looks like it's never been edited but if you look at teh history it's full of warnings. That's ridiculous. Doug Weller talk 12:53, 7 October 2023 (UTC) I do wonder if we should implement a Commons whitelist, i.e. everything from Commons is disallowed unless added to a list here at enwiki. It certainly might make the people at Commons who clearly don't give a shit about being a porn repository think again. Black Kite (talk) 22:40, 6 October 2023 (UTC) i feel like that would work very well, good idea DrowssapSMM (say hello) 00:15, 7 October 2023 (UTC) Isn't there the Bad Image List? Or am I missing something? --RockstoneSend me a message! 01:48, 7 October 2023 (UTC) You are. The Bad Image List forbids a very very few bad images, that were identified after already having been abused. A MediaWiki:Good Image List would forbid every image except for a very very few pre-vetted images. It's not workable, which I'd hope would be obvious; but if anyone needs convincing, enwiki currently uses close to 7 million different files from Commons, out of close to a hundred million total. Besides, people would just switch to overwriting images already in use instead of uploading new filenames. —Cryptic 02:17, 7 October 2023 (UTC) GPT-4, which of these images is not like the others? Suffusion of Yellow (talk) Are were seriously incapable in 2023 of using AI to analyze an image of a dick and require someone have more than 3 edits before adding it to an article?--v/r - TP 05:28, 7 October 2023 (UTC) Fwiw, here's a human analysis of an image of a dick:[48]. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:26, 7 October 2023 (UTC) Very much not my field, but I'd guess that analyzing image contents - even if only done when uploaded or overwritten - would be too expensive. And while you'd think we'd be able to use the abuse filter to easily prevent adding images the same way we can with external links, but there's no provision for it. We can go through the motions of wishlisting either or both, I guess. —Cryptic 16:24, 7 October 2023 (UTC) Tracked in Phabricator Task T214201 MusikAnimal was working on this a while ago. The idea was to make a "NSFW score" available to AbuseFilter with each edit that adds an image. The resource requirements would, I imagine, depend of the size of model being used. If we have a mechanism to manually tag images like this as "not porn", it doesn't need to be totally accurate. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 22:21, 7 October 2023 (UTC) Some of the comments at that bug and the linked discussion at Commons are depressing. And entirely predictable. —Cryptic 22:46, 7 October 2023 (UTC) Image content analysis like this is one of the single things computers are worst at; there's even an XKCD about it. --172.59.229.109 (talk) 15:23, 9 October 2023 (UTC) Yes, I wasn't entirely serious; any such idea would have to implemented at Commons, which isn't going to happen before the heat death of the universe. Black Kite (talk) 09:15, 7 October 2023 (UTC) That would stop most images and make it the project very dull. Secretlondon (talk) 10:34, 7 October 2023 (UTC) Well, no, because any image that obviously wasn't disruptive would be added to the theoretical whitelist. However, as mentioned above, it isn't really feasible due to the scale that would be required. So we'll just have to cope with Commons porn for a while yet. Black Kite (talk) 13:15, 7 October 2023 (UTC) Commons is too busy fighting Jimbo over keeping illustrated child porn for that. RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:39, 7 October 2023 (UTC) I'm sorry, what — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 17:36, 7 October 2023 (UTC) I'm trying to find the link, was brought up sometime back, about this whole issue with porn pics being used for vandalism. Apparently they were fighting w/ Jimbo for keeping "lolicon" basically. RickinBaltimore (talk) 22:41, 7 October 2023 (UTC) For starters, that's from 2010... And while some people at Commons wanted to keep anything no matter how problematic, JW wanted to delete e.g. 19th c. art he found objectionable, all in response (IIRC) to some faux-outrage from US right wing media (Fox, I think it was). He literally called for " immediate deletion of all pornographic images." and tried to force it through with threats, which basically ended his reign as god-king. So this wasn't about child porn but much, much more. All ancient history and not the best episode from either side, but hardly relevant for the issue at hand. Fram (talk) 08:44, 9 October 2023 (UTC) Ah, fair enough. Jimbo always makes things worse. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 16:40, 10 October 2023 (UTC) I feel like it might be workable by using a combination of the above suggestions. Run a bot that determines all commons images currently linked at Wikipedia. Additionally, have a list of existing "high-risk" images that are currently linked at Wikipedia (ie. images used on intrinsically sexual articles that might be used for spam elsewhere.) The bot then prevents non-extended-confirmed users from adding images to articles that aren't on the "currently used" list, or which are on the "high-risk" list. This might sound slightly convoluted but it would cover most cases with comparatively little effort and wouldn't get in the way of normal editing. New users would still be able to add images in two ways (reusing an existing image, provided it's not on the "danger" list; or uploading an image to Wikipedia directly) and in truth that's probably the main way they add images anyway. Since it doesn't affect extended-confirmed users, images would also continuously be vetted and added to the whitelist from commons by extended-confirmed users linking them, without having to maintain a whitelist manually. All we would have to do (once the bot is set up) is maintain the "danger list", which wouldn't be that hard. --Aquillion (talk) 01:53, 8 October 2023 (UTC) An easy way to address this would be to require registration to edit. TarnishedPathtalk 02:42, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

