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) |
I have been unable to reach understanding with Geogene who persists in reverting my contribution to the Cat predation on wildlife article and has received full partisan support from SMcCandlish. I reject their unsubstantiated claim that my contribution has contravened Wikipedia guidelines and suggest that their actions are driven by a partisan point of view regarding the article content. The article is closely related to a scientific (and in part NGO-driven) controversy about the global impact of cat predation on wildlife and biodiversity, and effectively replaces an objective coverage of this debate on Wikipedia. Geogene and SMcCandlish, who profess complete agreement on the matter, deny that such a debate has any scientific merit and seek to foreclose any discussion of it, as they happen to side with one extreme of it. They have produced no direct evidence (to counter that cited by myself) that the debate has either not existed or been resolved. Their claims rely on a selective original interpretation of sources (i.e. they echo the claims of one side to have won and to be the only "scientific" one).
Geogene raised an original research objection against properly sourced content and made bad faith allegations that I am trying to push a fringe viewpoint and that I am effectively "watering down or discrediting the modern viewpoint on cat predation". That is something that ought to be demonstrated through adequate citation of evidence. Equally objectionable is their pattern of dismissing entire sources based on their date (without additional justification as per guidelines), arguments advanced, perceived influence etc. This appears to be a way in which Geogene and SMcCandlish have exercised their effective ownership of the article this far. Such a priori judgments about the reputation of a source constitute a personal viewpoint (POV) and if they were to be included in the article, they would constitute original research (OR).
Geogene and SMcCandlish not only represent an extreme stance in the debate, but also deny that any debate is legitimate. They have sought to outright disqualify my contribution and any sources I have cited based purely on their opinion and by attributing a nefarious agenda to it, and invoked either a local editorial consensus between the two of them or an unproven scientific consensus in support. An eyebrow-raising claim they uphold is that " modern science" only dates from the year 2000. There is a considerable scientific literature omitted from the article due to its one-sidedness. (There would also be no ground on which essays, opinion pieces or journalism can be flatly excluded - not least because such sources are already cited.) Judging from their behaviour so far, Geogene and SMcCandlish will dismiss information based on sources that contravene their viewpoint out of hand.
The discussion history can be found on the article's talk page and on the NORN noticeboard. The talk page section in which SMcCandlish seeks to discredit a source may also be relevant.
As far as I am concerned, the only way to assess various claims is through adding verifiable content, and the way forward is for everyone involved to focus on building the article, rather than edit warring and making unsourced claims. I have not been able to persuade Geogene or SMcCandlish about this, however.
Due to their persistent refusal to recognise any evidence that contradicts their viewpoint and to engage in editing the article instead of edit warring, I consider the actions of Geogene to be vandalism, committed in defence of their POV and their effective ownership of the article. I think it is more than stonewalling because the guidelines on OR and OLDSOURCES were twisted to fit a purpose, and because Geogene has resorted to action despite the failure to evidence their claims or offer persuasive arguments in discussion. I am concerned about the two editors' propensity for escalating unfounded accusations and treating them as proven from the start, and about their shared habit of seeking to discredit sources a priori.
I am asking for an investigation of the conduct of the two editors, since it is their attitude and not a dispute over content (i.e. they prefer to focus on reputation and general outlook over the detail of evidence) that stands in the way of resolution.
To be clear, I am far from arguing that my contribution was beyond criticism. It is the resistance with which it met that was unwarranted and gives ground to suspecting that any further attempts to edit the article will be met with the same hostility. I am requesting an intervention to restore the possibility of constructive engagement with the article. VampaVampa ( talk) 20:22, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
I explained in the discussion on the talk page why I reject the charges of WP:OR and WP:OLDSOURCES and was not persuaded that I was wrong.evidence of the real problem here? Geogene ( talk) 06:58, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
"I explained in the discussion on the talk page why I reject the charges of WP:OR and WP:OLDSOURCES and was not persuaded that I was wrong.") that I think still needs addressing. Because it is no way required that you be convinced that you are incorrect before your edits can be reverted--and in suggesting as much, you are actually turning the normal burden of proof and dispute resolution processes on their head. Rather the WP:ONUS is on you to gain clear consensus for a disputed change, and WP:BRD should be followed in resolving the matter. Now, I haven't investigated the article revision history in great detail, but from what I can tell, the article has somewhat been in a state of flux over recent years, reaching the current "Cats are the greatest menace to biodiversity of the un-wilded world" state relatively recently. Neverthless, your changes were to fairly stable elements of the article that had at least some existing consensus support from the then-active editors of the article. When your edits are reverted in these circumstances, you are required to overcome the presumption of a valid reversion by gaining consensus for your addition/preferred version of the article. It is not always a fun or easy process, but it is the standard for how article development and dispute resolution proceed on this project. SnowRise let's rap 20:47, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
PS: VV is completely incorrect that "RFC is not suitable for disputes in which more than two editors are involved", and has simply misunderstood all the material there. RFCBEFORE in particular makes it clear that RfCs should be opened after extensive discussion has failed to reach a consensus. That process almost always involves more than two parties. Where "more than two" appears on that page, it is simply noting that another potential venue one may try, for trying reaching consensus without an RfC, is WP:DRN (and VV notably ignored that advice and ran to ANI to make false accusations instead). The section below that, RFCNOT, certainly does not list "disputes with more than 2 editors" in it as something RfCs should not be used for, and that would be absurd. However, an RfC would not be appropriate at this moment, while the NORN proceeding is still open. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 15:38, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
An editor's claim that an RFC about content is unnecessary because they're right is prima facie proof that an RFC is necessary. The decision as to whether or not an RFC happens should be made with zero input from VampaVampa, SMcCandlish, and Geogene.
Much to the surprise of nobody, the NORN discussion is going nowhere because the three involved editors are bickering there exactly like they have been here and at the article's talk page while nobody else has weighed in on the actual content dispute. (As an aside, any of these three who has complained about anyone else running afoul of WP:WALLOFTEXT is a massive hypocrite.) An RFC will compel these three to state their cases in far fewer words, which will be nice, but much more importantly, it'll attract uninvolved editors who'll review the content issue and work towards a consensus on the content, which in the end is all that's supposed to matter. These threads won't accomplish anything because none of these three editors has shown a willingness to compromise to any extent and their tendency to link policies, guidelines, and essays across multi-paragraph messages ad nauseum guarantees they'll keep speaking past each other. City of Silver 01:05, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
nobody else has weighed in on the actual content disputeThree editors (@ EducatedRedneck:, @ Elmidae:, @ My very best wishes:) have weighed in on the article's talk page since this thread was opened. Still no evidence of support for VampaVampa's revision. Your "blame all sides" is not helpful. Geogene ( talk) 01:12, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
Before anything else, edit your messageEdit your message to remove the personal attacks, including "hypocrits".
I never came even close to saying there were sides in this issue because I absolutely do not believe there are.I said you are blaming all sides, which you are. I put that in scare quotes to express my disagreement with them.
You, VV, and SMcCandlish are all on the same side, the side of improving the websitethank you for that. I find editing Wikipedia to be an extremely thankless enterprise, this thread being a great example of it.
I also entirely disagree that any substantial part of any discussion has been anything more than two people talking past one person and that one person talking past those two people.and then the one flings bad faith assumptions at the other two at ANI to try to eliminate them from the topic area.
But if you've got consensus, why not start an RFC?Normally it's the one who wants content added who starts the RFC. I noticed above you said,
The decision as to whether or not an RFC happens should be made with zero input from VampaVampa, SMcCandlish, and Geogene.I don't recall stating any opposition to an RfC. Geogene ( talk) 02:20, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
In the spirit of what I just wrote regarding circular argument and just walking away, I am not going to respond here any further unless pinged directly. There is no ANI matter to settle, except possibly VV's renewed personal attacks in the same subject area (see diff of one against EducatedRedneck above). VV's ANI is WP:asking the other parent. Either NORN will address the sourcing problems, or will not and then we'll have an RfC, but ANI is not for content disputes. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 03:32, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
I have not tried to read the content discussion, and don't know what the content details are. I have two mostly unrelated comments that are not about content, but this is not a content forum.
First, multiple posters have posted overly long posts, that were literally too long, didn't read, which is one reason I haven't studied the content. However, I can see that the original poster has misread two Wikipedia policies, and posted based on their misreadings, and has since backed off from their original comments. One of the guidelines was worded in a complex way because it is complex, and so it could have easily been misread. The other policy could not possibly have been misread by anyone who read it with an intent to understand it, because it is very clear about refuting misconceptions. The first was that User:VampaVampa said that RFC was not applicable if there are more than two parties. That is part of a sort of flowchart-like guideline, and could easily be misread, and was misread. The second was that User:VampaVampa said that Geogene had engaged in vandalism. The vandalism policy is very clear on what is not vandalism. It is sufficiently clear that anyone who argues that overzealous editing in a conduct dispute is vandalism hasn't read the policy. They obviously know that vandalism is one of the worst things that an editor can do, but they haven't read what it is and is not. In other words, VampaVampa insulted the other editor first, and only read what the insult meant after being called to account. So, if I do read the content details, I know not to give much weight to what User:VampaVampa writes, because they are an editor who makes sloppy claims. Robert McClenon ( talk) 20:12, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
Second, the dispute has not been addressed except by the original parties at the No Original Research Noticeboard because WP:NORN is a dormant noticeboard. It apparently has no regular editors, and it is very seldom if ever that anything is resolved at WP:NORN. It is a noticeboard where content disputes go to fester and die. The suggestion was made, and not followed up on, that perhaps it and one or more other noticeboards should be merged. So VampaVampa is not asking the other parent here. There is no parent at WP:NORN. But they appear to be following a policy of post first and think second. Robert McClenon ( talk) 20:12, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
A short but not unbiased summary of this whole thing, as I see it.
0. Earlier article edits that set the scene, June 2022 and December 2023: Xhkvfq (previously went by the username StrippedSocks) makes edits that are reverted by Geogene. Xhkvfq adds a source Lynn et al 2019. On the talk page, SMcCandlish describes the source as, among other things "a butt-hurt rant".
1. Article editing happens. Geogene reverts many things (to me, looks like based on whether they are pro-cat or anti-cat rather than whether they match the sources). SMcCandlish edits the article to more closely match what the sources say. Geogene and VampaVampa revert each other a bunch.
2. The NORN noticeboard. Geogene opens a question regarding one of VampaVampa's edits. SMcCandlish answers in the affirmative, goes on to call Xhkvfq a drive-by editor, and complains about people who are okay with bird species going extinct as long as feral cats don't get culled. There seems to be an implication that VampaVampa is one such person, which I don't think is accurate nor warranted.
3. VampaVampa opens this discussion here, beginning with an accusation of vandalism due to a misunderstanding of wikipedia policy. Once that was explained, VampaVampa changed the accusation to disruptive editing my mistake, "status quo stonewalling". Many words about both wikipedia policy and article content have been written here, but not much has been said.
4. Not knowing any of this, I come across the article, attempt to make an edit, and get dragged into this discussion. GG's mention of that edit here was to complain about VV's reply "personalizing the content dispute" by saying GG's revert was based on unevidenced assumptions, but if that's a personal attack then so is GG's claim that my edit was "profringe". Something being "profringe" implies it is based on unevidenced assumptions.
5. With the help of other editors to keep the discussion on track, VampaVampa and Geogene are able to have a mostly civil conversation (compared to previously) on the talk page about the content of the article.
My own experiences involving Geogene have been quite negative (edit: perhaps there was some misunderstanding going on), but as it appears he and VampaVampa are currently making progress on article content, perhaps it is not worth bringing them up.
Iamnotabunny (
talk) 16:42, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
Adding on: I just realized the above makes it look like VampaVampa is blameless. That was not what I intended, but I feel that part of things is already covered quite thoroughly earlier in this thread. Iamnotabunny ( talk) 19:04, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
I think that this has gone on long enough, and that nothing new is likely to happen, so it is time for some sort of close. User:VampaVampa is the original poster of this thread, and says that there have been serious conduct violations by User:Geogene and User:SMcCandlish. I haven't seen any evidence of conduct violations by Geogene or SMcCandlish, either in VampaVampa's walls of text or on my cursory look at the article talk page. There have been two specific conduct allegations. The first was a claim that Geogene's editing of a content dispute was vandalism. The second conduct allegation is that Geogene and SMcCandlish have asserted article ownership. It appears that what they have actually asserted is that they have a rough consensus, and two-to-one really is a local rough consensus. There haven't been any other conduct allegations that I could parse. I don't intend to try to read the excessively long post, because I know that VampaVampa is not a good judge of good and bad conduct. So no action should be taken against Geogene or SMcCandlish.
I see three possible options with regard to VampaVampa:
What do the other editors think? Robert McClenon ( talk) 02:07, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
As for
WP:SQS, VV apparently has either not read that page, even its first line, or has serious difficulty understanding it. (Cf. also apparent severe trouble understanding
WP:RFC,
WP:VANDAL, the content policies themselves, and the meaning and relative import of the source material; this is starting to look like a
WP:CIR issue.) Let's quote directly: Status quo stonewalling is opposition to a proposed change without (a) stating a substantive rationale based in policy, guidelines and conventions or (b) participating in good-faith discussion.
Both Geogene and I have raised very detailed substantive rationales based in policy, and our participation in good-faith discussion has been so extensive that various parties above have vented about it being too detailed and long-winded. VV has utterly failed to demonstrate that any sort of SQS happening.
PS: WP:NORN is a dormant noticeboard.
I was not aware of that (and it seems weird and unfortunate). Given that RfCs are expensive of community time and attention, probably the thing to do would be to close this ANI, close the going-nowhere NORN thread, and re-open the matter at WP:NPOVN or WP:RSN; all of these policies and guidlelines are implicated in inter-related ways in this issue, so either venue will do, really; it would just be matter of writing it out in a way that pertains more to one noticeboard or the other. That's assuming a T-ban doesn't happen. I think one could arguably be justified because of the repeated incivility and other problems evidenced above after this ANI was opened. But I'm also not one to seek to "silence the opposition". I give benefit of the doubt (sometimes maybe more than I should) that an editor may prove to be productive on the project in other ways despite a recent
WP:DRAMA flare-up. And in this case, I really have no policy-and-sourcing doubt about how the underlying content and sourcing dispute is going to turn out in the end. —
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼 11:12, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
Harold the Sheep ( talk · contribs)
At Steven Hassan, this user has been edit warring (breaching 3rr [3] [4] [5] [6]) to include opinions about the general topic of 'cults' in the article. They added it to the article a few months ago alongside some salient content. [7] This was raised previously as a POV issue by another editor. [8] Harold the Sheep then edit warred to keep even the maintenance tag off the article [9] [10].
This is a problematic ownership issue, with the article being used as a coatrack for the views of academics in a different field about the general topic of 'cults' and the use of the word 'cults'. Cambial — foliar❧ 08:47, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
suddenly the victims of an insulting, uncollaborative, obsessively-focused, bludgeoning, article-owning, edit-warring, coat-racking monster who has personally attacked you in egregious fashion and maybe even slept with your wifeWhat a bizarre response – the misjudged sarcastic hyperbole reads like someone playing the victim. Your "everyone else is the problem" attitude explains your (not unanticipated) failure to participate at article talk. The passages of anti-deprogramming/cult-apologist rhetoric are not about any individual, neither
clearly specificallynor obscurely, which is precisely the problem. That's why three different editors have sought to trim or otherwise address the off-topic content you arbitrarily added to the page. Cambial — foliar❧ 23:11, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
it's surprizing how thin-skinned you are, since this thread is discussing you, not me. Likewise, there is no reason to lump me together with Cambial. It doesn't require lengthy discussion threads to conclude that someone will never budge with polite logical discourse. After I tried that and received a few insults in return, I had you pegged. It would have been better for the project had we resolved the issues last year, but instead I decided those articles weren't worth the hassle and I walked away. I'm not one bit surprised that another editor has independently encountered the same problems with your work and attitude. No one called me or tagged me to join this thread; I was browsing ANI and instantly recognized your username... that's how much of an impression you made on me last year. I get involved in a lot of talk page discussions over many topics and I rarely remember someone else's username, but I did yours. ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 00:20, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
The passages of anti-deprogramming/cult-apologist rhetoric are not about any individual, neither clearly specifically nor obscurely, which is precisely the problem." – which is about the sourcing and content not being about the article subject, and is the only mention I make of the phrase ‘cult apologists’ – suggests "
that all of the concerns that arise out of ethical questions surrounding deprogramming practices and the moral panic in which they arose can be laid at the feet of "cult apologists"". This is a massive extrapolation into views I do not share. I will take your other comments on board. Cambial — foliar❧ 05:58, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
Following the Twitter storm mentioned in the section above, there is now widespread disruption on a large number of election articles – editors driven by the Twitter stuff are ignoring an RfC at 2022 Italian general election ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and 2018 Italian general election ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (on the 2022 article, one editor has reverted again despite being made aware of the RfC); made-up election results that were removed are being blindly reverted back into numerous French election articles (e.g. edits like this and this (exactly the same as was happening at the time of this ANI report from January. Can someone please step in – restore the Italian articles to the RfC-approved infobox and lock them and look at what is happening on the French articles. Cheers, Number 5 7 01:14, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
for most Italian elections(though later on it says TIE is
off the table and should not be used for any Italian elections.). — Czello ( music) 08:21, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
the last two general elections in Italyand that the RfC closer clarified the result of the discussion as
for most infoboxes within the scope of the RFC, which are most Italian elections after 2018. That discussion was definitely not directly appliable to elections before 2018. Impru20 talk 08:25, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
Semi-protection for all effected pages, would be start. GoodDay ( talk) 15:09, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
So this widespread disruption is contagious: look at the completely unexplained series of reverts by User:Luentez, who appears out of nowhere to throw oil on the fire. Drmies ( talk) 21:10, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
I blocked Talleyrand6 in my role as a CU for off-wiki canvasing as well as persistent disruptive editing and edit warring -- Guerillero Parlez Moi 02:17, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
I just spotted (and reverted) three cases where unilateral edits to change TIE to TILE were done (without properly addressing the changes in the edit summaries or seeking an explicit consensus for it): 1989, 1991 and 1993 Polish parliamentary elections. One of these was done in April 2023, the other two were done in the last couple of months (effectively placing them out of consistency with other Polish election articles). I am particularly appalled at these since I myself opposed similar edits to these articles in 2021, recommending a wider consensus to be reached first (since they affected a large number of articles and looked like they were being conducted when they were not being looked upon). The users conducting the recent changes were aware of such opposition and that conducting such a change would be controversial, yet they did it anyway a few years later without even properly specifying such changes in the edit summaries. Obviously, no attempt was made at contacting me or other users opposing them in the past. Impru20 talk 11:00, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
Not commenting on the rest of the dispute here, but it does seem like changes to election infoboxes should be discussed in WP:WPE&R going forward. Allan Nonymous ( talk) 02:41, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
JackkBrown ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) I don't want to be here, but it is clear that Jack has not learned from the prior advice, blocks:
Questions about minutiae ( cannoli (and a move request here based on the continued English/Italian confusion, pronunciation, ingredients despite being told multiple times that this is not what HD/Teahouse are for and to use the Talk. He has also moved on to deletion without an understanding of policy.
I don't know if it's IDHT or lack of competence, but it's clear the behavior isn't going to change if it hasn't for the last 9 months+.Is there a p-block that would work since they seem to need a physical blocker to stop them from the HD. Thoughts? Suggestions? Star Mississippi 15:57, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
in the correct place, and demonstrates the same misplaced confidence shown in their copyediting and unfamiliarity with policy that are causing concern here. EducatedRedneck ( talk) 22:34, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
probably also annoying some watchlists. We can do that. But I think the question about the reference desk might be important; could you please answer it?
