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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• 22:52, 12 September 2023

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive353#Suspicious_edits

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Repost just to add highlight:

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

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

Repost just to add highlight:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I could have misread

You have also quoted out of context.

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

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

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

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

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

Proposal 1: Three-Part Caution

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• UA0Volodymyr (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user does not seem to be here to build an encyclopaedia. They added a massive amount of biased and badly-written text to Kira Rudyk ([41]), falsely claiming that its previous removal was vandalism. I re-removed it, as did another editor ([42]), but the user keeps restoring it (latest revert earlier today [43]). Today they attempted to get the page protected, in a bad-faith attempt to prevent their harmful changes from being removed ([44]).

Additionally, they have now begun to stalk my other edits, undoing them indiscriminately. Today, they have gone on another revert-spree: [45], [46], [47].

The account was created just three weeks ago, and only started actually editing on 22 September, but these actions do not seem like those of a new editor, so I wonder if they are a sockpuppet of some kind. 86.28.234.5 (talk) 19:12, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Since the article was subject to edit-warring of two non-extended-confirmed users, I protected it according to WP:RUSUKR on a random version. Someone must evaluate whether a revert is needed, or, even better, discuss at the talk page.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:17, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously not in any way "random". You have evidently decided to encourage and support the disruptive editor and likely sockpuppet I reported, by protecting badly written, extremely biased crap that multiple editors have previously removed. "Someone must evaluate whether a revert is needed"? Multiple people already did. You obviously didn't bother to look at the article history. And you have also ignored the disruptive behaviour at multiple other articles that I pointed out. 86.28.234.5 (talk) 17:53, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, the WP:RUSUKR sanctions regime dictates this page must be protected at that level, period. It is entirely conceivable that Ymblanter didn't have time to evaluate whether a revert is needed. So you assuming the worst, reflects poorly on you rather than him, I'd challenge. Anyway, I see that the article has already been edited heavily on the side of content removal. I did not review those changes, or the article itself closely, but I did see that Ymblanter made a mistake in assigning a lower protection level than is required, so I fixed that. El_C 02:39, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Amazing. This is a topic which is subject to general sanctions because of its contentiousness, but you think it's OK for someone to have protected an article in the state favoured by a new, suspicious and disruptive user, because (you assume) they "didn't have time" to evaluate whether a revert was needed. The user I reported had already been reverted by multiple people. I reported further disruptive and suspicious behaviour as well. But Ymblanter just ignored all of that and protected the article in the state that the disruptive user wanted. And all you could be bothered to do was increase the protection.

Well, you could have nipped this in the bud, but the disruptive user - who I do not doubt is a sockpuppet - continues to behave problematically, including by ignoring this discussion, though I'm sure they enjoyed the endorsement of their behaviour. The article is in a state which anyone who understands neutrality and quality will be disgusted by, but evidently doesn't trouble you in the slightest. 86.28.234.5 (talk) 07:20, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The user continues to behave highly disruptively, making contentious edits to Ukraine-related topics, and (in their sole interest outside Ukraine) reverting edits I have made, in a sustained campaign of hounding. No doubt they were absolutely thrilled when User:Ymblanter supported them once again by blocking me with the outrageous claim that I was the one doing the hounding. It is quite extraordinary that this disruptive and highly suspicious editor has been treated with such deference by an administrator. 86.28.234.5 (talk) 07:57, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Several administrators tried to explain to the IP (at their talk page) that mass-reverting contribution of a registered user calling them a sockpuppet without being able even point out whose sockpuppet it was was not ok, but without any success. May be we need a longer block. Ymblanter (talk) 09:24, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Ymblanter 86.28.234.5 is the latest incarnation of WP:LTA/BKFIP. It's fairly obvious from the focus on copyediting, the aggressive and rude edit summaries and the filing of ANI reports on people who they deem to lack English proficiency. I filed at SPI a couple of days ago, but no-one has had a chance to look at it yet. @Ponyo I noticed you responded to their unblock requests on their talk page, perhaps you'd take a look? 86.23.109.101 (talk) 09:55, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've closed the SPI as the IP is now blocked.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 15:47, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bayreuth0115 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has repeatedly reverted edits with the edit summary "vandalism" or "undoing vandalism" (ex: "recover the page from vandalism" or "vandalism"). This latter edit simply removed a maintenance template that I added to the article. My edits provide clear explanations with links to the relevant Wikipedia policies: MOS:DTAB, MOS:COLOR, etc. Many of these edits were to properly format tables in compliance with the MOS, to remove inappropriate uses of color and bold, and to meet the requirements of MOS:ACCESS. @Bayreuth0115 has ignored repeated warnings on their talk page User talk:Bayreuth0115#September 2023 (as well as earlier this year, User talk:Bayreuth0115#February 2023). They have ignored requests to visit the talk page where discussions are on-going regarding this article (Talk:2023–24 figure skating season), ex: "Again, see the article's talk page". The bottom line: this user refuses to communicate. Any help would be appreciated. Bgsu98 (Talk) 14:14, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Bayreuth0115 has continued to ignore all avenues of communication, but did drop a warning template on my talk page and then requested full protection of 2023–24 figure skating season. Any administrator willing to impart the importance of communication on this user would be appreciated. Bgsu98 (Talk) 12:51, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

On 7 February 2023, @Bgsu98 has ignored and then deleted my warning of their 3RR behavior on their talk page. With users having serious behaviors like that, for a couple of days I did not think communication would help solve the situation. Bayreuth0115 (talk) 13:54, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• @Bayreuth0115: I don't see a single edit to any talk page at all with the exception of the very recent 3RR warning to Bgsu98's talk page after this report was opened and one other vague edit war warning in February also directed at Bgsu98. You refuse to talk. This is a colalborative project. Start using talk pages to discuss changes, quit labeling good faith edits as vandalism, or find yourself uninvited from this project for ownership issues.--v/r - TP 15:45, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I took back any words of mine regarding "vandalism". My mistakes. Bayreuth0115 (talk) 16:05, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is getting out of hand, frankly. As of today, Bayreuth0015 persists in adding back WP:FANCRUFT well beyond the reasonable scope of this article. The editor is clearly aware of the concerns of the community regarding their edits, given the post above, but refuses to engage on the article talk page. Instead, they persist in reverting, most recently in the last couple hours. I think we need an administrator who will contact Bayreuth0015 and make it clear their edits are disruptive, and may soon result in a block (it's really past time for one already.) Otherwise nothing it going to get any better because Bayreuth0015 has made it clear they decline to stop trying to force a very large edit on an already bloated article. ----Dr.Margi ✉ 18:06, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

34K worth of unsourced fancruft, at that. Bgsu98 (Talk) 19:14, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Experienced editors and/or admins are kindly asked to keep an eye on the above linked article where there has been some very heavy editing that may touch on BLP issues. See also this discussion at BLPN. Any discussion of the issues should probably stay there in order to avoid any unnecessary forking. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:12, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've applied WP:ECP, invoking WP:ARBBLP. The version up at the time of my writing this is not acceptable. Excessive WP:REFBOMB in nearly every paragraph makes the piece challenging to read—and challenging verify, because the first ref following a quote, didn't contain that quote, in the 2 times I checked. Meaning, that one would need to potentially go through double digits refs to verify a quoted excerpt. More problematic still are the unreliable sources that are mixed in with reliable one. I notice a similar problem happening in March with another non-WP:XC user (LauraIngallsEvenWilder, who seem to have left over it; the user edit warring the problematic version now is Virginia Courtsesan). I realize two (?) users in the course of a few months usually isn't enough to apply WP:SEMI, not to mention ECP. But this is an extremely sensitive subject matter with WP:CHILDPROTECT issues, and crimes, being featured front and centre. El_C 01:36, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Like -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:27, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So Virginia Courtsesan posted the following to my talk page (diff), but I want to keep the discussion focused in one (wider) forum, so I moved it here (see hatted content directly below).

It's especially important to do so (narrowing the venue), because I feel like there are WP:IDHT problems that are exhibited elsewhere, too. Problems that need to be tackled head-on. For example, the problem of having a quoted excerpt alongside double digits refrs, but we don't know which of those refs actually attributes said quote (if it does at all); that, alongside the mix of reliable and unreliable sources, were all explained to this editor multiple times. The latest being just yesterday, in an edit summary by SparklyNights in which they write (in part): Removes poorly sourced content from this BLP (including content that cannot realistically be verified due to citation overkill). However, Virginia Courtsesan reverts the whole thing back in, those problems and all, with an unresponsive edit summary that simply reads: Undid revision 1178103964 , see talk page.

But there is no talk to be had while the problematic version is left standing, counter to the ethos of WP:ONUS, and there is no wholesale reverting of content that was pointed out to be in violation of the WP:BLP policy and WP:RS guideline. All key tenets and imperatives that I suspect Virginia Courtsesan only has limited familiarity with. Which is especially pressing for contentious topics and pages. And, if similar such behaviour were to occur outside this one page, these may lead to editing restrictions (in this case under the WP:ARBBLP sanctions regime). I think it's best to be straightforward and blunt on that. El_C 03:09, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As I wrote in the WP:BLPN thread, I considered the article as then under discussion to be in violation of WP:BLP policy. The sourcing was clearly sometimes inappropriate (e.g. a YouTube channel of no obvious merit, a Ghanaian tabloid website being cited for an article with no connection to Ghana...) and it was clear that there was some synthesis going on (see this brief discussion on Talk James Gordon Meek regarding one such example [48]). Furthermore the shear density of the content combined with the citation overkill made it nearly impossible to properly verify. The best advice I could offer to Virginia Courtsesan would be (a) that articles are supposed to summarise the important details regarding a topic, rather than list everything, and (b) that biographies aren't supposed to be narratives on evil, counters to conspiracy theories, or dense multilayered detective stories modelled on Umburto Eco's The Name of the Rose. Less words is good. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:54, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm seriously considering the possibility of @Virginian Courtsesan being the same person as @LauraIngallsEvenWilder (the disruptive editor that @El C just mentioned above). The latter user created their account in 2022 and only became active on Wikipedia after they started editing Meek's page in March 2023. In that same month, one topic was created at the BLP noticeboard about his BLP-violating edits (here). LauraIngalls then panicked and left Wikipedia without even responding to that thread (his last edit). About 3 weeks later, Virginia Courtsesan created his account on Wikipedia and immediatelly (on the same day) started editing Meek's page (diff), still also using a primary source (an affidavit) to edit the article (diff), which hints at the exact same pattern of behavior that editors from the BLP noticeboard were complaining that LauraIngalls was doing in the first place. Even the edit summaries of these two users read very similar.