This is an incredibly strange discussion I just stumbled upon. Besides the inherent weirdness of talking about AI dick analysis it sounds like a Village Pump proposal, and a bad one at that. There’s no magic bullet for vandalism, be it mandatory registration, whitelisting, blacklisting, deletion of offending images, restricting image use to extended confirmed users, or anything else. A combination of some of these options is useful but we can’t turn Wikipedia into a top-down authoritarian project over some 12-year-old putting penis.jpg on the first article he sees. Dronebogus (talk) 05:12, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, this is clearly off-topic for ANI. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:41, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

I’m not supposed to close any discussions, especially not involved ones, but since this looks to have run its course you could probably just mark it as “closed, off-topic/no relation to original subject” Dronebogus (talk) 18:59, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Irregardless I’ve taken the liberty of collapsing the irrelevant thread so it’s clear what this was actually about for archival purposes Dronebogus (talk) 19:02, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Nitishbgp NOTHERE, WP:OWN, WP:NPA, Edit warring

I was recently working on cleaning up Naugachhia as there were duplicate articles for the town spelled differently. As part of the merge, I also removed a large amount of original research which User:Nitishbgp has been edit warring to reinsert. If you look through the page's history, you'll see many cases of this user reinserting the same OR after it was removed. When I tried to bring it up with him on his talk page at User_talk:Nitishbgp, he wasn't very happy about it and didn't seem interested in talking about it either. Seems like a WP:NOTHERE block is in order. BrigadierG (talk) 14:53, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

• I've indeffed the user for disruptive editing and personal attacks. I almost reverted the last edit made by the user to the article it was so bad, but I guess someone else should probably do it. BTW, what is the correct spelling of the place?--Bbb23 (talk) 15:06, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

  It is Naugachhia. There was also an article spelled Naugachia (with one h) and I discovered the error while checking the 2011 Indian Census as a result of the latter article being nominated for deletion. My version of the article includes a citation to the 2011 Indian Census. Thank you for the swift action. BrigadierG (talk) 15:15, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

  (non-admin uninvolved comment) "chh" is such an odd-looking combination in English that it frequently gets misspelled. Chhattisgarh may be the commonest example. Narky Blert (talk) 17:55, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

GENDERID issue

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Burlakov case and Oleg Burlakov multiple rules violation

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lambshift

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

---

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

Couldn't make a SPI as the only thing I have are IPs.

A brand new user named Lambshift randomly wrote this bizarre allegation to me Take care of your baby that isn't yours..

This is the same type of random and rude allegations about my personal life that a person who uses IPs from Indonesia also made [49] [50] [51] (some deleted edit summaries here, dunno if you can see them [52] [53] [54] [55]). This is no doubt the same person.

--HistoryofIran (talk) 12:56, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

WP:NOTHERE Special:MobileDiff/1179805913 HistoryofIran (talk) 15:54, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

The connection between the IPs and the named user is a bit of a stretch. Now if the IPs edited the same articles, or the same topics, that might have more traction.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:04, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

• Indeffed. Clearly neither new nor here to build an encyclopedia.

Star Mississippi 17:13, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

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

Daily ArbPia disruptions by user Makeandtoss

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

---

User:Makeandtoss keeps causing havoc across the ArbPia area, despite numerous warnings. In the past two days alone, Makeandtoss has repeatedly violated the strict 1RR at 2023 Israel-Hamas war 13:13 October 12, 13:02 October 12, 13:07 October 11, 12:16 October 11, 11:42 October 11, 01:26 October 11. To make matters worse, much of this happened after Makeandtoss had already been warned by BilledMammal about their breaches of 1RR [56]. I recognize that Makeandtoss once did a self-revert, but that doesn't excuse the numerous violations. Another user, Merlinsorca has also tried to warn Makeandtoss about their problematic editing [57]. Despite this, Makeandtoss just keeps making problematic and provocative edits across sensitive ArbPia articles. Just now, they deleted well-sourced facts about multiple killings in the Kfar Aza massacre without any attempt at consensus 18:45 12 October. In the same edits, they also replaced the well-referenced statements about the killings with an irrelevant strawman argument that "Despite contradictory statements by the Israeli military regarding the “decapitation of 40 babies,” no independent confirmation exists." The article never made that claim, so the addition (which Makeandtoss inserted several times in different parts of the articles) is just a strawman effort to deflect from the issue. As Makeandtoss keep edit-warring, despite several warnings, and keep ignoring talk pages discussions, a temporary topic-ban from ArbPia articles until the situation becomes a bit less heated would seem in place. Jeppiz (talk) 17:42, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

@Jeppiz This would be better evaluated at WP:AE. Having said that, there are so many edits to that article that it's very difficult to tell what is a revert, what has previously been reverted, etc. A certain amount of disruption is inevitable until the article stabilises. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:51, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Agreed, but every diff I posted is a revert. In their comments to Makeandtoss, BilledMammal helpfully detailed each one. The Kfar Aza massacre article is much more stable, and the edits by Makeandtoss clearly very close to outright vandalism as they replace sourced facts with pointless strawman arguments, and copy-paste the exact same line into different sections of the article (which would be poor editing even regardless of content). Jeppiz (talk) 17:55, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

I have been editing ArbPia articles for about a decade now and my adherence to Wikipedia guidelines has spared me any blocks, so I can certainly not be described as causing "havoc", especially after having spent countless hours on improving the 2023 Israel–Hamas war. That article is having a lot of editing traffic, and its impossible, as pointed out by @HJ Mitchell above, to keep an accurate track of everything .