Elinruby (
talk) 00:48, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
I've tried to engage USER:Evru200 on their talk page [11] about not adding unsourced content to pages and adhering to NPOV reporting of election results, but their behavior persists. The opposing team wins in "a mild upset" [12] while next time around the home team wins "in a landslide" [13] although there's no RS that uses there terms to describe the results. They have also been admonished to follow the WP:MOS, but they continue to make edits like this [14]. BBQboffin grill me 23:50, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
This user has been persistently submitting poorly made drafts. They are about topics that already have articles and suffer from problems like poor sourcing, poor style/formatting and even blatantly false information. Draft:Huricihan Sultan is a particularly egregious example, which passes a fictional character from a historical TV series as a real historical figure. I have warned them ( diff), but they have continued with resubmitting Draft:Nurbanu Sultan and Draft:Fatma Nur Sultan. I therefore believe that most of this user's editing history has constituted disruptive editing, and that they have not responded or changed after warnings, so they should be blocked. Air on White ( talk) 17:53, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
I'm probably too involved, hence I won't take administrative action but will leave it to others to decide. The users Panamitsu and Alexeyevitch don't get on with one another, which is a shame as they both live in New Zealand and their Wiki interests are similar. In December 2023, I told Alexeyevitch off for following Panamitsu around. My observation is that the warning was heeded, and Alexeyevitch stopped following Panamitsu's contributions. That hasn't stopped the bickering between those two editors. I do have the impression that Panamitsu is following Alexeyevitch's contributions in turn. To put a stop to that, I asked both users to stay away from one another earlier this month. Panamitsu is not listening, and openly admits that he goes through Alexeyevitch's contributions. That's WP:WIKIHOUNDING.
Panamitsu is a productive editor, but this hounding has to stop and he's not listening to me. I invite other admins to weigh in. Schwede 66 00:42, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
Each time[Panamitsu]
would copyedit his[Alexeyevitch's]
contributions to Christchurch suburbs[...]
he would edit articles relating to the area, notably Paraparaumu College, presumably with the belief that[Panamitsu]
live[d]
there and[as]
a way to scare[Panamitsu]. If this is what's happening, I can't help but find such behavior disturbing.Banning Alexeyevitch from interacting with Panamitsu seems like a minimal sanction for such harassment. I would ask administrators reading this thread to remember that
"following another user around", if done to cause distress, or if accompanied by tendentiousness, personal attacks, or other disruptive behavior, may become a very serious matter and could result in blocks and other editing restrictions. Hydrangeans ( she/her | talk | edits) 02:58, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
Correct use of an editor's history includes (but is not limited to) fixing unambiguous errors or violations of Wikipedia policy, or correcting related problems on multiple articles, which is what happened here. Endwise ( talk) 03:27, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
I (or schwede66)[...]
intended to fix them a day or two later -- we wanted to see if there was some-form of monitoring: What do these statements mean? Do you mean you (or even you and Schwede66?) privately collaborated to contribute edits contrary to MOS:TIES and MOS:ENGVAR as—what? Some deliberate 'experiment' to 'entrap' Panamitsu? Wikipedia is not a laboratory, and experiments that
negatively affect articles—even temporarily—are not allowed. Hydrangeans ( she/her | talk | edits) 04:03, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
confirmed I was stalked: Alexeyevitch, to be frank, all that seems confirmed to me is that you have been stalking Panamitsu and that along with that you've been deliberately introducing MOS:TIES/ MOS:VAR-contrary content into articles. As Endwise explained above, cases where using an editor's history is not considering hounding
includes (but is not limited to) fixing unambiguous errors or violations of Wikipedia policy, or correcting related problems on multiple articles. In the 44 Parachute Regiment (South Africa), you changed "minimise" (British English spelling) to "minimize" (American English spelling) for an article about a South African military unit and in your edit summary you called it
fix[ing]
a spelling error. Some twelve hours later, Panamitsu restored the spelling of the word per MOS:TIES. Hydrangeans ( she/her | talk | edits) 05:02, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
Alexeyevitch, if you're not prepared to use NZ English per
[16] then perhaps your time would be better spent not editing NZ articles.
Panamitsu This edit
[17] is not a good look. It takes two to edit war.
Daveosaurus (
talk) 05:53, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
Do I read this right? Has an admin (Schwede66) deliberately tried to bait an editor by conspiring with another editor to deliberately make disruptive edits, and then brought the baited editor here for sanctions when they actually improved the articles by reverting the disruptive edits? If this is a correct summary, then please block and desysop Schwede66, as that is truly terrible behaviour. Fram ( talk) 08:35, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
Alexeyevitch themself doesn't use New Zealand English, please consider using American English or the Oxford Spelling on their talk page. They might not to respond to comments deliberately avoiding this suggestion.(from the last diff in Panamitsu's comment: Good heavens, literally expressing an intention to ignore comments written in a variation of English not Alexeyevitch's own? Is there such a thing as linguistic chauvinism? This seems contrary to the Universal Code of Conduct's injunction to be collegial and empathetic with
Wikimedians of different backgrounds. And the word salad seems like an attempt by Alexeyevitch at
mockery, sarcasm, or aggressionagainst Panamitsu, mocking Panamitsu's use of New Zealand English spelling. Hydrangeans ( she/her | talk | edits) 13:42, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
I've had the impression that their[Alexeyevitch's]
contributions have been followed for quite some time; not just "in the past day"came from. As no diffs or examples had been provided, I'm not exactly sure where Schwede66 got this idea from so I don't know if I've addressed everything.
both editors commit to stop following each others edits. This way would avoid any bans and stop any further reasons for conflict.: This is premised on a false balance. What Schwede66 and Alexeyevitch call "following" and hounding has been Panamitsu noticing a widespread pattern of violating—in a few cases apparently deliberately, according to Alexeyevitch and Schwede66— MOS:TIES and MOS:ENGVAR and making fixes in accordance with an overtly permitted use of contribution histories:
Correct use of an editor's history includes (but is not limited to) fixing unambiguous errors or violations of Wikipedia policy, or correcting related problems on multiple articles.Meanwhile, Alexeyevitch has mocked non-U. S. spelling, has expressed intent to ignore talk page comments not written in American English, and has harassed Panamitsu (more precise diff not possible because of an unrelated thread getting oversighted, but see the timeline of events I created) by following them to Paraparaumu topics seemingly after potentially coming to the belief that Panamitsu had an off-wiki connection to Paraparaumu.With this level of hostility toward non-U. S. English and this depth of attempted harassment against Panamitsu in play, I'm not convinced that asking for a mutual commitment will prevent future guideline and policy violations by Alexeyevitch. Getting Panamitsu off their back seems to be precisely what Alexeyevitch has wanted, so as to be able to eliminate New Zealand spellings from articles without scrutiny from an editor like Panamitsu. Hydrangeans ( she/her | talk | edits) 14:02, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
has been Panamitsu noticing a widespread pattern of violating ... MOS:TIES and MOS:ENGVARthis is exactly the content of my original response, I'm not disagreeing. I was just hoping to find an informal way to settle the dispute. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested « @» ° ∆t° 14:51, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
be able to eliminate New Zealand spellings– to be honest, I've never seen that myself. And if I were to see that, I'd put a stop to that straight away. There are plenty enough editors in New Zealand who would have zero tolerance to such antics. Schwede 66 05:12, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
I am not part of this extensive ongoing spat and I don't want to be. I will say though that I am trying not to be affected by Alexeyevitch's numerous changes to Christchurch suburbs and other articles. See today at Opawa and Heathcote Valley. I raised to topic on the Christchurch talk page, to no avail, and I'll raise it here again. His edits are of such a poor quality, in numerous different ways, that they all require a lot of work to put right. He's been an editor long enough to understand the basics of what to do, such as no original research. Look at his Opawa church section and see what the source says (I added a link). I think he should slow down and concentrate on some basic skills, if that is even possible. Unless something changes IMO his editing could be seen as disruptive. Roger 8 Roger ( talk) 10:09, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
This has been an interesting thread to read through. The conclusion I'm drawing at this point is:
This seems to be the best place to report this, given a recent edit summary saying this situation is “standard practice”.
Several (experienced) editors have manually removed formatted citations and replaced them with bare URL citations on 2024 Atlantic hurricane season.
Timeline:
Is this actually allowed? Even though
Wikipedia:Bare URLs isn’t a formal citation, experienced editors seem to indicate that bare-URLs are “standard practice” over formatted citations on
2024 Atlantic hurricane season. Per
Wikipedia:Citing sources (policy), specifically
WP:CITEVAR, in the Generally considered helpful
section, it states “improving existing citations by adding missing information, such as by replacing bare URLs with full bibliographic citations: an improvement because it aids verifiability, and fights link rot;
”. I am bringing this to the administrators attention not to get someone warned or blocked, but since there seems to be experienced editors saying something different than policy, and every attempt to remove the bare URL citations is being reverted. The
Weather Event Writer (
Talk Page) 02:00, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
This may be a better suited question at WP:MOS: Are external links allowed mid-article or not? Anyone else agree? The Weather Event Writer ( Talk Page) 16:47, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
For what it’s worth, there have been hurricane season articles for a good 20 years, including information such as the advisories and ongoing watches and warnings. If this is the official place to complain about it, then I’d rather Wikipedia continue to be a source of ongoing information. If there’s some official rule that precludes this, then I’d like to invoke ignore all rules for the sake of consistency and being beneficial for the public. Hurricanehink mobile ( talk) 18:07, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
They’ll only be there when the storm is active.” — That straight up violates Wikipedia:Recentism, also known as the 10-year test. If you are adding information to the article that is garunteed to not be in the article in a week or so (let along 10 years), it should not be in the article. Simple as that. The Weather Event Writer ( Talk Page) 18:44, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
With rare exceptions, external links should not be used in the body of an article.This has a footnote which states
Links to Wiktionary and Wikisource can sometimes be useful. Other exceptions include use of templates like , which is used only when non-free and non-fair use media cannot be uploaded to Wikipedia.This is not one of the exceptions and the rationales so far put forward do not stack up with established policy and so these external links should be purged from all such articles in favour of proper in-line citations and an external links section.
Just to clarify, if the links were converted into citations, then that’s fine? It seems like there are two points about this discussion, the links, and the fact that articles usually mention current info, like storm intensity/movement/warnings. The current information can easily be cited with actual links. Would that still be in violation or not? Hurricanehink mobile ( talk) 19:25, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
For the latest official information, see:” and “
The NHC's latest public advisory on Potential Tropical Cyclone One” and replacing them with full citations. The formatted (full) citation you added for Intermediate Advisory Number 4A in this edit is perfect! In fact, that external link for the “public advisory” is the exact same thing. That is actually what this discussion was opened up for originally. Per policy, the NHC “latest info” shouldn’t be external links, but rather in full/formatted citation form.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
USER:LibStar is not editing or redistributing content, but instead, deleting factual content, multiple times now. I am doing my best to contribute to the Wiki project for my hometown, and have put alot of time doing the best job I can. The issue here is not citation but the deletion. For example, for "Notable People".
Instead of taking the facts of this page and updating the notable people's respective articles, does USER:LibStar instead believes that those articles need to form the basis of this article. Why is that? And if these other articles are incorrect (which they are)? Some articles say Sydney - AND, Greystanes is a suburb of Sydney!!!
Furthermore, Amanda_Farrugia - User:LibStar deleted from Greystanes stating "Notable residents: her article doesn't mention this suburb, rm under WP:BURDEN".... But her article clearly states that she's from Greystanes, and of Maltese descent too. You clearly are attacking and discriminating this article and it must stop.
This is not a good enough reason, to form the basis of the content deletion, especially when I can give you addresses and school photos and birthday parties of these notable people, who lived in this area. Your reason being "his/her article doesn't mention this suburb . Rm under WP:BURDEN" - You should update his/her article then, and stop being a WP:BURDEN on this article!
Also, I don't appreciate USER:LibStar's tone. Ownership is not being assumed, I have taken alot of time to edit this article and have done an incredible job here. And does USER:LibStar believe that have the right to come and just delete content that is correct, without researching before they delete? That is vandalism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Annamaria.dmrt ( talk • contribs) 09:20, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
Any material that needs an inline citation but does not have one may be removed.Adam Black talk • contribs 10:48, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
Farrugia was born and raised in the western suburbs of Sydney in New South Wales. Her parents are of Maltese descent and she attended Our Lady Queen of Peace Primary School, Greystanes.
TheManTheyCallAdam is engaged in slow-walking reverts of content against guidelines, in this case MOS:THENICKNAME. At an earlier point, I and this editor discussed this matter, although they expressed that their view of how the English language works means that Sonny Liston's nickname "the Big Bear" must have have 'The' capitalized. On their talk page and in the article's talk, I showed them the guideline that shows 'The' is not to be capitalized. It is in the middle of a sentence as well.
I realize that the specific matter at hand is very minor, that it's just the casing of a word. But the problem as I see it is TheManTheyCallAdam is acting as someone who 1) pushes their opinion over that of the wiki guideline, with no acknowledgement there even is a guideline that covers it; 2) uses a slow-walking WP:TENDENTIOUS editing approach to ensure their opinion wins; and 3) based on their editing pattern, mostly focused on this matter, they aren't really here to build an encyclopedia. Most of what they're "doing" is waiting to change it back again.
I considered treating this as a content dispute and going through other channels first, but I have come to look at this as straight-up problematic editor behavior, disruptive in nature, with an apparent unwillingness to accept that the Wikipedia is written with guidelines in mind. New editors who so openly refuse our guidelines at least need to be reminded that we take them seriously, and that willy-nilly changing something to be their way is disruptive, if not unsavory behavior. Stefen Towers among the rest! Gab • Gruntwerk 02:54, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
Rantoodle seems to be a purely vandalism and trolling account. They received multiple warnings earlier this month for their vandalism and practically all article edits they've made have been reverted. Then they just made this bigoted talk page comment. Very clearly a case of WP:NOTHERE. Silver seren C 03:19, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
niggardlyto the article Gravity Falls ( diff) and then claiming they didn't ( diff), I agree this is clearly a case of WP:NOTHERE. Adam Black talk • contribs 03:37, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
Please simply engage in discussion and refrain from making unfounded accusations that I am acting in bad faith (I am not), I am willing to believe you may not have been acting in bad faith when you first posed the question. However, at least four editors (including another on your talk page) have told you that this was not appropriate and the chances of anyone assuming good faith with you are getting very slim. Adam Black talk • contribs 04:05, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
Abused online via wikapedia.org. Person using this to bully and abuse me I am scared for my family. Can administrator person responsible please email me to discuss further and in more detail mark Sullivan formb Marksullivanformby ( talk) 20:52, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
On June 13, I informed User:Göycen about the WP:GS/AA extended confirmed restriction and explained what it meant. [20]
Göycen still made several POV pushing edits in Armenia-Azerbaijan articles after the warning. [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27]
On June 17, Rosguill gave Göycen another contentious topics warning. [28]
More reverting and POV pushing in AA articles after second warning. [29] [30] [31] KhndzorUtogh ( talk) 21:39, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
Your next step is to go to the article Talk pages to dispute the information, not to clamor for other editors to be punished.You need to discuss these edits and gain consensus, rather than continue removing them yourself. — The Hand That Feeds You: Bite 11:39, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
Hi, When a page vandalized, most natural thing to do is to revert latest stable version, but there is something else going here.
I would like to bring to your attention some recent edits made by Archives908. This user has been reverting my edits, which were reverts of vandalism by an IP address. For example, what is the reason for this revert? There is no source or explanation provided . In the page history, until the vandalism by the IP address, there was no mention of Armenians. Now, this editor is adding unsourced content to Wikipedia. Why does the definition have a POV, when it is an obvious case of POV pushing?
Additionally, this person reverts my vandalism-reverts again. They delete Azerbaijani information, which existed from the beginning, and the person is Azerbaijani, ironically. They revert to the obviously vandalized version. Here again they remove sourced content and add back unsourced IP vandalism which I reverted. Can you please check this?
Here is an example of section blanking which i reverted before.
Here is another one. What is the source and reason for adding the Armenian writing? This person's(the ip adress that i reverted) favorite act of vandalism is to go and change alphabets, which I have reverted many times. They add not only Armenian but also Azerbaijani, Polish, etc. According to their rationale, if a nationality has a name (they added an Armenian there), they should introduce the writing system as well.-- Göycen ( talk) 18:15, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
Though
Boogi wu (
talk ·
contribs) has been blocked and locked years ago, I found some of their hoaxes are still in the current article.
For example
Is there any sysop or common user who are familiar with history can reviewed their edits one by one? These hoaxes are scattered on Middle Age history. Or, where should I post this notice on? -Lemonaka 01:30, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
Back from the last block, now that it ended. AstonishingTunesAdmirer 連絡 04:43, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
Since its creation two months ago, the user AmechiUdoba1 ( talk · contribs) has made a series of questionable edits on pages related to Nigeria. Although there have been a few simple mistakes typical of new editors, there appears to be a concerted effort by this account to remove or diminish notes of non- Igbo ethnic groups and their languages.
To cite a few examples of AmechiUdoba1's conduct:
Although this is a relatively new account, there is reason to fear further disruptive and biased editing as its already graduated to inflating population statistics (another common vandal move on Nigerian pages). Similar accounts left without sanction have led to havoc on Nigerian pages with editors having to revert months of sourceless changes once they were finally found out. There needs to be some form of action against this user, this is a clear and concerted campaign of ethnically-biased edits. Thank you, Watercheetah99 ( talk) 05:15, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
ArbCom may be the only dispute resolution forum in Wikipedia in which the boomerang principle does not apply, in which the editor who files a bad complaint will not have their own conduct scrutinized. This is about an editor who is disruptively filing Requests for Arbitration concerning a historic train.
The problem seems to have started on 27 February 2024 when DTParker1000 expanded the article on Rio Grande 223, and included material about the historical importance of railroads in the American West in the nineteenth century. Other editors, including User:Xboxtravis7992, removed much of this material as being off-topic. In my opinion, it was information that should be in the encyclopedia, and probably is in the encyclopedia (but I did not research whether it was), but was off-topic for the article. Xboxtravis7992 then filed a DRN request on 11 March 2024: Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Archive_242#Rio_Grande_223. . I declined it, but said that another request could be filed in 48 hours. Then there was edit-warring, and DTParker1000 was partially blocked from the article in question, indefinitely. They requested unblock, which was declined. JTParker1000 then filed a Request for Arbitration on 19 March 2024, [ [32]], and the request was declined by ArbCom on 20 March 2024. JTParker1000 then filed a DRN request on 7 April 2024: Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Archive_244#Rio_Grande_223. I closed that request as vexatious litigation. JTParker1000 has now filed a second Request for Arbitration, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Rio_Grande_223, with no mention of the first request, and an otherwise fragmentary record of previous dispute resolution.
ArbCom traditionally does not sanction editors for filing stupid, frivolous, or vexatious cases, so I am asking the community to take action against a disruptive editor and vexatious litigant. Robert McClenon ( talk) 05:50, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
This edit Special:Diff/1229910692 looks to me to be more than a bit racist. Daveosaurus ( talk) 06:39, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hi, I already filed a sockpuppet investigation due to the size of the edits made by Special:Contributions/93.199.244.40. To ensure a quick response, I would like to file a complaint here. I would appreciate it if an admin could review the changes currently being made by this user. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Göycen ( talk • contribs) 09:13, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
This user has made three edits so far to the pages
Dodol,
Bilqis Prasista and
Ketoprak (dish). In all three cases, the edit summary was yama nene
or a variation upon it.