The primary purpose of both of those accounts is to edit the James Gordan Meek page, both users are fond of using legal documents as sources to the article, both don't seem to understand wikipedia's BLP policies, both have similar edit summaries. Even when they are not editing Meek's page, both users like to insert information about him on non-related articles (diff, diff; diff, diff). Either way, I think Virginia Courtsesan should be restricted from James Meek's page, at least until he shows some understanding on what he did wrong. SparklyNights 15:57, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also relevant: a possible sock of LauraIngallsEvenWilder (Checknfax). Revengeful username, only edits Meek's page, contribs tagged with BLP issues, account created 17 days after LauraIngall left. Also, this account started editing Meek's page just 2 days before the @Virginia Courtsesan account was created and started editing the same article. I believe both Virginia Courtsesan and @Checknfax are socks of LauraIngallsEvenWilder. LauraIngallsEvenWilder seems to be unrelated to @LauraIngalli. SparklyNights 17:25, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed, @SparklyNights is right in that I am not this person. Thank you! 138.51.42.131 (talk) 18:01, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In fairness, SparklyNights, you are also a non-WP:XC user, seeing as you joined in July and only been actively editing for several weeks. This, like the above possible connection you draw between the two users, may well be indicative of nothing, or WP:SPI-something. I've no idea, but unless I'm missing something (likely), your own brief tenure here is also a fact. Again, this isn't a claim of any wrongdoing, but I just noticed that, so am noting it for the record. El_C 23:23, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My chief concern is that one user (Sparkly) showed up the day of Meek's sentencing, essentially blanking the entire section dealing with the crime which had 100+ footnotes, then went to other pages that talk about Meek to do the same, then when I objected that user stalked other Virginia criminals I'd edited and added spurious tags such as here, and he gets reverte by other editors for similar blanking of crime articles claiming CNN is "fringe", etc here and here again removing information about highly notable and undisputed facts in major outlets about Meek's pedophilia, etc. I have engaged with good-faith complaints on the Meek talk page, and even where I disagree with the removal of information such as Meek's writing to a Virginia paper to offer his (professional) support for who should become the Chief Judge over his district at the time he's engaged in child grooming, original offender in creation of CSAM images and possession/trafficking of those images - even where I've disagreed with the removal, I haven't reverted it but just noted on the talk page that I disagree and leave it to others. My concern now is that the copy of the page that got "protected" is the copy that was essentially blanked - I had assumed over the next 24-48 hours the facts would slowly be added back in as they were verified, but there's been no effort to do so. There are 114,000 google hits for James Gordon Meek + Toddler, the fact he boasted of having raped a female toddler and twice followed that up and shared a video depicting the rape of a screaming toddler is widely reported in every major news outlet and he has given no denial publicly or in trial of that fact. Yet Wiki has just removed it, because a drive-by editor decided to blank the article, call it all a Pizzagate conspiracy and throw it on a bunch of these messageboards. So I'm asking that someone take the time to go through the entire section that was essentially deleted it, and restore it (other than any parts they feel are objectionable which they can leave off - and we can all agree to calmly discuss on the talk page). Virginia Courtsesan (talk) 16:39, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above yet again fails to respond to the repeated concerns of WP:REFBOMBs that failed verification and mixed reliable and unreliable sources. As the editor who re/introduced those changes, that is your WP:BURDEN, Virginia Courtsesan, not that of others. The WP:ONUS there is on you. I suspect that if you had tried introducing some of these in increments, rather than wholesale reverting everything, and if you were to do do so using only reliable sources and only using one or two refs per attributed excerpt rather than refs in the double digits — many of these additions may well be kept (i.e. it doesn't need to be an all-or-nothing-right-away). But are you even interested in that? In doing the actual work? Or is it about you grandstanding? I'd like to assume good faith, but this has been increasingly strained by your constant WP:IDHT replies that never address the crux of the objections, but go on at length on everything but that. El_C 20:43, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I literally cannot edit the page, it's protected or whatever. I've clicked all the various acronyms people are linking and I still don't understand what's being referenced...where are/were there double-digit references to anything? What fact is not supported? I don't mind "doing the work" but I don't see what question I'm actually supposed to answer - if you say "We'll restore this paragraph when you show us X, or else we'll restore it without this portion if you can't show us X" then I can go find X for you. But just mass-deleting and I'm unable to edit, I'm at a loss. Virginia Courtsesan (talk) 03:46, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't bother following links to pertinent documentation, you are not doing the work, Virginia Courtsesan. You fail both WP:ONUS and WP:BURDEN (←click), but I'm not sure you even reviewed those pages, which I linked to multiple times above, in light of your above reply. Either way, I submit to you that editing contentious topics is a poor way to learn the basics. Yes, you "literally cannot edit the page" — that's the point of the WP:ECP / WP:XC tenure (←click). My concern, as mentioned, is that you'd bring this approach of loosened verifiability to the pages of other living persons. Which places Wikipedia at potential legal jeopardy. As for "where are/were there double-digit references to anything?" — quoting: ...and was alleged to impersonate a female child himself online to win their trust.^{[99][123][2][25][121][97][18][126][92][12][127]} ←that's 11 refs. Anyway, you're free to make proposals on the article talk page. El_C 05:04, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how I'd write down one of these, nor which IP to notify (I'm guessing the most recently used one?), but I'll give this a shot anyway since I was advised to file one here on WP:SPI.

An editor with a dynamic IP in the IP range 2001:448a::/32 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has made four bolded recommendations on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Skibidi Toilet (2nd nomination) and has ignored two requests to follow WP:DISCUSSAFD and append their first recommendation. IPs I believe the editor edited under include:

2001:448a:11a3:16ea:65d5:d7bb:91a9:5d03 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
2001:448a:11a2:1e4b:3db0:383d:f205:3b64 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
2001:448a:11a2:1e4b:6969:9ba8:149d:c97a (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
2001:448a:11a2:1e4b:a1ec:400e:a8f5:f38b (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

Jurta talk 15:25, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What? You asking me at ANI? 2001:448A:11A3:16EA:65D5:D7BB:91A9:5D03 (talk) 15:33, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to provide the following links to the admins: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/2001:448a:11a6:1b76:d15b:60dd:5e62:aa13 (failed due; "There is no indication that I can see that this person abused multiple accounts. This is because they are logged-out and on dynamic IPs which means that the IP address they are using could change frequently"), [49] User has blocks on certain pages for similar disruption, [50] this as well. Conyo14 (talk) 16:31, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ping @Ohnoitsjamie: who had already p-blocked that range. El_C 23:59, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I just added the target Cendol to an existing partial block since that (very large) range was disrupting Cendol with tiresome nationalist crap. Probably not the same individual, but it's easy enough to add the AfD to the list of pblock targets, which I've now done. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 00:09, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What? You just added the target cendol? It's my favorite Sundanese dessert. 2001:448A:11A3:1307:944C:E87:591:DBB6 (talk) 07:20, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Going through this user's contributions leads to some bizarre findings. There's an edit such as this, which appears vandalistic or at least careless, or a number of strange edits to short descriptions that add emojis or country flags or descriptions that do not at all describe what the article is about, like this, this, this, and this. There's also this, which is almost constructive, but contains a typo.

I'm not a fan of blocking new users or somewhat more experienced users for CIR issues without giving a warning and a chance to improve, but this user's editing behavior seems to be getting worse from their initial (but still problematic) edits to the encyclopedia. The use of emojis seems to be a new thing from the past several months and the apparent careless/vandalistic edit is the user's most recent edit. After discovering this user today, I feel like I will be needing to keep an eye on them to revert or fix their changes. Uhai (talk) 19:35, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This editor is certainly weird. Some of the edits make me believe that they are editing in good faith, but don't understand that emojis aren't used. This edit could just be put down to a butt dial midway through editing. I've left a comment explaining to them what they've done wrong. I don't think anything else needs to happen for the time being unless they continue to be unconstructive. JML1148 ^{(talk | contribs)} 04:41, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly severely disabled, using a special word processor (predicts words and emojis).... Lourdes 08:26, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

They have stated on their userpage that they are severely disabled. JML1148 ^{(talk | contribs)} 05:52, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• They only edit once every few weeks or months. Might need a indefinite block with a talk page message, and then let them appeal the block from there to discuss their editing. I don't see how else this disruptive editing gets addressed before archivebot sends this to the back.--v/r - TP 13:11, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Or just a final warning that any further unconstructive edits or edits involving emojis will lead to a block. Blocking them now feels like trying to pre-empt any further edits. JML1148 ^{(talk | contribs)} 05:54, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  All blocks are pre-emptive. We block to prevent future bad behavior, not for poor past behavior. All blocks are to prevent disruption to the encyclopedia. WP:Blocking policy second paragraph said "Blocks are used to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, not to punish users" (emphasis mine).--v/r - TP 06:13, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm a relatively new editor here but I found an issue here that I'm not sure how to proceed with so I will describe it here:

The Bergmann–Bayard pistol article had a questionable photo in it from the commons from User:Triden123 placed in the mainspace on wikipedia 5 February 2023 by 2600:1700:DA1:5600:14B:536B:59F:8384 until it was recently caught by another editor. The changes as described by the editor in the edit summary were: Removed the picture for what looked to be a scrotum in the lower frame of the image.

The change was quickly reverted (most likely because it removed the photo and someone just quickly repaired the infobox). In reviewing the change log, I think I have to agree with the editor that removed it; I replaced the image with the original one prior to the questionable image's inclusion. I just wanted to flag the admins in here because of the content and ask for next steps and guidance. I'm not sure if this can be solved entirely here, or if there is an issue, to be raised at the commons as well. Thanks MicrobiologyMarcus (talk) 23:33, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, looks like balls to me. Well we can keep it out of the article here via the usual editorial processes, but if you want it to be deleted from commons you will need to start a discussion there. Uploader only has one contribution, so really its checking if the pic is in use on any other wiki, replacing the photo, then nominating it for deletion on commons. Commons is much better these days at getting rid of obvious crap. Only in death does duty end (talk) 23:59, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I think I've created a speedy deletion tag over there on the image properly, but I'm unfamiliar with the process on the commons. Thanks for your help! MicrobiologyMarcus (talk) 00:10, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It was deleted on Commons as a Reddit copvio so I'd say this is all taken care of now (except please don't ever use or feature weapons in your birthday suit and check your images before uploading, but that seems to be more of a 'them' issue on Reddit than for any of us). Nate • (chatter) 16:52, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BOLLOCKS may or may not apply. Narky Blert (talk) 15:40, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

184.145.61.182 has been repeatedly changing the section title on the period of Taiwan during Japanese rule at History of Taiwan from Japanese Empire to Japanese Taiwan ([51] [52] [53] [54]). No other section does this (ex. Dutch and Spanish colonies, Kingdom of Tungning, Qing dynasty, Republic of China). Their repeated edit summary reason is Improve vocabulary accuracy. After two warnings at User talk:184.145.61.182 for disruptive editing and opening a talk section at the article, they have not responded and persisted in making the change. They also made a nonsensical talk section asking for edit protection and to lock the page because it can be controversial, and for another talk page to be created for discussion regarding the history of the island, which is ridiculous because the page is about the history of Taiwan. Qiushufang (talk) 06:39, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Qiushufang: I haven't looked fully into what's actually happening here, but a reminder for next time: please don't jump straight to a level 3 warning when reverting an editor. I know it's tempting, but we have to start with a level 1 warning unless it's particularly egregious. JML1148 ^{(talk | contribs)} 06:55, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Qiushufang I am concerned that you may be assuming bad faith with the IP. I don't see a reason to believe that the IP isn't acting in good faith. Both of you are also edit warring, and close to violating WP:3RR. JML1148 ^{(talk | contribs)} 07:02, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The IP has made only one change and one topic, and then immediately reverted, asked for the page to be locked, and for another page to be created to discuss the topic the page was created for. I warned them. They did not respond. I made a talk page for discussion.They did not respond. The edit is also not universal and restricted only one section, which does not seem to match their edit reason. At what point do I assume bad faith? JML1148 Qiushufang (talk) 07:15, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The IP is definitely veering into WP:ICHY territory. However, WP:AGF is a thing, and immediately calling it disruptive editing is definitely not good faith. JML1148 ^{(talk | contribs)} 07:23, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@JML1148: I also don't believe the first instinct of a new user is to immediately ask for a page lock upon reversion. How do they know what a page lock, edit protection is? They immediately asked for a lock after reverting once ([55] [56]). It's not impossible that they're new but combined with their single issue and tendentious reversion, this seems unlikely. Qiushufang (talk) 07:22, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Another example of assuming bad faith. It's equally possible that they tried to edit a page but couldn't because of page protection. I certainly knew what page protection was before I was an editor after wondering what the blue lock was in the corner of the page. JML1148 ^{(talk | contribs)} 07:27, 4 October 2023 (UTC) I've struck out part of my comment. I went too far there, assuming bad faith myself. JML1148 ^{(talk | contribs)} 10:39, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's why I mentioned it was not impossible and took into consideration their tendentious one topic editing as well. And in any case, asking for a lock as their first response right after reverting is the strange part. My first warning was after they had already reverted twice, the second time without any reason, and requested the lock. Their reason for the change is also nonsensical and a standard edit summary for pushing through changes. It did not improve vocabulary as they said. In one reversion they also damaged the article link. When taking all this into account, I'm unsure what to think of this other than targeted disruptive editing. Qiushufang (talk) 07:39, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note that regardless of good faith, they have made no attempt at communication and ignored any requests for it. Qiushufang (talk) 07:47, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Qiushufang I've struck out part of my comment above. I went too far immediately saying you had shown bad faith again. Apologies. JML1148 ^{(talk | contribs)} 10:41, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

