Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents |
---|
This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems.
When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page;
pinging is
not enough. 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) |
User:Drbogdan is a prolific and good faith editor who on the whole seems to be sincerely attempting to be a positive force here. That aside, he seems to have an issue with low quality edits that have gotten to the point of becoming a problem (or they have been for a long time) and there's a general issue of WP:NOTSOCIALNETWORK and WP:NOTBLOG as well. I spoke to him somewhat recently about editing in disruptive quantities of new New York Times articles on astronomy/space content and his primary response was to edit my comment on his talk page to get rid of the word “disruptive” citing WP:IAR for editing my own comment. I’m going to repeat some of the content here from that post, since the pattern of editing has continued past that discussion:
I understand you've been trying to engage with these topics in good faith, but it's gotten to a point where you're editing in New York Times articles on related articles which is creating a workload for editors who need to undo those changes. Recent edits to:
Which were all reverted near identical edits made within a small window of time, and all reverted. Again, a similar situation played out at:
And again at
These are all massive strings of edits of identical content (editing in of very recent New York Times stories), all of which were reverted by me or other users. Recently this has continued with edits to Fast Radio Burst and Timeline of Mars 2020, where he's been adding in every observation by date as they arise and the latter article in particular, where he’s the primary editor, is a complete mess as a result of the daily additions. There's also, more troublingly, undoing reverts to add back in puffery to CDK Company and linking apparently WP:COPYVIO youtube links to Twyla Tharp. There’s also an updated database of every comment he has made on the New York Times, hosting his entire dissertation on wikipedia, and hosting literally dozens of personal photos and videos on commons, with an overwhelming majority of his recent contributions being exclusively to his userspace, and creating redirects to terms that don't actually appear to exist.
I don’t know what the right recourse is here, this is clearly someone active and engaged with Wikipedia in good faith, but at the same time it’s also someone editing in a way that’s creating a huge mess of edits to undo due to the frequent addition of New York Times/pop-science articles (sometimes with WP:PROFRINGE issues when it comes to dark matter in particular) to space-related topics. This all seems to be from a position of good faith and for certain he has created a lot of good content, but it’s creating a workload for those of us who edit in astronomy/planetary science topics, which is made more challenging by a larger percentage of his edits just being labelled “add/adj” as edit summaries.
An IP editor, user:35.139.154.158, seems to be involved here as well, mass-undoing Drbogdan's edits. I’ve since gone out of my way to avoid touching Drbogdan’s edits (minus removing the copyvio) after our interaction because I want to avoid coming across as harassing or hounding. That said, the low quality edits have persisted to a point that I think warrants bringing up here, especially after the puffery and copyvio issues in short succession. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 07:51, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
*Comment - As OA of several of the WP:Redirects noted above, it's *entirely* ok wth me to do whatever is decided in the final WP:CONSENSUS discussion - these WP:RDRs were made as a way of linking to Wikipedia from External Websites (like FaceBook), which drops the ending ")", this problem has been fully described and discussed [by me] on the WP:Village pump (technical) at VP-Archive204 (a Must-Read); VP-Archive180; VP-Archive162 - in any case - hope this helps in some way - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan ( talk) 13:26, 23 February 2024 (UTC)- yes - some of my edits could be better - and which I hope to improve even more over time and further practice - I greatly appreciate others helping to correct my unintentionally-made issues - as I have helped them correct their own editing issues over the years - in any case - hope my comments above helps in some ways - please let me know if otherwise of course - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan ( talk) 12:01, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
All Wikipedia pages and articles are edited collaboratively by the Wikipedian community of volunteer contributors. No one, no matter what, has the right to act as though they are the owner of a particular article (or any part of it). Even a subject of an article, be that a person or organization, does not own the article, nor has any right to dictate what the article may or may not say.- I think that is worthy - and relevant - at least to me at the moment - as Director of Hospital Laboaratories in the real-world back in the day, one of my biggest concerns was determining the issues of the laboratories - a matter of communication - I welcomed feedback from others - working collaboratively with others helps solve a lot of problems - and helps make a better quality outcome generally imo - iac - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan ( talk) 13:26, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
when are you going to take your dissertation text and NYT clippings off Wikipedia as is required of you by WP:NOTWEBHOST?Phil Bridger ( talk) 13:50, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
I welcomed feedback from others
References
Drbogdan ( talk) 02:35, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
I have worked well with Drbogdan for years, and I have repeatedly defended him in the face of multiple attacks by many other editors making baseless accusations about his motivations.
In the United States, motion pictures published before 1978 are copyrighted for 95 years. You're not the first nor the last person to be confused about this, because the laws around copyright make no sense. Viriditas ( talk) 21:08, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
I would like to ask whether someone can summarize what if any administrative action is being requested. As we know, in Wikipedia there are content disputes and conduct disputes. This is a conduct forum. The content issues of whether to keep the dissertation and the New York Times comments are being dealt with at MFD. So is any other action being requested? One IP editor called for an indef, but I think that we can ignore it. Other than that, it seems that there are complaints that his writing about physics is problematic. He may, in good faith, think that he knows more about physics than the average reader, because -- a biochemist really knows more about physics than the average reader. However, he doesn't know as much about physics as the average physicist, and he may be trying too hard to explain dumbed-down physics to average readers in a way that real physicists know is wrong. Is that the problem? If so, is he willing to listen to the opinions of physicists? Is it necessary to topic-ban him from scientific areas outside biochemistry? If not, was this just a complaint session? Robert McClenon ( talk) 04:43, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
a biochemist really knows more about physics than the average reader... he may be trying too hard to explain dumbed-down physics to average readers in a way that real physicists know is wrong.
all my edits over the years were intended to be *good qualiy edits* - some editors may agree that my edits were *good quality edits* over the years - and some otherwise - my edits seem to be better than most in my own editing experiences compared with most other edits by Wikipedia editors afaik" - hope this helps in some way - Drbogdan ( talk) 12:23, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
edits seem to be better than mostwhile sort of outright refusing to recognize that multiple editors in science topics have chimed in here calling your edits disruptive and low quality to the point of warranting an ANI, regardless of the outcome of this ANI. There's a disconnect in what some of us here are saying and what you seem to understand the concern as. The NYT is a perfect fine and generally reliable source, that's not the issue. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 16:24, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
This all seems to be your opinion - I don't share your opinion - others may not as well- is there room for improvement - yes - in the sense that there is room for improvement for everybody of course - some more than others I would think - hope this helps - Drbogdan ( talk) 16:40, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
yes - seems that merging the edit more into the article prose may be better in a few of my edits - however - this hasn't always been possible for me for one reason or another (mostly real-world concerns)
Never edit or move someone's comment to change its meaning, even on your own talk page.Drbogdan edited the section heading that Warrenmck used on Drbogdan's User talk page. That sure looks like a WP:TPO violation to me. That said, the content of Warrenmck's comment was to raise the same concerns that this ANI thread has been about: low-quality edits in science articles. XOR'easter ( talk) 22:48, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
always preserves the original editor's meaning and intent. Changing the heading is the opposite of preserving meaning. Under "Concerns", that guideline writes,
Be aware that not every editor will agree with your refactoring or even of the refactoring concept in general. Provide links to the original, uncut version, so others can check your changes, and if necessary go back to the original to clarify what an author actually said. This combination of refactoring and archiving will often prevent complaints that information was lost. Make it explicit that you have refactored something so no one is misled into thinking this was the original talk page.Changing another editor's words and collapsing the meat of their comment [6] does none of that. XOR'easter ( talk) 22:56, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
If Drbogdan shouldn't have created Peekaboo Galaxy, what is stopping you from taking it to AfD?The fact that AfD is a time sink, and AfD's of pages with a superficial veneer of notability because they happen to be full of little blue clickly linky numbers are exceptionally tiresome. XOR'easter ( talk) 22:52, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
So apparently Drbogdan is the great image-adder. He added yet another image in Pluto. Drbogdan, would you mind... taking it slow?
Unclear about a specific problem heredespite diffs aplenty. While minor things in isolation, the puffery reverts in CDK Company and copyvio edits in Twyla Tharp are egregious:
re: the possible copyvio you noted at the Twyla Tharp article - unclear at the time of posting if the brief video clip (1976) was PD or not - clip was made 48 years ago - and may now be PD?
cite news |last=Bogdan |first=Dennis |authorlink=User:Drbogdanwhen linking to one of his own comments in that cite. You don't get that authorlink by accident from the autofill options linking NYT comments unless I'm mistaken. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 08:28, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
<ref>{{Cite news |last=Foer |first=Jonathan Safran |date=2020-05-21 |title=Opinion {{!}} The End of Meat Is Here |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/21/opinion/coronavirus-meat-vegetarianism.html |access-date=2024-06-30 |work=The New York Times |language=en-US |issn=0362-4331}}</ref>
. I don't think there's any way to get |authorlink=User:Drbogdan
and all that without deliberately typing it.
XOR'easter (
talk)
16:14, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
lack of admin attention here so far also speaks for itself. The message I'm getting from it is that this thread is less time-critical and involves subtler problems than most everything else on the board currently. XOR'easter ( talk) 19:24, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
please understand that it's *entirely* ok with me to rv/rm/mv/ce my edits of course. His agreeable tone juxtaposed with his poor sourcing and editing style was also remarked on 10 years ago. -- MacAddct1984 ( talk | contribs) 17:38, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
Hi, uninvolved editor here. Creating a new section so that we can more concisely discuss whether a WP:CIR and WP:PROMO indef ban for this user would be appropriate. The accusation of self promotional insertion of sources into Wikipedia is a serious one, if true and deserves a discussion and probably a 6 month indef (edit: to clarify here, meant an indef w/ 6 mo. review) with the home the user can take some time WP:HEAR the concerns raised. Allan Nonymous ( talk) 17:35, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
Drbplace the template NOINDEX|visible=yes at the top of each of his user pages. This good faith gesture by
Drbmay remove some pressure on his editing. Once this voluntary step is taken, this discussion might progress. This time sink needs to end. Unless
Drbis unable to take such an easy step, "signs point to" no progress made.
alerted to news and events by running across his postingsbit: that's a reason to follow someone on social media, not a reason that their edits on Wikipedia are actually good. XOR'easter ( talk) 20:24, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
User:Michalis1994 refuses to cooperate to improve the article. He does not discuss with me, but reverts without explanation. The sources he cites do not correspond to what he writes, and his additions make the article look more like a libellus than a calm record of the facts. Here are some diffs https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Afroditi_Latinopoulou&diff=prev&oldid=1230703015
also remove my appeal for discussion
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Afroditi_Latinopoulou&diff=prev&oldid=1230638536 D.S. Lioness ( talk) 17:43, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
He is a user of bad faith. You can see here /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/D.S._Lioness is fraudulently trying to delegitimize my contribution. D.S. Lioness ( talk) 18:29, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
This is a bit of a mess, but it does look at first glance as if D.S. Lioness is attempting to whitewash the article to remove cited criticisms of specific politicians and political parties. For the record, Lioness, do not accuse other editors of "libel", as that can be construed as a legal threat resulting in you being blocked. — The Hand That Feeds You: Bite— Preceding undated comment added 19:14, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
request for blocking to User:Michalis1994 per Wikipedia:NOTHERE and Wikipedia:Civilty see here https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk:Afroditi_Latinopoulou&diff=prev&oldid=1230879788 D.S. Lioness ( talk) 17:40, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
Quick report on D.S. Lioness: she's been relentlessly axing articles and deleting cited content to push her own POV. Entire sections in Afroditi Latinopoulou, including academic articles, have been wiped out and replaced with dubious, unreliable sources. The same pattern is evident here (no reason given), here (no reason given, despite the MEP's history), and here (removed information about the town, without giving any reason at all). Michalis1994 ( talk) 08:02, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
Personal attack (whitewashing), again. D.S. Lioness ( talk) 18:48, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
This seems strongly like a boomerang issue. User here seems only interested in censoring opinions that disagree with her.-- Insanityclown1 ( talk) 05:30, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
During a content dispute, it is more important than ever to focus on content, not editors- neither user here seems to be able to focus on the content rather than taking digs at the other. I don't think an interaction ban would be fair here unless it is accompanied by them both being unable to edit topics related to Afroditi Latinopoulou (including any politics related to that person) - so I think either a time limited topic ban or an indefinite topic ban (with ability to appeal after contributions elsewhere, as standard) would be better. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez ( User/ say hi!) 06:04, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
Now he's looking for my sandbox and he wants me to be blocked for what I WILL WRITE D.S. Lioness ( talk) 17:09, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
Αs far as I am concerned I will abstain from the Latinopoulou article until the user check is completed. Τhen everything will become clear D.S. Lioness For a comprehensive update I leave this one here /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/D.S._Lioness D.S. Lioness ( talk) 17:49, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
Comment: The assumption that
D.S. Lioness will cease her vandalism is fundamentally flawed. Her disruptive editing and vandalism have now extended to other pages, such as the
Alexis Papahelas article, where she
removed cited content just a few hours after discussions began to address concerns about her contributions. This mirrors her previous behaviour on the
Afroditi Latinopoulou page and is unlikely to stop there. This serves as a warning to anyone who believes the situation might improve or that her actions are confined to the
Afroditi Latinopoulou page.
Michalis1994 (
talk)
20:25, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
I think an interaction ban between the two would also possibly be appropriate. This sequence of threads is indicating to me that neither of the parties in conflict can simply leave well enough alone.-- Insanityclown1 ( talk) 09:26, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
Because we are waiting check user results, i think the calmest solution is to "freeze" the issue )unless it is possible to accelerate the procedure) because it may turn out that this conversation is meaningless, just like the one below. D.S. Lioness ( talk) 17:46, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
Adityagoyal6363 ( talk · contribs) predominately edits in Indian reality television articles. On Bigg Boss OTT (Hindi Digital series) season 3 I've been having an small issue with their edits as some of their are contrary to MOS:CAPS with this being the most recent edit on their part changing the section headings back to mixed-case. I'm not thrilled about that, but the larger issue I have is the lack of communication or response from them about the issues after leaving https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User_talk:Adityagoyal6363&diff=prev&oldid=1231958415 warning] messages on their tak page. They have responded to earlier messages on their talk page, so I know they are aware of the messages, but ignoring the WP:MOS from an editor with 2000+ edits of a year is not a minor thing. Given the lack of response around this, perhaps a page block from this page until they acknowledge they will follow the MOS is needed here. Thank you. Ravensfire ( talk) 17:50, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
Zanza05 has been continually removing Xenoblade-related entries on List of video games with LGBT characters, despite being sourced to sites that are listed as acceptable per WP:VG/RS. This has been ongoing for over a year, having previously done so under multiple IPs including [16] [17] [18] [19] (the latter of which is still topic blocked from those pages, technically making this block evasion). I attempted to explain policy to them and suggest more constructive ways to edit if they disagreed with the inclusion, but they have ignored this and continued disruptively editing. -- Cyberlink420 ( talk) 16:54, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
I recently closed an RfC on Yasuke and feel like the situation at Talk: Yasuke is deteoriating once again as more WP:SPA's are arriving to argue about the subject. There is a not insignificant amount of WP:SOAPBOXING occurring as well as some vaguely nationalist rhetoric where editors are proclaiming that Wikipedia is being governed by black supremacy and DEI as well as considerable activity taking place offsite on a Wikitionary Talk Page where aspersions are being cast on other editors involved in the dispute such as outright accusing others editors of lying and conspiring at fabricating historical truth as well as what appears to be attempts to Status Quo Stonewall as noted here where they begin discussing how to circumvent the RfC consensus before the RfC was even closed when they saw that the votes weren't going in their favor as well as WP:Tagteaming seen here. Because of all of these many preceived issues, I think some admin attention is needed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrhns ( talk • contribs) 18:49, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
This format encourages respondents to "vote" without engaging in a discussion, sharing alternatives, or developing compromises
Separate votes from discussion If you expect a lot of responses, consider creating a subsection, after your signature, called (for example) "Survey," where people can support or oppose, and a second sub-section called (for example) "Threaded discussion," where people can discuss the issues in depth. You can ask people not to add threaded replies to the survey section, but you can't require people to follow your advice. Editors are permitted to freely refuse your request.