User:Kumananah was blocked on 30 April 2024 and User:Its oke wae was blocked on 2 April 2024 both for making similar edits which used the same edit summaries. Other accounts have engaged in the same editing behaviour, particularly at the Bilqis Prasista article but I am listing the most recent diffs for expediency.
Based on these edits, I think it is reasonable to assume that this is an attempt at evading a block and that these accounts are all sockpuppets of each other. Adam Black talk • contribs 10:25, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
this page has recently been heavily edited and needs investigation. its been sanitised and is now inaccurate — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.125.110.236 ( talk) 14:18, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I wish to challenge the June 18 closure for parts two and three of Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#RFC: The Anti-Defamation League. The RSN RFC for was closed by User: ScottishFinnishRadish on Jun 18, 2024. The editor invited challenges to the close on ANI. Despite the June 18 closure of the entire RfC, and after an ANI discussion was started that focused on part one, about 14 new editors went to “part two” and left additional responses to the survey. Clearly, these new editors felt there was still merit in further discussion.
But others, such as me, obeyed the dictate to not participate and waited for the challenge at ANI to resolve. We can’t know how many others refrained from participating. This is particularly germane in my case because the ADL just asked me for advice as an unpaid consultant last night. I refrained from posting on the RfC. Starting a separate challenge to the close on parts 2 and 3 seemed premature given there was still a very active discussion of part 1. User: The Wordsmith closed the discussion on part one on June 20. Wordsmith then went to part two and left this message: “Close in progress: The Wordsmith is in the process of closing this discussion. Please do not contribute further to it; the result should be posted within a day or so.”
Simply disregarding survey responses after June 18 does not seem wise given some of these responses are substantive. But other editors have now been warned twice - by Wordsmith and Scottish - to stop participating. I also went ahead and just left a comment now that I know 14 others already disregarded the closure admonition I would like to propose that the RfC for parts two and three be reopened for discussion, and any decision postponed until substantive discussion of the survey concludes. BC1278 ( talk) 20:30, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
The RSN RFC for was closed by User: ScottishFinnishRadish on Jun 18, 2024.DanCherek ( talk) 20:54, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
The RSN RFC for was closed by User: ScottishFinnishRadish on Jun 18, 2024: There seems to be some misunderstanding. ScottishFinnishRadish only closed the subthread discussing the closure of part 1. Other un-closed subthreads remained open after June 18, and The Wordsmith posted the notice boxes about in-progress closures for parts 2 and 3 on June 20. I don't think The Wordsmith has expressed any plans to
disregard survey responses after June 18. I suppose don't know what would become of additional responses now that the closures are indicated to be in progress; the notices don't prohibit additional commenting, after all. I grant that I can't help but think that doing so seems like it'd be kind of impolite to The Wordsmith, who has committed to take on the time-consuming task of carefully reading the already very long threads, analyzing the arguments, and describing what the community's consensus is or isn't. Since all three parts had been have been open for comment from the Wikipedia community since April 7, and since this is building on other long discussions, it's hard to think that closure would be premature or that substantive discussion hasn't already taken place. Hydrangeans ( she/her | talk | edits) 20:58, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
@ GenevieveDEon has attempted to accuse me of targeting them, over a basic CTOPS notice for climate change.
Notice on their talk page about climate change and a climate-change protest being a contentious topic: [34]
GenevieveDEon nominated a climate change protest article for deletion ( Vandalism of Stonehenge, a protest by Just Stop Oil). The nomination was perfectly acceptable and allowed. However, in the nomination, GenevieveDEon focused on the article creator (myself) of WP:OWN, over a false accusation that I did not want the scope to be expanded. As a note, the single comment I made on the talk page ( [35]) was replying to Ad Orientem who questioned the notability of the article. I stated it seemed to pass LASTING, but we should reassess in a week to see if it passes LASTING and the 10-year test. Not once did I mention "scope", and yet, I was accused of doing so in the AfD nomination.
When
confronted regarding the false accusation, GenevieveDEon gave some interesting answers, including more accusations.
GenevieveDEon responded that I was targetting them by giving them their first CTOPICS notice for climate change. I gave it for a very appropriate reason, (and editor with just over 500 edits who started an AFD on a climate change protest). In that same response, it was also stated as clear as day by GenevieveDEon: "I also note that WeatherWriter tagged me with the 'climate change is a contentious subject' talk page template. This isn't about climate change. I have no interest in the purported subject matter of the protest
(bolding my doing).
After this targeting accusation, I
quickly alerted them that CTOPICS is just a required thing: "The tag on your talk page is a required thing per
WP:CTOPICS. This was a protest related to climate change and as such, first-alert topics are given to editors in the field of articles regarding climate change. Nothing directed towards you.
" Despite that notice, GenevieveDEon continued pressing the matter and doubled down
saying, "I regard it as rather targeted, because you didn't add the tag to the
Vandalism of Stonehenge article itself when you created it, but only when you were tagging various places including my talk page, after I had made this nomination. And I'm not sure it's a sensible use of the contentious topics policy for you to create an unnecessary (and untagged) article about a very minor event somewhat connected with the contentious topic, and then start throwing around the template once someone challenges that creation.
"
After
giving them a chance to strike their doubled down accusations,
GenevieveDEon stood by their word saying, "No. It's about how you handled the marking of the article in question, and related pages, as being related to a contentious topic only when it served to criticise this deletion discussion. My comment stands.
"
This is a clear case of someone who doesn't understand CTOPICS and wants to personally attack people, even when it is stated that it is a required thing. GenevieveDEon just recently acquired their EC status (early June 2024 as far as I can tell), and they are editing heavily now in a contentious topic. Given they have directly stated a protest regarding climate change by Just Stop Oil is not related to climate change and that the standard CTOPICS notice was considered targeting to them, I believe they are not truly ready to edit in CTOPICS areas. My suggestion would be either a formal warning/alert that CTOPIC notifications are required and that a climate protest does indeed related to climate change (this is my preferred request) or if it is indeed felt by the community/others that GenevieveDEon is not ready for CTOPICS, that their EC status be revoked (I do not feel this is necessary). The Weather Event Writer ( Talk Page) 21:20, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
thank you for admitted that you are still accusing me of ownership- no, that's the opposite of what I meant. By
you needn't worry that I'm still concerned about WP:OWN issuesI meant that I wasn't taking that line any more. I'd have done the same as you (and another editor) did with the additional content you removed. I also haven't said anything at all about you and POV-pushing; again, the mention of POV-pushing was in reference to the users who wanted to make the Vandalism of Stonehenge article into something to do with the road tunnel. But your level of aggression about this is wearisome. GenevieveDEon ( talk) 22:22, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
After being blocked for WP:NOTHERE and a declined request for an unblock [36], Ironcurtain2 has used their talk page mainly to go on screeds about administrator corruption [37]and to continue insulting Valjean [38]. CoffeeCrumbs ( talk) 21:31, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
I came online to check my watchlist and get notified that 16 of my edits have been reverted. Each reversion is to an individual article, and all of the articles are then immediately restored to the status quo ante. The edits originate from different IPs in Lagos, Nigeria, that correspond to a VPN provider, Zenlayer Inc.
That's just today.
Yesterday, we had three from 98.98.197.196, and the day before I had one from 98.98.197.215. On Monday there was one from 98.98.197.168 and two from 98.98.197.163. Thus far, that makes 22 reversions and restorations, all originating from IPs from the same company.
This may or may not be connected to the Bluebird207 situation at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1157#IP editor confessing to harassment on behalf of a registered user. In both situations, VPN-based IPs were involved.
Given that the person behind this is hopping IPs, please advise me on where/how I should attempt to notify them. I will notify Bluebird207's talk page as well. Imzadi 1979 → 22:35, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
Publius Obsequium ( talk · contribs)
Publius Obsequium has been active since June 2024 adding unreliable content to many articles including Life satisfaction, Hypnotherapy, Gender dysphoria, Sex differences in intelligence, Flynn effect, Joseph of Cupertino, Driving while black, Intelligence (journal), race and genetics and others which is soaking up other users time by having to clean up after them. Often this user will either add fringe or primary sources to articles that fail WP:MEDRS or WP:NPOV. At first they started restoring their deleted content but now they simply ignore any advice they were given and go and find a new target article and add in more unreliable content. After their content is removed then they just move on to another article and do the same again. This has been going on now for nearly 3 weeks.
If you scan through their edits since early June almost every edit they have made has been reverted in mainspace. There is a consistent pattern of disruption here and I am surprised they have not been blocked before now. At least 5 users have explained them where they are going wrong, but they do not listen to said advice. Examples of warnings can be seen on their talk-page [40] [41] which they have not properly acknowledged.
I first encountered this user on the Joseph of Cupertino article where they were adding unreliable content which several users took issue with. The user has made it clear that they believe fringe science is a subjective opinion so they ignore WP:Fringe guidelines. This user only seems to want to edit controversial or fringe related articles related to race and intelligence, gender or fringe and alternative medicine.
If all this was just happening on 1 or 2 articles and they moved on and admitted to their mistakes it could be excused but it has been going on for far too long now. I am not convinced the editor has been acting in good faith. I believe that a topic ban on fringe related content would be appropriate here.
Just a few examples where they have added fringe/unreliable/undue content [42], [43], [44], [45], [46] Psychologist Guy ( talk) 02:37, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
Examples of his edits (more numerous than talk page discussions). I don't have the time to hunt for all of them. I have never looked at his contribs before, so I'm probably missing a lot. Basically every edit he does on Austronesian-related topics since our first interaction.
We first interacted in Square rig, where we fought over his insistence that the scope only applied to European ships during the Age of Sail (because apparently other sails don't have English names). I let that go since I was in the minority. Afterwards, he started specifically going after Austronesian articles and my contributions. The most egregious of which are multiple topics he opened in Talk:Austronesian peoples, which is still ongoing. Apparently something about the fact that Austronesians crossed oceans thousands of years before Europeans (which I mentioned in our first dispute) ticked him off, and he's been attacking that fact ever since. He has been challenging literally everything he can challenge, by any means. Examples of his behavior:
Some misleadingly follow a procedure. Tagging something, then removing the entire thing after no one notices it. Or removing a reference for unrelated reasons, then removing the then unreferenced sentence. Or opening a topic in the talk, then removing it when no one replies. Impossible to prevent and challenge in time, given the number of articles he does this on. Unless I dedicate my entire time here just following him around. Which is probably the point.
I initially replied to his challenges, which often involved rereading lengthy sources, only to find out he's just misinterpreting, synthesizing, or making up nonsense. This discussion on his changes in the pottery section is typical of his challanges and his tendency to move the goalposts. He first inserted a sentence that misrepresented a source by omitting certain details from the authors' conclusions. When I corrected it and gave another source for rebuttal, he then claims it's now "too long."
This isn't a mere content dispute, given the scale of what he's disputing. He's disputing everything that I've written or is relevant to what I've written. He's throwing everything at the wall and seeing what sticks. Once one does, or if he doesn't get replies, he then changes it everywhere else. It's not like he's validly tracking down the same errors on multiple articles. It ranges from sails, to boatbuilding techniques, the settlement of Guam, the Polynesian migrations, the settlement of Madagascar, pottery, dogs, pigs, and most recently, the domestication and dispersal of the banana. Some are valid that could have been fixed with a simple sourced edit, most are nonsense based on misreading sources or a general ignorance of the scholarship on the topic, some are outright based on nothing (often hyperfocusing on interpreting a single phrase from a single source). All are, comparatively, minor challenges that chip away one thing at a time (the caption dispute on the lakana for example), often with implied insulting assertions at my editing.
But they're all WP:TENDENTIOUS, with a very clear unifying theme: downplay Austronesian seafaring as much as possible. He has never contributed a single positive thing to the topic. Prior to our first interaction, he had no interest in articles on Austronesian seafaring, his main area of interest was and still is, unsurprisingly, European ships. I'm here to write articles. I have never once interfered with his editing. Until I checked his contribs prior to this report, I did not even know what he does usually on Wikipedia. I still don't.
I've read hundreds if not thousands of papers on this topic, writing much of our coverage on it over the years. Including the vast majority of articles like Austronesian peoples, Lashed-lug boat, Austronesian vessels, Outrigger boat, Domesticated plants and animals of Austronesia, and recently, the Maritime Silk Road. With extensive contributions to others like individual ship, plant, animal, and ancient seafaring articles. And that's only for these related topics ( in case you get the mistaken impression that that's all I write about). I've done my best with keeping with the policies on RS on all of them, as I've done with all my contributions over the last nearly 15 years.
All of that to be challenged repeatedly by the same person on every single thing, every month, who has at most read 10 papers touching on this topic.
I hate all of this. I don't even know what's the solution for situations like this is. Leave me alone. -- OBSIDIAN† SOUL 04:01, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
Ok, I have actually read most of what was posted and looked at the diffs provided to boot; I am completely uninvolved and I do not know anything beyond basics about the subject. Set the sentiments boiling over aside, and this feels like a rather slow edit war, essentially an extended content dispute. My guess is the topic eludes most people, and I do not think ANI is the place to find people who are actually able to judge about content. So I would want to get more eyes on this, my first port of call being WP:3O. If there is an adequate project who covers this, ask there. Disputants should keep in mind to AGF, and even to AAGF. Lectonar ( talk) 11:16, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
"Ah yes. Of course. What did I expect from Wikipedia. Actually read?", criticizing the very people who actually made some attempt to respond to this. Wow. Just wow.
Clearly I need to make some comment. This is a content issue. See the changes that I have tried to make to Austronesian peoples where sources do not support the article content – either a complete absence of support or a different level of emphasis.
Not all the complete "failed verifications" were the result of edits by OS. Nevertheless, they seem ideologically opposed to any criticism of any reference that they support, whilst labelling any that oppose their views as "fringe" (an example is identified by a commenter above i.r.o. Atholl Anderson).
Perhaps the most concise (but still lengthy) example of OS's support for a poor quality source is that following this edit
[48] (and others similar edits made to a number of articles). The relevant edit summaries have a link to a review that is totally scathing. I received thanks from at least one other editor for drawing this to their attention. OS's reaction includes this
[49] with Shaffer being reinstated as a source with the edit summary ...one review doesn't invalidate an RS...
. If you read the review at
[50] you will see that this is not some bad write-up on trip advisor.
The edit that reinstated the Shaffer reference also reinstated Hourani's Arab Seafaring. In another testing interaction with OS
[51], we discover that they ...do not have access to that book
. Reading further on that talk page post, you will see that I finally realised that not only was Hourani a dated source, but the book makes no mention whatsoever of junk rig. This suggests to me that OS has never even read Hourani.
I don't know if I need to give more examples to make the point (you can find some on the talk page of Austronesian peoples), but it seems one has to check every reference they use (which, given the volume of their output, is well nigh impossible).
This is all coupled with an unhelpfully argumentative style, as can be found on any of the talk pages linked above. One in particular I find memorable: [52]. OS wanted an example of the sailing rig labelled "A" in [53]. The photo found on Commons is actually of the one labelled "B". To be fair, we were all at the mercy of Commons taking any picture that you can upload without breaching copyright, with any unverified caption you wish to use. But I think Commons's failing on verification allows us to do some WP:OR on the matter. There are ample videos(e.g. [54] which I have not watched to the end, but shows rig "B" being rigged) and pictures from Madagascar (a holiday destination for many at various times) that tell us exactly how the "old photo" rig works. There was never a word of thanks for finding the appropriate picture that is now in the article [55], which is very different from its predecessor [56]. Without the abrasive attitude, this would have been an engaging exercise in working out the correct content to put in Wikipedia. (OK, I appreciate that for those who do not have an interest in sailing rigs, this is a bit like reading the telephone directory!)
Clearly OS puts in many hours in editing Wikipedia. If only this would be done with a little more emphasis on both quality and co-operation. ThoughtIdRetired TIR 19:26, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
I didn't have to read much of the initial presentation to gather this, but this is definitely a series of content disputes, where you have one who thought they had articles settled being challenged by someone with other sources and interpretations of sources. Frustrating this more is a lack of editors overall and especially ones who understand these subjects to be able to weigh in. I think you both should slow down, pick one article, try to iron it out - and if you can't, use Wikipedia approaches like Third Opinion, Request for Comment, or involving associated WikiProjects, until your issues are resolved. Then move on to the next article. See also WP:DEADLINE. I don't think this matter is actionable by an admin at this point. Stefen Towers among the rest! Gab • Gruntwerk 23:12, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
This is regards to the users VikAl239 [57], Dennis1986Savanah [58] and SigNbol [59]. I'm certain all three of these editors are the same person as the only edits they've ever made were on the article of actress Charlene Amoia and on the talk page [60]. I've mentioned that they're some contradictions regarding this actresses' DOB. However all three of these editors have either removed my comment [61] [62] [63] or edited it [64] [65]. Even after they were asked to stop doing so.
The Dennis editor in particular claims that they want the comment removed for safety measures. Seeing as how it's just the talk page, I really don't understand why there would be any safety concerns. They also claim that they are the subject. [66]. I pinged the last couple of other editors that had been reverting those edits asking to stop removing talk page comments to see if a consensus on what to do can be made as this may be WP:COI. But neither of them have posted. Kcj5062 ( talk) 09:08, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
Doing some routine typos-fixing and formatting via AWB, I happened to edit Guardian angel, and Skyerise is quite-stubbornly edit-warring about it. We had a talk at User talk:Est. 2021#Removing spaces from citation templates, yet he went on reverting the page three times - then ironically noticing me about the three-revert rule at User talk:Est. 2021#June 2024. Whether I'm wrong or right, we clearly need some external action. Est. 2021 ( talk · contribs) 11:36, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
Question: is the removal of spaces within the citation templates something that's specified in Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser/Typos, or something that Est. 2021 ( talk · contribs) chose to do themselves? Mackensen (talk) 11:49, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
User:Est. 2021, you dropped this bomb here--you can't walk away from it. You said it yourself, action, whether you're right or wrong. It sucks to be wrong but I think that is the consensus here. Drmies ( talk) 21:40, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
a clear violation of the guidelines about typos and formatting operated via WP:AWB/T, and it will be reverted, and edit-warred your preferred version back into the article. And then you escalated it even further by bringing the matter to ANI where your edits were rightfully scrutinized, and the consensus here is to stop making these edits, so in hopes of de-escalation, are you going to acknowledge the feedback you have received here and stop making these type of unnecessary edits and not edit-war if they are reverted, otherwise, a formal proposal may be on the table. Isaidnoway (talk) 09:41, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
routine typos-fixing and formattingbut the other editor as
quite-stubbornly edit-warring, and today you have responded to concerns with scorn (in this thread
couldn't care less about these frustration rantsand
will ignore any further pointless comment; on your talk page to Drmies
Do your homeworks and be more mature[70] and to Tamfang
let me know when you grow up[71]) but have still not repaired the damage you did or given us any confidence that you will no longer use AWB to apply your own rules. NebY ( talk) 13:11, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
B.S.,
Haha,
saving me the trouble!,
drop the bomb,
it sucks,
whatever floats your boat,
I am amused, so I keep that POV. Despite this, I answered all questions here at 01:09, 22 June 2024, explaining my edits, acknowledging the feedback and assuring I would have resetted my settings in accordance. Yet I kept receiving requests for the same acknowledgements and promises again and again, in addition to comments about
thousandsof AWB edits of mine (later reworded despite words matter), which were actually 3 hundreds of edits (since it was just the second time ever I used AWB to more-easily fix something here) which Skyerise had already started reverting before – and went on reverting during – this discussion, so I don't get what thousands of live edits are contested. Quite surely in good-faith Isaidnoway, whom I had already answered to, also re-asked me to assure I would have not edit-warred about those revert, and indeed I had stopped both AWB and the edit-war right when the Guardian angel issue happened, nor I reverted any other rollback on any other page that Skyerise performed before and during this discussion. I really don't know what else do you want me to say, other than what I think about all of this, or about the not-much-mature comments I got trying to have constructive third-part ideas and knowledge – whether I was wrong or right – about what guideline we actually had to apply there. I got the answers I asked for and explicitly said yesterday I welcomed them and I that I would have made sure to fix my settings. That's all. Feel free to take measures against me if you really think my goal is to damage this encyclopedia and anything we created with shared effort and dedication. Greetings, Est. 2021 ( talk · contribs) 18:01, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
Since Est. 2021 refuses to acknowledge their edits were problematic, and still don't actually appear to understand why they were (and I'm dubious as to if they actually understand the content of their edits) and refuse to take responsibility for their actions I propose the following.