JML1148 Thank you for your reconsideration. I've started noticing a trend of IPs with similar interests (Taiwan, China, Taiwan-Japan relations, anime) geolocating to the same place that have been abandoned after a few days or months of use that could possibly be linked to this IP. Not sure if they're breaking any rules but collectively they've accrued a substantial number of warnings. See the following if you're interested:

Special:Contributions/184.145.61.182

Special:Contributions/184.145.53.53

Special:Contributions/184.148.109.174

Special:Contributions/184.148.109.63

Special:Contributions/174.89.100.221

Special:Contributions/184.146.37.152

Special:Contributions/142.113.184.227

Special:Contributions/174.95.137.59

Special:Contributions/142.113.169.32

Special:Contributions/174.89.100.7

Qiushufang (talk) 11:15, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's definitely possible. They share the same ISP and come from an area around Toronto, Canada. All but two have warnings, and about half of the IPs have a final warning. JML1148 ^{(talk | contribs)} 06:24, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Blocked for disruptive editing. I don't see a reason to waste more editor time trying to get through to the user.--v/r - TP 13:04, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks. Their refusal to acknowledge any warning, but showing that they can make comments on talk pages, is just plain WP:ICHY. Good block. JML1148 ^{(talk | contribs)} 05:47, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am tired of having my edits construed by User:MaranoFan as "sabotage". At Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Get Him Back!, which was about an article they created, I supported a redirect as there was no reliable indication of future notability at the time. The closer found a consensus to redirect. At Wikipedia talk:Did you know#Help requested, MaranoFan now says that the "Get Him Back!" deletion discussion "saw multiple votes influenced by Four Award rivalries" and called the votes "blatant bad-faith sabotage". I cited policy; the redirect vote had nothing to do with them personally. If they disagree with the outcome of a deletion discussion, MaranoFan should appeal the decision at Deletion review, not malign a consensus as "sabotage".

Based on their comments, I am asking for MaranoFan to be blocked for a time due to personal attacks. Claiming multiple editors acted to "sabotage" them is extremely offensive. I spend most of my time doing research and writing articles with occasional steps into deletion discussions and page moves, not sabotaging other editors. I continue to abide by an informal interaction ban with MaranoFan, as per their wishes, after a previous ANI in May 2023. I do not edit any of the topics they frequent, nor have I commented on one of their FACs or DYKs, and I have not referred to their edits or actions anywhere aside from the ANI page since. With their comments at Talk:DYK, MaranoFan has not done the same. I would have not opened another ANI if they were just referring to me because it's not worth it, but saying "multiple votes" were sabotage and influenced by "Four Award rivalries"? No—this conspiracy nonsense needs to be stopped now. Heartfox (talk) 17:11, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"I continue to abide by an informal interaction ban with MaranoFan" What??? It must be a funny type of interaction ban that allows someone to vote to redirect an article created by the other person. This is the same user who harrassed me with a 9kb essay a few hours after being asked to stop bothering me. When my unanimously supported IBAN request with this person was archived without action, they again decided to get involved in a discussion about deleting an article created by me. I briefly raised this at AN but got no response. Last month, they created an article over my redirect, so sorry, but no, they have not "abided by an informal interaction ban" with me. For context, this user and I both nominate music articles at FAC which often compete for attention from same or similar reviewers. They have apparently had problems with me since my very first FAC more than two years ago, but have still involved themselves with five of my other nominations. As for this user's Four Awards-influenced grudge being "conspiracy nonsense", they have nominated two articles for the award this year and are creating more, usually over redirects for Mariah Carey songs created by me. This is the same award I would have been eligible for with the article whose AfD they commented on (and am now disqualified), and their previous derailment of one of my nominations was also on an article nominated for the process.

This user's constant witchhunt to get rid of me (clearly proved by them asking for me to be blocked again and again but opposing an IBAN) has gotten extremely tiring and I reiterate my request for an IBAN so they can stop wasting my and the community's time. A block for this user is also something I am now willing to consider supporting. This is not the first time they have tried to take out FAC nominators they don't like. At some point we have to say enough is enough.--NØ 17:54, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral comment My redirect vote! at the AfD was not canvassed or influenced by anyone, but based on my common voting pattern where individual songs on an unreleased album should not have articles until the album is released or the song is released as a single. Nate • (chatter) 19:17, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"My redirect"? A user doesn't get to reserve creation and own editing of an article because they made a redirect five years prior. I created "Outside" and "Clown" because new sources were published this year, e.g. Chan book. It had absolutely nothing to do with MaranoFan. This is yet another example of MaranoFan's ridiculous ownership and their baseless conspiracy charges against other editors. Claiming me creating an article out of a redirect five years later to be a "witchhunt against competition" is just ridiculous. Heartfox (talk) 19:18, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Again, it's a funny kind of an "informal interaction ban" being "abided", where one can vote to redirect the other party's article and characterize their edits as "conspiracy nonsense", "ridiculous ownership", and "baseless conspiracy charges". I just bust out laughing. Now let's do a real, formalized one so I don't have to deal with this ridiculous attention-seeking nonsense every few months.--NØ 19:23, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Here's Heartfox hiding comments from me and two admins on my FAC, several days after when they claim they have been "abiding by an informal interaction ban" with me. Something they seem to be asking me to get blocked for.--NØ 19:37, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal

I think we're getting a little off track. Here's what I think we oughtta do:

1. Heartfox and MaranoFan are subject to a two-way involuntary interaction ban.
2. MaranoFan is warned about casting aspersions.
3. Heartfox is reminded that deescalation of conflict is preferable wherever possible.

• Support as proposer – it's pretty clear that we got bad blood, but a block doesn't seem like the best remedy for either party. Let's get them out of each other's hair so they can do what they're good at. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 20:10, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support as what I had proposed five months ago when I already foresaw more drama incoming. I am not satisfied with how the supposed "informal interaction ban" has been selectively obeyed by others involved, formalization is necessary. Heartfox had a problem with me since my very first FAC, but kept forcing interactions with me. Then said they’ll ”be certain to avoid me in the future” and returned to cast an aspersion on my FAC. After a few hours of being asked to stay away from me, they posted a 9kb essay about me to ANI. And after a virtually unanimously supported IBAN proposal, thought it was a good idea to vote about the prospective deletion of my work. So, holy mother of escalation, I oppose any “voluntary” solution to this problem. The fact that they have posted several essays to ANI trashing my conduct but beg not to have an interaction ban is absolutely mortifying and should tell everyone what they need to know. They seem to want to have some avenue left to set up another trap in the future in an attempt to "get rid" of me. Sorry, but I will not be taken out and will continue writing more of the best articles Wikipedia has to offer, as I have been doing the past three years. It's time to put the community headache to bed.--NØ 20:30, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. MaranoFan cited an online forum as their source to justify the imminent notability of an article, which, predictably, turned out to be false in any case. Citing unreliable material even though they know how to determine source reliability demonstrates that they are obsessive regarding Four Awards. It has gotten out of control to the point where they have dragged in "multiple editors" (not just me) into a sabotage conspiracy theory regarding the deletion discussion. I don't know what to do when an editor thinks everything is a personal attack against them. MaranoFan should either withdraw their comment about "multiple editors" sabotaging them or submit Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Get Him Back! to Deletion review. If not, they should be blocked for casting aspersions.

I have been editing for over 8 years and never received an interaction ban or a temporary block, so I oppose a two-way involuntary interaction ban. To have my name dragged into the muck of someone who has been site-banned in the past does not seem appropriate. In addition to not commenting on their FACs and DYKs since May 2023, I will commit to not commenting in deletion discussions or page moves regarding articles MaranoFan created in the future. Heartfox (talk) 21:13, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral comment Why would we or they take an article that's now been created and properly sourced to DR? It was redirected and now is a full article (as I expected to occur); there's no deletion to review. Nate • (chatter) 22:39, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If MaranoFan believes that multiple votes were sabotage/only added on the basis of "Four Award rivalries" they should bring it to deletion review and state some evidence rather than cast aspersions at Talk:DYK. If overturned from redirect to keep, it might ease their concerns about whether the article is eligible for a Four Award. Heartfox (talk) 23:27, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:BURO...no. That's not the purpose of DR. The article isn't in danger of deletion at all. We're not going to force someone to do a pointless exercise like you want them to in what I think is a pretty blatant attempt at forcing a proxy block. Move on already, and with that, support IBAN because I cannot take you at your word that you'll just keep dragging them into the muck and the other subject just wants to move on themselves. Nate • (chatter) 23:53, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. It's patently obvious that these two editors don't, and can't, get along. Short of just blocking these two, a two-way IBAN (involuntary, at that; I do not believe a voluntary IBAN will work here) seems like the optimal solution. Also consider that a two-way IBAN was already supported but not formalized. SkyWarrior 22:01, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. I think this is the best option for this situation and for both editors. I agree with SkyWarrior's rationale. I do not see the situation between these two editors improving in the future and this kind of two-way ban seems to be the only way forward in my opinion. Aoba47 (talk) 00:02, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support: two editors with 40,000 edits and 28 featured articles between them surely have better things to do on wikipedia than the sniping that we're seeing here. If Heartfox is as they say in fact already voluntarily abiding by an informal IBAN this will not affect them in any way; if MaranoFan wants Heartfox to stop engaging with them then casting aspersions about "bad-faith sabotage" is not helping their cause. I would further suggest that though Heartfox voting in the "Get Him Back!" AfD might not be explicitly prohibited by the text of WP:IBAN, participating in an AfD about an article created by MaranoFan and which MaranoFan has already participated in is at best A Bad Idea. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 09:42, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Noting for the record that I have indef'd MaranoFan ‎because, on reading this thread and the links given in it, I find his battleground mentality utterly appalling and completely corrosive to good-faith collaboration and this appears to be a much more widespread issue than an running feud with Heartfox. The block is explicitly intended to be indefinite, not infinite, and blocking long-term contributors is not something I take any pleasure in but we cannot allow one editor to undermine community processes by labelling a consensus they don't with "sabotage". My detailed rationale can be found at the diff above and I welcome review of my actions. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 10:29, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry for reopening this discussion but I believe there still needs to be a two-way IBAN enacted despite the indef on one of the parties. SkyWarrior 13:42, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support as needed to stop the bickering between these two editors. Also support unblock of MaranoFan, an indefinite block seems overly zealous in my view. Isaidnoway (talk) 15:29, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - thanks for reopening this, it seems like something we should conclude once and for all, after it was parked without conclusion on May. And most likely MaranoFan will be back at some point in the coming days or weeks, once the dust has settled. Since the two appear unable to work collaboratively together, the 2-way IBAN seems sensible, along with the other two notes leeky has made. It's not a punishment, just a recognition that they can both be productive of they don't have anything to do with each other.  — Amakuru (talk) 15:33, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support IBAN but also support unblock MaranoFan. I also support the unblock of MaranoFan because it seems like an excessive block and in violation of policy WP:BLOCK. Lightburst (talk) 15:47, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support IB, with the caveat that I have unblocked MaranoFan per the discussion on their Talk. Both editors' behavior cannot continue and while I'm optimistic we won't be back here, a mutual IB is the only way to help ensure it. Star Mississippi 17:23, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @Star Mississippi I'm very disappointed that you've decided to impose your judgement over mine and Amakuru's without any discussion whatsoever. The block was well within the bounds of policy and admin discretion and you even note in on MF's talk page that you agree with it. It had not yet served its purpose, being barely seven hours old, and discussion was ongoing on the talk page. Furthermore, your unblock summary of "per talk page" makes it sound as though you were acting with some sort of consensus when not a single uninvolved admin had seen anything wrong with the block. It's exactly these sorts of shoddy unblocks that make long-term user conduct issues so difficult to deal with. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:50, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I believe I was correct in my action and there was consensus for it among other uninvolved editors, although you may have disagreed, but do not have the stamina nor interest in protracted dispute or this progressing where other admin actions have. I will undo my unblock.