This format encourages respondents to "vote" without engaging in a discussion, sharing alternatives, or developing compromises. It is most suitable for questions with clear yes/no or support/oppose answers, such as "Shall we adopt this policy?". Avoid this style for questions with multiple possible answers, such as "What kinds of images would be suitable for this article?" or "What should the first sentence say?" This style is used for RfCs that attract a lot of responses, but is probably overkill for most RfCs.
This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems.(emphasis mine)
andFor complex content-related issues between two or more editors, you may bring your dispute to the informal dispute resolution noticeboard. This is a good place to bring your dispute if you don't know what the next step should be
.For simple content-related issues where concise proposals have been made on the talk page, you may bring your dispute to the informal requests for comment to have the broader community look at the dispute and make suggestions.
they may be subject to more scrutiny in the early stages of their editing as other editors attempt to assess how well they adhere to Wikipedia standards.Closing discussions is allowed, but per WP:NAC they're generally left for administrators or experienced editors, especially the discussions that are likely to be controversial. Getting involved with Wikipedia and learning our policies is a great thing and I hope you continue. The Wordsmith Talk to me 22:07, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
DarmaniLink, who complains that Symphony Regalia is casting aspersions by mentioning the "anti-woke", "anti-dei", right-wing assault on the Yasuke article, began their first comment on the Yasuke talk page with
Descendent of an (actual) samurai of the saeki clan, with a preserved 15th century land grant document in my family's possession here. Another editor complained aboutblack supremacy and DEI propaganda. Personally I don't care about their motives, whether they are right-wing nationalists or passionate amateur historians and samurai enthusiasts - I'm not interested in their agenda, but I'm interested in their sources. Unfortunately those opposing Yasuke's status as a samurai have not provided sources contradicting Encyclopaedia Britannica, Smithsonian Magazine, TIME, BBC, or the research of Lockley and Lopez-Vera.
the other editor refusing to engage in my attempts at conversing with them on Talk:Yasuke about the quality of the tertiary and quaternary sources they reference. Eirikr made 88 edits to Talk: Yasuke adding 115 kB of text and Hexenakte made 111 edits adding 188 kB. They argued that Britannica, Smithsonians Magazine, BBC, TIME, CNN, France Info, Lockley's book [20] and Lopez-Vera's book [21] are not WP:RS because of their content: these sources directly claim that Yasuke was a samurai, which is incompatible with Hexenakte's and Eirikr's original research. There is not one single reliable source denying that Yasuke was a samurai, apart from the 300 kB of ruminations Eirikr and Hexenakte have posted on that talk page. This runs contrary to core policies and is disruptive as WP:BLUDGEON. Eirikr is not entitled to have me or others "engaged in their attempts at conversing" - they should have dropped the stick weeks ago. I don't know if there's an issue of bad faith or competence but I'm sure it's disruptive and should stop.
When that editor then edits the Yasuke article to add a detail ("as a samurai") with citations, and those citations do not say anything about that detail. Again, I don’t know if that's bad faith or lack of competence but this edit of mine replaces "retainer" with "samurai", which is directly supported by all cited sources, and modifies one sentence,
As a samurai, he was granted a servant, a house and stipend, which is supported by the quoted source, CNN, stating "Today, Yasuke’s legacy as the world’s first African samurai is well known in Japan (...) Nobunaga soon made him a samurai – even providing him with his own servant, house and stipend, according to Jesuit records".
Nobunaga was impressed by him and asked Valignano to give him over.<ref name="JapanForum" /> He gave him the Japanese name ''Yasuke'',{{efn|The origin of his name is unknown.}} made him an attendant at his side and enlisted Yasuke into his army as a samurai.<ref name="ExcludedPresence" /><ref name="Hitotsubashi">{{Cite journal |last=Wright |first=David |date=1998 |title=The Use of Race and Racial Perceptions Among Asians and Blacks: The Case of the Japanese and African Americans |url=https://www.jstor.org/stable/43294433 |url-status=live |journal=Hitotsubashi Journal of Social Studies |volume=30 |issue=2 |pages=135–152 |issn=0073-280X |jstor=43294433 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230313173327/https://www.jstor.org/stable/43294433 |archive-date=13 March 2023 |access-date=19 May 2024 |quote=In 1581, a Jesuit priest in the city of Kyoto had among his entourage an African}}</ref>
It is identical to the code of my second edit (restoring the first one after the RfC). As you can see, there is a full stop between "...into his army" and "As a samurai". "As a samurai" has a capital "A". The sentance I added is supported by the quoted source CNN. Gitz ( talk) ( contribs) 23:59, 2 July 2024 (UTC)Subsequently, Nobunaga took him into his service and gave him the name Yasuke. As a samurai, he was granted a servant, a house and [[stipend]].<ref>{{Cite web |last=Jozuka |first=Emiko |date=2019-05-20 |title=The legacy of feudal Japan’s African samurai |url=https://www.cnn.com/2019/05/19/asia/black-samurai-yasuke-africa-japan-intl/index.html |access-date=2024-06-27 |website=CNN |language=en}}</ref>
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I feel like pointing out that User:Chrhns's first edit to wikipedia was to close the RfC on Yasuke will shorten further discussion significantly. JackTheSecond ( talk) 22:17, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Soo are we gonna do anything about this guy or do we have to wait for him to go on another rant about "wokeism"?-- Trade ( talk) 00:57, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
Blocked Shinjitsunotsuikyu from Talk:Yasuke and Yasuke. Feel free to change that in any way. CambridgeBayWeather (solidly non-human), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 11:12, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
SpacedFarmer ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
This user is continuing their pattern of incivility and personal attacks towards editors who disagree with them. Since creating their account in late 2023, the majority of their edits of been in deletion/merge/split discussions. [24] They have been taken twice to ANI before.
Now, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2024 Sakhir Formula 3 round, SF has again taken to being uncivil towards editors who disagree with his nomination.
"There's always a home for them in Fandom. Nothing wrong with that site, though. People should think before shoving junk into Wikipedia."Bolding mine; The "go to Fandom" comment is itself bad, but again he belittles and does not assume good faith of the efforts of other editors.
"Fandom is always there for fans like you."
"and do we need an WP:INDISCRIMINATE amount of sports results to clutter Wikipedia with, especially those the most ardent minority of nerds bother with".
"Wow, such snowflakes like the modern times, getting upset by words like 'nerds', I thought nerds like being called nerds. I was a car nerd at one time and am not ashamed of that label. I call 'efforts' like this junk because people write crap."
Given that the user has not heeded past warnings to keep it civil, or even acknowledged that their lack of civility is a problem, and continues to bring this behaviour into discussions on deletion, merging and splitting whenever they face opposition that they can't just quickly reply to with a wikilink (and even sometimes when they can), I believe something beyond a warning (like a topic ban) must be done. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 03:49, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
A new response on
SpacedFarmer's user talk offers fresh evidence of their increasing use of personal attacks: "People like you are what is shit about modern motorsport, no wonder why the once great sport full of pussies like you nowadays."
I think something needs to be done.
Toughpigs (
talk)
21:39, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
Catironic9013 is an experienced user that has been adding unsourced content to Wikipedia as of late. I have given them notices on their talk page but they don't seem to care to discuss their edits. Here are the most recent additions of unsourced content.
On La academia [32], they added content about an upcoming season of the show and the judges for it but failed to add a source so I reverted their edit. Two months later, the user once again added information for the upcoming season without any sources. [33] [34]
On Top Chef VIP [35], they added that new judges were joining the series but again did not provide a reference. I later added the content myself with a reference, but it should not be my responsibility find sources for the edits of other users.
The most recent issue was on La casa de los famosos México season 2 where they added a cast member without a reference. [36].
I feel that as a user that has been editing since 2020 and with over 1,000 edits they should know that references are necessary so that readers can check that the content here on Wikipedia is true and that it comes from a reliable source. Telenovelafan215 ( talk) 01:35, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
Hello,
I'm asking for your help because the user I'm not perfect but I'm almost persists in wanting to maintain their version against all odds despite the opposition of 2 different users ( SoftReverie and me) on Japan national football team's page, and I'm not perfect but I'm almost was the 1st to modify a long-standing consensus version. When this is explained to them with edit summaries ( 1, 2), they simply revoke without edit summaries nor dialogue ( 1, 2) and threaten others users with reports. This is not an acceptable approach. Could you please call them to order so that they will cease their actions? Thank you very much. PS : I was mistaken in reporting it on the wrong page earlier. -- Martopa ( talk) 15:30, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
The Land of the Rising Sun made sure of the points by overcoming Indonesiais a
long-standing consensus versionis a hard sell. How about you try discussing the issues with the other editor (on a talk page, not in edit summaries) first? Schazjmd (talk) 15:56, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
I should like to file a complaint about Redrose64, who unilaterally removed an RfC tag from an RfC in progress without telling anyone they had done so, just 5 hours after the bot had assigned it an ID. No one noticed they had done so until today. I restored the tag with the assigned ID, but is that the right thing to do or does it need to be assigned a new ID? Opinion in the RfC are pretty much equally divided, and the duration may need to be extended as because of the removal, uninvolved editors have not commented. This is a mess and RR64 should have consequences for this. Skyerise ( talk) 21:41, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
Tell you what, why don't you other admins ask them. I suggest this be taken by admins to WP:AN for an admin review. I've reported my perception of the incident, and I'm done here. I don't trust them to answer me honestly, so please why don't you ask them that. I want nothing more to do with Redrose64. Thanks. Skyerise ( talk) 22:32, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
Multiple editors have stated that they believe most of the material should be kept; perhaps an equal number simply want to remove it all.
— Again, this is a misrepresentation of the RfC, which was begun by Skyerise about trimming the section. Despite Skyerise wanting to keep material in totality on the basis of relevance, most editors are in favor of trimming the material regardless of Skyerise's relevance basis. I pointed out these issues
here. And with the bad-faith personal attacks against Redrose64, Skyerise also made a
WP:THREATEN personal attack on my talk page
[38] threatening to, yes, "pursue admin action
" against me if I did not keep the material.
GuardianH (
talk)
02:02, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
WP:NAC undone. It read: Further attention of administrators not needed, multiple of whom have talked with Skyerise, who was notified that 'this cannot be a pattern, was then talked with some more and understood the problem and apologized; during all this a boomerang was not invoked, so it would not make sense to boomerang now, after the apology; the "RfC" was closed, the unsatisfactory state of things at the article itself was made less unsatisfactory, the degree of ongoing disagreement is low and any remaining dispute can be resolved through the normal editorial process. Everyone is thanked for their patience and good-spiritedness.—Alalch E. 13:14, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
Alalch E., this is a bad close, and there are plenty of admins, so I'm not sure why you saw fit to close it in such a starkly biased way. Redrose64 asked Skyerise: Why have you taken me straight here without first attempting to discuss the matter with me
. Skyerise replies with: Because you did it in a deceptive manner
. And you call their last message here directly above: Ok, fine. Sorry if my honest misunderstanding caused problems
an apology? Apology to whom? Persons? You label Skyerise's combativeness (seemingly a reoccurring problem and a pattern) "good-spiritedness"? Like his You should be de-admined per Wikipedia:ADMINCOND for "egregious poor judgment" in this matter.
No. Possible sanctions are at stake, still, so why are you, a non-admin, closing this thread?
El_C
20:06, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
honest misunderstanding. Skyerise has a history of blocks for personal attacks, including for personal attacks and failure to AGF. If Skyerise is able to recognize what they did wrong here, I would support a warning at this point. If not, a block might be appropriate to prevent further disruption and deter future PAs. voorts ( talk/ contributions) 01:59, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
And I apologize to Redrose64 for not going to them directly.— The going to Redrose64 directly is one thing, but if there is anything you need to address its the personal attacks, threats, ownership, and combative behavior that has been recurrent on more than one occasion. GuardianH ( talk) 02:45, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
doesn't in any way justify incivility in my response. Not gonna grovel, chum. Skyerise ( talk) 03:05, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
So, I seem to recall that Skyerise has been here before recently, so I understand if others here feel that this is an opportune time to make a point to them about AGF and tone of interactions. And I don't want to undermine that effort if it is deemed advisable or even necessary. Particularly in that Skyerise themselves stands to benefit most from that discussion. But the thing is, all that said...I'm not sure the issues in this instance were entirely of their making?
Here's the thing: I'm about a fifteen year veteran of this project and I respond to a lot of RfCs: it's probably the single largest chunk of time I've devoted to the project in terms of community processes: I'd estimate I've responded to somewhere around 1,200 or 1,300 of them in the last ten years. And I've never once seen an RfC procedurally closed merely because it touched upon issues related to a merger. If I'm perfectly honest, I didn't even realize it was expressly proscribed by WP:RFCNOT, and I'm guessing most other editors don't either. And I think there's a reason for that: said portion of the RfC guideline was created by none other than RedRose64 more or less unilaterally, in a very perfunctory discussion with all of four editors and eight comments, almost all of the substance of which were theirs.
Now let me hasten to add, I think the process was clearly above-board and in good faith: a reasonable effort to codify what RedRose64 and another editor felt were obvious circumstances in which RfC should not apply. However, it was not a very robust or well-(or at all-)advertised discussion. RfC is a pretty fundamental tool for dispute resolution, and I think at a minimum that this discussion limiting its availability in various contexts should have been linked at the village pump.
And the consequences of giving short shrift to this process of amending the process page are not inconsequential to the current situation. Because honestly, of all of the scenarios which RedRose chose to codify as verboten applications of RfC, merger discussions stick out like a sore thumb as probably the least appropriate context in which to forbid such use of RfC. Every other process they chose to add to that list makes a certain amount of sense because they all have a commited forum or a listing which allows for the channeling of community attention from previously un-involved parties to the discussion. The discussions themselves either take place in a specific namespace or the article talk page discussions are posted for community members who contribute to that process. Not so for mergers.