Any other actions can be determined by the community, but it's clear from the above they don't care about the results of their edits and are unwilling to take responsibility for them. At this point I'm actually questioning their competence to edit here and ability to communicate with other editors. Canterbury Tail talk 13:55, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
immature scenic language, the concerns of other editors as a
joke, and generally dismissive tone. EducatedRedneck ( talk) 17:23, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
feel free to take any necessary measure, I'd say that's a tacit agreement to Canterbury Tail's proposal. That said, this dismissive response makes me wonder how long it'll be before Est. demonstrates they are WP:NOTHERE. — The Hand That Feeds You: Bite 18:32, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
additional non-standard settingsexcept for section heading formatting with spaces, that is literally how all notice subst-ed templates format it. By the way, I literally stated multiple times above I welcomed this feedback and would have resetted and fixed my settings accordingly, so whatever, feel free to go on. Est. 2021 ( talk · contribs) 04:52, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
HopDavid ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
HopDavid has been pursuing a personal grudge against Neil deGrasse Tyson, on and off, since December 2015. This has been combined with personal attacks against editors who have resisted his inappropriate edits, principally @ Objective3000:. This has been quite disruptive in the past, mostly focused on Talk:Neil deGrasse Tyson including allegations of libel but also taking in some other subjects which are related to Tyson such as Space Odyssey: The Video Game. It all went quiet in April 2022 until a few hours ago when he resumed his grudge and personal attacks here. As he had stopped for more than two years I decided to try a personalised warning before bringing it here but, as you can see, I was rebuffed with a clear statement of intention to continue the disruptive behaviour and a willingness to get banned for it. I think this is a case of WP:NOTHERE. He has edited on other subjects (unrelated to Tyson) in the past but not since March 2019 and not in article space since December 2016. -- DanielRigal ( talk) 23:28, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
User:SurJeetrandawa has recently began rapidly moving pages without discussion like:
etc... I don't know, but with titles like Oda clan, Mizuno clan, shouldn't these titles not be altered like this? I don't know what's the consensus on article titles of Japanese clans... ABG ( Talk/Report any mistakes here) 23:30, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
Not all talk page moves have been reverted. Namely, at https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Special%3AContributions&target=SurJeetrandawa&namespace=all&tagfilter=&newOnly=1&start=&end=&limit=50, I still see two talk page moves. Please undelete the target pages ( Talk:Vania (clan) and Talk:Por (clan)) and then move them back to their original titles ( Talk:Vaniš and Talk:POR respectively). GTrang ( talk) 04:06, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
2600:1700:EA50:7FD0:0:0:0:0/64 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Keeps adding unsourced content/overlinking, and is evading a block on 50.205.182.253, see edit history of Lynn Redgrave, Iring Fetscher, and Günter Kunert. This /64 also has an extensive block log for disruptive editing, most recently being for three years in 2020. Waxworker ( talk) 00:50, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
Please see Riposte97 at Talk:Kamloops Indian Residential School. Both sections are relevant but are relatively short. They should be read in order.
Also relevant:
Editor recently insisted on rewriting Canadian Indian residential school gravesites and Canadian Indian residential school gravesites based on the very flawed notions of verifiability, notability, and DUE demonstrated above. I estimate that if he stops now about two weeks of full-time work will be required to clean up after this episode.
I am unsure whether I am supposed to notify RSN particpants but I will notify Riposte97 now. Elinruby ( talk) 05:36, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
plan to add to it. That is not how these things are usually done at ANI, and otherwise you will keep pushing the requested rewrite of the OP down the page. I am going to give you a chance to fix that before I attempt to address your assorted misrepresentations. I'll note in passing though that you need to check the date on that block and also acquaint yourself with the {{they}} template. Meanwhile I am going to implement TarnishedPath's suggestion down the page in the correct chronological order. Elinruby ( talk) 12:03, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
@ Liz: Ok. It is all very complicated and rather inexplicable though, but here is my best attempt to summarize. Please bear in mind that I got instablocked the first time I tried to explain this, which may explain a certain reticence and tendency to be oblique. Please ask me a question if I am not explaining this well. I am nervous because I am being brave and stupid and trying to explain this again even though this editor is trying to intimidate me. ( talk page of the Kamploops article) [74] [75] [76] [77] [78] [79] typo fix included for completeness
Someone quoted Canadian Indian residential school gravesites to me. [80] It had not said that when I was working on it at the time the gravesites were found. [81] On investigation I discovered, among other things, that this editor was reverting to support the insertion into the lead of a statement sourced to spiked.com [82] [83] [84]( similiar previous edit) that insinuates [85] that this recent national tragedy in Canada is a hoax, a la Sandy Hook, ie that those are not really graves, or they are empty. [86] Or something. [87] [88] [89] This is wrong on so many levels [90] that it is hard to know where to begin, [91] but another editor started the now-archived thread at RSN, where multiple editors participated, which started with parsing whether or not the source was better than the Daily Mail. [92]
I need to say that literally hundreds of RS are available,( [93] [94]]) and at least 30 pages of results at Google Scholar. [95] I reviewed the first three pages and posted the urls in the current RSN thread titled #Tne Pope and the Canadian House of Commons with a convenient subheader for easy finding. There appears to be a profound unfamiliarity with these events outside of Canada,(waves hand) and that post was an attempt to begin a discussion to change the apparently hard-wired resistance to using the word "genocide" on Wikipedia.(waves hand) So there are many more sources than that to support the history of residential schools; [96] [97] those are just the ones that call it a genocide. Anyway multiple editors tried to talk to the editor and Ivanvector in particular began to edit the article. [98] or perhaps already was.
I realized that despite the changes to the lede nobody had been updating the article and I began doing that for the various schools where underground radar was being used, or had been used, or where its use is being discussed. I also found some egregious misrepresentations of fact, which are mentioned toward the end of the archived RSN thread.
[99]
[100]. I do not know who was responsible for that;
I just now found this tho of Riposte97 removing material with gold star sources while claiming it was unsourced. I have not yet run Wikiblame. Riposte97 objected to something I had done in the article and
Pbritti pinged me at 20:16. By 22:37 I was abusing relevance tags
and separately refusing to engage in a talk page discussion
Another user appeared on my page to demand that I explain myself. I was busy researching one of the schools where much was being made of a first excavation not finding bodies.
[101] I want to avoid relitigating what followed because I think that it may be better suited to another venue, but I went to bed a few minutes little later after doing some other routine updates and woke up blocked. There was an ANI thread. I was blocked and could not speak.
That is not the point however; the point is that while
[102] I was blocked for a week that article was completely re-written
[103]
[104] to heavily insinuate wrongdoing by the
Tkʼemlúps te Secwépemc, on whose land the graves are.
Much cited material removed here.
A huge table disappears here. @
David Eppstein: called a source used at the Kamloops article a dishonest hit piece, attempting to cast the fact that a project of this size typically takes some time to get going as if it were a scam merely because they were allocated money, haven't produced immediate results, and won't talk to the hit-piece-writers.
(see
Western Standard thread)
Other editors protested the rewrite. [105] [106] [107] [108][ This thread removes material cited to the TRC with an edit summary of "added citation" Diffs in the AE thread about this editor document three different editors protesting [109], [110] (note date), [111], [112], [113], [114] (see p.39 for example), [115], [116], [117], [118] [119] [120], [121], [122], [123] [124], [125], [126], [127] {{refn| [128], [129] (note date), [130], [131], [132], [133] (see p.39 for example), [134], [135], [136], [137], [138], [139], [140], [141], [142], [143], [144], [145], [146] [1] as the editor claimed to have policy and consensus on his side. If anyone is wondering, I posted them there in an effort to support a complaint by another editor about this editor's behaviour at Hunter Biden laptop controversy, but apparently Things Do Not Work That Way. But since we are discussing that AE thread, it also documents Ivanvector giving this editor a warning,[after being reverted by Ivanvector [2] [3] informal of course since Ivanvector had been editing the article and was therefore involved.
That is a roadmap, maybe? The three current RSN threads are each for a source used at the Kamloops article, which was recently edit-protected, so that may help. @ Fluorescent Jellyfish:, one of the recently-involved editors, says that they are a subject matter expert and and posted an explanation to the talk page of the Kamloops article why they think these sources are disinformation. [147] and was argued with and politely reminded Riposte97 of WP:ONUS] and was argued with some more. Having removed these sources from associated articles way too many times, I believe they are correct. And that is why I am trying to bring eyes to this even though, let's face it, this post is not recommended behaviour for an editor who was recently blocked for stating what is conventional wisdom in Canadian discourse and in the academic field, and warned not to do that again lest they be indeffed. But that there is not what this post is about. [148]]
This post is about some dubious something or other being perpetuated [149] using Wikipedia despite the best efforts of bog standard editors to prevent that.
I do not know why this has been happening for two years. I do not know why this user was one of the people making it happening. He is strangely stubborn about the reliability of really bad sources; from a quick skim there is a lot of POV now in the gravesites article that I have not addressed at all either here or there. This editor is very overbearing with other editors. The editors who were protesting his changes were told that they were being disruptive, this while I was blocked for "disruption", as removing the misleading material was described. At one point I would have evaporated also, so I don't blame them. But I beg you to keep in mind that the topic matter than is being manipulated here is the death of thousands of indigenous children. Please ask me or somebody a question if anything at all that I have said here is confusing. Elinruby ( talk) 10:16, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
PS: It seems important to point out [150] that the allied denialist Fraser Institute is currently the number one hit for the string "kamloops Indian residential school graves"
{
References
This thread is already quite lengthy and in the interests of coming to some sort of conclusion I'm going to propose a topic ban for Riposte97 from the indigenous peoples of North America, broadly construed. TarnishedPath talk 07:50, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
45.76.65.17 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) made death threats diff here Adakiko ( talk) 09:22, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
Many threats are empty, but leave that evaluation to Wikimedia Foundation staff.GrayStorm( Complaints Dept.| My Contribs.) 17:03, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
Kirkukturk3 believes they are exempt from adding RS when asked to do so at Turkmeneli. There has been a talk page discussion of no use and continues to POV-push [161]. Other pages are being edited disruptively as well. They have moreover made personal attacks [162]. Semsûrî ( talk) 11:56, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
First, @
Kirkukturk3: please stop editing your responses, I keep trying to post and it creates edit conflicts..
See all of User talk:Kirkukturk3#June 2024.
They refuse to go to WP:RSN, replying that "I don't need a specific source for the Anthem and Map since they're already existing medias that can be searched, the Map as shown below is clearly how the article states the boundaries of Turkmeneli, the same type of border is also used by many.
Also the person that you're clearly defending is pro-kurdish and have made many disruptive edits trying to disclude the Iraqi turkmens from pages like mendeli. They're already existing stuff and not self-made material. Kirkukturk3 (talk) 7:35 pm, Yesterday (UTC+1) ".
Their response to my 3RR warning was to say "this issue has been solved". In between they mocked a typo of mine (yes, I make too many typos, my Parkinson's has made me clumsy).
User:Materialscientist warned them in October about the need for sources.
And I'd forgotten about User talk:Kirkukturk3#May 2024 when I told them they'd changed correctly sourced text. They replied: " correction needs to be sourced? Its obviously referring to West asians but poorly. Mistaking the inhabitants of the Near East(West Asia/Middle East) and calling them "East Asians" is very wrong due to the distance of those two areas. Please click on those links because its obvious that you arent knowledgeable enough of these two areas and assume my correction as "unsourced". Kirkukturk3 (talk) 10:37 am, 3 May 2024, Friday (1 month, 20 days ago) (UTC+1)" See the rest - they told me the source was wrong.
In the current dispute where I was telling them about policy they also told me I didn't know enough: "It looks like "tou" don't know alot about this topic. Kirkukturk3 (talk) 7:27 pm, Yesterday (UTC+1)" The "tou" refers to my typo for "you" earlier. Sorry, I kept adding the above and getting edit conflicts and when I succeeded forgot to sign! Doug Weller talk 13:58, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
Despite multiple warnings, both on their talk page, within others' edit summaries, etc. this user has continued to accuse others of inappropriate conduct, using slurs and fighting language, instead of civilly taking their dispute to the article's talk page.
See: Canadaland, revs. 1230406270 1230405367 1230405018
See: User talk:Smallangryplanet, rev. 1230406345
All of their replies at User talk:2605:B100:1130:ACA7:D79:21D0:86FD:8A6C
Thanks. Staraction ( talk | contribs) 14:52, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
hi guys, I am not sure if I risk getting my account blocked, but it's the second time this week I am reaching out here. Because I cannot learn and contribute, if I cannot understand or make sense of what is required. If this is not correct noticeboard, please direct me to where I need to go. And when Admins are being abrupt and just deleting without giving me any information, I don't know how to proceed. And if I disagree, I need to understand either why they are correct, or am I right. I can't just accept what I see as wrong. The issue here is in regards to the conflicting edits by myself and User:Scope_creep.
I am just trying to do my best here and achieve what is needed, through an understand. But instead, it feels intimidating and in some ways bullying. I can imagine how many spammers you get, but genuine contributors shouldn't be treated as such.
I just want more info. And another opinion please.
I have posted information in Talk:Greystanes,_New_South_Wales about citations getting deleted, and I cannot get any information as to why. I have read /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard as recommended, and have found that there was a vote on The Daily Telegraph to be removed fron Wikipedia, but it isn't the Sydney Daily Telegraph, it is the UK one. I am referencing the Sydney newspaper, totally independent of the UK.
I provided other citations, and these were then said to be non-rs. But, they are not listed anywhere as being non RS. One of which was the Sydney Morning Herald. ???
I just want to get my head around it. How can the Sydney Morning not be RS. And quotes directly from a published book, on a website, not be RS.
And why should the Parramatta Advertiser as a publisher, which is under the umbrella nowadays of The Daily Telegraph (Sydney) be associated to a vote of 4. Deprecated, to a totally different UK publisher?
From the issues previously had, I've cleaned up the page alot. But, now things are not making sense.
You guys were previously really helpful, are you able to assist at all here? User:Adam Black User:Theroadislong.
Again, sorry to be a pain, not intending to be disruptive at all. But at this point I really disagree with what is evolving on this article.
The messages exchanged are below. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Annamaria.dmrt ( talk • contribs) 16:43, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
(I have edited the above message to fix a link and to remove a cut-n-paste of discussion from the article talkpage. Abecedare ( talk) 17:09, 22 June 2024 (UTC))
User is a previously banned long term disruptive editor who will make a wide variety of alterations to articles without presenting sources to support edits [175], [176], [177]. Also clearly engaging in similar disruptive behaviour while logged out [178] [179].
Their disruptive behaviour has been going on for some months under multiple account names ( see previous report in January for context).
Despite repeated warnings this behaviour continues over and over again. Effectively this user demonstrates a clear competency problem that they simply refuse to improve. Request ban as a result. Rambling Rambler ( talk) 19:43, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
kindly remove my name from this. i had sources, new articles have been added to the vice media website, if i was wrong, people were free to revert the article, good night. WacoBell ( talk) 20:00, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
Convenience links:
DMacks ( talk) 21:28, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
Hello, I am the author of SurrealDB which was recently deleted after an AfD. I was able to undelete the page and draftify it for the purposes of improving the article and moving it to mainspace after the database had received enough notability.
Interestingly, shortly after the article was deleted, the company raised $20m USD after another investment round, alongside the launch of their "Cloud" beta announcement. Plus I found a number of new sources further establishing notability.
I don't blame anyone, because it was recreated quickly after the AfD so I can understand why it might appear as circumventing the AfD process - however my intention was not to do that, and I believe the article would now survive an AfD since the article had undergone more significant changes, and addition of new sources.
I would like to have this article undergo a new AfD instead of speedy deletion. Mr Vili talk 10:29, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
"It is the first model to surpass GPT-4o in a majority of benchmarks, making it the current leading state-of-the-art general model"with what the sources cited ( [187] [188] [189]) actually say. The article is entirely promotional, regurgitating the developer company's claims as fact, and as far as I can see, utterly redundant, since we already have an article on Claude (language model). AndyTheGrump ( talk) 01:54, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
The draft has been nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:SurrealDB. Interested editors are invited to participate. TarnishedPath talk 06:36, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
I would like to propose that AndyTheGrump be indefinitely blocked due to repeated harassment and incivility towards members that never seems to stop.
AndyTheGrump has been repeatedly injecting himself into almost every single article I am drafting or involved with, vandalising draft articles, and attempting to sway opinions of reviewers into the negative, he's used slurs not only with me, but many other users, constantly acting counter-productively.
Diffs
Diffs with other users
While AndyTheGrump certainly seems to have a personal quarrel with me, it also extends to many other users:
Previous proposed blocks
However, this is not the first time that a user has proposed blocking AndyTheGrump. Please see:
These were some I only found from few minutes of crawling.
Summary
It clearly appears this is a behavior of AndyTheGrump that is clearly never going to go away. He will counter as he always does with some non-sense argument that just tries to deflect by attacking me, instead of addressing his own behavior. I'm sure many other users here have probably had similar experiences Mr vili talk 20:24, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
I oppose an indef-block as a ridiculous overreaction, but will note here Andy has been given a 31-hour block for the obvious personal attacks linked from the beginning of this thread, and that in my opinion this is condign given the previous consensae ( Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1157#A_refusal_to_permit_evidence_to_be_discussed_in_a_Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know_thread_requesting_such_evidence., Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1156#BLP_issues_with_Andrew_Tate_DYK_hook) where everyone agreed that next time for sure there would be some consequence. jp× g 🗯️ 21:14, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
I also have WP:COI concerns but this block is not based upon or relianton on thoseRudolfRed ( talk) 04:35, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
Hello
This user seems to have difficulties with WP rules.
Raoul mishima ( talk) 00:14, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
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 to be 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:
Extended content
|
---|
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)
Filemovers ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
I think many of Filemovers' contributions are not constructive (but still good-faith). Examples include overlinking (e.g. [196] [197] [198]), mistaken typo fixes (e.g. [199] [200]), adding nonsensical categories (e.g. [201] [202] [203]), unsubstantiated reverts (e.g. [204] [205] [206]), using misleading edit descriptions (e.g. [207] [208] [209] [210]) and miscellaneous disruptive edits. I would say about half of his edits are constructive and half revert-worthy. He already has some warnings on their user-talk page.
– Janhrach ( talk) 08:08, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
Hi, this is just a short and simple request: can an administrator edit the block on IP address 50.194.36.81 to include no talk page editing ability?
The IP range 50.194.36.80/29 surrounding that single address is blocked with no talk page access, but I am requesting this, just in case (do admins know if block settings on singular IP address blocks override that of rangeblocks if there's one present?).
I deliberately have not left an ANI notification, because you know, I feel like doing that is only gonna invite them to make more vile attacks on other editors...