  Where I believed you were OK with it being temporary was your own wording that you did not intend for it to be infinite, but rather to stop the problematic editing and address it, which I believe it did and MF addressed the issues. Perhaps that was my misreading and I apologize. Star Mississippi 18:04, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm not sure if that makes the situation better or worse, which is exactly why a knee-jerk unblock was a bad idea. I fully intend(ed?) for the block to be temporary, though perhaps a bit less temporary than seven hours. A temporary block of a few days would have been in order. I've given my reasons for making it indef on MF's talk page at some length but I feel he needs to reflect on his approach to editing and especially to discussions and disagreements and that a few hours is not enough time for that. There was a discussion ongoing on the talk page where several other editors had reached out with advice and I do think MF was beginning to "get it". An unblock may have been on the horizon somewhere but your action caused more problems than it solved. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:57, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I believe you were correct as well. It didn't appear to be a "knee-jerk" or "shoddy" unblock, as you clearly stated your reasons for the unblock, and it was within admin discretion. HJM clearly stated that they would "butt out and let another admin evaluate the request", which is exactly what happened. If the block was meant to be temporary to begin with, as implied by both HJM and Amakuru, then the original block should have had a set date for it to expire, instead of a wishy-washy indefinite. Isaidnoway (talk) 21:18, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  not a single uninvolved admin Are you implying that SM is involved? GMG^talk 18:50, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  For the avoidance of doubt, zero interaction outside of project spaces, third party editor Talks although not on any related subjects that I am able to see. Log for anyone to assess as I do not have anything to hide.

  @HJ Mitchell I believe the editor's reaction to my reblock shows they are continuing to get it and understand how they should proceed. MY personal belief as an admin is that x hours v. y days doesn't particulary matter if the editor shows they understand what led to the block. This is part of the issue with preventative v. punitive blocks that I think is a broader issue than you and I disagreeing here. If they end up back here despite an interaction ban, I'll happily eat crow. (Happy to take this to your Talk if you prefer). Star Mississippi 19:17, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@HJ Mitchell and Star Mississippi: I find it astonishing to see an administrator unilaterally unblocking without discussion when there is another administrator, apart from the blocking administrator, who has said on the user talk page "I'd recommend that it [the unblock request] continue to be declined". Shouldn't it go without saying that in that situation one explains one's view and waits for discussion, rather than just going ahead with one's personal preference without regard for consensus? Administrators aren't somehow exempt from normal Wikipedia policies, such as Wikipedia:Consensus; on the contrary, there is a widespread consensus that administrators should be if anything more careful to abide by policies than other editors. JBW (talk) 10:51, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@JBW I reblocked almost 20 hours ago and immediately after @HJ Mitchell's comment essentially requesting that I do so I'm not quite sure of the timing of your note. The unblock has nothing to do with "personal preference". I have had no interaction with this editor prior to this discussion and their talk related specifically to this issue and don't edit in musical areas unless it's AfC/AFD draft or article that I'm processing so I resent the implication that it's personal or that I'm somehow not uninvolved. I disagree that it was unilateral as there are other folks who supported the unblock including another admin who thought the unblock would be granted, but am happy to wait out consensus. FWIW, there doesn't appear to be support here for the continued block (separate from the IBAN).

I saw a block, which was needed at the time, that an admin specifically said they didn't intend to be infinite, an unblock request and discussion, which included a comment from HJM that they were going to let another admin assess- that I believed addressed the reasons for which the editor was blocked. Admins are allowed to unblock in that situation, but no one has time or interest in this escalating so I reinstated the original block. I'll be online for the next few hours and then offline until Sunday so pardon any delayed further response. Star Mississippi 13:35, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• I supported the block, mainly because it looked like MaranoFan needed the vacation, and it would break the tension. But now the block looks likely to be lifted (and MF's current FAC looks likely to get promoted soon, courtesy of the good folk @FAC coordinators: ) and we can start again. MF seems to have appreciated the issues that led to the block, and HJ Mitchell has done a fine job, as expected, at shepherding them to that end. See, I don't know where this really came from, but I was surprised. They always seemed to get on OK whenever I passed them there (their mutual topic of interest isn't really my bag, so it wasn't often, admittedly). But they regularly reviewed each other's articles—February 2021, May 2021, November 2022, November 2021, March 2023, April 2023, April 2023, etc—often accompanied by smilies and notes of congratulation. So I'd hope that both parties can do what they do best—keep the FAC coordinators and reviewers busy—rather than getting into these scrapes. I guess, what I want, is to not only oppose a mutual IBan, but any Iban. I mean, as I've said before, It's ironic that, while Wikipedia has a reputation for being full of fancruft and pop-culture trivia, it's actually pretty hard to get that kind of thing [that Marano Fan and Heartfox work on] to FA status, so, to put in the very vernanacular, what's best for the project is having both inside the tent... looking out. If you get my drift. Is it asking too much at this stage of the game? Serial 14:43, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I think I agree with you. MF and I are in conversation off-wiki and an unblock is on the horizon. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:38, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not sure I find it entirely appropriate to issue an indef when there is an ongoing community discussion regarding implementing a less restrictive alternative resolution. It seems a little off base to claim that "not a single uninvolved admin" disagreed, when this exact section starts with an uninvolved admin saying "a block doesn't seem like the best remedy for either party." GMG^talk 10:57, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This report concerns the various edits of Dragoni 2009. My first time noticing Dragoni 2009 was in the Kosovo (1RR) article, in which the following incidents happened:

• Dragoni 2009 attempted to undermine the status of the Serbian language in Kosovo. He let Albanian language be considered "official", yet changed Serbian to be "co-official". This edit was done in various part of the article[57][58]. The edits was reverted by another editor, Griboski, and in which the editor explained the reason for the revert: [59]

• Within 24 hours in the same 1RR article, Dragoni 2009 would not only revert Griboski's revert but also expand his disruption. [60][61][62]. This was also done without any contribution to the TP. As a result, I would revert these edits of him and take it to the article's TP.[63]. I would also give him a warning on his user TP.[64]. The user never replied to any of them.

Let me make it clear to the ones reading this report that Serbian- and Albanian language has the exact same political status in Kosovo. Dragoni 2009 was, without a doubt, aware of it when he ignored these explanations by me and the other editor from the start. It became even more clear to me that his POV edits was done on purpose when these following edits happened:

• Dragoni 2009 would continue to undermine the status of the Serbian language by this edit [65] on the. Changing order and native name in Community of Serb Municipalities without any logical reason.

• And this edit [66], in which he removed all of the Serbian name variants of the Municipalities of Kosovo.

• In the Minority languages of Kosovo article, Dragoni 2009 would continue his rampage of listing Albanian as "official" and Serbian as "co-official".[67] This was later reverted by another user[68].

A big motive behind this report is the fact that there are multiple editors who have had issues with the user's edits. In recent weeks, Dragoni 2009 has received multiple warnings and concerns on his TP by various editors.[69][70][71][72][73][74] And the last one, mine [75]. Still visible on his TP, he would write "Wikepedia admins are so propagandistic and rascist. thank you".

Me or other editors have clearly had no impact on this user, so I was left no choice than to file this report. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AzorzaI (talk • contribs)

• This edit appears to show the user edits with a nationalist point of view and intends to "fix" what they perceive to be offenses against their people. I've blocked indefinitely for disruptive editing as they aren't here to build an encyclopedia.--v/r - TP 02:49, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @TParis: It looks like you indeffed them, then changed the block duration to 31 hours about a minute later, immediately before commenting in this thread. — SamX [talk · contribs] 04:00, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Dang it, lol. I use Twinkle for block notices. I forgot to uncheck the "Block user" box after I manually blocked. Thanks for the heads up. Returning it to an indef.--v/r - TP 04:06, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @TParis Thank you for your time. Btw you might have forgot to change the block duration of the template on the user's TP --Azor (talk). 05:17, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Got it, thanks. More twinkle mishaps.--v/r - TP 05:21, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Esomeonee7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Clearly WP:NOTHERE. I initially reverted one new disruptive edit by this user and gave them a fresh warning ([76]), but after looking at their other edits it's clear that they're only here to vandalize and push a POV. They already received multiple direct warnings in August 2023 (see user talk page), by which point they had vandalized many times (e.g. [77], [78], [79]). They have given zero responses and since August they've continued to vandalize without interruption (e.g. [80], [81], [82], [83], [84], [85]). R Prazeres (talk) 07:31, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Catyahill (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 41.198.133.82 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• Coloureds (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Catyahill and the IP user (one and the same person, I believe, based on these edits, have been vandalizing and edit-warring at Coloureds, insisting on rewriting the history of this minority group of South Africa. Despite multiple warnings, they continue to insist on their version without discussion. Because multiple violations are involved here (WP:3RR, WP:SOCK), I've brought the matter here rather than one of the other notice boards. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 13:29, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@WikiDan61 I've partially blocked both the account and the IP from that one article, hopefully to encourage them to the talk page. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:01, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sbelknap was blocked from editing the red meat article back in December 2022 due to his repeated disruption of the article and talk-page and WP:POV editing. The blocking reason was "for persistent tendentious editing and edit warring against consensus". The same user disrupted other articles related to saturated fat in which he wanted to use various articles and talk-pages to promote his WP:Fringe views and conspiracy theories about diet.

The same user has now returned on the saturated fat [86] and taurine talk-pages and is again making the same edits that resulted in their block before. Sbelknap argues against the medical consensus, and claims "that high saturated fat consumption does not increase risk of atherosclerotic vascular disease" [87]. He also says that all of the dietary guidelines are "flawed". It must be noted that his view is in direct opposition to the American Medical Association, World Health Organization, European Society of Cardiology and all the other leading medical organizations in the world that are telling people to limit saturated fat, not increase it.

Sbelknap is a noted carnivore diet advocate who claims that all plant-foods are "candy" [88]. I filed a complaint last year about his conflict of interest editing on red meat and saturated fat [89]. Sbelknap has connections with Nina Teicholz and her research-tank that opposes scientific consensus on saturated fat.