So what Redrose did in adding mergers to that list was essentially create an automatic walled garden for merger discussions: only those previously involved in editing the articles in question (and in most cases, probably only those participating in the discussions leading up to the merger proposal) are going to know about the dispute, and now involved parties have no outlet for seeking additional un-involved voices. In my opinion, that is a very undesirable and problematic set-up. I tend to think that five years without complaint grants even slap-dash additions to policy and procedure pages some degree of implicit community support, but I think this situation, having been identified, now needs some review.
All of which is to say, I do think that Redrose did contribute some to the confusion here, by creating that section of the RfC procedure page largely wholecloth, and then applying it to this situation in a manner inconsistent with anything I have ever seen from another editor in cancelling an RfC already under way. From a purely pragmatic standpoint, I don't see what was to be gained (or would be gained in similar circumstances on any article) by limiting the availability to reach out and seek opinions from editors previously uninvolved in the dispute. And if nothing else, Skyerise is correct on one point: this action should have been at least expressly noted in a comment on the talk page made concurrent with the removal of the RfC tag. That is always best practice when using a technical means to prematurely close an RfC. SnowRise let's rap 03:26, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
Emre Özgür Yıldırım, This user is engaging in an editing war with me on the " Siege of Halicarnassus" article. Even though I invited the right person to talk on the talk page first, the user did not agree to this and continued to edit the page. And he accused me of nationalism. User_talk:Keremmaarda#May_2024 Keremmaarda ( talk) 07:13, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
Kennethmacalpine ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been editing mainly in Wales-related articles. Several of their edits, generally marked as "correction" have changed correct links to dab links, see for example here, here, here. Others, such as here have completely changed the name of a reference's author. Here we see a link to Ceretic of Elmet being changed to Cerdic of Wessex, a geographically and chronologically entirely different person. The number and nature of the changes mean it would be helpful if others looked them over too. As I say, I don't know if this is incompetence or vandalism, or what. DuncanHill ( talk) 10:50, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
For the past 2 years, there has been an incredibly disruptive user who would edit logged out with fluctuating IP ranges which geolocated to Italy; they would repeatedly mess with census figures, add nonsensical information to aggrandize their religion and language, and try to include a certain religion/sect (Ravidassia) as a part of Sikhism. They accumulated hundreds of temp blocks on their IPs; a few other editors and I reported them to ANV and ANI many, many times over the years, including this report which led to their IP ranges being partially blocked from pages they would often target- [40]
Recently, they decided to use sock accounts to continue their vandalism- [41]. Unfortunately, another one of their disruptive accounts is still active- User:SantwinderSingh- who also inflates Sikh census numbers, decreases other religions' population size, targets Punjabi dialect articles, and tries to include the Ravidasia faith as a part of Sikhism.
I'm hoping this account could just be blocked for disruption, even though I know this is a sock account, I figure it might be handled quicker at ANI rather than at SPI which is fairly backlogged. Southasianhistorian8 ( talk) 11:05, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
The following IPs are making disruptive mass changes of " Transnistria" to "Pridnestrovie" across many different articles:
Mellk ( talk) 11:42, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
While patrolling recent changes, I noticed around 20 accounts with similar user pages, all affiliated with the University of Ghana in some way. Some examples: Adorble Courage, Yaw Agyare Amoah, Diana Ofori, etc. They don't have any WikiEd messages on their talk page and appear to be in different majors, so I'm not sure if they're part of an education program or not. Is there anything we could do? '''[[ User:CanonNi]]''' ( talk • contribs) 12:09, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
He reverted the stoning edits to earlier versions as previous socks. Please ban him indefinitely. Thank you. Margeandtheferrero ( talk) 17:08, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
Latiromazzaire ( talk · contribs) has been adding incorrect categories repeatedly. They do not seem to grasp WP:CATDEF and continue their behaviour still. After this edit, I left a final warning, asking them to stop. An hour and half ago, they partially reinstated their edit.
They have been asked not do so, and have been subsequently warned about their incorrect and frankly, disruptive, editing. They received messages by DonIago, Ferret and myself about this matter. They haven't responded to a single message. Matter of fact, they haven't edited their talk page at all.
While they have ignored all messages, they did however communicate through two edit summaries, here and here. WP:COMMUNICATION is required. Perhaps it's also a case of WP:COMPETENCE, failing to understand, or just WP:DIDNTHEARTHAT. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 17:22, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
On July 3rd I wrote this article on a subject.
15 minutes after I published to the draft space and submitted to AfC, BullDawg2021 Paraphrased my draft, and created the Wikipedia page Haliey Welch (notice the name has an intentional typo, because it notifies that there is already an article in the draft space).
It can be proven that I created this page first by looking at the draft history of my article here: https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Draft:Hailey_Welch&action=history
To sum it up:
BullDawg2021 basically paraphrased my article and published it to the mainspace, and this incredibly disingenuous. It's eerily similar to my page, and I spent one to two hours writing it and finding the sources and fact checking the sources, yet BullDawk2021 was able to publish the page with a very similar sounding lede just 15 minutes after I published the draft and submitted to AfC. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Comintell (
talk •
contribs)
19:20, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
Given recent events in association football, the page for the Wolf salute, akin to the Nazi salute, has come under a barrage of Turkish ultranationalists whose goal is to infantilise the salute, which is pseudo-scientifically described as an identifier for Turkishness, even though it is political and an appeal to ultranationalism, usually of the far-right kind.
The Turkish user @ Beshogur is calling me a single-issue user and removing all of my edits, which use sources to characterise the gesture as what it is: ultranationalist and neo-fascist.
Yes, I am only here for this article, because it means a lot to me. I am German, and we have the Rechtstaat (state of justice) here. No, I am not disruptive for removing Turkish ultranationalism.
It does not matter how experienced this user seems to be or for how long he has been on the "free" (anti-fascist?) encyclopedia. What matters is that the user must discuss their edits and not just remove them when we sees fit.
Thank you. And, fascism must go. Everywhere. Gypsybores ( talk) 19:49, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
Mate, do you have a problem?
Do you use the wolf salute often?
Surely, there has got to be a provision on the "free" encyclopedia to ban non-free (i.e., fascist) users.
And I will report you for Turkish ultranationalism. Who do you think you are?
Interesting, you are a Turkish far-righter based in the Netherlands or Belgium.How does he even know my location?
And you think you are impartial? Again - who do you think you are?so he's going to start threatening me?
Beshogur, mate, do you have a problem? So what I want to reverse vandalism by ultranationalist users like? I will find a forum for arbitration for this.
Ultranationalist removal of sourced information
Revert ultranationalism and threats
The wolf salute, the grey wolf salute or the grey wolf gesture (Turkish: Bozkurt işareti) is a Turkish nationalist and Pan-Turkic hand symbol, linked to the far-right Grey Wolves political movement. The gesture is banned in France and Austria.
The wolf salute, the grey wolf salute, or the grey wolf gesture (Turkish: Bozkurt işareti) is an ultranationalist, pan-Turkist, and neo-fascist hand symbol.
2A02:FE1:7191:F500:1D68:AEEA:EBA5:D751 has made unreliable edits on various race and intelligence articles and has been heavily reverted. I first ran into this user on the Helmuth Nyborg article where a first they were removing any mention of sources describing Nyborg's involvement with the far-right and neo-nazism. I reverted this user a few times but I did my best to cooperate with them on the talk-page.
2A02 has made several posts accusing me of being a sock-puppet at Wikipedia and an editor of RationalWiki. There were two earlier posts by them on this [50], [51]. On their talk-page they were warned by another user not to make this type of personal attack [52] and "This should be considered a level 2 warning" [53] yet they continue to do so [54]. The user said they won't be filing an SPI and has woven a complex conspiracy theory that users supportive of race intelligence research are banned from Wikipedia.
In the above diff, the user falsely claims I have lied about working as a journalist and that I have used this sock-puppet account London Student Journalist. This is a random blocked account from 2018 that is nothing to do with me. I never claimed to be a journalist. I am a philosophy student and I do private research for a newspaper on far-right figures. The same user also claimed that I am involved in RationalWiki and created an article on there yesterday which is not true.
The same user has also been linking to old Wikipedia conversations from 2020 and 2021 [55] citing conspiracy theories from two blocked Wikipedia accounts Gardenofaleph and another banned user who was topic banned on race and intelligence Captain Occam. Both of these accounts were promoting strange conspiracy theories about RationalWiki and about two Wikipedia users sharing accounts to discredit intelligence researchers. Nobody took their claims seriously but this user is linking to this old content.
I believe that the issues of repeated personal attacks and promotion of conspiracy theories about off-site websites need to be addressed here. It should also be noted the same user has been warned about canvassing [56] but is trying to canvass two other editors they believe sympathetic to their pro-race and intelligence viewpoint to file an SPI. The user is not acting in good faith, they seem upset with my well-sourced edits on Helmuth Nyborg so have resorted to promoting misinformation about my account to try and shut me down. Their behaviour has not been pleasant, I also left them a message on their talk-page but they removed it [57]. 51.6.193.169 ( talk) 20:34, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
Hello. There is someone who is on a crusade on English Wikipedia to replace all instances of " Transnistria" (Romanian-derived name, the most common in English, already settled by various RMs [58] [59]) with "Pridnestrovie" (Russian-derived name). They've used so far four IPs, the first three already blocked [60] [61] [62] [63]. All of these appeared today, 5 July. As you can see they have extended their disruptive edits, every single one of them having been reverted for now, throughout many articles. If this is an appropriate venue to ask for this (I think so), could an IP range block be enforced? Unsurprisingly, all four IPs have the same location. Thanks, Super Ψ Dro 21:49, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This is a user I first encountered because they added an irrelevant WP:AUTOBIO notice to an IP I was watching. I don't know why they did this. When I left them a message on their talk page about it, they ignored it and blanked my user page. They later apologized on their own accord which I thought was surprisingly nice of them. They then proceeded to move their user and talk page to random namespaces ( [64] [65] [66] [67]) and made a bunch of other seemingly random, unconstructive edits. I reported them to WP:AIV but withdrew my request after they apologized and left this note on their user page (I believed their edits might have genuinely been mistakes). Recently they started editing again and made a few troll edits ( [68] [69]) then added these ( [70] [71]) notices to their talk page, suggesting their account has been compromised. I assume this is just a case of WP:BROTHER. Not really sure what to do here, but if you scroll far enough down their contributions, you'll see they did (or tried to) make some constructive edits in the past. Maybe an admin can give them a stricter warning about their troll (?) edits? C F A 💬 22:18, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
User:Woolstation, looking at their talk page, has been warned three times for introducing copyrighted material into articles. [72] [73] [74]. Today, they made this edit [75] which introduced material copied from their cited source, [76]. You can see the copypatrol report [77]. Upon further examination of the article, I had to remove more copyrighted material from different sources, including the subject's own website.
I do not know why they continue to introduce copyrighted matter into articles. Maybe they don't understand, maybe they don't think it's that big of a deal. But it needs to stop, and the situation needs admin intervention. GreenLipstickLesbian ( talk) 22:25, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
The IP address 2600:4808:6091:5E00:748A:F9DA:24C0:52 has been, starting yesterday, making possibly thousands of high-speed edits (as fast as 3-4 per minute) changing names of countries to former names or predecessor states such as Greece to Kingdom of Greece and Brazil to First Brazilian Republic. Has been warned but has not stopped. I've tried mass-reverting their edits but the massRollback script isn't working reliably for me. Rusty talk contribs 22:44, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk:Tel_al-Sultan_massacre&diff=prev&oldid=1232874929
- IOHANNVSVERVS ( talk) 02:24, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
Johann Grander was an Austrian with no scientific background who claimed to have received information from God on how to "improve" water and made all kinds of claims that his "revitalized" water had special benefits (including curing cancer). It was sold for large sums per liter and the devices were sold for even larger sums. It is a bit comparable to holy water. A company was formed that sold his "inventions". The claims by the company have been debunked over and over again by scientists.
Salvelinus umbla (
talk ·
contribs) wrote: "To the best of current knowledge, the company Grander has never been a partner of Wetsus.
" despite Grander being listed as a
company participant on the website of Wetsus, which means that Grander paid Wetsus money.
Wetsus names the sum on their website Company Participants: € 32,900/theme/year
The theme is " Applied Water Physics" and the coordinator for that theme is no other than Elmar C. Fuchs, who has at least since 2016 been writing at least 3 publications in support of Grander.
Salvelinus umbla
wrote: Here, I must particularly insist on your source citation, as such accusations could very easily be misinterpreted as defamation of a respected scientist.
WP:LEGAL says: Legal threats should be reported to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents or elsewhere to an administrator. Users who post legal threats are typically blocked while the threats are outstanding.
Stating the facts is not defamation.
Thanks, Polygnotus ( talk) 06:23, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
Recent edits by Belomaad are, in their entirety, drawn from partisan and polemical sources that do not meet the WP:RELIABILITY criteria for Wikipedia articles, especially for articles about the history of Islam. In particular, none of the books cited by Belomaad are published by publishers known for fact-checking. These sources include alsersj.net and Mir'at ul-oqul by the Shia jurist Muhammad Baqir Majlisi ( d. 1699).
As a result, the content added by Belomaad repeatedly violates the principles of WP:NEUTRALITY and WP:VERIFIABILITY. In addition, there does not seem to be a WP:CONSENSUS for his/her edits and Belomaad has refused to investigate whether there is one.
All these issues were brought to Belomaad's attention on several occasions; see Talk:Umm Kulthum bint Ali#Marriage to Umar and the recent edit history of the article. Another editor, Iskandar323, even shared academic sources, currently unused in the article, that could replace the unreliable ones introduced by Belomaad. All these have been to no avail as Belomaad seems only interested in forcefully and repeatedly inserting his/her sectarian POV into the article, over and over, ignoring other editors' advice. Please see the recent edit history for the developments. Separately, Iskandar323 and Doug Weller have raised some concerns about Belomaad's integrity in Talk:Umm Kulthum bint Ali#Marriage to Umar and his/her responses suggest a flagrant ignorance about the mission of WP:WikiProject Islam. For instance, in one of his/her responses, Belomaad suggests that the article should largely reflect the the polemics of the majority rather than the academic findings of historians and Islamicists. (There is still room in the article for sectarian views when they are clearly labeled as such, e.g., a separate section about Shia views.) Albertatiran ( talk) 07:44, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
IPs aren't allowed to edit other people's user pages, so I can't slap a CSD notice on it, so could someone please delete the page User:HungHargrove66 and block the editor? See meta:User:Mathonius/Reports/Nothing to say about me really for the reasoning. Thanks! 81.187.192.168 ( talk) 13:21, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
Aqua.107 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
User repeatedly engages in non-constructive editing, often making unsourced changes (e.g. [78], [79], [80], see also examples below), or unexplained deletions of content (e.g. [81]). The larger problem is the edit-warring behaviour alongside this, of which they have a long history, e.g.:
They've previously been warned about disruptive behaviour ( [106], [107]), unsourced editing ( [108]), and about using AI-generated text ( [109], [110]). I warned them about edit-warring specifically ( [111]) shortly before they started edit-warring at War of the League of the Indies. Edit summaries like this latest one, after I re-explained the problem to them and invited them to discuss on the talk page here, suggests they have no intention to engage in WP:CONSENSUS. They have never responded on any talk page. R Prazeres ( talk) 17:00, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
I'm not sure if this should be posted here or at WP:CP. I was working through Copypatrol and found this user involved in three seprate cases. I cleared those and left a notice on their talk page. A lot of their larger edits contain blatant copyvios. I don't have time to go through and tag them all for RD1. Can an administrator go through their contributions and revdel the copyvios? They seem to be working constructively but also have clearly ignored the notice left by GreenLipstickLesbian four days ago. Thanks, C F A 💬 19:31, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Can someone verify the blocking activity by this user? He has been blocking IPs as open proxies but a Whois shows they’re simply public access points which means you physically have to be at that location to access through that IP. 63.44.136.26 ( talk) 20:20, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
DelusionalThomaz515610 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) It does not seem likely that this user will stop removing all mention of Vietnam from discussions of East Asia or the Sinosphere, which is not very nice of them. Remsense 诉 20:48, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Kind of minor but I'm getting personally harassed on my talk page by Arrowar. Stefen Towers among the rest! Gab • Gruntwerk 21:25, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
223.185.128.0/21 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Hello Wikipedia admins. I am requesting a block on the IP range above, for constant disruptive editing and block evasion of User:Halud Foressa. This IP user has been reported to WP:SPI four days ago at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Halud Foressa, but the report has sat there pretty much unlooked at ever since. Yet, this user continues to rapidly disrupt Wikipedia to this day, so I am posting here and requesting that action be taken swiftly.