I am obviously aware of 1RR and have largely avoided it. The edits linked above that were believed to be edit warring are in fact new formulations not reverts and are a result of new consensus forming from discussions on my talk page with @BilledMammal @Merlinsorca and on 7 discussions that I initiated on the article talk page; in all cases any misunderstandings were cleared. As soon as I realized in one single case that a revert was not in place, I self-reverted, as mentioned in the filing above.

As for the "beheading 40 babies" rumor that was portrayed in Wikipedia voice on Kfar Aza massacre, I have simply inserted (once only) what was established by reliable sources: "He had not in fact seen any images or had independent confirmation of child beheadings" Sky News and "CNN also visited the ransacked ruins of Kfar Aza on Tuesday and saw no evidence of beheaded youths." CNN. The lede is a summary of the body so naturally the change will affect both; that is good editing not "outright vandalism".

The lack of assumption of good faith and the incendiary accusations leveled against me are unpleasant to say the least. Makeandtoss (talk) 18:39, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Makeandtoss First, you did insert the same claim twice. It's evident from the edit history so no point in saying otherwise [58]. Second, if a dubious claim is made, it's fine to question it. In this case, you introduced the claim about "beheading 40 babies" into the lede. As I (and others) have made clear on the page, the article should not say there were 40 beheaded babies. But introducing a weak claim just to argue against it is the very definition of a strawman argument. What purpose does that serve. The more serious question, though, is your tendency to just press ahead with own preferred versions at very sensitive articles rather than engage in the (ongoing and active) talk page discussions to try to achieve a consensus. If you feel that that is "unpleasant", well I'm sorry you feel that way, but I don't see anything in it what I wrote that is inaccurate. Jeppiz (talk) 18:50, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

@Jeppiz: Inserting the same claim twice in the lede and in the body isn't problematic, as the lede is a summary of the body.

I have always engaged in talk page discussions. In this instance I was not aware of a talk page discussion as I was not tagged in it and it was my first edit on that article.

Yes, "havoc", "outright vandalism" and "edit warring" are unpleasant and could have been avoided by a simple tag on the article talk page (Consider first discussing the issue on the user's talk page is mentioned above); instead of the unnecessarily charged atmosphere we now find ourselves in. Actually, I just checked the talk page and it is more about my editing and the noticeboard filing, which seems to be inappropriate Wikipedia:Canvassing. I will now self-revert until consensus is formed. Makeandtoss (talk) 19:07, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

You make a valid point. I do think your edit was problematic, and should have been discussed. It was against the background of previous complaint as well that I took it here. I might very well have overreacted, apologies for that. A long day and charged atmosphere, but you are right that a more low-key approach from me would have been better. I have struck my suggestion for a topic ban, and recommend that this thread be closed. Apologies again for the over-reaction. Jeppiz (talk) 19:20, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

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

IP rangeblock

Posting here as it's a bit complicated for AIV. This IP user has been making unconstructive edits to locomotive articles. They've been blocked on 221.153.58.187 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), 2001:2D8:E53B:73BF:0:0:182:C8EA (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), and 2001:2D8:E533:FC2E:0:0:2E6:C8EA (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Unfortunately, they seem to be on a dynamic IP and have continuing making these disruptive edits. I'm not sure which of the following ranges are best to minimize collateral damage. They've been active on both the /38 and /44 ranges today.