After his block from the red meat article last year, the admin Bishonen wrote to Sbelknap "you can still edit the rest of Wikipedia, though I'm also extending a warning for your only-too-similar editing of Saturated fat and its talkpage. Please demonstrate that you can edit collaborately at Saturated fat and you will have a better chance of being unblocked at Red meat also" [90]. The problem here is that Sbelknap has returned to the saturated fat talk-page and is doing exactly the same disruptive and tendentious editing that he did before. He has not edited collaborately, he deliberately ignores scientific consensus and Wikipedia policy on Fringe views and NPOV.

Sbelknap started editing the saturated fat talk-page again on the 9 September 2023‎. There are now two extremely long talk-page discussions involving Sbelknap on the talk-page [91]. The user ignores consensus and what other experienced users have written, then he claims many times "Something is very wrong here" and "Something is very wrong here. What is going on?" [92], [93], [94]. I would go as far as calling this repetitive behavior trolling. This sort of behaviour is not good faith and as the admin wrote to him about his previous block [95] he is ignoring advice from experienced Wikipedia users.

The same behaviour can be seen on the taurine talk-page [96], it is disruptive. Sbelknap's behaviour is totally unacceptable and is continuous of what he was doing before. I believe a topic-ban is appropriate here. Psychologist Guy (talk) 14:22, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The purpose of the talk page is to arrive at a consensus. I am not the only editor making these points. Other engaged editors have raised the same issues that I am raising.

According to NPOV, "to be neutral is to describe debates rather than engage in them" The saturated fat article suppresses an alternate POV that is presented in high quality secondary sources from peer-reviewed medical literature. sbelknap (talk) 14:29, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have no connections of any kind with Nina Teicholzsbelknap (talk) 14:31, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The complaint above contains misstatements. I have made no recent edits to the content of the saturated fat article. Today, I added a POV tag to the saturated fat article, reflecting the discussion on the talk page. I have acted in good faith, have worked to achieve consensus on presenting the important POVs on saturated fat in the talk page. There is something very wrong here.sbelknap (talk) 14:36, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your behaviour this and last month on the saturated fat talk-page is exactly the same as you did last December on the red meat article and talk-page that resulted in your block, saying the same stuff over and over. You do not have consensus to be putting this template on the article [97]. This was noted to you regarding your previous block on the red meat article [98]. Nothing has changed here. You are not listening to other users. You ignore all advice from other users and continue to use talk-pages as a place to promote your WP:Fringe material. After you are told why you are wrong and why the sources you are suggesting are unreliable you ignore that then suggest they should be included anyway.

You have made it clear that you reject all advice from medical organizations on saturated fat and you believe all the guidelines are "flawed". It is not our fault that you reject medical consensus on this topic, we are not going to promote fringe views on saturated fat just to please you. You have disrupted the red meat, saturated fat and taurine talk-pages. There is a serious pattern here of disruption, ignoring medical and Wikipedia consensus. You are seriously wasting other users editing time... This is just a repeat of what happened last December. Psychologist Guy (talk) 14:53, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have made no edits to the content of the saturated fat wikipedia article. I have added a POV tag to the head of the article as per discussion on the talk page. I have engaged in good faith discussion on the talk page for this article. I am not saying the same stuff over and over. There is a disagreement among engaged editors on whether alternate POVs regarding healthfulness of saturated fat are to be included in the saturated fat article.

Here at wikipedia, we rely on secondary sources. There are many high-quality secondary sources regarding the healthfulness of saturated fat that are being omitted from mention on the saturated fat article on wikipedia.

There is a failure of good stewardship of wikipedia evident on this article. sbelknap (talk) 15:49, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear, since editing the saturated talk-page since September 9. You have only pushed at length to put one fringe paper onto the article. So after dozens of comments and writing 1000s of words you have not suggested anything productive for the article, just suggested one fringe source from Hamley.

• I am puzzled by the claim that the Hamley article is unreliable. No engaged editor has presented any plausible reason why they hold this opinion. Each objection raised has been shown to be wrong. What is going on here? [99]
• So far, the objections raised to inclusion of Hamley in this wikipedia article range from specious to laughable. I've countered each one fully. Enough of this. Lets craft some text on the Hamley article to put in the article. [100]
• These objections to inclusion of Hamley's meta-analysis in this wikipedia article on saturated fat are without merit. [101]
• This article could be improved by including the points made by Hamley. [102]

You kept making comments like this despite being told that the Hamley source is not reliable for Wikipedia, so this is not good faith editing or cooperating with other Wikipedia users. This type of repetitive and persistent tendentious editing on talk-pages is not helpful and it has happened on more than one. As for typing the same comment, yes you have done that.

• There is something wrong here. This is not good stewardship of wikipedia. [103]
• There is a serious problem with this article. Something is wrong here. [104]
• Something is very wrong here. What is going on? [105]
• Something here is rotten. [106]

This is disruptive repetitive behaviour that is soaking up other users editing time. Like I said I believe a topic ban is appropriate here. You have not learned anything from your previous block. Wikipedia is not the place to argue against medical consensus but you seem to be using talk-pages to do that. Psychologist Guy (talk) 16:38, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You have mischaracterized the discussion.

Other editors have made similar attempts to bring balance to the saturated fat article.

Prior to September 9, I presented several other high-quality secondary sources for mention in the saturated fat article.

Some editors prefer to omit mention of high-quality secondary sources that present an alternate view on the healthfulness of saturated fat while other editors prefer to include mention of these sources.

It's not just one article and its not just one editor.

Why are you threatening me with a topic ban for posting an informed suggestion to a talk page? sbelknap (talk) 17:12, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Sbelknap: In December of last year, you were blocked from editing the article red meat and its talk page for three months. Did you deserve that or was the blocking administrator in the wrong? CityOfSilver 01:35, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Based on this user's behavior, historical issues with WP:ANI, disruptive editing, and a general vibe of WP:NOTHERE, I propose an SBAN. This user's refusal to accept scientific consensus on a wide variety of issues also gives me doubts regarding their competency to contribute to the site. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 18:14, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support topic ban Belknap has been relentless in promoting a fringe viewpoint regarding the health effects of saturated fat, to the detriment of Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, a core Wikipedia policy. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:29, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support broader biomedical information/medical topics ban per previous issues regarding Finasteride. Hemiauchenia (talk) 08:16, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support indef WP:NOTHERE block. What is to be gained from keeping this account around? How is it improving Wikipedia? jps (talk) 02:22, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support topic ban. Wikipedia, per core policies, reflects current scientific consensus on such matters, and continued refusal to accept this has clearly become a time-sink. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:40, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support indefinite topic ban, broadly construed – Clearly their behaviour in the saturated fats topic area hasn't improved since December 2022, still failing to achieve consensus and continuing to push fringe theories. Definitely a waste of other editors' precious time, this needs to stop. — AP 499D25 (talk) 02:42, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• I would support a TBAN with the scope being WP:Biomedical information (but not "broadly construed" as that would pretty much cover everything). Those of us with long memories will remember this editor as causing similar problems around Finasteride[107] so it seems the issue here has deeper roots. Bon courage (talk) 05:13, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support indefinite ban from medicine topics. Evident not only from the saturated fat history, but also this example from taurine, sbelknap does not acknowledge WP:MEDRS guidelines for sourcing, choosing instead fringe or primary research positions. This requires attention to each article edit and repeated rebuttals on talk pages. There has been no evidence of collaboration, but rather a preference to oppose mainstream science. Zefr (talk) 05:31, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support indef WP:NOTHERE block. As jps said, what reason do we have to keep Sbelknap around? There's very little evidence to show that they can edit constructively. However, a TBAN is better than no sanctions at all. JML1148 ^{(talk | contribs)} 05:38, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support indef WP:NOTHERE block Sbelknap was blocked on 2022-12-29 for persistent edit warring and tendentious editing against consensus; at the talkpage, bludgeoning the discussion and refusal ever to drop the stick. That description pretty much defines their ongoing editing behavior, and there is no evidence that it will ever improve. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 10:51, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support indef WP:NOTHERE and WP:ADVOCACY block, with a topic ban being my second option. This user is clearly here to push for their preferred diet regardless of source quality & WP:DUE weight. If they've continued in other articles after their first topic ban, I am not confident they will be able to meaningfully contribute anywhere else in the encyclopedia. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 15:32, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support WP:NOTHERE block, not seeing any indication the this party is willing or able to contribute productively to other topic areas. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:48, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support topic ban the user is not interested in improving articles. Mostly pushes fringe theories. He does not seem willing to contribute in a neutral way. CarlFromVienna (talk) 16:39, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I've not analyzed the particulars but vaguely speaking from the description above, some of Sbelknap's views (e.g. on saturated fat) are emerging science which is gradually overtaking widespread un-scientific folklore which is assumed to be science, not fringe view vs. science. On nutritional science, much of which has been widely accepted as being "science" has turned out to be baseless folklore. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 17:04, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Correct.

  The controversy regarding the toxicity of dietary saturated fat is discussed in current textbooks.

  For example, here is a quote from Clinical Lipidology, 3rd Edition (2023) by Christie M. Ballantyne in the Chapter titled "Saturated Fat Intake and the Prevention and Management of Cardiovascular Disease in Adults: An Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics Evidence-based Nutrition Practice Guideline"

  "Recently, a debate has emerged about whether SFA intake should be reduced for CVD prevention, which has contributed to confusion among health care professionals, including registered dietitian nutritionists (RDNs), and the general public, and necessitates the critical evaluation of the evidence."

  The pile-on here on this noticeboard is remarkable. I note that, in deference to prior complaints about controversial edits, I have not made *any* recent content edits to the saturated fat article. Instead, I have engaged in respectful discussion on the talk page. I've provided citations. I've explained where the science actually is. After doing this for more than a month, I added the POV tag to the saturated fat article, as it was evident that engaged editors were not interested in including a balanced discussion of where the science is now.

  Blocking high-quality content on a controversy in an area of science is *not* consistent with good stewardship of wikipedia. Something is wrong here. sbelknap (talk) 17:47, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is just another example of Sbelknap ignoring consensus and misrepresenting sources. The paper he is talking about is a recently published review paper by the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics Expert Panel. What is the point in cherry-picking a few lines from the abstract but not cite the conclusion of the Expert Panel? As explained on the article talk-page, this is a good source that could be used on the article (published in full online [108]), so there is no conspiracy theory to block the source.

The conclusion of the paper supports the scientific consensus on saturated fat consumption and CVD but did not come to a recommendation about intake level, "Based on the highest-quality available evidence, the Expert Panel found moderate certainty evidence to support reducing SFA intake for reduced risk of CVD and CVD". Yes you read that right, reduced risk. The review paper does not support Sbelknap's claim that "that high saturated fat consumption does not increase risk of atherosclerotic vascular disease", it argues the opposite and it also concluded "Based on this evidence, the Expert Panel concludes that health care professionals may prioritize reducing the amount of SFA intake over specific food sources of SFA within an individualized healthy dietary pattern". Like all good medical sources on this topic, they are recommending the reduction of SFA, not an increase.

As a side note, I am in regular email communication with many nutritional researchers from the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics, I have even written a Wikipedia article for one of their former presidents (In total I think I have written about 10 articles for some of their dietitians). The Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics do not support Sbelknap's carnivore diet and wouldn't approve of him misrepresenting their review paper. No user is trying to block high-quality content on the SF article. Several users including myself have had to put up with Sbelknap's conspiracy theories and fringe claims for 2 months on the saturated fat talk-page. It is a repeat of what happened last year. Psychologist Guy (talk) 18:34, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is a *controversy* within science about saturated fat. That is the point made in the quote from the "Clinical Lipidology" textbook. The existence of a controversy is different from the development of a conclusion. There are several competing views, one of which is dominant. The saturated fat article would be improved by presenting the controversy.