Evidence of sockpuppetry (copied from the WP:SPI report) are as follows:
Both the IP and the [previous sock] 'User:Paul is describing' account seem highly (almost solely) interested in Indian films, and on the Deewana (2013 film) if we compare
diff by account to
diff by IP, they both are trying to remove the fact that the film is based on 2007 'Deepavali' film in one way or another. Little to no use of edit summaries either. Looking at their edits in general, they like to remove claims that a film is based on another (see
example 1 and
example 2).
It needs to be a rangeblock and not an individual address block, with a length of at least a few months, based on the fact that there was IP address 223.185.133.42 engaging in the same large quantity of disruptive edits ( example) back in June, and same thing with IP address 223.185.128.39 in May ( example). They are currently using 223.185.133.218 but just a few days ago they were on 223.185.132.111. I searched through the contribs history of the /21 range and could not really find any edits from the last few months that are undoubtedly not from User:Halud Foressa.
The latest IP address has been racking up quite a bit of disruption lately, for example check out the page histories of Mr. Sampat, Pabitra Papi and Deewana (2013 film). This disruption just needs to stop, and I'm sure User:Mehedi Abedin is very tired of it at this point. They actually tried to report the latest IP address at AIV twice ( attempt 1, attempt 2), but both reports got ignored for long enough to become automatically removed as stale, so I'm helping them out here in regards to this. — AP 499D25 (talk) 01:50, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
Since last year I have been the target of (sometimes carefully hedged) accusations and smears from an editor who disagrees with me.
16:41, 28 September 2023 (UTC) Calling me "continual and deliberate false accusations" [115]
04:40, 29 September 2023 (UTC) Suggesting that I'm trying to use the "big lie technique, in the hope that Repeat a lie often enough and it becomes the truth" [116]
10:26, 8 October 2023 (UTC) "adding misinformation" [117]
Suggesting that I'm being paid by a Chinese company to edit on their behalf
10:44, 8 October 2023 (UTC) "Given the influence and the large amount of $ the Sing! China incident involved, it won’t surprise me if it turns out that someone is paid to edit in their voice" [118]
21:22, 5 July 2024 (UTC) "That sea lion and their bait are really disgusting" [119] "I hope you are paid, and well-paid. Otherwise it doesn’t worth the time and effort you’ve devoted." [120]
Their behavior is unwarranted and needs to stop. Vacosea ( talk) 04:26, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
I don’t think people will be interested in the 24 diffs you posted above (most of which were months ago, back in 2023).
Perhaps I shouldn’t have tried to make peace with you. I’m too forgetful, and forget how good you are at misleading people with unrelated diffs, links and sources. Maybe you would like to post all the diffs at one time, like this.
It seems to me that your main purpose is not trying to improve the article. Rather, you are using aged or tangentially-related diffs in the hope that you can get rid of another editor by sheer weight of numbers, especially where said diffs have been raised at previous ANIs that ended without the desired ban. I won’t comment on the issue of the former admin you mentioned, as I know nothing about that. However, I don’t think ANI is only moderated by one admin. Again, digging up old non-issue issues is a waste of community’s time and is exhausting other editors. Not to mention the untrue claims / potential WP:PA that are made. I don’t think I’ll take the bait this time. You can go on with your diffs.
If I was wrong and that word does mean attack and shouldn’t be used, I’ll retract that, with apologies. As for “moving to another area of the encyclopaedia”, do you mean I should quit editing an article of my choice, and which I’m the main contributor to, just because I have been trying hard to protect the page from misinformation (which results in untrue claims / PA / case against me)? It shouldn’t be how things work ...”Sealioning (also sea-lioning and sea lioning) is a type of trolling or harassmentthat consists of pursuing people with relentless requests for evidence, often tangential or previously addressed, while maintaining a pretense of civility and sincerity ("I'm just trying to have a debate"), and feigning ignorance of the subject matter.[1][2][3][4] It may take the form of "incessant, bad-faith invitations to engage in debate",[5] and has been likened to a denial-of-service attack targeted at human beings.[6] The term originated with a 2014 strip ...”
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I'm on mobile for the moment, but thought this needed immediate attention (my apologies if I'm out of line):
[125] (
archived) and
[126] (
archived) and
[127] (
archived) and
[128] (
archived) and
[129] (
archived) and
[130] (
archived). —
Fourthords |
=Λ= |
07:30, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
User:SofiaBirina is currently edit warring a combination of promotional-sounding material and copyrighted material into the article
Petah Tikva Museum of Art. See
[131]
[132]
[133], all which contain material copied from
[134]/
[135] or another similar source. Page protections, blocks, whatever- could an admin deal with this?
GreenLipstickLesbian (
talk)
09:13, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
In early June I warned User:Owenglyndur about copyright violations; there was minimal engagement with the issue (see Owenglyndur's talk page). Two articles were subsequently speedily deleted, and after finding copyvios in several other articles they created I requested a contributor copyright investigation. They have since created Khirbet Beit Sila which is substantially copied from this source. My attempt to help Owenglyndur has been unsuccessful, including suggesting training resources. Would an admin be able to take a look at the situation? Richard Nevell ( talk) 11:34, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
Can you please retract this comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aimee Knight. The comments describe someone sexuality using words that are not acceptable FuzzyMagma ( talk) 11:52, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
I've been reluctant to report this editor BeauSuzanne ( talk · contribs) again because my previous report filed back in April was overlooked, but I've reached my limit with BeauSuzanne who has a history of consistently creating BLPs on non-notable Pakistani subjects (many of which I suspect are WP:UPE) using WP:FICTREF. Despite my repeated warnings, they continue to disregard the WP:BLP rules against adding WP:OR with WP:FICTREF, and making assurances they don't keep. And not only myself, but others have warned them too about violating WP:BLP by adding WP:OR, yet they persist in doing so. It's unrealistic to monitor every article they create, so I'm concerned about how many more articles they've done this to.
And just yesterday, they created an article on some WP:ROTM actor Yasmeen Tahir that I also suspect is WP:UPE, laden with WP:OR using WP:FICTREF so when I asked them why they added WP:OR, they plainly denied doing so. Hence, I decided to draftify the BLP, but another editor moved it back without addressing the underlying problems which also led to a move war. So I had to put in a lot of effort and time to remove the WP:OR - but only to discover today that BeauSuzanne has re-added WP:OR again today and this recurring issue needs immediate attention. BeauSuzanne have also been previously advised, both by me and others, to refrain from creating articles directly in the main NS and to use drafts instead, but they disregard this advice as well. And fwiw, they also engage in LOUTSOCKING. — Saqib ( talk I contribs) 15:35, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
Pakistan Television Corporation, dated 1999was a fabricated reference used to cite career information. Similarly, a YouTube video of the subject's interview were cited multiple times, but I couldn't verify those claims, either. Similarly, here they inserted details such as
...studied from Convent of Jesus and Mary, Lahore and completed her M.A in English..., which were not supported by the cited VOA source. Likewise, the claim that she married in 1962 and had three sons could not be verified from the provided The Nation source, among numerous other instances. And I haven't even begun to discuss the number of unreliable or poor sources they add to BLPs. Draft:Safia Khairi, Draft:Sahab Qazalbash, Draft:Durdana Rehman, Draft:Huma Mir, Qaiser Naqvi- These are all recent creations by BeauSuzanne. Please take note of the type of references they are using—mostly fabricated or unreliable sources. — Saqib ( talk I contribs) 19:45, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
By the way, I've just identified a very old account with ~100K edits that's confirmed to be engaging in UPE.. In some cases, they continue to cast WP:ASPERSIONS like User:BeauSuzanne when they have already denied the accusation, three UPE notices on Riizwaan111 ( [138], [139], [140]) which is too much. They even accused a very experienced editor @ Isi96: ( [141]) without any evidence which was ridiculous. This kind of editing is unfortunately driving away potential productive contributors (e.g. User:Faizanalivarya etc. and many other are no longer with us). I'm not suggesting that they are doing this on purpose, but it seems to have negative effects. I just hope they don't follow User:Jytdog's path as we need their contributions.
old account with ~100K editsI've already submitted evidence at
paid-en-wp@wikipedia.orgwithout directly accusing or even engaging with that editor on-wiki so it wasn't an accusation and I bet you can't even recognize that editor. As for the other editors you named above- whom I've warned, I believe my warnings were justified, though I can agree that sometimes I may have gone overboard, and for that, I regret it But if needed, I can provide reasoning regarding why I accused them of WP:UPE. And please allow me to clarify that I do not accuse every other newbie of being a UPE, nor do I frivolously file WP:SPI's. Most of my WP:SPIs have been found correct, and many of the editors I've warned or accused of WP:UPE were later found to be involved in either sockpuppetry or violating WP:BLPs, or at the very least, were engaging in dubious editing behaviour. And by the way, I'm sure you're the same one who's been telling other editors to watch me because I'm chasing down WP:UPEs. That being said, I'm completely open to having my edits scrutinized, and I'm willing to accept any warranted warnings. I'm open to acknowledging my mistakes. In fact, I've stopped casting WP:ASPERSIONS as suggested by some lately, and I've even slowed down on taking articles to AFD because some admins pointed out the backlog. Thank you! — Saqib ( talk I contribs) 00:02, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
Not entirely sure to which admin board I'd post this, since this issue encompasses both Commons and Wikipedia.
To start; the user
Vectormapper has recently
uploaded a slew of SVG maps on Commons, and almost all of them display a prominent logo watermark promoting their website (
example here on lower right corner), falling under unacceptable watermarking per
COM:WATERMARK.
User defends the watermarks on their talk page as follows:
You see self-promotion in my publications. This is a misconception. The author's signature on the author's product is NORMAL. They've been doing this for hundreds of years. My ancestor, Johann Georg Schreiber [...] put his signature picture with his name in the corner of the map in the same way.
That user has then
edited a number of city articles on Wikipedia to display these maps.
Furthermore, it seems that the user has also
edited these maps into Wikipedia articles with the username
Ilya_Shrayber. It seems that that user had been editing a number of city articles to include links to their own website back in 2016, and
was engaged in some edit warring involving those links. (Next edits show a few back-and-forth reverts.)
Currently the user is engaged in some
"discussion" about the maps on the Village Pump. Based on the user's replies there and on their talk page, they are not taking no for an answer, and treat established policies as opinions to brush aside with non sequiturs.
Ilya_Shrayber's
user talk page displays similar problematic discourse reminiscent of Vectormapper's.
Not even considering the dubious usefulness of the maps — as they are completely unreadable in the infobox size to which they have been inserted, and since Wikipedia already has the Kartography plugin which does the same thing better (the user argues that Kartography is " not suitable for creating maps in vector formats suitable for use in media" nor editable unlike his maps) — they, at the very least, should be marked with {{Watermark}} where applicable and treated by the policies listed there.
And lastly, in the user's own words, if the maps are meant for creating prints and edited for in use in media, and as the user admits that the maps are unreadable in the infobox size (" Are you joking? These are vector files and can be scaled to any size. 300 pixels is a tiny preview. You can't see anything in this preview."), the maps do not belong in infoboxes, and the user should stop inserting the maps into them. — Nelg ( talk) 16:35, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
2.51.87.235 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS) has been applying MOS and ENGVAR spelling/grammar changes randomly. Across a range of articles. Often applying MOS/ENGVAR changes incorrectly (applying UK spelling to US topics and vice versa). And in many cases making random style/spelling/grammar/content changes to quoted text, reference titles and other content that should not be changed.
(For example, the anon editor decidde to " improve" the text of the USA Freedom Act of 2015 (H.R.2048). So it no longer matched the source. Or randomly change what composer Brian Tyler reportedly said in a 2019 interview.)
The IP user has been advised of these errors and issues repeatedly. Including by myself ( multiple times), by KylieTastic ( here), by HMSLavender ( for example), and several others. In each case, the specific ENGVAR/SIC/MOS guideline has been highlighted for the anon. In each case the disruption has continued. We are long since at the point where the community is spending more time cleaning up mistakes and explaining guidelines than is reasonable. And hence a block or other action is likely needed. Guliolopez ( talk) 21:01, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
This user has been creating characters articles on the site for a fair bit now, and while most of these subjects failed notability guidelines, I have given them the benefit of the doubt until now. They started at first by creating articles for Doctor Who related characters, such as Sutekh (Doctor Who) and The General (Doctor Who), among others, which had to be redirected and their edit history deleted due to plagiarism and copyright violations (Both lifted from their respective TARDIS Wiki pages). I went to their talk page and warned the user about these actions, including several copyright violations on Commons due to them uploading several copyrighted images for various reasons, including as illustration for some of these articles. This user has recently begun creating other character articles, most notably for Star Wars characters, in the form of characters such as Canderous Ordo and Tor Valum, with both having grievous copyright violations from various sources (With Ordo's hailing from [142] and Valum's hailing from [143]). I have not been monitoring this user, and have only become aware of the persistence of these actions via the recent Ordo AfD, so there may be additional copyright violations or other incidents of plagiarism I may have missed. Given I have already notified this user of the issues present with copyright and plagiarism on their talk page, they are well aware of what they are doing, and are in violation of several Wikipedia guidelines. I am admittedly unfamiliar with reporting incidents of this severity, so I apologize if this in the wrong noticeboard, but given the consistent problems this editor has been causing due to their consistent violations, I feel inclined to report this user before these continue to cause further problems for other editors in the future. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 ( talk) 23:33, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents |
---|
This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems.