Extended content

Sorted 12 IPv6 addresses: 2001:2d8:e530:3b05::1c6:8ea 2001:2d8:e533:fc2e::2e6:c8ea 2001:2d8:e53b:1ead::16:88ea 2001:2d8:e53b:73bf::182:c8ea 2001:2d8:e713:408a::2a:8ea 2001:2d8:e713:6c74::cb:88ea 2001:2d8:e715:bf3::11d:8ea 2001:2d8:ef11:c47d::113:48ea 2001:2d8:ef1b:7529::b4:88ea 2001:2d8:ef1d:c099::49f:8ea 2001:2d8:ef1d:fa2e::b7:88ea 2001:2d8:ef1f:a134::42e:48ea Total affected Affected addresses Given addresses Range Contribs 256M /64 256M /64 12 2001:2d8:e000::/36 contribs 65M /64 64M /64 7 2001:2d8:e400::/38 contribs 1M /64 5 2001:2d8:ef10::/44 contribs 2M /64 1M /64 4 2001:2d8:e530::/44 contribs 512K /64 3 2001:2d8:e710::/45 contribs 1 /64 1 2001:2d8:ef11:c47d::/64 contribs 512K /64 4 2001:2d8:ef18::/45 contribs 560K /64 256K /64 2 2001:2d8:e530::/46 contribs 32768 /64 2 2001:2d8:e53b::/49 contribs 16384 /64 2 2001:2d8:e713:4000::/50 contribs 1 /64 1 2001:2d8:e715:bf3::/64 contribs 1 /64 1 2001:2d8:ef11:c47d::/64 contribs 1 /64 1 2001:2d8:ef1b:7529::/64 contribs 256K /64 3 2001:2d8:ef1c::/46 contribs 16K /64 1 /64 1 2001:2d8:e530:3b05::/64 contribs 1 /64 1 2001:2d8:e533:fc2e::/64 contribs 1 /64 1 2001:2d8:e53b:1ead::/64 contribs 1 /64 1 2001:2d8:e53b:73bf::/64 contribs 1 /64 1 2001:2d8:e713:408a::/64 contribs 1 /64 1 2001:2d8:e713:6c74::/64 contribs 1 /64 1 2001:2d8:e715:bf3::/64 contribs 1 /64 1 2001:2d8:ef11:c47d::/64 contribs 1 /64 1 2001:2d8:ef1b:7529::/64 contribs 16384 /64 2 2001:2d8:ef1d:c000::/50 contribs 1 /64 1 2001:2d8:ef1f:a134::/64 contribs 12 /64 1 /64 1 2001:2d8:e530:3b05::/64 contribs 1 /64 1 2001:2d8:e533:fc2e::/64 contribs 1 /64 1 2001:2d8:e53b:1ead::/64 contribs 1 /64 1 2001:2d8:e53b:73bf::/64 contribs 1 /64 1 2001:2d8:e713:408a::/64 contribs 1 /64 1 2001:2d8:e713:6c74::/64 contribs 1 /64 1 2001:2d8:e715:bf3::/64 contribs 1 /64 1 2001:2d8:ef11:c47d::/64 contribs 1 /64 1 2001:2d8:ef1b:7529::/64 contribs 1 /64 1 2001:2d8:ef1d:c099::/64 contribs 1 /64 1 2001:2d8:ef1d:fa2e::/64 contribs 1 /64 1 2001:2d8:ef1f:a134::/64 contribs

Courtesy ping @Daniel Case, Materialscientist, and ToBeFree: as previous blocking admins. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 18:22, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

I present exhibit A for the jury. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:06, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

IP threatening to dox editors after being ranged blocked

2604:3D09:1585:7300:643B:77:61A2:3605 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user created an attack page on the founder of Wikipedia, which was deleted as an attack page, then creates another page attacking editors (even though the IP is rangedblocked) for deleting the page and then threatens to dox editors. 24.211.70.219 (talk) 18:43, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

IP has been range blocked for 31 hours. It's your run of the mill vandalism to be honest, and better suited for WP:AIV. RickinBaltimore (talk) 18:48, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

The IP range got blocked for 3 months after I reported it the individual IP to the AIV, and then the IP creates the page attacking editors for deleting the initial page. I am reporting it to the ANI due to said IP not having been blocked from editing their talk page yet. 24.211.70.219 (talk) 18:54, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Ignore it. It's some schoolkid. It's not someone who will "Dox you and hack this website". Canterbury Tail talk 20:47, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Category:Indian inventions

Someone has for several months been adding this category to hundreds of articles, mostly as an IP:

• July: Special:Contributions/111.88.219.166, Special:Contributions/111.88.208.184, Special:Contributions/111.88.214.99, Special:Contributions/111.88.212.149
• August: Special:Contributions/111.88.215.48
• September: Special:Contributions/Kazme1, Special:Contributions/111.88.221.239, Special:Contributions/111.88.220.8
• Yesterday: Special:Contributions/111.88.214.130

(Not at all guaranteed comprehensive.) Occasionally some of these have been blocked (e.g. Special:Contributions/111.88.215.27 by Materialscientist) but it doesn't seem to have discouraged the activity. Is there any hope of a more effective solution? --JBL (talk) 22:01, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Some more that I missed above: Special:Contributions/111.88.213.103 and Special:Contributions/111.88.216.26 in July/August. --JBL (talk) 22:15, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Does anybody else remember the comedy set, shown on TV, where a male standup comedian of Indian extraction talks about the way his dad is always insisting any invention, or anything useful at all from the last 5000 years, that comes up in conversation, is an Indian invention? It was pretty funny, but I don't remember who the comedian was. Maybe it's his dad adding the category all over the place. (Careful of outing, Bishonen!) Bishonen | tålk 11:07, 13 October 2023 (UTC).

Mr "Everything Comes From India" in Goodness Gracious Me, played by Sanjeev Bhaskar? Narky Blert (talk) 13:36, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Goodness Gracious Me was a great show. I still love the Going Out for an English sketch. Canterbury Tail talk 14:03, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes, it was. I thought what I saw was something newer, though. Perhaps it's a bit of a meme. Bishonen | tålk 16:33, 13 October 2023 (UTC).