Thanks in advance! — AP 499D25 (talk) 09:23, 23 June 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) |
I have been unable to reach understanding with Geogene who persists in reverting my contribution to the Cat predation on wildlife article and has received full partisan support from SMcCandlish. I reject their unsubstantiated claim that my contribution has contravened Wikipedia guidelines and suggest that their actions are driven by a partisan point of view regarding the article content. The article is closely related to a scientific (and in part NGO-driven) controversy about the global impact of cat predation on wildlife and biodiversity, and effectively replaces an objective coverage of this debate on Wikipedia. Geogene and SMcCandlish, who profess complete agreement on the matter, deny that such a debate has any scientific merit and seek to foreclose any discussion of it, as they happen to side with one extreme of it. They have produced no direct evidence (to counter that cited by myself) that the debate has either not existed or been resolved. Their claims rely on a selective original interpretation of sources (i.e. they echo the claims of one side to have won and to be the only "scientific" one).
Geogene raised an original research objection against properly sourced content and made bad faith allegations that I am trying to push a fringe viewpoint and that I am effectively "watering down or discrediting the modern viewpoint on cat predation". That is something that ought to be demonstrated through adequate citation of evidence. Equally objectionable is their pattern of dismissing entire sources based on their date (without additional justification as per guidelines), arguments advanced, perceived influence etc. This appears to be a way in which Geogene and SMcCandlish have exercised their effective ownership of the article this far. Such a priori judgments about the reputation of a source constitute a personal viewpoint (POV) and if they were to be included in the article, they would constitute original research (OR).
Geogene and SMcCandlish not only represent an extreme stance in the debate, but also deny that any debate is legitimate. They have sought to outright disqualify my contribution and any sources I have cited based purely on their opinion and by attributing a nefarious agenda to it, and invoked either a local editorial consensus between the two of them or an unproven scientific consensus in support. An eyebrow-raising claim they uphold is that " modern science" only dates from the year 2000. There is a considerable scientific literature omitted from the article due to its one-sidedness. (There would also be no ground on which essays, opinion pieces or journalism can be flatly excluded - not least because such sources are already cited.) Judging from their behaviour so far, Geogene and SMcCandlish will dismiss information based on sources that contravene their viewpoint out of hand.
The discussion history can be found on the article's talk page and on the NORN noticeboard. The talk page section in which SMcCandlish seeks to discredit a source may also be relevant.
As far as I am concerned, the only way to assess various claims is through adding verifiable content, and the way forward is for everyone involved to focus on building the article, rather than edit warring and making unsourced claims. I have not been able to persuade Geogene or SMcCandlish about this, however.
Due to their persistent refusal to recognise any evidence that contradicts their viewpoint and to engage in editing the article instead of edit warring, I consider the actions of Geogene to be vandalism, committed in defence of their POV and their effective ownership of the article. I think it is more than stonewalling because the guidelines on OR and OLDSOURCES were twisted to fit a purpose, and because Geogene has resorted to action despite the failure to evidence their claims or offer persuasive arguments in discussion. I am concerned about the two editors' propensity for escalating unfounded accusations and treating them as proven from the start, and about their shared habit of seeking to discredit sources a priori.
I am asking for an investigation of the conduct of the two editors, since it is their attitude and not a dispute over content (i.e. they prefer to focus on reputation and general outlook over the detail of evidence) that stands in the way of resolution.
To be clear, I am far from arguing that my contribution was beyond criticism. It is the resistance with which it met that was unwarranted and gives ground to suspecting that any further attempts to edit the article will be met with the same hostility. I am requesting an intervention to restore the possibility of constructive engagement with the article. VampaVampa ( talk) 20:22, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
I explained in the discussion on the talk page why I reject the charges of WP:OR and WP:OLDSOURCES and was not persuaded that I was wrong.evidence of the real problem here? Geogene ( talk) 06:58, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
"I explained in the discussion on the talk page why I reject the charges of WP:OR and WP:OLDSOURCES and was not persuaded that I was wrong.") that I think still needs addressing. Because it is no way required that you be convinced that you are incorrect before your edits can be reverted--and in suggesting as much, you are actually turning the normal burden of proof and dispute resolution processes on their head. Rather the WP:ONUS is on you to gain clear consensus for a disputed change, and WP:BRD should be followed in resolving the matter. Now, I haven't investigated the article revision history in great detail, but from what I can tell, the article has somewhat been in a state of flux over recent years, reaching the current "Cats are the greatest menace to biodiversity of the un-wilded world" state relatively recently. Neverthless, your changes were to fairly stable elements of the article that had at least some existing consensus support from the then-active editors of the article. When your edits are reverted in these circumstances, you are required to overcome the presumption of a valid reversion by gaining consensus for your addition/preferred version of the article. It is not always a fun or easy process, but it is the standard for how article development and dispute resolution proceed on this project. SnowRise let's rap 20:47, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
PS: VV is completely incorrect that "RFC is not suitable for disputes in which more than two editors are involved", and has simply misunderstood all the material there. RFCBEFORE in particular makes it clear that RfCs should be opened after extensive discussion has failed to reach a consensus. That process almost always involves more than two parties. Where "more than two" appears on that page, it is simply noting that another potential venue one may try, for trying reaching consensus without an RfC, is WP:DRN (and VV notably ignored that advice and ran to ANI to make false accusations instead). The section below that, RFCNOT, certainly does not list "disputes with more than 2 editors" in it as something RfCs should not be used for, and that would be absurd. However, an RfC would not be appropriate at this moment, while the NORN proceeding is still open. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 15:38, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
An editor's claim that an RFC about content is unnecessary because they're right is prima facie proof that an RFC is necessary. The decision as to whether or not an RFC happens should be made with zero input from VampaVampa, SMcCandlish, and Geogene.
Much to the surprise of nobody, the NORN discussion is going nowhere because the three involved editors are bickering there exactly like they have been here and at the article's talk page while nobody else has weighed in on the actual content dispute. (As an aside, any of these three who has complained about anyone else running afoul of WP:WALLOFTEXT is a massive hypocrite.) An RFC will compel these three to state their cases in far fewer words, which will be nice, but much more importantly, it'll attract uninvolved editors who'll review the content issue and work towards a consensus on the content, which in the end is all that's supposed to matter. These threads won't accomplish anything because none of these three editors has shown a willingness to compromise to any extent and their tendency to link policies, guidelines, and essays across multi-paragraph messages ad nauseum guarantees they'll keep speaking past each other. City of Silver 01:05, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
nobody else has weighed in on the actual content disputeThree editors (@ EducatedRedneck:, @ Elmidae:, @ My very best wishes:) have weighed in on the article's talk page since this thread was opened. Still no evidence of support for VampaVampa's revision. Your "blame all sides" is not helpful. Geogene ( talk) 01:12, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
Before anything else, edit your messageEdit your message to remove the personal attacks, including "hypocrits".
I never came even close to saying there were sides in this issue because I absolutely do not believe there are.I said you are blaming all sides, which you are. I put that in scare quotes to express my disagreement with them.
You, VV, and SMcCandlish are all on the same side, the side of improving the websitethank you for that. I find editing Wikipedia to be an extremely thankless enterprise, this thread being a great example of it.
I also entirely disagree that any substantial part of any discussion has been anything more than two people talking past one person and that one person talking past those two people.and then the one flings bad faith assumptions at the other two at ANI to try to eliminate them from the topic area.
But if you've got consensus, why not start an RFC?Normally it's the one who wants content added who starts the RFC. I noticed above you said,
The decision as to whether or not an RFC happens should be made with zero input from VampaVampa, SMcCandlish, and Geogene.I don't recall stating any opposition to an RfC. Geogene ( talk) 02:20, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
In the spirit of what I just wrote regarding circular argument and just walking away, I am not going to respond here any further unless pinged directly. There is no ANI matter to settle, except possibly VV's renewed personal attacks in the same subject area (see diff of one against EducatedRedneck above). VV's ANI is WP:asking the other parent. Either NORN will address the sourcing problems, or will not and then we'll have an RfC, but ANI is not for content disputes. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 03:32, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
I have not tried to read the content discussion, and don't know what the content details are. I have two mostly unrelated comments that are not about content, but this is not a content forum.
First, multiple posters have posted overly long posts, that were literally too long, didn't read, which is one reason I haven't studied the content. However, I can see that the original poster has misread two Wikipedia policies, and posted based on their misreadings, and has since backed off from their original comments. One of the guidelines was worded in a complex way because it is complex, and so it could have easily been misread. The other policy could not possibly have been misread by anyone who read it with an intent to understand it, because it is very clear about refuting misconceptions. The first was that User:VampaVampa said that RFC was not applicable if there are more than two parties. That is part of a sort of flowchart-like guideline, and could easily be misread, and was misread. The second was that User:VampaVampa said that Geogene had engaged in vandalism. The vandalism policy is very clear on what is not vandalism. It is sufficiently clear that anyone who argues that overzealous editing in a conduct dispute is vandalism hasn't read the policy. They obviously know that vandalism is one of the worst things that an editor can do, but they haven't read what it is and is not. In other words, VampaVampa insulted the other editor first, and only read what the insult meant after being called to account. So, if I do read the content details, I know not to give much weight to what User:VampaVampa writes, because they are an editor who makes sloppy claims. Robert McClenon ( talk) 20:12, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
Second, the dispute has not been addressed except by the original parties at the No Original Research Noticeboard because WP:NORN is a dormant noticeboard. It apparently has no regular editors, and it is very seldom if ever that anything is resolved at WP:NORN. It is a noticeboard where content disputes go to fester and die. The suggestion was made, and not followed up on, that perhaps it and one or more other noticeboards should be merged. So VampaVampa is not asking the other parent here. There is no parent at WP:NORN. But they appear to be following a policy of post first and think second. Robert McClenon ( talk) 20:12, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
A short but not unbiased summary of this whole thing, as I see it.
0. Earlier article edits that set the scene, June 2022 and December 2023: Xhkvfq (previously went by the username StrippedSocks) makes edits that are reverted by Geogene. Xhkvfq adds a source Lynn et al 2019. On the talk page, SMcCandlish describes the source as, among other things "a butt-hurt rant".
1. Article editing happens. Geogene reverts many things (to me, looks like based on whether they are pro-cat or anti-cat rather than whether they match the sources). SMcCandlish edits the article to more closely match what the sources say. Geogene and VampaVampa revert each other a bunch.
2. The NORN noticeboard. Geogene opens a question regarding one of VampaVampa's edits. SMcCandlish answers in the affirmative, goes on to call Xhkvfq a drive-by editor, and complains about people who are okay with bird species going extinct as long as feral cats don't get culled. There seems to be an implication that VampaVampa is one such person, which I don't think is accurate nor warranted.
3. VampaVampa opens this discussion here, beginning with an accusation of vandalism due to a misunderstanding of wikipedia policy. Once that was explained, VampaVampa changed the accusation to disruptive editing my mistake, "status quo stonewalling". Many words about both wikipedia policy and article content have been written here, but not much has been said.
4. Not knowing any of this, I come across the article, attempt to make an edit, and get dragged into this discussion. GG's mention of that edit here was to complain about VV's reply "personalizing the content dispute" by saying GG's revert was based on unevidenced assumptions, but if that's a personal attack then so is GG's claim that my edit was "profringe". Something being "profringe" implies it is based on unevidenced assumptions.
5. With the help of other editors to keep the discussion on track, VampaVampa and Geogene are able to have a mostly civil conversation (compared to previously) on the talk page about the content of the article.
My own experiences involving Geogene have been quite negative (edit: perhaps there was some misunderstanding going on), but as it appears he and VampaVampa are currently making progress on article content, perhaps it is not worth bringing them up.
Iamnotabunny (
talk) 16:42, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
Adding on: I just realized the above makes it look like VampaVampa is blameless. That was not what I intended, but I feel that part of things is already covered quite thoroughly earlier in this thread. Iamnotabunny ( talk) 19:04, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
I think that this has gone on long enough, and that nothing new is likely to happen, so it is time for some sort of close. User:VampaVampa is the original poster of this thread, and says that there have been serious conduct violations by User:Geogene and User:SMcCandlish. I haven't seen any evidence of conduct violations by Geogene or SMcCandlish, either in VampaVampa's walls of text or on my cursory look at the article talk page. There have been two specific conduct allegations. The first was a claim that Geogene's editing of a content dispute was vandalism. The second conduct allegation is that Geogene and SMcCandlish have asserted article ownership. It appears that what they have actually asserted is that they have a rough consensus, and two-to-one really is a local rough consensus. There haven't been any other conduct allegations that I could parse. I don't intend to try to read the excessively long post, because I know that VampaVampa is not a good judge of good and bad conduct. So no action should be taken against Geogene or SMcCandlish.
I see three possible options with regard to VampaVampa:
What do the other editors think? Robert McClenon ( talk) 02:07, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
As for
WP:SQS, VV apparently has either not read that page, even its first line, or has serious difficulty understanding it. (Cf. also apparent severe trouble understanding
WP:RFC,
WP:VANDAL, the content policies themselves, and the meaning and relative import of the source material; this is starting to look like a
WP:CIR issue.) Let's quote directly: Status quo stonewalling is opposition to a proposed change without (a) stating a substantive rationale based in policy, guidelines and conventions or (b) participating in good-faith discussion.
Both Geogene and I have raised very detailed substantive rationales based in policy, and our participation in good-faith discussion has been so extensive that various parties above have vented about it being too detailed and long-winded. VV has utterly failed to demonstrate that any sort of SQS happening.
PS: WP:NORN is a dormant noticeboard.
I was not aware of that (and it seems weird and unfortunate). Given that RfCs are expensive of community time and attention, probably the thing to do would be to close this ANI, close the going-nowhere NORN thread, and re-open the matter at WP:NPOVN or WP:RSN; all of these policies and guidlelines are implicated in inter-related ways in this issue, so either venue will do, really; it would just be matter of writing it out in a way that pertains more to one noticeboard or the other. That's assuming a T-ban doesn't happen. I think one could arguably be justified because of the repeated incivility and other problems evidenced above after this ANI was opened. But I'm also not one to seek to "silence the opposition". I give benefit of the doubt (sometimes maybe more than I should) that an editor may prove to be productive on the project in other ways despite a recent
WP:DRAMA flare-up. And in this case, I really have no policy-and-sourcing doubt about how the underlying content and sourcing dispute is going to turn out in the end. —
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼 11:12, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
Harold the Sheep ( talk · contribs)
At Steven Hassan, this user has been edit warring (breaching 3rr [3] [4] [5] [6]) to include opinions about the general topic of 'cults' in the article. They added it to the article a few months ago alongside some salient content. [7] This was raised previously as a POV issue by another editor. [8] Harold the Sheep then edit warred to keep even the maintenance tag off the article [9] [10].
This is a problematic ownership issue, with the article being used as a coatrack for the views of academics in a different field about the general topic of 'cults' and the use of the word 'cults'. Cambial — foliar❧ 08:47, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
suddenly the victims of an insulting, uncollaborative, obsessively-focused, bludgeoning, article-owning, edit-warring, coat-racking monster who has personally attacked you in egregious fashion and maybe even slept with your wifeWhat a bizarre response – the misjudged sarcastic hyperbole reads like someone playing the victim. Your "everyone else is the problem" attitude explains your (not unanticipated) failure to participate at article talk. The passages of anti-deprogramming/cult-apologist rhetoric are not about any individual, neither
clearly specificallynor obscurely, which is precisely the problem. That's why three different editors have sought to trim or otherwise address the off-topic content you arbitrarily added to the page. Cambial — foliar❧ 23:11, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
it's surprizing how thin-skinned you are, since this thread is discussing you, not me. Likewise, there is no reason to lump me together with Cambial. It doesn't require lengthy discussion threads to conclude that someone will never budge with polite logical discourse. After I tried that and received a few insults in return, I had you pegged. It would have been better for the project had we resolved the issues last year, but instead I decided those articles weren't worth the hassle and I walked away. I'm not one bit surprised that another editor has independently encountered the same problems with your work and attitude. No one called me or tagged me to join this thread; I was browsing ANI and instantly recognized your username... that's how much of an impression you made on me last year. I get involved in a lot of talk page discussions over many topics and I rarely remember someone else's username, but I did yours. ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 00:20, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
The passages of anti-deprogramming/cult-apologist rhetoric are not about any individual, neither clearly specifically nor obscurely, which is precisely the problem." – which is about the sourcing and content not being about the article subject, and is the only mention I make of the phrase ‘cult apologists’ – suggests "
that all of the concerns that arise out of ethical questions surrounding deprogramming practices and the moral panic in which they arose can be laid at the feet of "cult apologists"". This is a massive extrapolation into views I do not share. I will take your other comments on board. Cambial — foliar❧ 05:58, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
Following the Twitter storm mentioned in the section above, there is now widespread disruption on a large number of election articles – editors driven by the Twitter stuff are ignoring an RfC at 2022 Italian general election ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and 2018 Italian general election ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (on the 2022 article, one editor has reverted again despite being made aware of the RfC); made-up election results that were removed are being blindly reverted back into numerous French election articles (e.g. edits like this and this (exactly the same as was happening at the time of this ANI report from January. Can someone please step in – restore the Italian articles to the RfC-approved infobox and lock them and look at what is happening on the French articles. Cheers, Number 5 7 01:14, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
for most Italian elections(though later on it says TIE is
off the table and should not be used for any Italian elections.). — Czello ( music) 08:21, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
the last two general elections in Italyand that the RfC closer clarified the result of the discussion as
for most infoboxes within the scope of the RFC, which are most Italian elections after 2018. That discussion was definitely not directly appliable to elections before 2018. Impru20 talk 08:25, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
Semi-protection for all effected pages, would be start. GoodDay ( talk) 15:09, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
So this widespread disruption is contagious: look at the completely unexplained series of reverts by User:Luentez, who appears out of nowhere to throw oil on the fire. Drmies ( talk) 21:10, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
I blocked Talleyrand6 in my role as a CU for off-wiki canvasing as well as persistent disruptive editing and edit warring -- Guerillero Parlez Moi 02:17, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
I just spotted (and reverted) three cases where unilateral edits to change TIE to TILE were done (without properly addressing the changes in the edit summaries or seeking an explicit consensus for it): 1989, 1991 and 1993 Polish parliamentary elections. One of these was done in April 2023, the other two were done in the last couple of months (effectively placing them out of consistency with other Polish election articles). I am particularly appalled at these since I myself opposed similar edits to these articles in 2021, recommending a wider consensus to be reached first (since they affected a large number of articles and looked like they were being conducted when they were not being looked upon). The users conducting the recent changes were aware of such opposition and that conducting such a change would be controversial, yet they did it anyway a few years later without even properly specifying such changes in the edit summaries. Obviously, no attempt was made at contacting me or other users opposing them in the past. Impru20 talk 11:00, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
Not commenting on the rest of the dispute here, but it does seem like changes to election infoboxes should be discussed in WP:WPE&R going forward. Allan Nonymous ( talk) 02:41, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
JackkBrown ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) I don't want to be here, but it is clear that Jack has not learned from the prior advice, blocks:
Questions about minutiae ( cannoli (and a move request here based on the continued English/Italian confusion, pronunciation, ingredients despite being told multiple times that this is not what HD/Teahouse are for and to use the Talk. He has also moved on to deletion without an understanding of policy.
I don't know if it's IDHT or lack of competence, but it's clear the behavior isn't going to change if it hasn't for the last 9 months+.Is there a p-block that would work since they seem to need a physical blocker to stop them from the HD. Thoughts? Suggestions? Star Mississippi 15:57, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
in the correct place, and demonstrates the same misplaced confidence shown in their copyediting and unfamiliarity with policy that are causing concern here. EducatedRedneck ( talk) 22:34, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
probably also annoying some watchlists. We can do that. But I think the question about the reference desk might be important; could you please answer it?