Here is what WP:NPOV has to say about representing significant views on a topic:

"All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic."

Let's do that. sbelknap (talk) 18:52, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The viewpoint you are talking about is a minority fringe view, it does not challenge the guidelines. The medical consensus and guidelines are very clear on saturated fat. For example American Medical Association [109], British Dietetic Association [110], World Health Organization [111], NHS [112], Dietary Guidelines for Americans [113], Nordic Nutrition Recommendations 2023 [114] etc are all recommending people to limit consumption of saturated fat and replace it with monounsaturated and polyunsaturated fatty acids as high saturated fat consumption increases risk of CVD and other chronic diseases. This is not disputed by any medical organizations, I am in contact with many dietitians, it is commonly accepted and well-confirmed medical advice. There is a strong consensus on this. You have said you believe all the guidelines are flawed and the medical consensus is wrong but Wikipedia is not the place to promote your fringe view. We have been over this too many times, I will not waste anymore time on this as you are never going to listen. Psychologist Guy (talk) 19:38, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I'm astonished by what I'm reading here. Studies that challenge the received wisdom that a reduction in dietary saturated fat improves cardiovascular health are not "fringe theories". Has no one seen the Lancet article "Associations of fats and carbohydrate intake with cardiovascular disease and mortality in 18 countries from five continents (PURE): a prospective cohort study" which interpreted its findings as:

  High carbohydrate intake was associated with higher risk of total mortality, whereas total fat and individual types of fat were related to lower total mortality. Total fat and types of fat were not associated with cardiovascular disease, myocardial infarction, or cardiovascular disease mortality, whereas saturated fat had an inverse association with stroke. Global dietary guidelines should be reconsidered in light of these findings.

Or the PubMed article "Meta-analysis of prospective cohort studies evaluating the association of saturated fat with cardiovascular disease" that concluded:

A meta-analysis of prospective epidemiologic studies showed that there is no significant evidence for concluding that dietary saturated fat is associated with an increased risk of CHD or CVD.

Or the BMJ article "Re-evaluation of the traditional diet-heart hypothesis: analysis of recovered data from Minnesota Coronary Experiment (1968-73)" that concluded:

Available evidence from randomized controlled trials shows that replacement of saturated fat in the diet with linoleic acid effectively lowers serum cholesterol but does not support the hypothesis that this translates to a lower risk of death from coronary heart disease or all causes. Findings from the Minnesota Coronary Experiment add to growing evidence that incomplete publication has contributed to overestimation of the benefits of replacing saturated fat with vegetable oils rich in linoleic acid.

Carlstak (talk) 20:04, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're missing the point a bit... Sbelknap is being disruptive regardless of whether they're right or not, being right is not a get out of jail free card. This is not the place to discus underlying disputes in the literature, we're talking about user conduct so all parties should limit themselves to that as much as possible. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:08, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe the user is disruptive, but editors here keep referring to his views on saturated fats as "fringe", trying to cast the discussion that way. That seems prejudicial and unfounded to me. Carlstak (talk) 20:21, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Carlstak thanks for citing those but those studies have already been cited on the SF talk-page going back 5 years, none of that is new, nor is it good evidence. One of those papers was written by low-carb advocate Ronald Krauss who is funded by the beef industry. We do not cite industry funded research. The Re-evaluation of the Minnesota Coronary Experiment (1968-73) you cited is actually reliable if you wanted to create an article on that experiment (maybe I will create it one day) but it is looking at old data from the 1960s. It is not relevant to the saturated fat Wikipedia article, but maybe in a history section somewhere. If you look carefully at the control diet that experiment used it consisted of liquid coin oil poured onto "numerous food items (for example, salad dressings, filled beef (lean ground beef with added oil), filled milk, and filled cheeses)". That is laughable, we have come a long way since the 1960s. It's not surprising there was no CVD reduction. No control diet now will include some oil poured onto filled beef to reduce CVD risk.

If you had a valid case, the modern guidelines would have changed to support your view (yes it is a fringe view) and the AMA and all the medical organizations around the world would have changed their guidelines if you were really onto something but you are not. The real issue here is about Sbelknap's disruptive talk-page behaviour, I will not comment about SF here again. Psychologist Guy (talk) 21:01, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, thanks for your reply, Psychologist Guy, but it's not my view, I'm still trying to formulate one because my doctor gives me no information. ;-). I was pointing to what sources had said that seemed to contradict some of your statements, and the frequent mention of the word "fringe" that way. Carlstak (talk) 21:29, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Some engaged editors have dismissed high-quality secondary sources for specious reasons — ad hominem attacks on authors of meta-analyses or absurd claims that a journal was not a reliable source when it clearly is. The thing is, a meta-analysis is done in the open. Readers of a meta-analysis have access to the primary sources. There are high-quality meta-analyses of RCTs that used PRISMA guidelines and formed conclusions that are contrary to the consensus. These deserve consideration for inclusion in the saturated fat article; dismissing these for specious reasons is *not* good stewardship of wikipedia.

Some engaged editors dismiss these contrary articles because they contradict the consensus. How does that make any sense? Our goal is to write medical wikipedia articles that reflect the medical literature, including dissenting views. This is an essential point made in WP:NPOV. (and above by Carlstak and North8000)

It is worth noting that some people have ideological or religious worldviews that disapprove of meat-eating (veganism, social justice, global warming, animal rights, etc). Whether this applies to the saturated fat article is hard to say, as some engaged editors are anonymous and haven't disclosed their biases. But it is a concern that an editors worldview might affect his/her ability to maintain NPOV.

Regardless, I have used the talk page to conduct a respectful dialogue with other engaged editors on an important issue with the goal of improving the saturated fat article. Is that not what the talk page is for? How else do we make progress?

There is something very wrong about this. sbelknap (talk) 22:31, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I may not agree with some of Sbelknap's actions, but a reevaluation of the role of saturated fats in cardiovascular health is being misrepresented here as "fringe" by a vegan enthusiast and that label is being wielded as a club against the editor. The Journal of the American College of Cardiology has published a fairly recent (2020) paper, "Saturated Fats and Health: A Reassessment and Proposal for Food-Based Recommendations: JACC State-of-the-Art Review" which is summarized in its abstract as:

The recommendation to limit dietary saturated fatty acid (SFA) intake has persisted despite mounting evidence to the contrary. Most recent meta-analyses of randomized trials and observational studies found no beneficial effects of reducing SFA intake on cardiovascular disease (CVD) and total mortality, and instead found protective effects against stroke.

It is true that one of the article's authors, Ronald Krauss, has admitted that he has received grants from the National Cattlemen's Beef Association and National Dairy Council, but he has also said in a 2019 interview: "Diets should be limited as much as possible in simple sugars and highly processed grain products. And diets that are rich in plant-based food sources are desirable. A third recommendation would be to avoid high intake of red meat and substitute fish, which has been associated with reduced heart disease risk." Carlstak (talk) 01:43, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What is the obsession with spamming in abstracts here? Is it an attempt to drown out the voting? That workshop paper is the very definition of WP:Fringe, it has been discussed before on WikiProject Medicine [115] in 2021, there was a strong consensus not to include it. "The workshop was funded by the Nutrition Coalition—a nonprofit nonpartisan educational organization". Nutrition Coalition is owned by Nina Teicholz and run by Mark Hyman. It receives funding from the beef industry. This thread has been advertised on various low-carb forums. I am concerned there may be an issue of meat-puppetry here. Psychologist Guy (talk) 03:11, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Meat-puppetry? Good lord, good luck with that. Nice pun, though. Carlstak (talk) 03:23, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

PS: Evidence, diffs for an insinuation of meat-puppetry? This appears to be concern-trolling to establish a pretext for flinging baseless insinuations. Carlstak (talk) 04:33, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Psychologist Guy: Would it be possible to name and shame these threads? (A permanent archive of them using the internet archive or archive.is would be good as well). Hemiauchenia (talk) 04:13, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There are at least 5 Reddit boards advertising this discussion, it may also be on Twitter (I do not have a Reddit account so do not have full access) but here are just two examples [116], [117]. We had this sort of sad behaviour before a few years ago regarding the carnivore diet and saturated fat articles and a couple of accounts were blocked. Psychologist Guy (talk) 14:33, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up.

I did a search on reddit and found this [[118]]

I responded with facts, as is my way. Facts are stubborn things.

Is the pile-on against me on this TBAN thread coordinated? (Can't prove it but sure seems fishy.) My understanding is that this sort of behavior is contrary to wikipedia policy.

There is something very wrong here. sbelknap (talk) 20:12, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

How do you mean it "seems coordinated" and "fishy", User:Sbelknap? Please explain with examples before you make any other edits, or I will block you for egregious aspersions and assumptions of bad faith. Bishonen | tålk 21:07, 7 October 2023 (UTC).[reply]

• Some have accused me of promoting fringe science when I clearly am not, as other posters on the saturated fat talk page have presented similar points and as other posters this thread have noted. There is a legitimate dispute regarding the toxicity of saturated fat in the medical literature.

• The reasons for rejecting my high-quality citations on the saturated fat talk page seem specious to me: ad hominem attacks on one of the authors of a meta-analysis, Steven Hemley.

• This attack on me on Reddit, which seems to be pointing people to come here to this noticeboard and pile on:

https://www.reddit.com/r/ketoduped/comments/1728juk/carnivore_diet_doctor_stephen_m_belknap/

• (Striken, as per suggestion from Schazjmd.)

@Sbelknap, I suggest striking that last bullet as your link fails to support your claim. Hemiauchenia actively and frequently edits in many areas; your link to the history of Hemiauchenia's user page doesn't mean anything, many editors seldom edit their own user page. Schazjmd (talk) 23:13, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks. Didn't realize that. sbelknap (talk) 00:37, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's not "striking", User:Sbelknap. You are an experienced user; you should know better than to simply remove a point by yourself that has been criticized. Striking means to put a line through the text, like this. Since Hemiauchenia of course posted above in this thread - that was part of your point - it's an enigma how you could think that a history showing them not posting since May 2022 was relevant, and that example of illogic ought to have been left on this page. Bishonen | tålk 08:13, 8 October 2023 (UTC).[reply]

@Psychologist Guy: Seems to me that the appropriate place to have this discussion is at WP:AE. Sbelknap has been made aware of the discretionary sanctions in this topic area and that gives admins quite a bit more leeway at nipping disruptiveness in the bud. jps (talk) 20:30, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Does diet stuff count as a WP:CT? I've often thought it a problem that is doesn't. Am I wrong? Bon courage (talk) 20:35, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What, User:Bon courage? That's a link to Wikipedia:Citation templates. If you're referring to contentious topics, here's a list of those topics (scroll down). Diet stuff isn't on the list, but pseudoscience is. Bishonen | tålk 21:07, 7 October 2023 (UTC).[reply]

That's what I was thinking. Fad diet, of course, is covered under such restrictions, but I think it's pretty clear that this WP:ADVOCACY being described is in the service of fad diets whether the account at issue denies that this is their POV or not. On the other hand, I realize that the notices given to this account were for American politics and gender/sexuality and not pseudoscience. So... maybe someone should warn them about this other area subject to discretionary sanctions? Sometimes here I feel like I'm at the DMV. jps (talk) 21:18, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And on that note, I notified them of the coverage of their edits under the contentious topics umbrella. Now I guess the clock is started for proper WP:AE involvement in this area? But I guess this thread is still here (though perhaps it should have been opened at WP:AN instead). Have fun everyone! This has been a real joy to slog through. jps (talk) 21:56, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not entirely sure diets do fall under ps, even arguments about macronutrient ratios. I've long-thought human nutrition should be explicitly a CTOP as it's a locus of just so much trouble. Bon courage (talk) 02:59, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops, I meant WP:CTOP ! Bon courage (talk) 01:32, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support topic ban from saturated fat, broadly construed. Sbelknap keeps missing the point that this ban is proposed over his conduct and not whether he is right or not.--Jasper Deng (talk) 23:55, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  You are correct. This is because I am unaware of any conduct that is inappropriate.