PS: All the IPs mentioned fall in the range 111.88.208.0/20, a smallish range from which I don't see any useful contributions. Ingenuity blocked the range for a month on 4 August, and I have now reblocked it for three months. Bishonen | tålk 11:33, 13 October 2023 (UTC).

Thank you! --JBL (talk) 21:19, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Nick Numbers and BITING the newbies.

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

---

Sadly, Nick Number has been Biting the newbies, like at this diff. Please do something about this. INeedOGVector (talk) 22:30, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

@INeedOGVector Any reason why you've made no other talk page edits to Nick Number's talk page than the required ANI notice? ANI is a last resort; conversing with the user about what exactly has been problematic with his behaviour is always preferable to opening a filing here. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). 22:35, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

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

Darker Dreams and Witchcraft

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

Edit warring on Witchcraft:

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

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

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

Edit warring on Witchcraft (disambiguation):

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

Edit warring on Witchcraft (sidebar):

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

They created three POV forks of Witchcraft:

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

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

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

Netherzone:

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

Thebiguglyalien:

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

CorbieVreccan summed it up at ArbCom:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Statement by Robert McClenon

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Proposal 1: Topic-Ban

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

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

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

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

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

Proposal 1A: Restated Topic-Ban

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

• support also this, for the reasons already discussed. FOARP (talk) 07:52, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose - see above Loki (talk) 02:19, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Bmchedlishvili

Bmchedlishvili (talk · contribs) has repeatedly removed sourced, verified content from Irakli Garibashvili without explanation. They have also repeatedly changed the lead image (without explanation) multiple times, despite there there being a discussion in progress on that topic. I have attempted to discuss the matter with them on their talk page; I have warned them multiple times that if they continue this behaviour they will end up here. I have discussed the issue on the talk page (see discussion), along with NobodyUser and Emperor of Emperors. However, many of their responses were accusations of bad faith on my part: and i asking again, whats your interest when you change our image? you trying to hart us hard, lets talk with mods! yes you really "care" and trying to add wrong information and bad picture for us That discussion did not prove fruitful, and they have continued their unexplained changes, neither leaving edit summaries or responding to my messages on their talk page, two of which offered technical help if they are having difficulties leaving edit summaries.

I don't want to be here. I want to sort this out on a talk page. But when a user completely ignores discussion, and continues their same edits with no explanation, and accuses me of attacking the article, something needs to be done.

Diffs of unexplained content removal:

• Special:Diff/1179934648

• Special:Diff/1179550630

• Special:Diff/1178469304

• Special:Diff/1177988023

• Special:Diff/1177605106

• Special:Diff/1177579425

• Special:Diff/1177579586

• Special:Diff/1177493224

Edward-Woodrow • talk 12:22, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Note: It appears the user may have a COI with the article subject, as they say on the talk page that they are deputy head of strategic communications department at Prime-Minister office Georgia, Edward-Woodrow • talk 12:26, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

I say yes that is a COI. This is work related editing. Secretlondon (talk) 12:29, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

I was just about to post that I'd dropped a message on their talk page about WP:COI because of the same statement. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 12:34, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I was going to do that a while ago, but I thought there was a specific template one should use, searched for the template, couldn't find it, got fed up, and then forgot about it. Edward-Woodrow • talk 19:45, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Twinkle has one. Secretlondon (talk) 12:01, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

...and Bmchedlishvili continues their slow edit war over the lead image, even though a discussion on the talk page is in progress exactly about that. Edward-Woodrow • talk 13:03, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Deceased admin?

See [59]. tgeorgescu (talk) 18:47, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Revdel request

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Refusal to engage with MOS and Wikipedia Guidelines by User:Island92

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Legal threats by Vicentemovil

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

---

@Vicentemovil: made the following legal threat in this edit:

You cannot dismiss any historian who refutes the black legend by labeling it as extreme right-wing Spanish nationalist (fascist). Be careful because these libels may be the subject of a criminal complaint.

I had never used the words "extreme" or "fascist", btw, only "right-wing Spanish nationalist".

Boynamedsue (talk) 20:35, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

• Indeffed.

Star Mississippi 21:14, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

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

Belteshazzar

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

---

• 138.219.250.5 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) is an obvious sockpuppet of WP:LTA/BTSZ. I did a SPI report at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Belteshazzar but it hasn't been picked up yet and he is popping back every few hours to try his luck again. Would anybody be so kind as to put an end to his reign of terror mild annoyance? Thanks. DanielRigal (talk) 00:28, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

  Blocked, and the SPI closed. Thanks for reporting. You can ping me in future SPI reports, if you'd like. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 00:59, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