Elinruby (
talk) 00:48, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
I've tried to engage USER:Evru200 on their talk page [11] about not adding unsourced content to pages and adhering to NPOV reporting of election results, but their behavior persists. The opposing team wins in "a mild upset" [12] while next time around the home team wins "in a landslide" [13] although there's no RS that uses there terms to describe the results. They have also been admonished to follow the WP:MOS, but they continue to make edits like this [14]. BBQboffin grill me 23:50, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
This user has been persistently submitting poorly made drafts. They are about topics that already have articles and suffer from problems like poor sourcing, poor style/formatting and even blatantly false information. Draft:Huricihan Sultan is a particularly egregious example, which passes a fictional character from a historical TV series as a real historical figure. I have warned them ( diff), but they have continued with resubmitting Draft:Nurbanu Sultan and Draft:Fatma Nur Sultan. I therefore believe that most of this user's editing history has constituted disruptive editing, and that they have not responded or changed after warnings, so they should be blocked. Air on White ( talk) 17:53, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
I'm probably too involved, hence I won't take administrative action but will leave it to others to decide. The users Panamitsu and Alexeyevitch don't get on with one another, which is a shame as they both live in New Zealand and their Wiki interests are similar. In December 2023, I told Alexeyevitch off for following Panamitsu around. My observation is that the warning was heeded, and Alexeyevitch stopped following Panamitsu's contributions. That hasn't stopped the bickering between those two editors. I do have the impression that Panamitsu is following Alexeyevitch's contributions in turn. To put a stop to that, I asked both users to stay away from one another earlier this month. Panamitsu is not listening, and openly admits that he goes through Alexeyevitch's contributions. That's WP:WIKIHOUNDING.
Panamitsu is a productive editor, but this hounding has to stop and he's not listening to me. I invite other admins to weigh in. Schwede 66 00:42, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
Each time[Panamitsu]
would copyedit his[Alexeyevitch's]
contributions to Christchurch suburbs[...]
he would edit articles relating to the area, notably Paraparaumu College, presumably with the belief that[Panamitsu]
live[d]
there and[as]
a way to scare[Panamitsu]. If this is what's happening, I can't help but find such behavior disturbing.Banning Alexeyevitch from interacting with Panamitsu seems like a minimal sanction for such harassment. I would ask administrators reading this thread to remember that
"following another user around", if done to cause distress, or if accompanied by tendentiousness, personal attacks, or other disruptive behavior, may become a very serious matter and could result in blocks and other editing restrictions. Hydrangeans ( she/her | talk | edits) 02:58, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
Correct use of an editor's history includes (but is not limited to) fixing unambiguous errors or violations of Wikipedia policy, or correcting related problems on multiple articles, which is what happened here. Endwise ( talk) 03:27, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
I (or schwede66)[...]
intended to fix them a day or two later -- we wanted to see if there was some-form of monitoring: What do these statements mean? Do you mean you (or even you and Schwede66?) privately collaborated to contribute edits contrary to MOS:TIES and MOS:ENGVAR as—what? Some deliberate 'experiment' to 'entrap' Panamitsu? Wikipedia is not a laboratory, and experiments that
negatively affect articles—even temporarily—are not allowed. Hydrangeans ( she/her | talk | edits) 04:03, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
confirmed I was stalked: Alexeyevitch, to be frank, all that seems confirmed to me is that you have been stalking Panamitsu and that along with that you've been deliberately introducing MOS:TIES/ MOS:VAR-contrary content into articles. As Endwise explained above, cases where using an editor's history is not considering hounding
includes (but is not limited to) fixing unambiguous errors or violations of Wikipedia policy, or correcting related problems on multiple articles. In the 44 Parachute Regiment (South Africa), you changed "minimise" (British English spelling) to "minimize" (American English spelling) for an article about a South African military unit and in your edit summary you called it
fix[ing]
a spelling error. Some twelve hours later, Panamitsu restored the spelling of the word per MOS:TIES. Hydrangeans ( she/her | talk | edits) 05:02, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
Alexeyevitch, if you're not prepared to use NZ English per
[16] then perhaps your time would be better spent not editing NZ articles.
Panamitsu This edit
[17] is not a good look. It takes two to edit war.
Daveosaurus (
talk) 05:53, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
Do I read this right? Has an admin (Schwede66) deliberately tried to bait an editor by conspiring with another editor to deliberately make disruptive edits, and then brought the baited editor here for sanctions when they actually improved the articles by reverting the disruptive edits? If this is a correct summary, then please block and desysop Schwede66, as that is truly terrible behaviour. Fram ( talk) 08:35, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
Alexeyevitch themself doesn't use New Zealand English, please consider using American English or the Oxford Spelling on their talk page. They might not to respond to comments deliberately avoiding this suggestion.(from the last diff in Panamitsu's comment: Good heavens, literally expressing an intention to ignore comments written in a variation of English not Alexeyevitch's own? Is there such a thing as linguistic chauvinism? This seems contrary to the Universal Code of Conduct's injunction to be collegial and empathetic with
Wikimedians of different backgrounds. And the word salad seems like an attempt by Alexeyevitch at
mockery, sarcasm, or aggressionagainst Panamitsu, mocking Panamitsu's use of New Zealand English spelling. Hydrangeans ( she/her | talk | edits) 13:42, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
I've had the impression that their[Alexeyevitch's]
contributions have been followed for quite some time; not just "in the past day"came from. As no diffs or examples had been provided, I'm not exactly sure where Schwede66 got this idea from so I don't know if I've addressed everything.
both editors commit to stop following each others edits. This way would avoid any bans and stop any further reasons for conflict.: This is premised on a false balance. What Schwede66 and Alexeyevitch call "following" and hounding has been Panamitsu noticing a widespread pattern of violating—in a few cases apparently deliberately, according to Alexeyevitch and Schwede66— MOS:TIES and MOS:ENGVAR and making fixes in accordance with an overtly permitted use of contribution histories:
Correct use of an editor's history includes (but is not limited to) fixing unambiguous errors or violations of Wikipedia policy, or correcting related problems on multiple articles.Meanwhile, Alexeyevitch has mocked non-U. S. spelling, has expressed intent to ignore talk page comments not written in American English, and has harassed Panamitsu (more precise diff not possible because of an unrelated thread getting oversighted, but see the timeline of events I created) by following them to Paraparaumu topics seemingly after potentially coming to the belief that Panamitsu had an off-wiki connection to Paraparaumu.With this level of hostility toward non-U. S. English and this depth of attempted harassment against Panamitsu in play, I'm not convinced that asking for a mutual commitment will prevent future guideline and policy violations by Alexeyevitch. Getting Panamitsu off their back seems to be precisely what Alexeyevitch has wanted, so as to be able to eliminate New Zealand spellings from articles without scrutiny from an editor like Panamitsu. Hydrangeans ( she/her | talk | edits) 14:02, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
has been Panamitsu noticing a widespread pattern of violating ... MOS:TIES and MOS:ENGVARthis is exactly the content of my original response, I'm not disagreeing. I was just hoping to find an informal way to settle the dispute. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested « @» ° ∆t° 14:51, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
be able to eliminate New Zealand spellings– to be honest, I've never seen that myself. And if I were to see that, I'd put a stop to that straight away. There are plenty enough editors in New Zealand who would have zero tolerance to such antics. Schwede 66 05:12, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
I am not part of this extensive ongoing spat and I don't want to be. I will say though that I am trying not to be affected by Alexeyevitch's numerous changes to Christchurch suburbs and other articles. See today at Opawa and Heathcote Valley. I raised to topic on the Christchurch talk page, to no avail, and I'll raise it here again. His edits are of such a poor quality, in numerous different ways, that they all require a lot of work to put right. He's been an editor long enough to understand the basics of what to do, such as no original research. Look at his Opawa church section and see what the source says (I added a link). I think he should slow down and concentrate on some basic skills, if that is even possible. Unless something changes IMO his editing could be seen as disruptive. Roger 8 Roger ( talk) 10:09, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
This has been an interesting thread to read through. The conclusion I'm drawing at this point is:
This seems to be the best place to report this, given a recent edit summary saying this situation is “standard practice”.
Several (experienced) editors have manually removed formatted citations and replaced them with bare URL citations on 2024 Atlantic hurricane season.
Timeline:
Is this actually allowed? Even though
Wikipedia:Bare URLs isn’t a formal citation, experienced editors seem to indicate that bare-URLs are “standard practice” over formatted citations on
2024 Atlantic hurricane season. Per
Wikipedia:Citing sources (policy), specifically
WP:CITEVAR, in the Generally considered helpful
section, it states “improving existing citations by adding missing information, such as by replacing bare URLs with full bibliographic citations: an improvement because it aids verifiability, and fights link rot;
”. I am bringing this to the administrators attention not to get someone warned or blocked, but since there seems to be experienced editors saying something different than policy, and every attempt to remove the bare URL citations is being reverted. The
Weather Event Writer (
Talk Page) 02:00, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
This may be a better suited question at WP:MOS: Are external links allowed mid-article or not? Anyone else agree? The Weather Event Writer ( Talk Page) 16:47, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
For what it’s worth, there have been hurricane season articles for a good 20 years, including information such as the advisories and ongoing watches and warnings. If this is the official place to complain about it, then I’d rather Wikipedia continue to be a source of ongoing information. If there’s some official rule that precludes this, then I’d like to invoke ignore all rules for the sake of consistency and being beneficial for the public. Hurricanehink mobile ( talk) 18:07, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
They’ll only be there when the storm is active.” — That straight up violates Wikipedia:Recentism, also known as the 10-year test. If you are adding information to the article that is garunteed to not be in the article in a week or so (let along 10 years), it should not be in the article. Simple as that. The Weather Event Writer ( Talk Page) 18:44, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
With rare exceptions, external links should not be used in the body of an article.This has a footnote which states
Links to Wiktionary and Wikisource can sometimes be useful. Other exceptions include use of templates like , which is used only when non-free and non-fair use media cannot be uploaded to Wikipedia.This is not one of the exceptions and the rationales so far put forward do not stack up with established policy and so these external links should be purged from all such articles in favour of proper in-line citations and an external links section.
Just to clarify, if the links were converted into citations, then that’s fine? It seems like there are two points about this discussion, the links, and the fact that articles usually mention current info, like storm intensity/movement/warnings. The current information can easily be cited with actual links. Would that still be in violation or not? Hurricanehink mobile ( talk) 19:25, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
For the latest official information, see:” and “
The NHC's latest public advisory on Potential Tropical Cyclone One” and replacing them with full citations. The formatted (full) citation you added for Intermediate Advisory Number 4A in this edit is perfect! In fact, that external link for the “public advisory” is the exact same thing. That is actually what this discussion was opened up for originally. Per policy, the NHC “latest info” shouldn’t be external links, but rather in full/formatted citation form.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
USER:LibStar is not editing or redistributing content, but instead, deleting factual content, multiple times now. I am doing my best to contribute to the Wiki project for my hometown, and have put alot of time doing the best job I can. The issue here is not citation but the deletion. For example, for "Notable People".
Instead of taking the facts of this page and updating the notable people's respective articles, does USER:LibStar instead believes that those articles need to form the basis of this article. Why is that? And if these other articles are incorrect (which they are)? Some articles say Sydney - AND, Greystanes is a suburb of Sydney!!!
Furthermore, Amanda_Farrugia - User:LibStar deleted from Greystanes stating "Notable residents: her article doesn't mention this suburb, rm under WP:BURDEN".... But her article clearly states that she's from Greystanes, and of Maltese descent too. You clearly are attacking and discriminating this article and it must stop.
This is not a good enough reason, to form the basis of the content deletion, especially when I can give you addresses and school photos and birthday parties of these notable people, who lived in this area. Your reason being "his/her article doesn't mention this suburb . Rm under WP:BURDEN" - You should update his/her article then, and stop being a WP:BURDEN on this article!
Also, I don't appreciate USER:LibStar's tone. Ownership is not being assumed, I have taken alot of time to edit this article and have done an incredible job here. And does USER:LibStar believe that have the right to come and just delete content that is correct, without researching before they delete? That is vandalism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Annamaria.dmrt ( talk • contribs) 09:20, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
Any material that needs an inline citation but does not have one may be removed.Adam Black talk • contribs 10:48, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
Farrugia was born and raised in the western suburbs of Sydney in New South Wales. Her parents are of Maltese descent and she attended Our Lady Queen of Peace Primary School, Greystanes.
TheManTheyCallAdam is engaged in slow-walking reverts of content against guidelines, in this case MOS:THENICKNAME. At an earlier point, I and this editor discussed this matter, although they expressed that their view of how the English language works means that Sonny Liston's nickname "the Big Bear" must have have 'The' capitalized. On their talk page and in the article's talk, I showed them the guideline that shows 'The' is not to be capitalized. It is in the middle of a sentence as well.
I realize that the specific matter at hand is very minor, that it's just the casing of a word. But the problem as I see it is TheManTheyCallAdam is acting as someone who 1) pushes their opinion over that of the wiki guideline, with no acknowledgement there even is a guideline that covers it; 2) uses a slow-walking WP:TENDENTIOUS editing approach to ensure their opinion wins; and 3) based on their editing pattern, mostly focused on this matter, they aren't really here to build an encyclopedia. Most of what they're "doing" is waiting to change it back again.
I considered treating this as a content dispute and going through other channels first, but I have come to look at this as straight-up problematic editor behavior, disruptive in nature, with an apparent unwillingness to accept that the Wikipedia is written with guidelines in mind. New editors who so openly refuse our guidelines at least need to be reminded that we take them seriously, and that willy-nilly changing something to be their way is disruptive, if not unsavory behavior. Stefen Towers among the rest! Gab • Gruntwerk 02:54, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
Rantoodle seems to be a purely vandalism and trolling account. They received multiple warnings earlier this month for their vandalism and practically all article edits they've made have been reverted. Then they just made this bigoted talk page comment. Very clearly a case of WP:NOTHERE. Silver seren C 03:19, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
niggardlyto the article Gravity Falls ( diff) and then claiming they didn't ( diff), I agree this is clearly a case of WP:NOTHERE. Adam Black talk • contribs 03:37, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
Please simply engage in discussion and refrain from making unfounded accusations that I am acting in bad faith (I am not), I am willing to believe you may not have been acting in bad faith when you first posed the question. However, at least four editors (including another on your talk page) have told you that this was not appropriate and the chances of anyone assuming good faith with you are getting very slim. Adam Black talk • contribs 04:05, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
Abused online via wikapedia.org. Person using this to bully and abuse me I am scared for my family. Can administrator person responsible please email me to discuss further and in more detail mark Sullivan formb Marksullivanformby ( talk) 20:52, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
On June 13, I informed User:Göycen about the WP:GS/AA extended confirmed restriction and explained what it meant. [20]
Göycen still made several POV pushing edits in Armenia-Azerbaijan articles after the warning. [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27]
On June 17, Rosguill gave Göycen another contentious topics warning. [28]
More reverting and POV pushing in AA articles after second warning. [29] [30] [31] KhndzorUtogh ( talk) 21:39, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
Your next step is to go to the article Talk pages to dispute the information, not to clamor for other editors to be punished.You need to discuss these edits and gain consensus, rather than continue removing them yourself. — The Hand That Feeds You: Bite 11:39, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
Hi, When a page vandalized, most natural thing to do is to revert latest stable version, but there is something else going here.
I would like to bring to your attention some recent edits made by Archives908. This user has been reverting my edits, which were reverts of vandalism by an IP address. For example, what is the reason for this revert? There is no source or explanation provided . In the page history, until the vandalism by the IP address, there was no mention of Armenians. Now, this editor is adding unsourced content to Wikipedia. Why does the definition have a POV, when it is an obvious case of POV pushing?
Additionally, this person reverts my vandalism-reverts again. They delete Azerbaijani information, which existed from the beginning, and the person is Azerbaijani, ironically. They revert to the obviously vandalized version. Here again they remove sourced content and add back unsourced IP vandalism which I reverted. Can you please check this?
Here is an example of section blanking which i reverted before.
Here is another one. What is the source and reason for adding the Armenian writing? This person's(the ip adress that i reverted) favorite act of vandalism is to go and change alphabets, which I have reverted many times. They add not only Armenian but also Azerbaijani, Polish, etc. According to their rationale, if a nationality has a name (they added an Armenian there), they should introduce the writing system as well.-- Göycen ( talk) 18:15, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
Though
Boogi wu (
talk ·
contribs) has been blocked and locked years ago, I found some of their hoaxes are still in the current article.
For example
Is there any sysop or common user who are familiar with history can reviewed their edits one by one? These hoaxes are scattered on Middle Age history. Or, where should I post this notice on? -Lemonaka 01:30, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
Back from the last block, now that it ended. AstonishingTunesAdmirer 連絡 04:43, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
Since its creation two months ago, the user AmechiUdoba1 ( talk · contribs) has made a series of questionable edits on pages related to Nigeria. Although there have been a few simple mistakes typical of new editors, there appears to be a concerted effort by this account to remove or diminish notes of non- Igbo ethnic groups and their languages.
To cite a few examples of AmechiUdoba1's conduct:
Although this is a relatively new account, there is reason to fear further disruptive and biased editing as its already graduated to inflating population statistics (another common vandal move on Nigerian pages). Similar accounts left without sanction have led to havoc on Nigerian pages with editors having to revert months of sourceless changes once they were finally found out. There needs to be some form of action against this user, this is a clear and concerted campaign of ethnically-biased edits. Thank you, Watercheetah99 ( talk) 05:15, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
ArbCom may be the only dispute resolution forum in Wikipedia in which the boomerang principle does not apply, in which the editor who files a bad complaint will not have their own conduct scrutinized. This is about an editor who is disruptively filing Requests for Arbitration concerning a historic train.
The problem seems to have started on 27 February 2024 when DTParker1000 expanded the article on Rio Grande 223, and included material about the historical importance of railroads in the American West in the nineteenth century. Other editors, including User:Xboxtravis7992, removed much of this material as being off-topic. In my opinion, it was information that should be in the encyclopedia, and probably is in the encyclopedia (but I did not research whether it was), but was off-topic for the article. Xboxtravis7992 then filed a DRN request on 11 March 2024: Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Archive_242#Rio_Grande_223. . I declined it, but said that another request could be filed in 48 hours. Then there was edit-warring, and DTParker1000 was partially blocked from the article in question, indefinitely. They requested unblock, which was declined. JTParker1000 then filed a Request for Arbitration on 19 March 2024, [ [32]], and the request was declined by ArbCom on 20 March 2024. JTParker1000 then filed a DRN request on 7 April 2024: Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Archive_244#Rio_Grande_223. I closed that request as vexatious litigation. JTParker1000 has now filed a second Request for Arbitration, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Rio_Grande_223, with no mention of the first request, and an otherwise fragmentary record of previous dispute resolution.
ArbCom traditionally does not sanction editors for filing stupid, frivolous, or vexatious cases, so I am asking the community to take action against a disruptive editor and vexatious litigant. Robert McClenon ( talk) 05:50, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
This edit Special:Diff/1229910692 looks to me to be more than a bit racist. Daveosaurus ( talk) 06:39, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hi, I already filed a sockpuppet investigation due to the size of the edits made by Special:Contributions/93.199.244.40. To ensure a quick response, I would like to file a complaint here. I would appreciate it if an admin could review the changes currently being made by this user. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Göycen ( talk • contribs) 09:13, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
This user has made three edits so far to the pages
Dodol,
Bilqis Prasista and
Ketoprak (dish). In all three cases, the edit summary was yama nene
or a variation upon it.