  I've conducted a respectful discussion on the saturated fat talk page. I have not made controversial edits to the saturated fat article. (except for adding the NPOV tag, which seemed appropriate given the situation). I've presented high-quality peer-reviewed citations supporting my claim that there is a *controversy* on the toxicity of saturated fat and that this controversy is not reflected in the article.

  What is the conduct to which you refer? sbelknap (talk) 00:44, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This user has vandalized the page of Ethiopia, also promoting hate speech through their comments seen in this revision off of what they added in this revision: [119]

The revisions include changing the common name to "Raw Meat Eaters" The long name name to "Aidsthopia" The leader to "Negro Zoothopian" and vandalism of the religious numbers.

The edit summary is "Idk I hate ethiopia" clearly showing this user has no intent toward working on an encyclopedia based off their edits and this edit summary. Noorullah (talk) 18:41, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I see that the edit in question has been reverted. What further action do you think should be taken now, given that the edit was unregistered and no further edits seem to have been made from this IP address? Phil Bridger (talk) 18:55, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Phil Bridger Maybe a temporary IP block? Noorullah (talk) 18:59, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Specifically a Range block. @Phil Bridger Noorullah (talk) 19:00, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In my view, when vandalism is combined with racist hate speech, action is called for. I've blocked the IP editor for 31 hours. Cullen328 (talk) 19:08, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gangster1232231 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

See edit summaries at Simko Shikak revolt (1918–1922)[120], as well as editor contributions as a whole. Vand, RGWs, NOTHERE, take your pick. Also compare to previously blocked user:Ash20055.  // Timothy :: talk  23:28, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked per WP:DUCK, protected the page as well, this may be worth reporting at WP:SPI for future reference, they seem pretty persistent. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:37, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User was warned in the past for repeated attempts to add poorly sourced information to List of 2023 albums, and was previously reported for edit warring but let off for no violation (both warning and report by me). Today, they've come back to the list with this edit making the same violation of adding an album with a social media source, despite there being reliable sources available in this case. They also created Draft:DJ Play a Christmas Song (song) and DJ Play a Christmas Song, the former with no sources and the latter with just the same social media post as the list. It has been explained before that social media posts do not convey notability, and the editor has acknowledged these warnings so it seems reasonable to say they should understand the problem, but they've continued to make the same violation. I haven't looked through the rest of their edits, but I wouldn't be surprised if the same violation could be found even more often than this. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 00:15, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Worth noting that User:Cherfan101 may be the same editor's prior account (the writing style of their edit summaries reads as similar to me), so any violations made through that account may also apply to this report. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 00:20, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely passes the duck test. Similar username, similar edits, similar writing style. If one account is blocked, than the other also should be. JML1148 ^{(talk | contribs)} 05:51, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• I have an unrelated question. Why does List of 2023 albums exist? It's obviously incomplete (I've just looked for the last two albums I bought and neither is on there despite both having articles), and is always going to be; it clearly suffers from systemic bias (it might as well be called "List of Anglophone 2023 albums") and one could argue that it's spurious to the category 2023 albums. I simply don't see the point of it. Black Kite (talk) 07:16, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @Black Kite It provides more information on a single page than any category could which is an immediate, obvious advantage. There's a much larger point to be made about systemic bias and how all of Wikipedia suffers from it, as does all of everything in society, but let me just leave that there for now. I could also point to at least a dozen Spanish and Korean-language albums on that list. As for incompleteness, so is the rest of this site; there's a reason {{dynamic list}} exists and is currently applied to nearly 10,000 pages. If there's something you don't see on any given list which you believe should be there, you can either add it yourself or put in an edit request for it. In fact, you can just tell me right here what those two albums you're specifically thinking of are, and I'll look into it for you. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 07:23, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I'm at loss here. Over a month ago I made multiple edits with sources to the article Rurik. They were almost immediately undone under pretence of existing consensus. We had a 3RR dispute and I refrained from making any other changes until discussion is complete.

Unfortunately despite me starting discussion as opposing editor had asked and despite me providing both sources and pointing to wiki rules, other editor continued to point to "existing consensus" (note there weren't any prior discussions about edited parts and I didn't remove any information in the article that wasn't there already) and rules that despite me asking were never provided. After we had restarted our discussion, opposing editor had abandoned it just after a few messages. I checked English wiki from time to time and patiently waited for a reply. Unfortunately there wasn't any and today saw that it had been almost 4 weeks since I got no response. Given that I had assumed that discussion is basically over as opposing editor had refrained from it. And I have returned my prior edits since no one else objected them. As you may have guessed, he undid them and pointed me to WP:CON.

At this point:

1. Discussion? He says he doesn't want it. Even when we did discuss the topic all I got was generic pointing to Wiki rules and mixed questions and decisions. Like for example current article in the lead mentions only Rurik's descendant Tsar of Russia:

• Me: After split of Kievan Rus there was not one but two Russia's: Eastern and Western. Since we're including info about Eastern counterparts, we need to include info on Western counterparts
  
• Him: quote: "Tsardom of Russia is mentioned because the last Rurikid monarch"
  
• Me: Provides him with sources that he in fact wasn't and saying so that means that we will have to remove Tsar of Russia from the lead
  
• Him: full reverse. Let's add all important heads of states-descendants of Rurik

2. Consensus? The thing is that for him "existing consensus" exists only for me. For some reason it doesn't exist for him himself. He doesn't see a problem himself making new edits. Not only that, after undoing my todays edit he went on to return one of the "not consensus" edits just in his own phrasing. And when I had asked him this info violated WP:CON when I had added and his didn't, he just removed my question without answering.

3. Interpretation of Wikipedia's guidelines? Current lead of the article includes 4 variations of the name Rurik. Two of them are "English" and two are Russian transliterations with a separate footnote for Slavic language transliterations including Russian one with that is already in the lead. As I see no reason to keep redundant info in the lead so I had moved Russian transliterations into single footnote with other Slavic transliterations. But yet again I was denied with quote "see WP:ALTNAMES". I open that guideline and it says: "Do not include foreign equivalents in the text of the lead sentence for alternative names or for particularly lengthy names, as this clutters the lead sentence and impairs readability. Do not include foreign equivalents in the lead sentence just to show etymology. Foreign-language names should be moved to a footnote or elsewhere in the article if they would otherwise clutter the first sentence.". When I had pointed that these guidelines including ones from Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Biography are being violated all I got was quote: "OK, thanks for confirming what I originally said about the alt names.". Like what?

Please advise on how to proceed? I don't want to start another edit war and at the same time with such behaviour or approach discussion leads nowhere. The only option he had offered is WP:3PO, but the thing is that he had said he doesn't want to discuss and also that we almost have no argument about the facts itself. The issue is with his interpretation of Wikipedia's guidelines and wanting to exclude me adding any non-Eastern Russia-related info. I mean I twice asked if he wants to remove all "descendants" and "legacy" parts from the article for that matter altogether to drop this, but its always silence until we go back about adding info about descendants from Western Russia.

Korwinski (talk) 07:22, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This editor made changes to the article then was blocked for violating 3RR after which they made a retaliatory WP:AN3 report (where no action was taken) and proceeded to launch personal attacks on me and called me a coward. They were warned about this but still doubled down on it (I am not sure how many warnings they got). After the 3RR report, where they were suggested to go through WP:3PO, they decided to open an arbitration request, which, unsurprisingly was declined. Of course, I lost interest in trying to have a discussion in them and suggested to them again to go through 3PO. I will note again that this kind of long-term edit warring is nothing new for them. Mellk (talk) 14:10, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We both violated edit warring rules and it was acknowledged by reviewing admin. The only difference is that I did three reverts within 24 hours and you had waited for it to be a bit over 24 hours and while I was still blocked. As I had mentioned I stepped down and refrained from making any further accusations or edits on that page until issue will be resolved in discussion. Which wasn't as opposing editor abandoned discussion without saying a word. As for the rest, I can point to bad faith actions made by him, the misinterpritation regarding arbitration request as it was not regarding directly about Mellk but about two other admins actions (see here), intimidation warning messages that he sends to all editors he has any kind conflict or the fact that he points to edits made over a year ago about another topic that had Dispute resolution that didn't find me guilty of anything. But to be honest, I don't see the reason to.

It is all irrelevant, because this request is not about that but about current edits. You point to WP:3PO and that same time you neither participate in the discussion (like what exactly third editor should consider or review? You left without any summary and any position) nor read what the guidelines you point to say: For more complex disputes that involve more than two editors, or that cannot be resolved through talk page discussion, editors should follow the other steps in the dispute resolution process such as the dispute resolution noticeboard or request for comment. As it cannot be resolved on the talk page, I had started this topic on dispute resolution noticeboard.

That said, your position is yet again to attack me personally regarding my past actions instead of sticking with the topic of discussion and providing actual answers to your actions. Can we finally hear your position as to:

• Why is it a violation of WP:CON when I add info to the topic, but its not when you add the same information to the same article but in your own phrasing?
• Why despite guidelines of WP:ALTNAMES you insist on ignoring them? And not only keeping 4 versions of the same name but with also one of them already duplicated in footnotes?
• Why do you oppose adding information regarding Western Russia with comments like "its not topic of the article", but at the same insist on keeping "not topic of the article" information about Eastern Russia? Korwinski (talk) 19:56, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

UPD. Upon looking into Wikipedia guidelines, I stumbled upon Wikipedia:Silence and consensus and it says:

Consensus arising from silence evaporates when an editor changes existing content or objects to it.

As there was no prior discussion of the parts of the article that I had edited, currently in fact there isn't a consensus on these part. And a silent consensus that was there had evaporated the moment I started editing them. So claim that I had violated WP:CON is not true. Latter one says:

Consensus on Wikipedia does not require unanimity

As there's no one else objecting to my edits and opposing editor doesn't want to take part in the discussion, that leaves only me and my vote. So reverts in this case are obviously a case of Wikipedia:Disruptive editing.

Korwinski (talk) 14:48, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Here are just a few of their malicious edits that I was able to quickly identify.

The article cited is here, https://www.livemint.com/science/health/the-dangerous-failure-to-stop-tainted-remdesivir-11640197634967.html

1. I wrote, Zydus responded by saying they had not seen similar adverse reactions to their remdesivir elsewhere—a false statement. This is clearly supported by the source, as it says Cadila responded saying they had not seen similar adverse events elsewhere—an incorrect statement.

2. I wrote, Due to the lack of follow-up data from those who received Zydus' tainted remdesivir during the chaotic period of the COVID-19 pandemic, it may never be possible to determine the total death toll resulting from the use of Zydus' tainted Remdesivir. These stories played out in states all over India.

This is also clearly supported by the source, as it says:

2a. Pal and his colleagues realized that some ingredient in this batch of the popular antiviral was triggering the reaction. But it was tough to say what. It was a chaotic period, Pal recalls. Hospital beds were full, and doctors had little time to investigate further. "Managing so many covid patients was already a challenge. So, when the drug-reaction occurred, all we could do was to report it and treat it."

2b But what happened in Jhansi was just the tip of the iceberg. Unknown to Pal, in May 2021, over a dozen hospitals across Uttar Pradesh, Rajasthan, Maharashtra, Gujarat and Bihar reported patients falling similarly sick after getting remdesivir. The batches and formulations overlapped, and the manufacturer was always Cadila.