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

Korean dinosaur IP back again

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

---

As discussed here back in 2021 Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1075#Korean_dinosaur_IP there is a range-hopping IP user from South Korea who since 2019 persistently makes unsourced changes to the taxoboxes of animal articles, typically dinosaurs, without ever explaining themselves, and edit wars when people object and revert them. In the 2021 discussion, it was agreed to block their addresses for 6 months. The most recent address I can find, from June this year 2001:2D8:6905:8572:5B0C:4670:4ABD:9C84 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), was blocked for six months by JBW. I've reported the current IP 2001:2D8:F0AA:C3F:0:0:99B0:5060 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) at AIV, but I've not gotten a response. Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:47, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Notice given (for what that's worth) [60]. Hemiauchenia (talk) 02:03, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

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

Persistent vandalism at Leonard Hofstadter

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

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

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

User:JAhf Reach Cabah – refspam-only account

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

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

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

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

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

Inexperienced(?) single-purpose redirect account User:Alpha200807

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

---

User has been creating or altering a large number of redirects; some have been useful, a large number have been pointless contrivances, and many have been actively harmful.

They've already been warned about this repeatedly on their talk page, but it hasn't stopped them.

I've reversed some, but with redirect-moving edits like this- which were made without discussion- it's not so simple for a non-admin like myself to do so.

Another example; I just noticed that in response to this reversion of pointless bloat, they converted that dab page to a redirect then opened an entry on Redirects for Discussion(?!)). (That change was subsequently reverted by another user).

Virtually everything this user has done since they started editing in August has been redirect-related. Either this is a single purpose alt account, or- as I suspect- they've jumped straight in without having any significant experience of editing WP or how it works.

I think it's clear at this point that they're causing more problems than they're solving.

Ubcule (talk) 12:04, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

• Indefinitely blocked. The number of warnings on their Talk page (without responses from the user) is staggering. The user is a time sink and detriment to the project.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:11, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

@Bbb23: Thank you! Yes, that's pretty much how I felt- any useful edits they were making were far outweighed by the work required to deal with their nonsense, and they were lucky not to have been banned already.

Thanks again, Ubcule (talk) 13:26, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

I've deleted most of the user's redirects. Nine are left which may be useful. Cabayi (talk) 11:13, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

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

Name disruption

Uzzwalkhanal (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) has been conducting mass name changes on several Nepalese articles (ex:[61]), redirecting substantial articles ([62], [63] and [64]) and has created duplications of these articles to match their spelling, all without any attempt at discussion. Their talk page is full of warnings from various users about this, yet they refuse to listen. I feel as though a block may be needed. 47.227.95.73 (talk) 12:30, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Drsmoo and WP:BATTLEGROUND behaviour

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Disruptive IP user

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

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

Reporting User:SPECIFICO relating to ARBPIA

User:SPECIFICO notified

I opened a Request for Comment on the talk page of the 2023 Israel-Hamas war, which was immediately removed by user SPECIFICO, falsely claiming that I did not make an effort to discuss the issue first on the article talk page. Then when confronted about this unjustified removal on his talk page, user then proceeded to remove and archive my message without responding.

Over a decade of editing in Wikipedia, I have never seen such counterconstructive, disrespectful and disruptive behavior, which is borderline vandalism, to be taken very seriously especially in articles relating to WP:ARBPIA. A look at user's block log reveals numerous topic bans; a lengthy one would seem very appropriate in this situation. Makeandtoss (talk) 14:10, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

In what world does an involved editor think they have the right to wipe away an RFC? nableezy - 14:13, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Seems to be in a world where the objection message to the removal of an RFC was also removed and ignored without response! Makeandtoss (talk) 14:14, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Ill also say that the importing of the RGW editing style of AP2 editors in to a heated ARBPIA article that otherwise seems to be fairly collegially edited has been between mildly annoying and blatantly disruptive. Things like IDHT and ignoring sources that are inconvenient with incoherent Wikipedia jargon pretending to be a sentence (eg "adjudications or factual conclusions with demonstrable mainstream consensus") is one of things that Id put closer to the blatantly disruptive end of the spectrum. nableezy - 14:18, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Also, I restored the RFC, and if SPECIFICO is of the opinion that she is the arbiter of who may participate and how on talk page then I invite them her to justify that here. nableezy - 14:34, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Either you or OP could simply have restored it at any time instead of using it as a spear here and on my talk page for your annoyance at my meagre efforts toward NPOV content and talk page discussion. Sorry to have reverted some of your edits yesterday. It happens to the best of us. SPECIFICO talk 14:45, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Your apology is insincere and therefore I do not accept it. You didn’t revert edits, you removed my talk page discussion section, which is outright vandalism, and then you did it again. There was no use in restoring and edit warring, and that’s why we are here. Makeandtoss (talk) 14:58, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Apology? I did not apologize. I addressed a different editor who may be aggrieved at having had an edit reverted, not to you. Your statement then you did it again. is false. SPECIFICO talk 15:06, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Great so you’ve ignored again. I’ll be leaving this to the admins to handle, nothing more to say. Makeandtoss (talk) 15:35, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