When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page;
pinging is
not enough. 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) |
User:Drbogdan is a prolific and good faith editor who on the whole seems to be sincerely attempting to be a positive force here. That aside, he seems to have an issue with low quality edits that have gotten to the point of becoming a problem (or they have been for a long time) and there's a general issue of WP:NOTSOCIALNETWORK and WP:NOTBLOG as well. I spoke to him somewhat recently about editing in disruptive quantities of new New York Times articles on astronomy/space content and his primary response was to edit my comment on his talk page to get rid of the word “disruptive” citing WP:IAR for editing my own comment. I’m going to repeat some of the content here from that post, since the pattern of editing has continued past that discussion:
I understand you've been trying to engage with these topics in good faith, but it's gotten to a point where you're editing in New York Times articles on related articles which is creating a workload for editors who need to undo those changes. Recent edits to:
Which were all reverted near identical edits made within a small window of time, and all reverted. Again, a similar situation played out at:
And again at
These are all massive strings of edits of identical content (editing in of very recent New York Times stories), all of which were reverted by me or other users. Recently this has continued with edits to Fast Radio Burst and Timeline of Mars 2020, where he's been adding in every observation by date as they arise and the latter article in particular, where he’s the primary editor, is a complete mess as a result of the daily additions. There's also, more troublingly, undoing reverts to add back in puffery to CDK Company and linking apparently WP:COPYVIO youtube links to Twyla Tharp. There’s also an updated database of every comment he has made on the New York Times, hosting his entire dissertation on wikipedia, and hosting literally dozens of personal photos and videos on commons, with an overwhelming majority of his recent contributions being exclusively to his userspace, and creating redirects to terms that don't actually appear to exist.
I don’t know what the right recourse is here, this is clearly someone active and engaged with Wikipedia in good faith, but at the same time it’s also someone editing in a way that’s creating a huge mess of edits to undo due to the frequent addition of New York Times/pop-science articles (sometimes with WP:PROFRINGE issues when it comes to dark matter in particular) to space-related topics. This all seems to be from a position of good faith and for certain he has created a lot of good content, but it’s creating a workload for those of us who edit in astronomy/planetary science topics, which is made more challenging by a larger percentage of his edits just being labelled “add/adj” as edit summaries.
An IP editor, user:35.139.154.158, seems to be involved here as well, mass-undoing Drbogdan's edits. I’ve since gone out of my way to avoid touching Drbogdan’s edits (minus removing the copyvio) after our interaction because I want to avoid coming across as harassing or hounding. That said, the low quality edits have persisted to a point that I think warrants bringing up here, especially after the puffery and copyvio issues in short succession. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 07:51, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
*Comment - As OA of several of the WP:Redirects noted above, it's *entirely* ok wth me to do whatever is decided in the final WP:CONSENSUS discussion - these WP:RDRs were made as a way of linking to Wikipedia from External Websites (like FaceBook), which drops the ending ")", this problem has been fully described and discussed [by me] on the WP:Village pump (technical) at VP-Archive204 (a Must-Read); VP-Archive180; VP-Archive162 - in any case - hope this helps in some way - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan ( talk) 13:26, 23 February 2024 (UTC)- yes - some of my edits could be better - and which I hope to improve even more over time and further practice - I greatly appreciate others helping to correct my unintentionally-made issues - as I have helped them correct their own editing issues over the years - in any case - hope my comments above helps in some ways - please let me know if otherwise of course - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan ( talk) 12:01, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
All Wikipedia pages and articles are edited collaboratively by the Wikipedian community of volunteer contributors. No one, no matter what, has the right to act as though they are the owner of a particular article (or any part of it). Even a subject of an article, be that a person or organization, does not own the article, nor has any right to dictate what the article may or may not say.- I think that is worthy - and relevant - at least to me at the moment - as Director of Hospital Laboaratories in the real-world back in the day, one of my biggest concerns was determining the issues of the laboratories - a matter of communication - I welcomed feedback from others - working collaboratively with others helps solve a lot of problems - and helps make a better quality outcome generally imo - iac - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan ( talk) 13:26, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
when are you going to take your dissertation text and NYT clippings off Wikipedia as is required of you by WP:NOTWEBHOST?Phil Bridger ( talk) 13:50, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
I welcomed feedback from others
References
Drbogdan ( talk) 02:35, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
I have worked well with Drbogdan for years, and I have repeatedly defended him in the face of multiple attacks by many other editors making baseless accusations about his motivations.
In the United States, motion pictures published before 1978 are copyrighted for 95 years. You're not the first nor the last person to be confused about this, because the laws around copyright make no sense. Viriditas ( talk) 21:08, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
I would like to ask whether someone can summarize what if any administrative action is being requested. As we know, in Wikipedia there are content disputes and conduct disputes. This is a conduct forum. The content issues of whether to keep the dissertation and the New York Times comments are being dealt with at MFD. So is any other action being requested? One IP editor called for an indef, but I think that we can ignore it. Other than that, it seems that there are complaints that his writing about physics is problematic. He may, in good faith, think that he knows more about physics than the average reader, because -- a biochemist really knows more about physics than the average reader. However, he doesn't know as much about physics as the average physicist, and he may be trying too hard to explain dumbed-down physics to average readers in a way that real physicists know is wrong. Is that the problem? If so, is he willing to listen to the opinions of physicists? Is it necessary to topic-ban him from scientific areas outside biochemistry? If not, was this just a complaint session? Robert McClenon ( talk) 04:43, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
a biochemist really knows more about physics than the average reader... he may be trying too hard to explain dumbed-down physics to average readers in a way that real physicists know is wrong.
all my edits over the years were intended to be *good qualiy edits* - some editors may agree that my edits were *good quality edits* over the years - and some otherwise - my edits seem to be better than most in my own editing experiences compared with most other edits by Wikipedia editors afaik" - hope this helps in some way - Drbogdan ( talk) 12:23, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
edits seem to be better than mostwhile sort of outright refusing to recognize that multiple editors in science topics have chimed in here calling your edits disruptive and low quality to the point of warranting an ANI, regardless of the outcome of this ANI. There's a disconnect in what some of us here are saying and what you seem to understand the concern as. The NYT is a perfect fine and generally reliable source, that's not the issue. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 16:24, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
This all seems to be your opinion - I don't share your opinion - others may not as well- is there room for improvement - yes - in the sense that there is room for improvement for everybody of course - some more than others I would think - hope this helps - Drbogdan ( talk) 16:40, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
yes - seems that merging the edit more into the article prose may be better in a few of my edits - however - this hasn't always been possible for me for one reason or another (mostly real-world concerns)
Never edit or move someone's comment to change its meaning, even on your own talk page.Drbogdan edited the section heading that Warrenmck used on Drbogdan's User talk page. That sure looks like a WP:TPO violation to me. That said, the content of Warrenmck's comment was to raise the same concerns that this ANI thread has been about: low-quality edits in science articles. XOR'easter ( talk) 22:48, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
always preserves the original editor's meaning and intent. Changing the heading is the opposite of preserving meaning. Under "Concerns", that guideline writes,
Be aware that not every editor will agree with your refactoring or even of the refactoring concept in general. Provide links to the original, uncut version, so others can check your changes, and if necessary go back to the original to clarify what an author actually said. This combination of refactoring and archiving will often prevent complaints that information was lost. Make it explicit that you have refactored something so no one is misled into thinking this was the original talk page.Changing another editor's words and collapsing the meat of their comment [6] does none of that. XOR'easter ( talk) 22:56, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
If Drbogdan shouldn't have created Peekaboo Galaxy, what is stopping you from taking it to AfD?The fact that AfD is a time sink, and AfD's of pages with a superficial veneer of notability because they happen to be full of little blue clickly linky numbers are exceptionally tiresome. XOR'easter ( talk) 22:52, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
So apparently Drbogdan is the great image-adder. He added yet another image in Pluto. Drbogdan, would you mind... taking it slow?
Unclear about a specific problem heredespite diffs aplenty. While minor things in isolation, the puffery reverts in CDK Company and copyvio edits in Twyla Tharp are egregious:
re: the possible copyvio you noted at the Twyla Tharp article - unclear at the time of posting if the brief video clip (1976) was PD or not - clip was made 48 years ago - and may now be PD?
cite news |last=Bogdan |first=Dennis |authorlink=User:Drbogdanwhen linking to one of his own comments in that cite. You don't get that authorlink by accident from the autofill options linking NYT comments unless I'm mistaken. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 08:28, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
<ref>{{Cite news |last=Foer |first=Jonathan Safran |date=2020-05-21 |title=Opinion {{!}} The End of Meat Is Here |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/21/opinion/coronavirus-meat-vegetarianism.html |access-date=2024-06-30 |work=The New York Times |language=en-US |issn=0362-4331}}</ref>
. I don't think there's any way to get |authorlink=User:Drbogdan
and all that without deliberately typing it.
XOR'easter (
talk)
16:14, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
lack of admin attention here so far also speaks for itself. The message I'm getting from it is that this thread is less time-critical and involves subtler problems than most everything else on the board currently. XOR'easter ( talk) 19:24, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
please understand that it's *entirely* ok with me to rv/rm/mv/ce my edits of course. His agreeable tone juxtaposed with his poor sourcing and editing style was also remarked on 10 years ago. -- MacAddct1984 ( talk | contribs) 17:38, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
Hi, uninvolved editor here. Creating a new section so that we can more concisely discuss whether a WP:CIR and WP:PROMO indef ban for this user would be appropriate. The accusation of self promotional insertion of sources into Wikipedia is a serious one, if true and deserves a discussion and probably a 6 month indef (edit: to clarify here, meant an indef w/ 6 mo. review) with the home the user can take some time WP:HEAR the concerns raised. Allan Nonymous ( talk) 17:35, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
Drbplace the template NOINDEX|visible=yes at the top of each of his user pages. This good faith gesture by
Drbmay remove some pressure on his editing. Once this voluntary step is taken, this discussion might progress. This time sink needs to end. Unless
Drbis unable to take such an easy step, "signs point to" no progress made.
alerted to news and events by running across his postingsbit: that's a reason to follow someone on social media, not a reason that their edits on Wikipedia are actually good. XOR'easter ( talk) 20:24, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
User:Michalis1994 refuses to cooperate to improve the article. He does not discuss with me, but reverts without explanation. The sources he cites do not correspond to what he writes, and his additions make the article look more like a libellus than a calm record of the facts. Here are some diffs https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Afroditi_Latinopoulou&diff=prev&oldid=1230703015
also remove my appeal for discussion
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Afroditi_Latinopoulou&diff=prev&oldid=1230638536 D.S. Lioness ( talk) 17:43, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
He is a user of bad faith. You can see here /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/D.S._Lioness is fraudulently trying to delegitimize my contribution. D.S. Lioness ( talk) 18:29, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
This is a bit of a mess, but it does look at first glance as if D.S. Lioness is attempting to whitewash the article to remove cited criticisms of specific politicians and political parties. For the record, Lioness, do not accuse other editors of "libel", as that can be construed as a legal threat resulting in you being blocked. — The Hand That Feeds You: Bite— Preceding undated comment added 19:14, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
request for blocking to User:Michalis1994 per Wikipedia:NOTHERE and Wikipedia:Civilty see here https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk:Afroditi_Latinopoulou&diff=prev&oldid=1230879788 D.S. Lioness ( talk) 17:40, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
Quick report on D.S. Lioness: she's been relentlessly axing articles and deleting cited content to push her own POV. Entire sections in Afroditi Latinopoulou, including academic articles, have been wiped out and replaced with dubious, unreliable sources. The same pattern is evident here (no reason given), here (no reason given, despite the MEP's history), and here (removed information about the town, without giving any reason at all). Michalis1994 ( talk) 08:02, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
Personal attack (whitewashing), again. D.S. Lioness ( talk) 18:48, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
This seems strongly like a boomerang issue. User here seems only interested in censoring opinions that disagree with her.-- Insanityclown1 ( talk) 05:30, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
During a content dispute, it is more important than ever to focus on content, not editors- neither user here seems to be able to focus on the content rather than taking digs at the other. I don't think an interaction ban would be fair here unless it is accompanied by them both being unable to edit topics related to Afroditi Latinopoulou (including any politics related to that person) - so I think either a time limited topic ban or an indefinite topic ban (with ability to appeal after contributions elsewhere, as standard) would be better. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez ( User/ say hi!) 06:04, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
Now he's looking for my sandbox and he wants me to be blocked for what I WILL WRITE D.S. Lioness ( talk) 17:09, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
Αs far as I am concerned I will abstain from the Latinopoulou article until the user check is completed. Τhen everything will become clear D.S. Lioness For a comprehensive update I leave this one here /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/D.S._Lioness D.S. Lioness ( talk) 17:49, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
Comment: The assumption that
D.S. Lioness will cease her vandalism is fundamentally flawed. Her disruptive editing and vandalism have now extended to other pages, such as the
Alexis Papahelas article, where she
removed cited content just a few hours after discussions began to address concerns about her contributions. This mirrors her previous behaviour on the
Afroditi Latinopoulou page and is unlikely to stop there. This serves as a warning to anyone who believes the situation might improve or that her actions are confined to the
Afroditi Latinopoulou page.
Michalis1994 (
talk)
20:25, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
I think an interaction ban between the two would also possibly be appropriate. This sequence of threads is indicating to me that neither of the parties in conflict can simply leave well enough alone.-- Insanityclown1 ( talk) 09:26, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
Because we are waiting check user results, i think the calmest solution is to "freeze" the issue )unless it is possible to accelerate the procedure) because it may turn out that this conversation is meaningless, just like the one below. D.S. Lioness ( talk) 17:46, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
Adityagoyal6363 ( talk · contribs) predominately edits in Indian reality television articles. On Bigg Boss OTT (Hindi Digital series) season 3 I've been having an small issue with their edits as some of their are contrary to MOS:CAPS with this being the most recent edit on their part changing the section headings back to mixed-case. I'm not thrilled about that, but the larger issue I have is the lack of communication or response from them about the issues after leaving https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User_talk:Adityagoyal6363&diff=prev&oldid=1231958415 warning] messages on their tak page. They have responded to earlier messages on their talk page, so I know they are aware of the messages, but ignoring the WP:MOS from an editor with 2000+ edits of a year is not a minor thing. Given the lack of response around this, perhaps a page block from this page until they acknowledge they will follow the MOS is needed here. Thank you. Ravensfire ( talk) 17:50, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
Zanza05 has been continually removing Xenoblade-related entries on List of video games with LGBT characters, despite being sourced to sites that are listed as acceptable per WP:VG/RS. This has been ongoing for over a year, having previously done so under multiple IPs including [16] [17] [18] [19] (the latter of which is still topic blocked from those pages, technically making this block evasion). I attempted to explain policy to them and suggest more constructive ways to edit if they disagreed with the inclusion, but they have ignored this and continued disruptively editing. -- Cyberlink420 ( talk) 16:54, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
I recently closed an RfC on Yasuke and feel like the situation at Talk: Yasuke is deteoriating once again as more WP:SPA's are arriving to argue about the subject. There is a not insignificant amount of WP:SOAPBOXING occurring as well as some vaguely nationalist rhetoric where editors are proclaiming that Wikipedia is being governed by black supremacy and DEI as well as considerable activity taking place offsite on a Wikitionary Talk Page where aspersions are being cast on other editors involved in the dispute such as outright accusing others editors of lying and conspiring at fabricating historical truth as well as what appears to be attempts to Status Quo Stonewall as noted here where they begin discussing how to circumvent the RfC consensus before the RfC was even closed when they saw that the votes weren't going in their favor as well as WP:Tagteaming seen here. Because of all of these many preceived issues, I think some admin attention is needed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrhns ( talk • contribs) 18:49, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
This format encourages respondents to "vote" without engaging in a discussion, sharing alternatives, or developing compromises
Separate votes from discussion If you expect a lot of responses, consider creating a subsection, after your signature, called (for example) "Survey," where people can support or oppose, and a second sub-section called (for example) "Threaded discussion," where people can discuss the issues in depth. You can ask people not to add threaded replies to the survey section, but you can't require people to follow your advice. Editors are permitted to freely refuse your request.