User:Kumananah was blocked on 30 April 2024 and User:Its oke wae was blocked on 2 April 2024 both for making similar edits which used the same edit summaries. Other accounts have engaged in the same editing behaviour, particularly at the Bilqis Prasista article but I am listing the most recent diffs for expediency.
Based on these edits, I think it is reasonable to assume that this is an attempt at evading a block and that these accounts are all sockpuppets of each other. Adam Black talk • contribs 10:25, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
this page has recently been heavily edited and needs investigation. its been sanitised and is now inaccurate — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.125.110.236 ( talk) 14:18, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I wish to challenge the June 18 closure for parts two and three of Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#RFC: The Anti-Defamation League. The RSN RFC for was closed by User: ScottishFinnishRadish on Jun 18, 2024. The editor invited challenges to the close on ANI. Despite the June 18 closure of the entire RfC, and after an ANI discussion was started that focused on part one, about 14 new editors went to “part two” and left additional responses to the survey. Clearly, these new editors felt there was still merit in further discussion.
But others, such as me, obeyed the dictate to not participate and waited for the challenge at ANI to resolve. We can’t know how many others refrained from participating. This is particularly germane in my case because the ADL just asked me for advice as an unpaid consultant last night. I refrained from posting on the RfC. Starting a separate challenge to the close on parts 2 and 3 seemed premature given there was still a very active discussion of part 1. User: The Wordsmith closed the discussion on part one on June 20. Wordsmith then went to part two and left this message: “Close in progress: The Wordsmith is in the process of closing this discussion. Please do not contribute further to it; the result should be posted within a day or so.”
Simply disregarding survey responses after June 18 does not seem wise given some of these responses are substantive. But other editors have now been warned twice - by Wordsmith and Scottish - to stop participating. I also went ahead and just left a comment now that I know 14 others already disregarded the closure admonition I would like to propose that the RfC for parts two and three be reopened for discussion, and any decision postponed until substantive discussion of the survey concludes. BC1278 ( talk) 20:30, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
The RSN RFC for was closed by User: ScottishFinnishRadish on Jun 18, 2024.DanCherek ( talk) 20:54, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
The RSN RFC for was closed by User: ScottishFinnishRadish on Jun 18, 2024: There seems to be some misunderstanding. ScottishFinnishRadish only closed the subthread discussing the closure of part 1. Other un-closed subthreads remained open after June 18, and The Wordsmith posted the notice boxes about in-progress closures for parts 2 and 3 on June 20. I don't think The Wordsmith has expressed any plans to
disregard survey responses after June 18. I suppose don't know what would become of additional responses now that the closures are indicated to be in progress; the notices don't prohibit additional commenting, after all. I grant that I can't help but think that doing so seems like it'd be kind of impolite to The Wordsmith, who has committed to take on the time-consuming task of carefully reading the already very long threads, analyzing the arguments, and describing what the community's consensus is or isn't. Since all three parts had been have been open for comment from the Wikipedia community since April 7, and since this is building on other long discussions, it's hard to think that closure would be premature or that substantive discussion hasn't already taken place. Hydrangeans ( she/her | talk | edits) 20:58, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
@ GenevieveDEon has attempted to accuse me of targeting them, over a basic CTOPS notice for climate change.
Notice on their talk page about climate change and a climate-change protest being a contentious topic: [34]
GenevieveDEon nominated a climate change protest article for deletion ( Vandalism of Stonehenge, a protest by Just Stop Oil). The nomination was perfectly acceptable and allowed. However, in the nomination, GenevieveDEon focused on the article creator (myself) of WP:OWN, over a false accusation that I did not want the scope to be expanded. As a note, the single comment I made on the talk page ( [35]) was replying to Ad Orientem who questioned the notability of the article. I stated it seemed to pass LASTING, but we should reassess in a week to see if it passes LASTING and the 10-year test. Not once did I mention "scope", and yet, I was accused of doing so in the AfD nomination.
When
confronted regarding the false accusation, GenevieveDEon gave some interesting answers, including more accusations.
GenevieveDEon responded that I was targetting them by giving them their first CTOPICS notice for climate change. I gave it for a very appropriate reason, (and editor with just over 500 edits who started an AFD on a climate change protest). In that same response, it was also stated as clear as day by GenevieveDEon: "I also note that WeatherWriter tagged me with the 'climate change is a contentious subject' talk page template. This isn't about climate change. I have no interest in the purported subject matter of the protest
(bolding my doing).
After this targeting accusation, I
quickly alerted them that CTOPICS is just a required thing: "The tag on your talk page is a required thing per
WP:CTOPICS. This was a protest related to climate change and as such, first-alert topics are given to editors in the field of articles regarding climate change. Nothing directed towards you.
" Despite that notice, GenevieveDEon continued pressing the matter and doubled down
saying, "I regard it as rather targeted, because you didn't add the tag to the
Vandalism of Stonehenge article itself when you created it, but only when you were tagging various places including my talk page, after I had made this nomination. And I'm not sure it's a sensible use of the contentious topics policy for you to create an unnecessary (and untagged) article about a very minor event somewhat connected with the contentious topic, and then start throwing around the template once someone challenges that creation.
"
After
giving them a chance to strike their doubled down accusations,
GenevieveDEon stood by their word saying, "No. It's about how you handled the marking of the article in question, and related pages, as being related to a contentious topic only when it served to criticise this deletion discussion. My comment stands.
"
This is a clear case of someone who doesn't understand CTOPICS and wants to personally attack people, even when it is stated that it is a required thing. GenevieveDEon just recently acquired their EC status (early June 2024 as far as I can tell), and they are editing heavily now in a contentious topic. Given they have directly stated a protest regarding climate change by Just Stop Oil is not related to climate change and that the standard CTOPICS notice was considered targeting to them, I believe they are not truly ready to edit in CTOPICS areas. My suggestion would be either a formal warning/alert that CTOPIC notifications are required and that a climate protest does indeed related to climate change (this is my preferred request) or if it is indeed felt by the community/others that GenevieveDEon is not ready for CTOPICS, that their EC status be revoked (I do not feel this is necessary). The Weather Event Writer ( Talk Page) 21:20, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
thank you for admitted that you are still accusing me of ownership- no, that's the opposite of what I meant. By
you needn't worry that I'm still concerned about WP:OWN issuesI meant that I wasn't taking that line any more. I'd have done the same as you (and another editor) did with the additional content you removed. I also haven't said anything at all about you and POV-pushing; again, the mention of POV-pushing was in reference to the users who wanted to make the Vandalism of Stonehenge article into something to do with the road tunnel. But your level of aggression about this is wearisome. GenevieveDEon ( talk) 22:22, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
After being blocked for WP:NOTHERE and a declined request for an unblock [36], Ironcurtain2 has used their talk page mainly to go on screeds about administrator corruption [37]and to continue insulting Valjean [38]. CoffeeCrumbs ( talk) 21:31, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
I came online to check my watchlist and get notified that 16 of my edits have been reverted. Each reversion is to an individual article, and all of the articles are then immediately restored to the status quo ante. The edits originate from different IPs in Lagos, Nigeria, that correspond to a VPN provider, Zenlayer Inc.
That's just today.
Yesterday, we had three from 98.98.197.196, and the day before I had one from 98.98.197.215. On Monday there was one from 98.98.197.168 and two from 98.98.197.163. Thus far, that makes 22 reversions and restorations, all originating from IPs from the same company.
This may or may not be connected to the Bluebird207 situation at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1157#IP editor confessing to harassment on behalf of a registered user. In both situations, VPN-based IPs were involved.
Given that the person behind this is hopping IPs, please advise me on where/how I should attempt to notify them. I will notify Bluebird207's talk page as well. Imzadi 1979 → 22:35, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
Publius Obsequium ( talk · contribs)
Publius Obsequium has been active since June 2024 adding unreliable content to many articles including Life satisfaction, Hypnotherapy, Gender dysphoria, Sex differences in intelligence, Flynn effect, Joseph of Cupertino, Driving while black, Intelligence (journal), race and genetics and others which is soaking up other users time by having to clean up after them. Often this user will either add fringe or primary sources to articles that fail WP:MEDRS or WP:NPOV. At first they started restoring their deleted content but now they simply ignore any advice they were given and go and find a new target article and add in more unreliable content. After their content is removed then they just move on to another article and do the same again. This has been going on now for nearly 3 weeks.
If you scan through their edits since early June almost every edit they have made has been reverted in mainspace. There is a consistent pattern of disruption here and I am surprised they have not been blocked before now. At least 5 users have explained them where they are going wrong, but they do not listen to said advice. Examples of warnings can be seen on their talk-page [40] [41] which they have not properly acknowledged.
I first encountered this user on the Joseph of Cupertino article where they were adding unreliable content which several users took issue with. The user has made it clear that they believe fringe science is a subjective opinion so they ignore WP:Fringe guidelines. This user only seems to want to edit controversial or fringe related articles related to race and intelligence, gender or fringe and alternative medicine.
If all this was just happening on 1 or 2 articles and they moved on and admitted to their mistakes it could be excused but it has been going on for far too long now. I am not convinced the editor has been acting in good faith. I believe that a topic ban on fringe related content would be appropriate here.
Just a few examples where they have added fringe/unreliable/undue content [42], [43], [44], [45], [46] Psychologist Guy ( talk) 02:37, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
Examples of his edits (more numerous than talk page discussions). I don't have the time to hunt for all of them. I have never looked at his contribs before, so I'm probably missing a lot. Basically every edit he does on Austronesian-related topics since our first interaction.
We first interacted in Square rig, where we fought over his insistence that the scope only applied to European ships during the Age of Sail (because apparently other sails don't have English names). I let that go since I was in the minority. Afterwards, he started specifically going after Austronesian articles and my contributions. The most egregious of which are multiple topics he opened in Talk:Austronesian peoples, which is still ongoing. Apparently something about the fact that Austronesians crossed oceans thousands of years before Europeans (which I mentioned in our first dispute) ticked him off, and he's been attacking that fact ever since. He has been challenging literally everything he can challenge, by any means. Examples of his behavior:
Some misleadingly follow a procedure. Tagging something, then removing the entire thing after no one notices it. Or removing a reference for unrelated reasons, then removing the then unreferenced sentence. Or opening a topic in the talk, then removing it when no one replies. Impossible to prevent and challenge in time, given the number of articles he does this on. Unless I dedicate my entire time here just following him around. Which is probably the point.
I initially replied to his challenges, which often involved rereading lengthy sources, only to find out he's just misinterpreting, synthesizing, or making up nonsense. This discussion on his changes in the pottery section is typical of his challanges and his tendency to move the goalposts. He first inserted a sentence that misrepresented a source by omitting certain details from the authors' conclusions. When I corrected it and gave another source for rebuttal, he then claims it's now "too long."
This isn't a mere content dispute, given the scale of what he's disputing. He's disputing everything that I've written or is relevant to what I've written. He's throwing everything at the wall and seeing what sticks. Once one does, or if he doesn't get replies, he then changes it everywhere else. It's not like he's validly tracking down the same errors on multiple articles. It ranges from sails, to boatbuilding techniques, the settlement of Guam, the Polynesian migrations, the settlement of Madagascar, pottery, dogs, pigs, and most recently, the domestication and dispersal of the banana. Some are valid that could have been fixed with a simple sourced edit, most are nonsense based on misreading sources or a general ignorance of the scholarship on the topic, some are outright based on nothing (often hyperfocusing on interpreting a single phrase from a single source). All are, comparatively, minor challenges that chip away one thing at a time (the caption dispute on the lakana for example), often with implied insulting assertions at my editing.
But they're all WP:TENDENTIOUS, with a very clear unifying theme: downplay Austronesian seafaring as much as possible. He has never contributed a single positive thing to the topic. Prior to our first interaction, he had no interest in articles on Austronesian seafaring, his main area of interest was and still is, unsurprisingly, European ships. I'm here to write articles. I have never once interfered with his editing. Until I checked his contribs prior to this report, I did not even know what he does usually on Wikipedia. I still don't.
I've read hundreds if not thousands of papers on this topic, writing much of our coverage on it over the years. Including the vast majority of articles like Austronesian peoples, Lashed-lug boat, Austronesian vessels, Outrigger boat, Domesticated plants and animals of Austronesia, and recently, the Maritime Silk Road. With extensive contributions to others like individual ship, plant, animal, and ancient seafaring articles. And that's only for these related topics ( in case you get the mistaken impression that that's all I write about). I've done my best with keeping with the policies on RS on all of them, as I've done with all my contributions over the last nearly 15 years.
All of that to be challenged repeatedly by the same person on every single thing, every month, who has at most read 10 papers touching on this topic.
I hate all of this. I don't even know what's the solution for situations like this is. Leave me alone. -- OBSIDIAN† SOUL 04:01, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
Ok, I have actually read most of what was posted and looked at the diffs provided to boot; I am completely uninvolved and I do not know anything beyond basics about the subject. Set the sentiments boiling over aside, and this feels like a rather slow edit war, essentially an extended content dispute. My guess is the topic eludes most people, and I do not think ANI is the place to find people who are actually able to judge about content. So I would want to get more eyes on this, my first port of call being WP:3O. If there is an adequate project who covers this, ask there. Disputants should keep in mind to AGF, and even to AAGF. Lectonar ( talk) 11:16, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
"Ah yes. Of course. What did I expect from Wikipedia. Actually read?", criticizing the very people who actually made some attempt to respond to this. Wow. Just wow.
Clearly I need to make some comment. This is a content issue. See the changes that I have tried to make to Austronesian peoples where sources do not support the article content – either a complete absence of support or a different level of emphasis.
Not all the complete "failed verifications" were the result of edits by OS. Nevertheless, they seem ideologically opposed to any criticism of any reference that they support, whilst labelling any that oppose their views as "fringe" (an example is identified by a commenter above i.r.o. Atholl Anderson).
Perhaps the most concise (but still lengthy) example of OS's support for a poor quality source is that following this edit
[48] (and others similar edits made to a number of articles). The relevant edit summaries have a link to a review that is totally scathing. I received thanks from at least one other editor for drawing this to their attention. OS's reaction includes this
[49] with Shaffer being reinstated as a source with the edit summary ...one review doesn't invalidate an RS...
. If you read the review at
[50] you will see that this is not some bad write-up on trip advisor.
The edit that reinstated the Shaffer reference also reinstated Hourani's Arab Seafaring. In another testing interaction with OS
[51], we discover that they ...do not have access to that book
. Reading further on that talk page post, you will see that I finally realised that not only was Hourani a dated source, but the book makes no mention whatsoever of junk rig. This suggests to me that OS has never even read Hourani.
I don't know if I need to give more examples to make the point (you can find some on the talk page of Austronesian peoples), but it seems one has to check every reference they use (which, given the volume of their output, is well nigh impossible).
This is all coupled with an unhelpfully argumentative style, as can be found on any of the talk pages linked above. One in particular I find memorable: [52]. OS wanted an example of the sailing rig labelled "A" in [53]. The photo found on Commons is actually of the one labelled "B". To be fair, we were all at the mercy of Commons taking any picture that you can upload without breaching copyright, with any unverified caption you wish to use. But I think Commons's failing on verification allows us to do some WP:OR on the matter. There are ample videos(e.g. [54] which I have not watched to the end, but shows rig "B" being rigged) and pictures from Madagascar (a holiday destination for many at various times) that tell us exactly how the "old photo" rig works. There was never a word of thanks for finding the appropriate picture that is now in the article [55], which is very different from its predecessor [56]. Without the abrasive attitude, this would have been an engaging exercise in working out the correct content to put in Wikipedia. (OK, I appreciate that for those who do not have an interest in sailing rigs, this is a bit like reading the telephone directory!)
Clearly OS puts in many hours in editing Wikipedia. If only this would be done with a little more emphasis on both quality and co-operation. ThoughtIdRetired TIR 19:26, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
I didn't have to read much of the initial presentation to gather this, but this is definitely a series of content disputes, where you have one who thought they had articles settled being challenged by someone with other sources and interpretations of sources. Frustrating this more is a lack of editors overall and especially ones who understand these subjects to be able to weigh in. I think you both should slow down, pick one article, try to iron it out - and if you can't, use Wikipedia approaches like Third Opinion, Request for Comment, or involving associated WikiProjects, until your issues are resolved. Then move on to the next article. See also WP:DEADLINE. I don't think this matter is actionable by an admin at this point. Stefen Towers among the rest! Gab • Gruntwerk 23:12, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
This is regards to the users VikAl239 [57], Dennis1986Savanah [58] and SigNbol [59]. I'm certain all three of these editors are the same person as the only edits they've ever made were on the article of actress Charlene Amoia and on the talk page [60]. I've mentioned that they're some contradictions regarding this actresses' DOB. However all three of these editors have either removed my comment [61] [62] [63] or edited it [64] [65]. Even after they were asked to stop doing so.
The Dennis editor in particular claims that they want the comment removed for safety measures. Seeing as how it's just the talk page, I really don't understand why there would be any safety concerns. They also claim that they are the subject. [66]. I pinged the last couple of other editors that had been reverting those edits asking to stop removing talk page comments to see if a consensus on what to do can be made as this may be WP:COI. But neither of them have posted. Kcj5062 ( talk) 09:08, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
Doing some routine typos-fixing and formatting via AWB, I happened to edit Guardian angel, and Skyerise is quite-stubbornly edit-warring about it. We had a talk at User talk:Est. 2021#Removing spaces from citation templates, yet he went on reverting the page three times - then ironically noticing me about the three-revert rule at User talk:Est. 2021#June 2024. Whether I'm wrong or right, we clearly need some external action. Est. 2021 ( talk · contribs) 11:36, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
Question: is the removal of spaces within the citation templates something that's specified in Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser/Typos, or something that Est. 2021 ( talk · contribs) chose to do themselves? Mackensen (talk) 11:49, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
User:Est. 2021, you dropped this bomb here--you can't walk away from it. You said it yourself, action, whether you're right or wrong. It sucks to be wrong but I think that is the consensus here. Drmies ( talk) 21:40, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
a clear violation of the guidelines about typos and formatting operated via WP:AWB/T, and it will be reverted, and edit-warred your preferred version back into the article. And then you escalated it even further by bringing the matter to ANI where your edits were rightfully scrutinized, and the consensus here is to stop making these edits, so in hopes of de-escalation, are you going to acknowledge the feedback you have received here and stop making these type of unnecessary edits and not edit-war if they are reverted, otherwise, a formal proposal may be on the table. Isaidnoway (talk) 09:41, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
routine typos-fixing and formattingbut the other editor as
quite-stubbornly edit-warring, and today you have responded to concerns with scorn (in this thread
couldn't care less about these frustration rantsand
will ignore any further pointless comment; on your talk page to Drmies
Do your homeworks and be more mature[70] and to Tamfang
let me know when you grow up[71]) but have still not repaired the damage you did or given us any confidence that you will no longer use AWB to apply your own rules. NebY ( talk) 13:11, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
B.S.,
Haha,
saving me the trouble!,
drop the bomb,
it sucks,
whatever floats your boat,
I am amused, so I keep that POV. Despite this, I answered all questions here at 01:09, 22 June 2024, explaining my edits, acknowledging the feedback and assuring I would have resetted my settings in accordance. Yet I kept receiving requests for the same acknowledgements and promises again and again, in addition to comments about
thousandsof AWB edits of mine (later reworded despite words matter), which were actually 3 hundreds of edits (since it was just the second time ever I used AWB to more-easily fix something here) which Skyerise had already started reverting before – and went on reverting during – this discussion, so I don't get what thousands of live edits are contested. Quite surely in good-faith Isaidnoway, whom I had already answered to, also re-asked me to assure I would have not edit-warred about those revert, and indeed I had stopped both AWB and the edit-war right when the Guardian angel issue happened, nor I reverted any other rollback on any other page that Skyerise performed before and during this discussion. I really don't know what else do you want me to say, other than what I think about all of this, or about the not-much-mature comments I got trying to have constructive third-part ideas and knowledge – whether I was wrong or right – about what guideline we actually had to apply there. I got the answers I asked for and explicitly said yesterday I welcomed them and I that I would have made sure to fix my settings. That's all. Feel free to take measures against me if you really think my goal is to damage this encyclopedia and anything we created with shared effort and dedication. Greetings, Est. 2021 ( talk · contribs) 18:01, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
Since Est. 2021 refuses to acknowledge their edits were problematic, and still don't actually appear to understand why they were (and I'm dubious as to if they actually understand the content of their edits) and refuse to take responsibility for their actions I propose the following.