RGW in spades lol, Im not aggrieved and this is not a player vs player thing. Id like you to not waste so much time with incoherent nonsense and editing based on personal opinion rather than reliable sources, but its not really more than an annoyance right now anyway. It would be great if you were able to argue your position with sources rather than attempting to shut down discussions you are worried will not go your way. nableezy - 15:09, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

OK, point taken. You are annoyed but not aggrieved. For this, I apologize. SPECIFICO talk 16:28, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

@Makeandtoss: Could you explain this recent edit of yoursto the top of the article lead? Why does your edit summary state that there is no source to verify that Hamas is the governing authority of Gaza? Is this what you really believe, that there is no source? [65] SPECIFICO talk 15:14, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

@Makeandtoss: What is the RS that supports the article text you added in this diff to state that Israel "targeted civilians". You deleted text that described collateral civilian deaths. Please respond to these two requests. SPECIFICO talk 15:58, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

The SPECIFICO special, start trying to throw a pile of shit against the wall whenever somebody calls out your editing. Still waiting to see an explanation on why you removed an RFC that had multiple responses to it already. nableezy - 16:03, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

As you may not be aware, OP narrowly avoided sanctions in a complaint so recent that it hasn't even been archived from this page, in this section. I am giving OP a chance to explain themselves before considering whether to propose a boomerang here. SPECIFICO talk 16:12, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

I think that's more than enough back and forth between you two, @SPECIFICO and @Nableezy. Treat this like AE and address your comments to uninvolved admins. If you continue bickering amongst yourselves, there will be sanctions. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:44, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

HJ, Noted. I wouldn't even elevate it to the level of "bickering", but anyway my stated concern was with OP, whose history in this area needs to be examined. I will start a section below to remove the distraction of banter between me and nableezy. SPECIFICO talk 19:00, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Keep in mind that the talk page in question is an out of control disaster area replete with Godwin's law analogies. Well over 100 edits were oversighted last night and few editors even noticed. O3000, Ret. (talk) 15:12, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

I saw that ( Selfstudier (talk) 18:26, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

• I disagree with SPECIFICO's removal and think Makeandtoss's RfC was perfectly relevant, but I don't really think this rises to the level of needing action. Overall, I'd be very careful to remove RfCs that are not pointy or disruptive. This one was neither. Jeppiz (talk) 18:57, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
• The more I look at this, the more neither party comes out smelling of roses. Wiping away an RfC is not great, doing it again over the objection of another editor is disruptive and getting towards tendentious editing. The same goes for removing sourced or easily sourcable information with disingenuous edit summaries. Both have been playing the game long enough to know the rules. I feel sanctions are in order for both, but I'm torn between short blocks from the article (and its talk page) or longer-term topic bans. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:09, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

  HJ, what makes you think I "did it again?" SPECIFICO talk 19:25, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

  My apologies, SPECIFICO. I misread the sequence of events. I've struck that part of my comment. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:59, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

  I'm of a similar mind. I do wish that this had come to AE rather than ANI, though. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:33, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

  Same question for you, @ScottishFinnishRadish: - What makes you think I removed that RfC a second time as OP stated without evidence? SPECIFICO talk 19:38, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

  I don't see a second removal of the RFC. But I do see an out of process removal of an RFC in a contentious topic, battleground editing, incivility, and personal attacks. You have been warned and sanctioned for this behavior in the past. "Their editing was bad too," and "They could have just reverted my removal of the RFC," is not a defense that I find persuasive. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:46, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

  @ScottishFinnishRadish: You said yuo are of a similaar mind. The post to which you indented that similar mind stated Wiping away an RfC is not great, doing it again over the objection of another editor is disruptive and getting towards tendentious editing. SFR, you endorsed the ASPERSION made by OP and by @HJ Mitchell:. That is not acceptable behavior for any user here, and for two Admins it is highly problemmatic. Removing the RfC is rare, and is mild IAR out of process. I gave an explanation in my edit summary. That is the explanation I see most frequently when an editor removes a new RfC. The RfC is up again now. It is poorly defined, it will run for a month on an article the content and WP text of which is under constant flux and high frequency editing. I have engaged repeatedly on talk concerning related to the content, sourcing and NPOV issues surrounding the RfC. And of course your personal animus toward me, on and off-wiki is a matter of record. Very disappointing. SPECIFICO talk 20:04, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

  I've blocked SPECIFICO for two weeks for WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior and casting aspersions in this thread. This is not meant to stop any discussion on the other issues. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:15, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

  @HJ Mitchell: and @ScottishFinnishRadish: I feel there’s an unjustified equivalency here. Removing an RFC and removing a talk page message is something. And disagreeing over my edit summary is something entirely else.

  My edit summary was clear: “Hamas is a non-state actor, no reliable sources have used this phrasing to describe the group”. Most sources have described Hamas as a “ruling militant group” and not as a “de facto government of Palestine”. Either way this is something that is up to discussion, and certainly not a violation that deserves a ban of any sort, especially as I have made great efforts to reach consensus on my talk page and on the article talk page, initiating more than 7 discussions—I have not engaged in removal of talk page sections. Thank you for your being objective in this. Makeandtoss (talk) 19:45, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Conduct of Makeandtoss at Gaza War page

In case anyone wants to look at OP's conduct and consider a boomerang, I've collected what I know. I would suggest at a minimum, their participation on this article be confined to the talk page only. I'm not pinging the editors involved in the events listed below to avoid any appearance of canvassing. I don't expect to make any further comment here.