This format encourages respondents to "vote" without engaging in a discussion, sharing alternatives, or developing compromises. It is most suitable for questions with clear yes/no or support/oppose answers, such as "Shall we adopt this policy?". Avoid this style for questions with multiple possible answers, such as "What kinds of images would be suitable for this article?" or "What should the first sentence say?" This style is used for RfCs that attract a lot of responses, but is probably overkill for most RfCs.
This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems.(emphasis mine)
andFor complex content-related issues between two or more editors, you may bring your dispute to the informal dispute resolution noticeboard. This is a good place to bring your dispute if you don't know what the next step should be
.For simple content-related issues where concise proposals have been made on the talk page, you may bring your dispute to the informal requests for comment to have the broader community look at the dispute and make suggestions.
they may be subject to more scrutiny in the early stages of their editing as other editors attempt to assess how well they adhere to Wikipedia standards.Closing discussions is allowed, but per WP:NAC they're generally left for administrators or experienced editors, especially the discussions that are likely to be controversial. Getting involved with Wikipedia and learning our policies is a great thing and I hope you continue. The Wordsmith Talk to me 22:07, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
DarmaniLink, who complains that Symphony Regalia is casting aspersions by mentioning the "anti-woke", "anti-dei", right-wing assault on the Yasuke article, began their first comment on the Yasuke talk page with
Descendent of an (actual) samurai of the saeki clan, with a preserved 15th century land grant document in my family's possession here. Another editor complained aboutblack supremacy and DEI propaganda. Personally I don't care about their motives, whether they are right-wing nationalists or passionate amateur historians and samurai enthusiasts - I'm not interested in their agenda, but I'm interested in their sources. Unfortunately those opposing Yasuke's status as a samurai have not provided sources contradicting Encyclopaedia Britannica, Smithsonian Magazine, TIME, BBC, or the research of Lockley and Lopez-Vera.
the other editor refusing to engage in my attempts at conversing with them on Talk:Yasuke about the quality of the tertiary and quaternary sources they reference. Eirikr made 88 edits to Talk: Yasuke adding 115 kB of text and Hexenakte made 111 edits adding 188 kB. They argued that Britannica, Smithsonians Magazine, BBC, TIME, CNN, France Info, Lockley's book [20] and Lopez-Vera's book [21] are not WP:RS because of their content: these sources directly claim that Yasuke was a samurai, which is incompatible with Hexenakte's and Eirikr's original research. There is not one single reliable source denying that Yasuke was a samurai, apart from the 300 kB of ruminations Eirikr and Hexenakte have posted on that talk page. This runs contrary to core policies and is disruptive as WP:BLUDGEON. Eirikr is not entitled to have me or others "engaged in their attempts at conversing" - they should have dropped the stick weeks ago. I don't know if there's an issue of bad faith or competence but I'm sure it's disruptive and should stop.
When that editor then edits the Yasuke article to add a detail ("as a samurai") with citations, and those citations do not say anything about that detail. Again, I don’t know if that's bad faith or lack of competence but this edit of mine replaces "retainer" with "samurai", which is directly supported by all cited sources, and modifies one sentence,
As a samurai, he was granted a servant, a house and stipend, which is supported by the quoted source, CNN, stating "Today, Yasuke’s legacy as the world’s first African samurai is well known in Japan (...) Nobunaga soon made him a samurai – even providing him with his own servant, house and stipend, according to Jesuit records".
Nobunaga was impressed by him and asked Valignano to give him over.<ref name="JapanForum" /> He gave him the Japanese name ''Yasuke'',{{efn|The origin of his name is unknown.}} made him an attendant at his side and enlisted Yasuke into his army as a samurai.<ref name="ExcludedPresence" /><ref name="Hitotsubashi">{{Cite journal |last=Wright |first=David |date=1998 |title=The Use of Race and Racial Perceptions Among Asians and Blacks: The Case of the Japanese and African Americans |url=https://www.jstor.org/stable/43294433 |url-status=live |journal=Hitotsubashi Journal of Social Studies |volume=30 |issue=2 |pages=135–152 |issn=0073-280X |jstor=43294433 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230313173327/https://www.jstor.org/stable/43294433 |archive-date=13 March 2023 |access-date=19 May 2024 |quote=In 1581, a Jesuit priest in the city of Kyoto had among his entourage an African}}</ref>
It is identical to the code of my second edit (restoring the first one after the RfC). As you can see, there is a full stop between "...into his army" and "As a samurai". "As a samurai" has a capital "A". The sentance I added is supported by the quoted source CNN. Gitz ( talk) ( contribs) 23:59, 2 July 2024 (UTC)Subsequently, Nobunaga took him into his service and gave him the name Yasuke. As a samurai, he was granted a servant, a house and [[stipend]].<ref>{{Cite web |last=Jozuka |first=Emiko |date=2019-05-20 |title=The legacy of feudal Japan’s African samurai |url=https://www.cnn.com/2019/05/19/asia/black-samurai-yasuke-africa-japan-intl/index.html |access-date=2024-06-27 |website=CNN |language=en}}</ref>
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I feel like pointing out that User:Chrhns's first edit to wikipedia was to close the RfC on Yasuke will shorten further discussion significantly. JackTheSecond ( talk) 22:17, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Soo are we gonna do anything about this guy or do we have to wait for him to go on another rant about "wokeism"?-- Trade ( talk) 00:57, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
Blocked Shinjitsunotsuikyu from Talk:Yasuke and Yasuke. Feel free to change that in any way. CambridgeBayWeather (solidly non-human), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 11:12, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
SpacedFarmer ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
This user is continuing their pattern of incivility and personal attacks towards editors who disagree with them. Since creating their account in late 2023, the majority of their edits of been in deletion/merge/split discussions. [24] They have been taken twice to ANI before.
Now, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2024 Sakhir Formula 3 round, SF has again taken to being uncivil towards editors who disagree with his nomination.
"There's always a home for them in Fandom. Nothing wrong with that site, though. People should think before shoving junk into Wikipedia."Bolding mine; The "go to Fandom" comment is itself bad, but again he belittles and does not assume good faith of the efforts of other editors.
"Fandom is always there for fans like you."
"and do we need an WP:INDISCRIMINATE amount of sports results to clutter Wikipedia with, especially those the most ardent minority of nerds bother with".
"Wow, such snowflakes like the modern times, getting upset by words like 'nerds', I thought nerds like being called nerds. I was a car nerd at one time and am not ashamed of that label. I call 'efforts' like this junk because people write crap."
Given that the user has not heeded past warnings to keep it civil, or even acknowledged that their lack of civility is a problem, and continues to bring this behaviour into discussions on deletion, merging and splitting whenever they face opposition that they can't just quickly reply to with a wikilink (and even sometimes when they can), I believe something beyond a warning (like a topic ban) must be done. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 03:49, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
A new response on
SpacedFarmer's user talk offers fresh evidence of their increasing use of personal attacks: "People like you are what is shit about modern motorsport, no wonder why the once great sport full of pussies like you nowadays."
I think something needs to be done.
Toughpigs (
talk)
21:39, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
Catironic9013 is an experienced user that has been adding unsourced content to Wikipedia as of late. I have given them notices on their talk page but they don't seem to care to discuss their edits. Here are the most recent additions of unsourced content.
On La academia [32], they added content about an upcoming season of the show and the judges for it but failed to add a source so I reverted their edit. Two months later, the user once again added information for the upcoming season without any sources. [33] [34]
On Top Chef VIP [35], they added that new judges were joining the series but again did not provide a reference. I later added the content myself with a reference, but it should not be my responsibility find sources for the edits of other users.
The most recent issue was on La casa de los famosos México season 2 where they added a cast member without a reference. [36].
I feel that as a user that has been editing since 2020 and with over 1,000 edits they should know that references are necessary so that readers can check that the content here on Wikipedia is true and that it comes from a reliable source. Telenovelafan215 ( talk) 01:35, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
Hello,
I'm asking for your help because the user I'm not perfect but I'm almost persists in wanting to maintain their version against all odds despite the opposition of 2 different users ( SoftReverie and me) on Japan national football team's page, and I'm not perfect but I'm almost was the 1st to modify a long-standing consensus version. When this is explained to them with edit summaries ( 1, 2), they simply revoke without edit summaries nor dialogue ( 1, 2) and threaten others users with reports. This is not an acceptable approach. Could you please call them to order so that they will cease their actions? Thank you very much. PS : I was mistaken in reporting it on the wrong page earlier. -- Martopa ( talk) 15:30, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
The Land of the Rising Sun made sure of the points by overcoming Indonesiais a
long-standing consensus versionis a hard sell. How about you try discussing the issues with the other editor (on a talk page, not in edit summaries) first? Schazjmd (talk) 15:56, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
I should like to file a complaint about Redrose64, who unilaterally removed an RfC tag from an RfC in progress without telling anyone they had done so, just 5 hours after the bot had assigned it an ID. No one noticed they had done so until today. I restored the tag with the assigned ID, but is that the right thing to do or does it need to be assigned a new ID? Opinion in the RfC are pretty much equally divided, and the duration may need to be extended as because of the removal, uninvolved editors have not commented. This is a mess and RR64 should have consequences for this. Skyerise ( talk) 21:41, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
Tell you what, why don't you other admins ask them. I suggest this be taken by admins to WP:AN for an admin review. I've reported my perception of the incident, and I'm done here. I don't trust them to answer me honestly, so please why don't you ask them that. I want nothing more to do with Redrose64. Thanks. Skyerise ( talk) 22:32, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
Multiple editors have stated that they believe most of the material should be kept; perhaps an equal number simply want to remove it all.
— Again, this is a misrepresentation of the RfC, which was begun by Skyerise about trimming the section. Despite Skyerise wanting to keep material in totality on the basis of relevance, most editors are in favor of trimming the material regardless of Skyerise's relevance basis. I pointed out these issues
here. And with the bad-faith personal attacks against Redrose64, Skyerise also made a
WP:THREATEN personal attack on my talk page
[38] threatening to, yes, "pursue admin action
" against me if I did not keep the material.
GuardianH (
talk)
02:02, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
WP:NAC undone. It read: Further attention of administrators not needed, multiple of whom have talked with Skyerise, who was notified that 'this cannot be a pattern, was then talked with some more and understood the problem and apologized; during all this a boomerang was not invoked, so it would not make sense to boomerang now, after the apology; the "RfC" was closed, the unsatisfactory state of things at the article itself was made less unsatisfactory, the degree of ongoing disagreement is low and any remaining dispute can be resolved through the normal editorial process. Everyone is thanked for their patience and good-spiritedness.—Alalch E. 13:14, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
Alalch E., this is a bad close, and there are plenty of admins, so I'm not sure why you saw fit to close it in such a starkly biased way. Redrose64 asked Skyerise: Why have you taken me straight here without first attempting to discuss the matter with me
. Skyerise replies with: Because you did it in a deceptive manner
. And you call their last message here directly above: Ok, fine. Sorry if my honest misunderstanding caused problems
an apology? Apology to whom? Persons? You label Skyerise's combativeness (seemingly a reoccurring problem and a pattern) "good-spiritedness"? Like his You should be de-admined per Wikipedia:ADMINCOND for "egregious poor judgment" in this matter.
No. Possible sanctions are at stake, still, so why are you, a non-admin, closing this thread?
El_C
20:06, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
honest misunderstanding. Skyerise has a history of blocks for personal attacks, including for personal attacks and failure to AGF. If Skyerise is able to recognize what they did wrong here, I would support a warning at this point. If not, a block might be appropriate to prevent further disruption and deter future PAs. voorts ( talk/ contributions) 01:59, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
And I apologize to Redrose64 for not going to them directly.— The going to Redrose64 directly is one thing, but if there is anything you need to address its the personal attacks, threats, ownership, and combative behavior that has been recurrent on more than one occasion. GuardianH ( talk) 02:45, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
doesn't in any way justify incivility in my response. Not gonna grovel, chum. Skyerise ( talk) 03:05, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
So, I seem to recall that Skyerise has been here before recently, so I understand if others here feel that this is an opportune time to make a point to them about AGF and tone of interactions. And I don't want to undermine that effort if it is deemed advisable or even necessary. Particularly in that Skyerise themselves stands to benefit most from that discussion. But the thing is, all that said...I'm not sure the issues in this instance were entirely of their making?
Here's the thing: I'm about a fifteen year veteran of this project and I respond to a lot of RfCs: it's probably the single largest chunk of time I've devoted to the project in terms of community processes: I'd estimate I've responded to somewhere around 1,200 or 1,300 of them in the last ten years. And I've never once seen an RfC procedurally closed merely because it touched upon issues related to a merger. If I'm perfectly honest, I didn't even realize it was expressly proscribed by WP:RFCNOT, and I'm guessing most other editors don't either. And I think there's a reason for that: said portion of the RfC guideline was created by none other than RedRose64 more or less unilaterally, in a very perfunctory discussion with all of four editors and eight comments, almost all of the substance of which were theirs.
Now let me hasten to add, I think the process was clearly above-board and in good faith: a reasonable effort to codify what RedRose64 and another editor felt were obvious circumstances in which RfC should not apply. However, it was not a very robust or well-(or at all-)advertised discussion. RfC is a pretty fundamental tool for dispute resolution, and I think at a minimum that this discussion limiting its availability in various contexts should have been linked at the village pump.
And the consequences of giving short shrift to this process of amending the process page are not inconsequential to the current situation. Because honestly, of all of the scenarios which RedRose chose to codify as verboten applications of RfC, merger discussions stick out like a sore thumb as probably the least appropriate context in which to forbid such use of RfC. Every other process they chose to add to that list makes a certain amount of sense because they all have a commited forum or a listing which allows for the channeling of community attention from previously un-involved parties to the discussion. The discussions themselves either take place in a specific namespace or the article talk page discussions are posted for community members who contribute to that process. Not so for mergers.