Any other actions can be determined by the community, but it's clear from the above they don't care about the results of their edits and are unwilling to take responsibility for them. At this point I'm actually questioning their competence to edit here and ability to communicate with other editors. Canterbury Tail talk 13:55, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
immature scenic language, the concerns of other editors as a
joke, and generally dismissive tone. EducatedRedneck ( talk) 17:23, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
feel free to take any necessary measure, I'd say that's a tacit agreement to Canterbury Tail's proposal. That said, this dismissive response makes me wonder how long it'll be before Est. demonstrates they are WP:NOTHERE. — The Hand That Feeds You: Bite 18:32, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
additional non-standard settingsexcept for section heading formatting with spaces, that is literally how all notice subst-ed templates format it. By the way, I literally stated multiple times above I welcomed this feedback and would have resetted and fixed my settings accordingly, so whatever, feel free to go on. Est. 2021 ( talk · contribs) 04:52, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
HopDavid ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
HopDavid has been pursuing a personal grudge against Neil deGrasse Tyson, on and off, since December 2015. This has been combined with personal attacks against editors who have resisted his inappropriate edits, principally @ Objective3000:. This has been quite disruptive in the past, mostly focused on Talk:Neil deGrasse Tyson including allegations of libel but also taking in some other subjects which are related to Tyson such as Space Odyssey: The Video Game. It all went quiet in April 2022 until a few hours ago when he resumed his grudge and personal attacks here. As he had stopped for more than two years I decided to try a personalised warning before bringing it here but, as you can see, I was rebuffed with a clear statement of intention to continue the disruptive behaviour and a willingness to get banned for it. I think this is a case of WP:NOTHERE. He has edited on other subjects (unrelated to Tyson) in the past but not since March 2019 and not in article space since December 2016. -- DanielRigal ( talk) 23:28, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
User:SurJeetrandawa has recently began rapidly moving pages without discussion like:
etc... I don't know, but with titles like Oda clan, Mizuno clan, shouldn't these titles not be altered like this? I don't know what's the consensus on article titles of Japanese clans... ABG ( Talk/Report any mistakes here) 23:30, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
Not all talk page moves have been reverted. Namely, at https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Special%3AContributions&target=SurJeetrandawa&namespace=all&tagfilter=&newOnly=1&start=&end=&limit=50, I still see two talk page moves. Please undelete the target pages ( Talk:Vania (clan) and Talk:Por (clan)) and then move them back to their original titles ( Talk:Vaniš and Talk:POR respectively). GTrang ( talk) 04:06, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
2600:1700:EA50:7FD0:0:0:0:0/64 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Keeps adding unsourced content/overlinking, and is evading a block on 50.205.182.253, see edit history of Lynn Redgrave, Iring Fetscher, and Günter Kunert. This /64 also has an extensive block log for disruptive editing, most recently being for three years in 2020. Waxworker ( talk) 00:50, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
Please see Riposte97 at Talk:Kamloops Indian Residential School. Both sections are relevant but are relatively short. They should be read in order.
Also relevant:
Editor recently insisted on rewriting Canadian Indian residential school gravesites and Canadian Indian residential school gravesites based on the very flawed notions of verifiability, notability, and DUE demonstrated above. I estimate that if he stops now about two weeks of full-time work will be required to clean up after this episode.
I am unsure whether I am supposed to notify RSN particpants but I will notify Riposte97 now. Elinruby ( talk) 05:36, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
plan to add to it. That is not how these things are usually done at ANI, and otherwise you will keep pushing the requested rewrite of the OP down the page. I am going to give you a chance to fix that before I attempt to address your assorted misrepresentations. I'll note in passing though that you need to check the date on that block and also acquaint yourself with the {{they}} template. Meanwhile I am going to implement TarnishedPath's suggestion down the page in the correct chronological order. Elinruby ( talk) 12:03, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
@ Liz: Ok. It is all very complicated and rather inexplicable though, but here is my best attempt to summarize. Please bear in mind that I got instablocked the first time I tried to explain this, which may explain a certain reticence and tendency to be oblique. Please ask me a question if I am not explaining this well. I am nervous because I am being brave and stupid and trying to explain this again even though this editor is trying to intimidate me. ( talk page of the Kamploops article) [74] [75] [76] [77] [78] [79] typo fix included for completeness
Someone quoted Canadian Indian residential school gravesites to me. [80] It had not said that when I was working on it at the time the gravesites were found. [81] On investigation I discovered, among other things, that this editor was reverting to support the insertion into the lead of a statement sourced to spiked.com [82] [83] [84]( similiar previous edit) that insinuates [85] that this recent national tragedy in Canada is a hoax, a la Sandy Hook, ie that those are not really graves, or they are empty. [86] Or something. [87] [88] [89] This is wrong on so many levels [90] that it is hard to know where to begin, [91] but another editor started the now-archived thread at RSN, where multiple editors participated, which started with parsing whether or not the source was better than the Daily Mail. [92]
I need to say that literally hundreds of RS are available,( [93] [94]]) and at least 30 pages of results at Google Scholar. [95] I reviewed the first three pages and posted the urls in the current RSN thread titled #Tne Pope and the Canadian House of Commons with a convenient subheader for easy finding. There appears to be a profound unfamiliarity with these events outside of Canada,(waves hand) and that post was an attempt to begin a discussion to change the apparently hard-wired resistance to using the word "genocide" on Wikipedia.(waves hand) So there are many more sources than that to support the history of residential schools; [96] [97] those are just the ones that call it a genocide. Anyway multiple editors tried to talk to the editor and Ivanvector in particular began to edit the article. [98] or perhaps already was.
I realized that despite the changes to the lede nobody had been updating the article and I began doing that for the various schools where underground radar was being used, or had been used, or where its use is being discussed. I also found some egregious misrepresentations of fact, which are mentioned toward the end of the archived RSN thread.
[99]
[100]. I do not know who was responsible for that;
I just now found this tho of Riposte97 removing material with gold star sources while claiming it was unsourced. I have not yet run Wikiblame. Riposte97 objected to something I had done in the article and
Pbritti pinged me at 20:16. By 22:37 I was abusing relevance tags
and separately refusing to engage in a talk page discussion
Another user appeared on my page to demand that I explain myself. I was busy researching one of the schools where much was being made of a first excavation not finding bodies.
[101] I want to avoid relitigating what followed because I think that it may be better suited to another venue, but I went to bed a few minutes little later after doing some other routine updates and woke up blocked. There was an ANI thread. I was blocked and could not speak.
That is not the point however; the point is that while
[102] I was blocked for a week that article was completely re-written
[103]
[104] to heavily insinuate wrongdoing by the
Tkʼemlúps te Secwépemc, on whose land the graves are.
Much cited material removed here.
A huge table disappears here. @
David Eppstein: called a source used at the Kamloops article a dishonest hit piece, attempting to cast the fact that a project of this size typically takes some time to get going as if it were a scam merely because they were allocated money, haven't produced immediate results, and won't talk to the hit-piece-writers.
(see
Western Standard thread)
Other editors protested the rewrite. [105] [106] [107] [108][ This thread removes material cited to the TRC with an edit summary of "added citation" Diffs in the AE thread about this editor document three different editors protesting [109], [110] (note date), [111], [112], [113], [114] (see p.39 for example), [115], [116], [117], [118] [119] [120], [121], [122], [123] [124], [125], [126], [127] {{refn| [128], [129] (note date), [130], [131], [132], [133] (see p.39 for example), [134], [135], [136], [137], [138], [139], [140], [141], [142], [143], [144], [145], [146] [1] as the editor claimed to have policy and consensus on his side. If anyone is wondering, I posted them there in an effort to support a complaint by another editor about this editor's behaviour at Hunter Biden laptop controversy, but apparently Things Do Not Work That Way. But since we are discussing that AE thread, it also documents Ivanvector giving this editor a warning,[after being reverted by Ivanvector [2] [3] informal of course since Ivanvector had been editing the article and was therefore involved.
That is a roadmap, maybe? The three current RSN threads are each for a source used at the Kamloops article, which was recently edit-protected, so that may help. @ Fluorescent Jellyfish:, one of the recently-involved editors, says that they are a subject matter expert and and posted an explanation to the talk page of the Kamloops article why they think these sources are disinformation. [147] and was argued with and politely reminded Riposte97 of WP:ONUS] and was argued with some more. Having removed these sources from associated articles way too many times, I believe they are correct. And that is why I am trying to bring eyes to this even though, let's face it, this post is not recommended behaviour for an editor who was recently blocked for stating what is conventional wisdom in Canadian discourse and in the academic field, and warned not to do that again lest they be indeffed. But that there is not what this post is about. [148]]
This post is about some dubious something or other being perpetuated [149] using Wikipedia despite the best efforts of bog standard editors to prevent that.
I do not know why this has been happening for two years. I do not know why this user was one of the people making it happening. He is strangely stubborn about the reliability of really bad sources; from a quick skim there is a lot of POV now in the gravesites article that I have not addressed at all either here or there. This editor is very overbearing with other editors. The editors who were protesting his changes were told that they were being disruptive, this while I was blocked for "disruption", as removing the misleading material was described. At one point I would have evaporated also, so I don't blame them. But I beg you to keep in mind that the topic matter than is being manipulated here is the death of thousands of indigenous children. Please ask me or somebody a question if anything at all that I have said here is confusing. Elinruby ( talk) 10:16, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
PS: It seems important to point out [150] that the allied denialist Fraser Institute is currently the number one hit for the string "kamloops Indian residential school graves"
{
References
This thread is already quite lengthy and in the interests of coming to some sort of conclusion I'm going to propose a topic ban for Riposte97 from the indigenous peoples of North America, broadly construed. TarnishedPath talk 07:50, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
45.76.65.17 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) made death threats diff here Adakiko ( talk) 09:22, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
Many threats are empty, but leave that evaluation to Wikimedia Foundation staff.GrayStorm( Complaints Dept.| My Contribs.) 17:03, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
Kirkukturk3 believes they are exempt from adding RS when asked to do so at Turkmeneli. There has been a talk page discussion of no use and continues to POV-push [161]. Other pages are being edited disruptively as well. They have moreover made personal attacks [162]. Semsûrî ( talk) 11:56, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
First, @
Kirkukturk3: please stop editing your responses, I keep trying to post and it creates edit conflicts..
See all of User talk:Kirkukturk3#June 2024.
They refuse to go to WP:RSN, replying that "I don't need a specific source for the Anthem and Map since they're already existing medias that can be searched, the Map as shown below is clearly how the article states the boundaries of Turkmeneli, the same type of border is also used by many.
Also the person that you're clearly defending is pro-kurdish and have made many disruptive edits trying to disclude the Iraqi turkmens from pages like mendeli. They're already existing stuff and not self-made material. Kirkukturk3 (talk) 7:35 pm, Yesterday (UTC+1) ".
Their response to my 3RR warning was to say "this issue has been solved". In between they mocked a typo of mine (yes, I make too many typos, my Parkinson's has made me clumsy).
User:Materialscientist warned them in October about the need for sources.
And I'd forgotten about User talk:Kirkukturk3#May 2024 when I told them they'd changed correctly sourced text. They replied: " correction needs to be sourced? Its obviously referring to West asians but poorly. Mistaking the inhabitants of the Near East(West Asia/Middle East) and calling them "East Asians" is very wrong due to the distance of those two areas. Please click on those links because its obvious that you arent knowledgeable enough of these two areas and assume my correction as "unsourced". Kirkukturk3 (talk) 10:37 am, 3 May 2024, Friday (1 month, 20 days ago) (UTC+1)" See the rest - they told me the source was wrong.
In the current dispute where I was telling them about policy they also told me I didn't know enough: "It looks like "tou" don't know alot about this topic. Kirkukturk3 (talk) 7:27 pm, Yesterday (UTC+1)" The "tou" refers to my typo for "you" earlier. Sorry, I kept adding the above and getting edit conflicts and when I succeeded forgot to sign! Doug Weller talk 13:58, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
Despite multiple warnings, both on their talk page, within others' edit summaries, etc. this user has continued to accuse others of inappropriate conduct, using slurs and fighting language, instead of civilly taking their dispute to the article's talk page.
See: Canadaland, revs. 1230406270 1230405367 1230405018
See: User talk:Smallangryplanet, rev. 1230406345
All of their replies at User talk:2605:B100:1130:ACA7:D79:21D0:86FD:8A6C
Thanks. Staraction ( talk | contribs) 14:52, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
hi guys, I am not sure if I risk getting my account blocked, but it's the second time this week I am reaching out here. Because I cannot learn and contribute, if I cannot understand or make sense of what is required. If this is not correct noticeboard, please direct me to where I need to go. And when Admins are being abrupt and just deleting without giving me any information, I don't know how to proceed. And if I disagree, I need to understand either why they are correct, or am I right. I can't just accept what I see as wrong. The issue here is in regards to the conflicting edits by myself and User:Scope_creep.
I am just trying to do my best here and achieve what is needed, through an understand. But instead, it feels intimidating and in some ways bullying. I can imagine how many spammers you get, but genuine contributors shouldn't be treated as such.
I just want more info. And another opinion please.
I have posted information in Talk:Greystanes,_New_South_Wales about citations getting deleted, and I cannot get any information as to why. I have read /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard as recommended, and have found that there was a vote on The Daily Telegraph to be removed fron Wikipedia, but it isn't the Sydney Daily Telegraph, it is the UK one. I am referencing the Sydney newspaper, totally independent of the UK.
I provided other citations, and these were then said to be non-rs. But, they are not listed anywhere as being non RS. One of which was the Sydney Morning Herald. ???
I just want to get my head around it. How can the Sydney Morning not be RS. And quotes directly from a published book, on a website, not be RS.
And why should the Parramatta Advertiser as a publisher, which is under the umbrella nowadays of The Daily Telegraph (Sydney) be associated to a vote of 4. Deprecated, to a totally different UK publisher?
From the issues previously had, I've cleaned up the page alot. But, now things are not making sense.
You guys were previously really helpful, are you able to assist at all here? User:Adam Black User:Theroadislong.
Again, sorry to be a pain, not intending to be disruptive at all. But at this point I really disagree with what is evolving on this article.
The messages exchanged are below. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Annamaria.dmrt ( talk • contribs) 16:43, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
(I have edited the above message to fix a link and to remove a cut-n-paste of discussion from the article talkpage. Abecedare ( talk) 17:09, 22 June 2024 (UTC))
User is a previously banned long term disruptive editor who will make a wide variety of alterations to articles without presenting sources to support edits [175], [176], [177]. Also clearly engaging in similar disruptive behaviour while logged out [178] [179].
Their disruptive behaviour has been going on for some months under multiple account names ( see previous report in January for context).
Despite repeated warnings this behaviour continues over and over again. Effectively this user demonstrates a clear competency problem that they simply refuse to improve. Request ban as a result. Rambling Rambler ( talk) 19:43, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
kindly remove my name from this. i had sources, new articles have been added to the vice media website, if i was wrong, people were free to revert the article, good night. WacoBell ( talk) 20:00, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
Convenience links:
DMacks ( talk) 21:28, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
Hello, I am the author of SurrealDB which was recently deleted after an AfD. I was able to undelete the page and draftify it for the purposes of improving the article and moving it to mainspace after the database had received enough notability.
Interestingly, shortly after the article was deleted, the company raised $20m USD after another investment round, alongside the launch of their "Cloud" beta announcement. Plus I found a number of new sources further establishing notability.
I don't blame anyone, because it was recreated quickly after the AfD so I can understand why it might appear as circumventing the AfD process - however my intention was not to do that, and I believe the article would now survive an AfD since the article had undergone more significant changes, and addition of new sources.
I would like to have this article undergo a new AfD instead of speedy deletion. Mr Vili talk 10:29, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
"It is the first model to surpass GPT-4o in a majority of benchmarks, making it the current leading state-of-the-art general model"with what the sources cited ( [187] [188] [189]) actually say. The article is entirely promotional, regurgitating the developer company's claims as fact, and as far as I can see, utterly redundant, since we already have an article on Claude (language model). AndyTheGrump ( talk) 01:54, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
The draft has been nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:SurrealDB. Interested editors are invited to participate. TarnishedPath talk 06:36, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
I would like to propose that AndyTheGrump be indefinitely blocked due to repeated harassment and incivility towards members that never seems to stop.
AndyTheGrump has been repeatedly injecting himself into almost every single article I am drafting or involved with, vandalising draft articles, and attempting to sway opinions of reviewers into the negative, he's used slurs not only with me, but many other users, constantly acting counter-productively.
Diffs
Diffs with other users
While AndyTheGrump certainly seems to have a personal quarrel with me, it also extends to many other users:
Previous proposed blocks
However, this is not the first time that a user has proposed blocking AndyTheGrump. Please see:
These were some I only found from few minutes of crawling.
Summary
It clearly appears this is a behavior of AndyTheGrump that is clearly never going to go away. He will counter as he always does with some non-sense argument that just tries to deflect by attacking me, instead of addressing his own behavior. I'm sure many other users here have probably had similar experiences Mr vili talk 20:24, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
I oppose an indef-block as a ridiculous overreaction, but will note here Andy has been given a 31-hour block for the obvious personal attacks linked from the beginning of this thread, and that in my opinion this is condign given the previous consensae ( Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1157#A_refusal_to_permit_evidence_to_be_discussed_in_a_Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know_thread_requesting_such_evidence., Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1156#BLP_issues_with_Andrew_Tate_DYK_hook) where everyone agreed that next time for sure there would be some consequence. jp× g 🗯️ 21:14, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
I also have WP:COI concerns but this block is not based upon or relianton on thoseRudolfRed ( talk) 04:35, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
Hello
This user seems to have difficulties with WP rules.
Raoul mishima ( talk) 00:14, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
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 to be 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:
Extended content
|
---|
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)
Filemovers ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
I think many of Filemovers' contributions are not constructive (but still good-faith). Examples include overlinking (e.g. [196] [197] [198]), mistaken typo fixes (e.g. [199] [200]), adding nonsensical categories (e.g. [201] [202] [203]), unsubstantiated reverts (e.g. [204] [205] [206]), using misleading edit descriptions (e.g. [207] [208] [209] [210]) and miscellaneous disruptive edits. I would say about half of his edits are constructive and half revert-worthy. He already has some warnings on their user-talk page.
– Janhrach ( talk) 08:08, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
Hi, this is just a short and simple request: can an administrator edit the block on IP address 50.194.36.81 to include no talk page editing ability?
The IP range 50.194.36.80/29 surrounding that single address is blocked with no talk page access, but I am requesting this, just in case (do admins know if block settings on singular IP address blocks override that of rangeblocks if there's one present?).
I deliberately have not left an ANI notification, because you know, I feel like doing that is only gonna invite them to make more vile attacks on other editors...
Thanks in advance! — AP 499D25 (talk) 09:23, 23 June 2024 (UTC)