1. Removal of top paragraph lead text, claiming it is WP:OR. @Makeandtoss: Could you explain this recent edit of yours to the top of the article lead? Why does your edit summary state that there is no source to verify that Hamas is the governing authority of Gaza? Is this what you really believe, that there is no source? [66]
2. Addition of unsourced contentious content. @Makeandtoss: What is the RS that supports the article text you added in this diff to state that Israel "targeted civilians". You deleted text that described collateral civilian deaths, per sources.
3. Recent ANI thread in which OP pledged better behaviour, [in this section here]
4. 1RR issue at Gaza War here.
5. WP:BATTLEGROUND concern at Arbitration.
   SPECIFICO talk 19:25, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

The sentence says targeting civilian infrastructure, and the citation at the end of the sentence (this) says A World Health Organization spokesperson said it had reported 13 attacks on health facilities in the Gaza strip since the weekend and said that its medical supplies stored there had already been used up. That is not unsourced, and your representation of that edit is tendentious. nableezy - 19:50, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO would you file this at WP:AE please? ANI is not well-suited to evaluating conduct in contentious topics; AE has structured comments, word limits, and clear conduct rules. I promise you will not be sanctioned for forum shopping or similar. Of course, that's no guarantee that the complaint will be found actionable. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:06, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

@HJ Mitchell, just for information: it seems SPECIFICO was blocked for two weeks based on this discussion so won't be able to answer. Also probably means the discussion can be closed.Jeppiz (talk) 21:50, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Comment Such a surprising thread - SPECIFICO needed a break. Block is justified from what I see. Two weeks seems longer than needed based on WP:BLOCK but it is above my pay grade. Lightburst (talk) 23:44, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Based on SPECIFICO's behavioural history, 2 weeks is a kindness. Cjhard (talk) 02:55, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree. Far from finding this block excessive, it's probably time the community start to talk in broader terms about Specifico's approach to editing. This is an editor who contributes in the main almost exclusively in CTOP/GS areas and yet after all this time still cannot manage not to run afoul of basic conduct standards. It's not just a matter of the block log, but also the large number of times they have been brought here to ANI or AE on behavioural matters, sometimes resulting in logged editing restrictions.

Mind you, I've no personal beef with the user (actually I often find myself in agreement with their perspective on the underlying content issue), but I respond to a lot of RfCs through the random FRS system, and virtually every time I arrive at an AMPOL topic, if there has been a high level of disruption between two camps on a culture war issue, Specifico can pretty much be assumed to be in the mix: they are simply that prolific an editor in the western contemporary politics/media space, and also that consistently tending not to be able to recognize the line between energetic engagement and turning the talk page into a battleground. I actually think they harm the argument they are intending to support, often as not, through inflammatory rhetoric that tends to damage good faith consensus process and entrench positions.

Further, they never seem to take the community's concerns on board for long and tend to blame-shift whenever called out on having crossed behavioural or process lines (their response on their talk page to SFR's block in this instance is pretty typical in that respect). They know their content policy well enough, but are somewhere between IDHT and CIR issues when it comes to our behavioural guidelines. I don't know if I recommend continuing this discussion for long without their being able to contribute, but I think it wouldn't be the worst thing in the world for their own best interests to give them a warning that community patience is not inexhaustible. And if the pattern doesn't show some signs of abating, the community probably would do well to consider implementing a much broader TBAN than in the past, or else a longer-term block. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 06:55, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Willbb234

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why would I ask someone else about this?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Disinformation in the 2023 Israel–Hamas war

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

---

Can this be ECP'd promptly. It's the target of massive ongoing vandalism. Thanks. Hemiauchenia (talk) 15:26, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

I see only one user vandalizing the article, and I've blocked them.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:30, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Sure, and thanks for blocking them, but per Arbitration enforcement guidelines, they shouldnt've been able to edit it in the first place, as the contentious topics restriction requires all Israel-Palestine conflict articles to be ECP'd. Hemiauchenia (talk) 15:33, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

I have ECP'd the article. Black Kite (talk) 15:41, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

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

User Onesgje9g334

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

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

Guto2003

Guto2003 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been making disruptive moves, seemingly to disrupt wikipedia to make a WP:POINT regarding the title of the Zeitoun incident article. When confronted about this, they stated that the complaniant should Go push your filthy ass Zionist, Eurocentric agenda elsewhere [67]. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:23, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

User:Oldtowncafe

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

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

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

Death editor2 and edit warring under WP:ARBPIA

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

I had warned the user after their first round of removal [68]. Jeppiz (talk) 20:43, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

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

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

Persistent issues with sourcing and translations

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Unconstructive edits

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

• Tulu Nadu
• Tulu Nadu state movement
• Tulu language

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