So what Redrose did in adding mergers to that list was essentially create an automatic walled garden for merger discussions: only those previously involved in editing the articles in question (and in most cases, probably only those participating in the discussions leading up to the merger proposal) are going to know about the dispute, and now involved parties have no outlet for seeking additional un-involved voices. In my opinion, that is a very undesirable and problematic set-up. I tend to think that five years without complaint grants even slap-dash additions to policy and procedure pages some degree of implicit community support, but I think this situation, having been identified, now needs some review.
All of which is to say, I do think that Redrose did contribute some to the confusion here, by creating that section of the RfC procedure page largely wholecloth, and then applying it to this situation in a manner inconsistent with anything I have ever seen from another editor in cancelling an RfC already under way. From a purely pragmatic standpoint, I don't see what was to be gained (or would be gained in similar circumstances on any article) by limiting the availability to reach out and seek opinions from editors previously uninvolved in the dispute. And if nothing else, Skyerise is correct on one point: this action should have been at least expressly noted in a comment on the talk page made concurrent with the removal of the RfC tag. That is always best practice when using a technical means to prematurely close an RfC. SnowRise let's rap 03:26, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
Emre Özgür Yıldırım, This user is engaging in an editing war with me on the " Siege of Halicarnassus" article. Even though I invited the right person to talk on the talk page first, the user did not agree to this and continued to edit the page. And he accused me of nationalism. User_talk:Keremmaarda#May_2024 Keremmaarda ( talk) 07:13, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
Kennethmacalpine ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been editing mainly in Wales-related articles. Several of their edits, generally marked as "correction" have changed correct links to dab links, see for example here, here, here. Others, such as here have completely changed the name of a reference's author. Here we see a link to Ceretic of Elmet being changed to Cerdic of Wessex, a geographically and chronologically entirely different person. The number and nature of the changes mean it would be helpful if others looked them over too. As I say, I don't know if this is incompetence or vandalism, or what. DuncanHill ( talk) 10:50, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
For the past 2 years, there has been an incredibly disruptive user who would edit logged out with fluctuating IP ranges which geolocated to Italy; they would repeatedly mess with census figures, add nonsensical information to aggrandize their religion and language, and try to include a certain religion/sect (Ravidassia) as a part of Sikhism. They accumulated hundreds of temp blocks on their IPs; a few other editors and I reported them to ANV and ANI many, many times over the years, including this report which led to their IP ranges being partially blocked from pages they would often target- [40]
Recently, they decided to use sock accounts to continue their vandalism- [41]. Unfortunately, another one of their disruptive accounts is still active- User:SantwinderSingh- who also inflates Sikh census numbers, decreases other religions' population size, targets Punjabi dialect articles, and tries to include the Ravidasia faith as a part of Sikhism.
I'm hoping this account could just be blocked for disruption, even though I know this is a sock account, I figure it might be handled quicker at ANI rather than at SPI which is fairly backlogged. Southasianhistorian8 ( talk) 11:05, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
The following IPs are making disruptive mass changes of " Transnistria" to "Pridnestrovie" across many different articles:
Mellk ( talk) 11:42, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
While patrolling recent changes, I noticed around 20 accounts with similar user pages, all affiliated with the University of Ghana in some way. Some examples: Adorble Courage, Yaw Agyare Amoah, Diana Ofori, etc. They don't have any WikiEd messages on their talk page and appear to be in different majors, so I'm not sure if they're part of an education program or not. Is there anything we could do? '''[[ User:CanonNi]]''' ( talk • contribs) 12:09, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
He reverted the stoning edits to earlier versions as previous socks. Please ban him indefinitely. Thank you. Margeandtheferrero ( talk) 17:08, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
Latiromazzaire ( talk · contribs) has been adding incorrect categories repeatedly. They do not seem to grasp WP:CATDEF and continue their behaviour still. After this edit, I left a final warning, asking them to stop. An hour and half ago, they partially reinstated their edit.
They have been asked not do so, and have been subsequently warned about their incorrect and frankly, disruptive, editing. They received messages by DonIago, Ferret and myself about this matter. They haven't responded to a single message. Matter of fact, they haven't edited their talk page at all.
While they have ignored all messages, they did however communicate through two edit summaries, here and here. WP:COMMUNICATION is required. Perhaps it's also a case of WP:COMPETENCE, failing to understand, or just WP:DIDNTHEARTHAT. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 17:22, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
On July 3rd I wrote this article on a subject.
15 minutes after I published to the draft space and submitted to AfC, BullDawg2021 Paraphrased my draft, and created the Wikipedia page Haliey Welch (notice the name has an intentional typo, because it notifies that there is already an article in the draft space).
It can be proven that I created this page first by looking at the draft history of my article here: https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Draft:Hailey_Welch&action=history
To sum it up:
BullDawg2021 basically paraphrased my article and published it to the mainspace, and this incredibly disingenuous. It's eerily similar to my page, and I spent one to two hours writing it and finding the sources and fact checking the sources, yet BullDawk2021 was able to publish the page with a very similar sounding lede just 15 minutes after I published the draft and submitted to AfC. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Comintell (
talk •
contribs)
19:20, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
Given recent events in association football, the page for the Wolf salute, akin to the Nazi salute, has come under a barrage of Turkish ultranationalists whose goal is to infantilise the salute, which is pseudo-scientifically described as an identifier for Turkishness, even though it is political and an appeal to ultranationalism, usually of the far-right kind.
The Turkish user @ Beshogur is calling me a single-issue user and removing all of my edits, which use sources to characterise the gesture as what it is: ultranationalist and neo-fascist.
Yes, I am only here for this article, because it means a lot to me. I am German, and we have the Rechtstaat (state of justice) here. No, I am not disruptive for removing Turkish ultranationalism.
It does not matter how experienced this user seems to be or for how long he has been on the "free" (anti-fascist?) encyclopedia. What matters is that the user must discuss their edits and not just remove them when we sees fit.
Thank you. And, fascism must go. Everywhere. Gypsybores ( talk) 19:49, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
Mate, do you have a problem?
Do you use the wolf salute often?
Surely, there has got to be a provision on the "free" encyclopedia to ban non-free (i.e., fascist) users.
And I will report you for Turkish ultranationalism. Who do you think you are?
Interesting, you are a Turkish far-righter based in the Netherlands or Belgium.How does he even know my location?
And you think you are impartial? Again - who do you think you are?so he's going to start threatening me?
Beshogur, mate, do you have a problem? So what I want to reverse vandalism by ultranationalist users like? I will find a forum for arbitration for this.
Ultranationalist removal of sourced information
Revert ultranationalism and threats
The wolf salute, the grey wolf salute or the grey wolf gesture (Turkish: Bozkurt işareti) is a Turkish nationalist and Pan-Turkic hand symbol, linked to the far-right Grey Wolves political movement. The gesture is banned in France and Austria.
The wolf salute, the grey wolf salute, or the grey wolf gesture (Turkish: Bozkurt işareti) is an ultranationalist, pan-Turkist, and neo-fascist hand symbol.
2A02:FE1:7191:F500:1D68:AEEA:EBA5:D751 has made unreliable edits on various race and intelligence articles and has been heavily reverted. I first ran into this user on the Helmuth Nyborg article where a first they were removing any mention of sources describing Nyborg's involvement with the far-right and neo-nazism. I reverted this user a few times but I did my best to cooperate with them on the talk-page.
2A02 has made several posts accusing me of being a sock-puppet at Wikipedia and an editor of RationalWiki. There were two earlier posts by them on this [50], [51]. On their talk-page they were warned by another user not to make this type of personal attack [52] and "This should be considered a level 2 warning" [53] yet they continue to do so [54]. The user said they won't be filing an SPI and has woven a complex conspiracy theory that users supportive of race intelligence research are banned from Wikipedia.
In the above diff, the user falsely claims I have lied about working as a journalist and that I have used this sock-puppet account London Student Journalist. This is a random blocked account from 2018 that is nothing to do with me. I never claimed to be a journalist. I am a philosophy student and I do private research for a newspaper on far-right figures. The same user also claimed that I am involved in RationalWiki and created an article on there yesterday which is not true.
The same user has also been linking to old Wikipedia conversations from 2020 and 2021 [55] citing conspiracy theories from two blocked Wikipedia accounts Gardenofaleph and another banned user who was topic banned on race and intelligence Captain Occam. Both of these accounts were promoting strange conspiracy theories about RationalWiki and about two Wikipedia users sharing accounts to discredit intelligence researchers. Nobody took their claims seriously but this user is linking to this old content.
I believe that the issues of repeated personal attacks and promotion of conspiracy theories about off-site websites need to be addressed here. It should also be noted the same user has been warned about canvassing [56] but is trying to canvass two other editors they believe sympathetic to their pro-race and intelligence viewpoint to file an SPI. The user is not acting in good faith, they seem upset with my well-sourced edits on Helmuth Nyborg so have resorted to promoting misinformation about my account to try and shut me down. Their behaviour has not been pleasant, I also left them a message on their talk-page but they removed it [57]. 51.6.193.169 ( talk) 20:34, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
Hello. There is someone who is on a crusade on English Wikipedia to replace all instances of " Transnistria" (Romanian-derived name, the most common in English, already settled by various RMs [58] [59]) with "Pridnestrovie" (Russian-derived name). They've used so far four IPs, the first three already blocked [60] [61] [62] [63]. All of these appeared today, 5 July. As you can see they have extended their disruptive edits, every single one of them having been reverted for now, throughout many articles. If this is an appropriate venue to ask for this (I think so), could an IP range block be enforced? Unsurprisingly, all four IPs have the same location. Thanks, Super Ψ Dro 21:49, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This is a user I first encountered because they added an irrelevant WP:AUTOBIO notice to an IP I was watching. I don't know why they did this. When I left them a message on their talk page about it, they ignored it and blanked my user page. They later apologized on their own accord which I thought was surprisingly nice of them. They then proceeded to move their user and talk page to random namespaces ( [64] [65] [66] [67]) and made a bunch of other seemingly random, unconstructive edits. I reported them to WP:AIV but withdrew my request after they apologized and left this note on their user page (I believed their edits might have genuinely been mistakes). Recently they started editing again and made a few troll edits ( [68] [69]) then added these ( [70] [71]) notices to their talk page, suggesting their account has been compromised. I assume this is just a case of WP:BROTHER. Not really sure what to do here, but if you scroll far enough down their contributions, you'll see they did (or tried to) make some constructive edits in the past. Maybe an admin can give them a stricter warning about their troll (?) edits? C F A 💬 22:18, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
User:Woolstation, looking at their talk page, has been warned three times for introducing copyrighted material into articles. [72] [73] [74]. Today, they made this edit [75] which introduced material copied from their cited source, [76]. You can see the copypatrol report [77]. Upon further examination of the article, I had to remove more copyrighted material from different sources, including the subject's own website.
I do not know why they continue to introduce copyrighted matter into articles. Maybe they don't understand, maybe they don't think it's that big of a deal. But it needs to stop, and the situation needs admin intervention. GreenLipstickLesbian ( talk) 22:25, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
The IP address 2600:4808:6091:5E00:748A:F9DA:24C0:52 has been, starting yesterday, making possibly thousands of high-speed edits (as fast as 3-4 per minute) changing names of countries to former names or predecessor states such as Greece to Kingdom of Greece and Brazil to First Brazilian Republic. Has been warned but has not stopped. I've tried mass-reverting their edits but the massRollback script isn't working reliably for me. Rusty talk contribs 22:44, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk:Tel_al-Sultan_massacre&diff=prev&oldid=1232874929
- IOHANNVSVERVS ( talk) 02:24, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
Johann Grander was an Austrian with no scientific background who claimed to have received information from God on how to "improve" water and made all kinds of claims that his "revitalized" water had special benefits (including curing cancer). It was sold for large sums per liter and the devices were sold for even larger sums. It is a bit comparable to holy water. A company was formed that sold his "inventions". The claims by the company have been debunked over and over again by scientists.
Salvelinus umbla (
talk ·
contribs) wrote: "To the best of current knowledge, the company Grander has never been a partner of Wetsus.
" despite Grander being listed as a
company participant on the website of Wetsus, which means that Grander paid Wetsus money.
Wetsus names the sum on their website Company Participants: € 32,900/theme/year
The theme is " Applied Water Physics" and the coordinator for that theme is no other than Elmar C. Fuchs, who has at least since 2016 been writing at least 3 publications in support of Grander.
Salvelinus umbla
wrote: Here, I must particularly insist on your source citation, as such accusations could very easily be misinterpreted as defamation of a respected scientist.
WP:LEGAL says: Legal threats should be reported to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents or elsewhere to an administrator. Users who post legal threats are typically blocked while the threats are outstanding.
Stating the facts is not defamation.
Thanks, Polygnotus ( talk) 06:23, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
Recent edits by Belomaad are, in their entirety, drawn from partisan and polemical sources that do not meet the WP:RELIABILITY criteria for Wikipedia articles, especially for articles about the history of Islam. In particular, none of the books cited by Belomaad are published by publishers known for fact-checking. These sources include alsersj.net and Mir'at ul-oqul by the Shia jurist Muhammad Baqir Majlisi ( d. 1699).
As a result, the content added by Belomaad repeatedly violates the principles of WP:NEUTRALITY and WP:VERIFIABILITY. In addition, there does not seem to be a WP:CONSENSUS for his/her edits and Belomaad has refused to investigate whether there is one.
All these issues were brought to Belomaad's attention on several occasions; see Talk:Umm Kulthum bint Ali#Marriage to Umar and the recent edit history of the article. Another editor, Iskandar323, even shared academic sources, currently unused in the article, that could replace the unreliable ones introduced by Belomaad. All these have been to no avail as Belomaad seems only interested in forcefully and repeatedly inserting his/her sectarian POV into the article, over and over, ignoring other editors' advice. Please see the recent edit history for the developments. Separately, Iskandar323 and Doug Weller have raised some concerns about Belomaad's integrity in Talk:Umm Kulthum bint Ali#Marriage to Umar and his/her responses suggest a flagrant ignorance about the mission of WP:WikiProject Islam. For instance, in one of his/her responses, Belomaad suggests that the article should largely reflect the the polemics of the majority rather than the academic findings of historians and Islamicists. (There is still room in the article for sectarian views when they are clearly labeled as such, e.g., a separate section about Shia views.) Albertatiran ( talk) 07:44, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
IPs aren't allowed to edit other people's user pages, so I can't slap a CSD notice on it, so could someone please delete the page User:HungHargrove66 and block the editor? See meta:User:Mathonius/Reports/Nothing to say about me really for the reasoning. Thanks! 81.187.192.168 ( talk) 13:21, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
Aqua.107 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
User repeatedly engages in non-constructive editing, often making unsourced changes (e.g. [78], [79], [80], see also examples below), or unexplained deletions of content (e.g. [81]). The larger problem is the edit-warring behaviour alongside this, of which they have a long history, e.g.:
They've previously been warned about disruptive behaviour ( [106], [107]), unsourced editing ( [108]), and about using AI-generated text ( [109], [110]). I warned them about edit-warring specifically ( [111]) shortly before they started edit-warring at War of the League of the Indies. Edit summaries like this latest one, after I re-explained the problem to them and invited them to discuss on the talk page here, suggests they have no intention to engage in WP:CONSENSUS. They have never responded on any talk page. R Prazeres ( talk) 17:00, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
I'm not sure if this should be posted here or at WP:CP. I was working through Copypatrol and found this user involved in three seprate cases. I cleared those and left a notice on their talk page. A lot of their larger edits contain blatant copyvios. I don't have time to go through and tag them all for RD1. Can an administrator go through their contributions and revdel the copyvios? They seem to be working constructively but also have clearly ignored the notice left by GreenLipstickLesbian four days ago. Thanks, C F A 💬 19:31, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Can someone verify the blocking activity by this user? He has been blocking IPs as open proxies but a Whois shows they’re simply public access points which means you physically have to be at that location to access through that IP. 63.44.136.26 ( talk) 20:20, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
DelusionalThomaz515610 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) It does not seem likely that this user will stop removing all mention of Vietnam from discussions of East Asia or the Sinosphere, which is not very nice of them. Remsense 诉 20:48, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Kind of minor but I'm getting personally harassed on my talk page by Arrowar. Stefen Towers among the rest! Gab • Gruntwerk 21:25, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
223.185.128.0/21 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Hello Wikipedia admins. I am requesting a block on the IP range above, for constant disruptive editing and block evasion of User:Halud Foressa. This IP user has been reported to WP:SPI four days ago at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Halud Foressa, but the report has sat there pretty much unlooked at ever since. Yet, this user continues to rapidly disrupt Wikipedia to this day, so I am posting here and requesting that action be taken swiftly.
Evidence of sockpuppetry (copied from the WP:SPI report) are as follows:
Both the IP and the [previous sock] 'User:Paul is describing' account seem highly (almost solely) interested in Indian films, and on the Deewana (2013 film) if we compare
diff by account to
diff by IP, they both are trying to remove the fact that the film is based on 2007 'Deepavali' film in one way or another. Little to no use of edit summaries either. Looking at their edits in general, they like to remove claims that a film is based on another (see
example 1 and
example 2).
It needs to be a rangeblock and not an individual address block, with a length of at least a few months, based on the fact that there was IP address 223.185.133.42 engaging in the same large quantity of disruptive edits ( example) back in June, and same thing with IP address 223.185.128.39 in May ( example). They are currently using 223.185.133.218 but just a few days ago they were on 223.185.132.111. I searched through the contribs history of the /21 range and could not really find any edits from the last few months that are undoubtedly not from User:Halud Foressa.
The latest IP address has been racking up quite a bit of disruption lately, for example check out the page histories of Mr. Sampat, Pabitra Papi and Deewana (2013 film). This disruption just needs to stop, and I'm sure User:Mehedi Abedin is very tired of it at this point. They actually tried to report the latest IP address at AIV twice ( attempt 1, attempt 2), but both reports got ignored for long enough to become automatically removed as stale, so I'm helping them out here in regards to this. — AP 499D25 (talk) 01:50, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
Since last year I have been the target of (sometimes carefully hedged) accusations and smears from an editor who disagrees with me.
16:41, 28 September 2023 (UTC) Calling me "continual and deliberate false accusations" [115]
04:40, 29 September 2023 (UTC) Suggesting that I'm trying to use the "big lie technique, in the hope that Repeat a lie often enough and it becomes the truth" [116]
10:26, 8 October 2023 (UTC) "adding misinformation" [117]
Suggesting that I'm being paid by a Chinese company to edit on their behalf
10:44, 8 October 2023 (UTC) "Given the influence and the large amount of $ the Sing! China incident involved, it won’t surprise me if it turns out that someone is paid to edit in their voice" [118]
21:22, 5 July 2024 (UTC) "That sea lion and their bait are really disgusting" [119] "I hope you are paid, and well-paid. Otherwise it doesn’t worth the time and effort you’ve devoted." [120]
Their behavior is unwarranted and needs to stop. Vacosea ( talk) 04:26, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
I don’t think people will be interested in the 24 diffs you posted above (most of which were months ago, back in 2023).
Perhaps I shouldn’t have tried to make peace with you. I’m too forgetful, and forget how good you are at misleading people with unrelated diffs, links and sources. Maybe you would like to post all the diffs at one time, like this.
It seems to me that your main purpose is not trying to improve the article. Rather, you are using aged or tangentially-related diffs in the hope that you can get rid of another editor by sheer weight of numbers, especially where said diffs have been raised at previous ANIs that ended without the desired ban. I won’t comment on the issue of the former admin you mentioned, as I know nothing about that. However, I don’t think ANI is only moderated by one admin. Again, digging up old non-issue issues is a waste of community’s time and is exhausting other editors. Not to mention the untrue claims / potential WP:PA that are made. I don’t think I’ll take the bait this time. You can go on with your diffs.
If I was wrong and that word does mean attack and shouldn’t be used, I’ll retract that, with apologies. As for “moving to another area of the encyclopaedia”, do you mean I should quit editing an article of my choice, and which I’m the main contributor to, just because I have been trying hard to protect the page from misinformation (which results in untrue claims / PA / case against me)? It shouldn’t be how things work ...”Sealioning (also sea-lioning and sea lioning) is a type of trolling or harassmentthat consists of pursuing people with relentless requests for evidence, often tangential or previously addressed, while maintaining a pretense of civility and sincerity ("I'm just trying to have a debate"), and feigning ignorance of the subject matter.[1][2][3][4] It may take the form of "incessant, bad-faith invitations to engage in debate",[5] and has been likened to a denial-of-service attack targeted at human beings.[6] The term originated with a 2014 strip ...”
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I'm on mobile for the moment, but thought this needed immediate attention (my apologies if I'm out of line):
[125] (
archived) and
[126] (
archived) and
[127] (
archived) and
[128] (
archived) and
[129] (
archived) and
[130] (
archived). —
Fourthords |
=Λ= |
07:30, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
User:SofiaBirina is currently edit warring a combination of promotional-sounding material and copyrighted material into the article
Petah Tikva Museum of Art. See
[131]
[132]
[133], all which contain material copied from
[134]/
[135] or another similar source. Page protections, blocks, whatever- could an admin deal with this?
GreenLipstickLesbian (
talk)
09:13, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
In early June I warned User:Owenglyndur about copyright violations; there was minimal engagement with the issue (see Owenglyndur's talk page). Two articles were subsequently speedily deleted, and after finding copyvios in several other articles they created I requested a contributor copyright investigation. They have since created Khirbet Beit Sila which is substantially copied from this source. My attempt to help Owenglyndur has been unsuccessful, including suggesting training resources. Would an admin be able to take a look at the situation? Richard Nevell ( talk) 11:34, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
Can you please retract this comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aimee Knight. The comments describe someone sexuality using words that are not acceptable FuzzyMagma ( talk) 11:52, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
I've been reluctant to report this editor BeauSuzanne ( talk · contribs) again because my previous report filed back in April was overlooked, but I've reached my limit with BeauSuzanne who has a history of consistently creating BLPs on non-notable Pakistani subjects (many of which I suspect are WP:UPE) using WP:FICTREF. Despite my repeated warnings, they continue to disregard the WP:BLP rules against adding WP:OR with WP:FICTREF, and making assurances they don't keep. And not only myself, but others have warned them too about violating WP:BLP by adding WP:OR, yet they persist in doing so. It's unrealistic to monitor every article they create, so I'm concerned about how many more articles they've done this to.
And just yesterday, they created an article on some WP:ROTM actor Yasmeen Tahir that I also suspect is WP:UPE, laden with WP:OR using WP:FICTREF so when I asked them why they added WP:OR, they plainly denied doing so. Hence, I decided to draftify the BLP, but another editor moved it back without addressing the underlying problems which also led to a move war. So I had to put in a lot of effort and time to remove the WP:OR - but only to discover today that BeauSuzanne has re-added WP:OR again today and this recurring issue needs immediate attention. BeauSuzanne have also been previously advised, both by me and others, to refrain from creating articles directly in the main NS and to use drafts instead, but they disregard this advice as well. And fwiw, they also engage in LOUTSOCKING. — Saqib ( talk I contribs) 15:35, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
Pakistan Television Corporation, dated 1999was a fabricated reference used to cite career information. Similarly, a YouTube video of the subject's interview were cited multiple times, but I couldn't verify those claims, either. Similarly, here they inserted details such as
...studied from Convent of Jesus and Mary, Lahore and completed her M.A in English..., which were not supported by the cited VOA source. Likewise, the claim that she married in 1962 and had three sons could not be verified from the provided The Nation source, among numerous other instances. And I haven't even begun to discuss the number of unreliable or poor sources they add to BLPs. Draft:Safia Khairi, Draft:Sahab Qazalbash, Draft:Durdana Rehman, Draft:Huma Mir, Qaiser Naqvi- These are all recent creations by BeauSuzanne. Please take note of the type of references they are using—mostly fabricated or unreliable sources. — Saqib ( talk I contribs) 19:45, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
By the way, I've just identified a very old account with ~100K edits that's confirmed to be engaging in UPE.. In some cases, they continue to cast WP:ASPERSIONS like User:BeauSuzanne when they have already denied the accusation, three UPE notices on Riizwaan111 ( [138], [139], [140]) which is too much. They even accused a very experienced editor @ Isi96: ( [141]) without any evidence which was ridiculous. This kind of editing is unfortunately driving away potential productive contributors (e.g. User:Faizanalivarya etc. and many other are no longer with us). I'm not suggesting that they are doing this on purpose, but it seems to have negative effects. I just hope they don't follow User:Jytdog's path as we need their contributions.
old account with ~100K editsI've already submitted evidence at
paid-en-wp@wikipedia.orgwithout directly accusing or even engaging with that editor on-wiki so it wasn't an accusation and I bet you can't even recognize that editor. As for the other editors you named above- whom I've warned, I believe my warnings were justified, though I can agree that sometimes I may have gone overboard, and for that, I regret it But if needed, I can provide reasoning regarding why I accused them of WP:UPE. And please allow me to clarify that I do not accuse every other newbie of being a UPE, nor do I frivolously file WP:SPI's. Most of my WP:SPIs have been found correct, and many of the editors I've warned or accused of WP:UPE were later found to be involved in either sockpuppetry or violating WP:BLPs, or at the very least, were engaging in dubious editing behaviour. And by the way, I'm sure you're the same one who's been telling other editors to watch me because I'm chasing down WP:UPEs. That being said, I'm completely open to having my edits scrutinized, and I'm willing to accept any warranted warnings. I'm open to acknowledging my mistakes. In fact, I've stopped casting WP:ASPERSIONS as suggested by some lately, and I've even slowed down on taking articles to AFD because some admins pointed out the backlog. Thank you! — Saqib ( talk I contribs) 00:02, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
Not entirely sure to which admin board I'd post this, since this issue encompasses both Commons and Wikipedia.
To start; the user
Vectormapper has recently
uploaded a slew of SVG maps on Commons, and almost all of them display a prominent logo watermark promoting their website (
example here on lower right corner), falling under unacceptable watermarking per
COM:WATERMARK.
User defends the watermarks on their talk page as follows:
You see self-promotion in my publications. This is a misconception. The author's signature on the author's product is NORMAL. They've been doing this for hundreds of years. My ancestor, Johann Georg Schreiber [...] put his signature picture with his name in the corner of the map in the same way.
That user has then
edited a number of city articles on Wikipedia to display these maps.
Furthermore, it seems that the user has also
edited these maps into Wikipedia articles with the username
Ilya_Shrayber. It seems that that user had been editing a number of city articles to include links to their own website back in 2016, and
was engaged in some edit warring involving those links. (Next edits show a few back-and-forth reverts.)
Currently the user is engaged in some
"discussion" about the maps on the Village Pump. Based on the user's replies there and on their talk page, they are not taking no for an answer, and treat established policies as opinions to brush aside with non sequiturs.
Ilya_Shrayber's
user talk page displays similar problematic discourse reminiscent of Vectormapper's.
Not even considering the dubious usefulness of the maps — as they are completely unreadable in the infobox size to which they have been inserted, and since Wikipedia already has the Kartography plugin which does the same thing better (the user argues that Kartography is " not suitable for creating maps in vector formats suitable for use in media" nor editable unlike his maps) — they, at the very least, should be marked with {{Watermark}} where applicable and treated by the policies listed there.
And lastly, in the user's own words, if the maps are meant for creating prints and edited for in use in media, and as the user admits that the maps are unreadable in the infobox size (" Are you joking? These are vector files and can be scaled to any size. 300 pixels is a tiny preview. You can't see anything in this preview."), the maps do not belong in infoboxes, and the user should stop inserting the maps into them. — Nelg ( talk) 16:35, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
2.51.87.235 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS) has been applying MOS and ENGVAR spelling/grammar changes randomly. Across a range of articles. Often applying MOS/ENGVAR changes incorrectly (applying UK spelling to US topics and vice versa). And in many cases making random style/spelling/grammar/content changes to quoted text, reference titles and other content that should not be changed.
(For example, the anon editor decidde to " improve" the text of the USA Freedom Act of 2015 (H.R.2048). So it no longer matched the source. Or randomly change what composer Brian Tyler reportedly said in a 2019 interview.)
The IP user has been advised of these errors and issues repeatedly. Including by myself ( multiple times), by KylieTastic ( here), by HMSLavender ( for example), and several others. In each case, the specific ENGVAR/SIC/MOS guideline has been highlighted for the anon. In each case the disruption has continued. We are long since at the point where the community is spending more time cleaning up mistakes and explaining guidelines than is reasonable. And hence a block or other action is likely needed. Guliolopez ( talk) 21:01, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
This user has been creating characters articles on the site for a fair bit now, and while most of these subjects failed notability guidelines, I have given them the benefit of the doubt until now. They started at first by creating articles for Doctor Who related characters, such as Sutekh (Doctor Who) and The General (Doctor Who), among others, which had to be redirected and their edit history deleted due to plagiarism and copyright violations (Both lifted from their respective TARDIS Wiki pages). I went to their talk page and warned the user about these actions, including several copyright violations on Commons due to them uploading several copyrighted images for various reasons, including as illustration for some of these articles. This user has recently begun creating other character articles, most notably for Star Wars characters, in the form of characters such as Canderous Ordo and Tor Valum, with both having grievous copyright violations from various sources (With Ordo's hailing from [142] and Valum's hailing from [143]). I have not been monitoring this user, and have only become aware of the persistence of these actions via the recent Ordo AfD, so there may be additional copyright violations or other incidents of plagiarism I may have missed. Given I have already notified this user of the issues present with copyright and plagiarism on their talk page, they are well aware of what they are doing, and are in violation of several Wikipedia guidelines. I am admittedly unfamiliar with reporting incidents of this severity, so I apologize if this in the wrong noticeboard, but given the consistent problems this editor has been causing due to their consistent violations, I feel inclined to report this user before these continue to cause further problems for other editors in the future. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 ( talk) 23:33, 7 July 2024 (UTC)