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

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

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

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

I'm familiar with how Indian companies manipulate Wikipedia entries to remove criticism in the guise of legitimate edits: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adani_Group#Manipulating_Wikipedia_entries. This person's first edits in the Zydus Lifesciences page with edit summaries like "rm BS unattributed claims..." completely butchered the Controversies section without even bothering to read the cited source. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zydus_Lifesciences&diff=1177914163&oldid=1177626250. This was not a constructive or factual edit, and it showed a lack of respect for other users.

I only wrote this much here because the subject is related to medicine, specifically contaminated and adulterated medicine. This problem is widespread in this region and has a great impact on the health and well-being of people worldwide because Indian medicine is exported globally. I wouldn't care every much if the topic was about shoes. It would be nice if a senior Wikipedia editor could kindly share their thoughts on this matter.

When people encounter tainted medicine, it's important to ACCURATELY record the incident. Given the billions of US$ at stake in global medicine sales, Indian companies have strong incentives to eliminate any criticism of them. Wikipedia may or may not be the appropriate platform for recording such historical records.

Maybe I should have provided more examples to support my case. This person has never taken the time to research and write an article; they haven't even bothered to read the cited articles before making their edits. Their contributions have been limited to minor edits, so I can only assess these edits. I have provided four examples below; let me know if you need more.

1. (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zydus_Lifesciences&diff=prev&oldid=1178272151). An Ahmedabad doctor stated that "in the confusion of the pandemic, it was hard to attribute the death to either underlying covid co-morbidities or to the medicine". His edit is not a replacement for the death toll of the contaminated Remdesivir.

2. (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zydus_Lifesciences&diff=prev&oldid=1177626250). They butchered the entire edit with a nasty comment. I undid this edit and warned him.

3. (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Toxic_cough_syrup&diff=1178044776&oldid=1177629563). Their entire edit was messed up. They didn't even bother to read the articles they cited. And part of their edit wasn't even related to the Wikipedia article they were editing (they talked about contaminated heart medicine). I fixed it with the help of another editor—Most people can tell that this was not a good edit.

4. (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pakistan_at_the_2022_Asian_Games&diff=prev&oldid=1177153375). Most of this edit was good: The Pakistan Sports Board (PSB) confirmed that they are sending 222 athletes and 65 officials to the event. Unfortunately, the Pakistani gymnastics and baseball teams will not be able to participate in the tournament due to lack of funds which the sports board had refused to allocate. A simple Google search provides a source for the above information: https://www.bolnews.com/sports/2023/07/222-pakistani-athletes-set-to-compete-in-asian-games-2023/, but he removed the entire edit and the information about the athletes who will not be able to participate has been lost.

Turk185 (talk) 07:13, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple personal attacks against me in talk page while trying to explain WP:SYNTH and WP:RSP. "add new sources to support your claims, otherwise do not simply revert because it confirms how incompetent you are to say the least! "[121] "It is funny that this Ecrusized consider SOHR is reliable meanwhile Mayadeen is deprecated! Anyway, AP News should be the source to keep, does not matter what SOHR and their fan boys want to maintain here."[122] Ecrusized (talk) 10:34, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For everyone's reference, these are the relevant logs:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2023_Homs_drone_strike&action=history
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2023_Homs_drone_strike

Borgenland (talk) 10:58, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of finding a solution to maintain a mutual-consent version, they came here to complain, like the saying he hit me first then crawled away crying. We only edit here to provide a correct version to readers, I do not care about others' feelings. You can take into consideration that complaining user aimed to maintain an outdated unreliable version and kept reverting back to it. After several attempts, I tried reason with them by initiating a discussion on the relevant talkpage, yet they were only concerned to enforce their own version. I would not have written any remarks, unless they tried to ignore my warnings even in the edit summary. Their behaviour is unacceptable, and if you try to discuss something here, do not forget that they initiated the edit conflict in the first place. 2A02:908:4E3:9520:DD40:507C:B7CE:F490 (talk) 11:13, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this needs to be here but your comments on the talk page are definitely uncivil. It doesn't matter whether you "care about others' feelings". You need to obey our policies and guidelines which means civilly discussing disputes with other editors. If you're unable or unwilling to do that, then you can desist from editing Wikipedia. Nil Einne (talk) 11:23, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Nil Einne: Uncivil! Like what? writing them they were incompetent, I was not rude, I was giving an honest opinion! plus I do not have to obey anything, I am not your slave here. Choose your words wisely next time or desist from using a keyboard. 2A02:908:4E3:9520:DD40:507C:B7CE:F490 (talk) 11:32, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately that's the exact language that is landing you in this problem. No one verbatim said that you were a slave. I've had several run-ins honestly and regardless of whether one is right any namecalling or explicitly deprecatory language is quite unbecoming of an editor. Borgenland (talk) 11:48, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I admit I could have phrased that better but the point is that while you don't have to obey anyone, you do have to follow our rules and guidelines if you want to edit here. If you refuse to follow our policies and guidelines you have only two choices. The far better choice for everyone is if just voluntarily stop editing. The alternative is we forcefully stop you from editing here via blocks etc. Nil Einne (talk) 15:08, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As Borgenland said your response was over the top no matter that my initial reply was phrased poorly. And for examples from that discussion, your very first comment to that talk page is uncivil [123] "If you want to contribute positively here" ... "it confirms how incompetent you are to say the lest!". Later you said [124] "does not matter what SOHR and their fan boys want to maintain here". The first time I read this I misunderstood and thought SOHR was referring to an editor not a source but it doesn't matter much because "fan boys want to maintain here" is clearly referring to editors. A source cannot maintain anything here/on Wikipedia. If you want to insult a source, whatever. But don't insult your fellow editors. Then there's the "it is funny" comment highlighted by the OP above. Nil Einne (talk) 15:20, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

They're repeating harmful edits and reverts with invalid reasons. UA0Volodymyr (talk) 11:38, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You've provided no evidence of this. But even if true, why is this a matter for WP:ANI instead of WP:AIV? --Yamla (talk) 11:41, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence is all their contributions since the end of previous block. That's not actually a vandalism, that's non-consensus edits with an unwillingness to seek consensus, personal attacks and assumptions of bad faith. UA0Volodymyr (talk) 11:49, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, this seems to be in retaliation to the above thread, User:UA0Volodymyr. No need for a new thread. --Yamla (talk) 11:43, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Great, in that case @Ymblanter already accepted the possibility of new and longer block. UA0Volodymyr (talk) 11:51, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

i really wish we could find a quick and easy way to stop this. it's not fun to have to open every page with the screen facing away from others just because of the possibility of someone who thinks they are funny putting a phallus where it doesn't belong. DrowssapSMM (say hello) 13:51, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Part of it is the photos should be deleted at Commons, but that's fighting a losing battle. RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:52, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

maybe group the ability to add photos to articles as part of the extended-confirmed ability bundle? that could provide a temporary solution until we identify the sockmaster (might be overkill though) DrowssapSMM (say hello) 13:55, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It would also be nice if the right to self-blank a user talk page is made stricter. A lot of these accounts try to hide traces of their activity by blanking their warnings and pretending to be innocuous users. Borgenland (talk) 15:58, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For this sort of vandalism, just ignore the talk page; porn vandals can be blocked without any warning. Go straight to WP:AIV. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 20:09, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Borgenland I agree. You find someone's talk page that looks like it's never been edited but if you look at teh history it's full of warnings. That's ridiculous. Doug Weller talk 12:53, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I do wonder if we should implement a Commons whitelist, i.e. everything from Commons is disallowed unless added to a list here at enwiki. It certainly might make the people at Commons who clearly don't give a shit about being a porn repository think again. Black Kite (talk) 22:40, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

i feel like that would work very well, good idea DrowssapSMM (say hello) 00:15, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't there the Bad Image List? Or am I missing something? --Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 01:48, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You are. The Bad Image List forbids a very very few bad images, that were identified after already having been abused. A MediaWiki:Good Image List would forbid every image except for a very very few pre-vetted images. It's not workable, which I'd hope would be obvious; but if anyone needs convincing, enwiki currently uses close to 7 million different files from Commons, out of close to a hundred million total. Besides, people would just switch to overwriting images already in use instead of uploading new filenames. —Cryptic 02:17, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GPT-4, which of these images is not like the others? Suffusion of Yellow (talk)

Are were seriously incapable in 2023 of using AI to analyze an image of a dick and require someone have more than 3 edits before adding it to an article?--v/r - TP 05:28, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fwiw, here's a human analysis of an image of a dick:[125]. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:26, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Very much not my field, but I'd guess that analyzing image contents - even if only done when uploaded or overwritten - would be too expensive. And while you'd think we'd be able to use the abuse filter to easily prevent adding images the same way we can with external links, but there's no provision for it. We can go through the motions of wishlisting either or both, I guess. —Cryptic 16:24, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

MusikAnimal was working on this a while ago. The idea was to make a "NSFW score" available to AbuseFilter with each edit that adds an image. The resource requirements would, I imagine, depend of the size of model being used. If we have a mechanism to manually tag images like this as "not porn", it doesn't need to be totally accurate. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 22:21, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the comments at that bug and the linked discussion at Commons are depressing. And entirely predictable. —Cryptic 22:46, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I wasn't entirely serious; any such idea would have to implemented at Commons, which isn't going to happen before the heat death of the universe. Black Kite (talk) 09:15, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That would stop most images and make it the project very dull. Secretlondon (talk) 10:34, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well, no, because any image that obviously wasn't disruptive would be added to the theoretical whitelist. However, as mentioned above, it isn't really feasible due to the scale that would be required. So we'll just have to cope with Commons porn for a while yet. Black Kite (talk) 13:15, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Commons is too busy fighting Jimbo over keeping illustrated child porn for that. RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:39, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, what — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:36, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm trying to find the link, was brought up sometime back, about this whole issue with porn pics being used for vandalism. Apparently they were fighting w/ Jimbo for keeping "lolicon" basically. RickinBaltimore (talk) 22:41, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I feel like it might be workable by using a combination of the above suggestions.

• Run a bot that determines all commons images currently linked at Wikipedia.
• Additionally, have a list of existing "high-risk" images that are currently linked at Wikipedia (ie. images used on intrinsically sexual articles that might be used for spam elsewhere.)
• The bot then prevents non-extended-confirmed users from adding images to articles that aren't on the "currently used" list, or which are on the "high-risk" list.

This might sound slightly convoluted but it would cover most cases with comparatively little effort and wouldn't get in the way of normal editing. New users would still be able to add images in two ways (reusing an existing image, provided it's not on the "danger" list; or uploading an image to Wikipedia directly) and in truth that's probably the main way they add images anyway. Since it doesn't affect extended-confirmed users, images would also continuously be vetted and added to the whitelist from commons by extended-confirmed users linking them, without having to maintain a whitelist manually. All we would have to do (once the bot is set up) is maintain the "danger list", which wouldn't be that hard. --Aquillion (talk) 01:53, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This IP-based account has been active for ~2 days, and in that time has not made a single fact-based edit. The edits have primarily been in favor of the New Zealand national futsal team, and have consisted almost exclusively of incorrect scores. The incident that made me aware of this was the most recent on, where they edited the 2023 OFC Futsal Nations Cup to show New Zealand winning the final by a score of 7-0. The final has not yet taken place. This user is not here to help Wikipedia and expand it as an encyclopedia, only to make random edits. Yoblyblob (talk) 12:26, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Have you tried reporting it to AIV for disruptive edits? Borgenland (talk) 16:07, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• 2400:2413:8340:BA12::/64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · block user · block log)

This IP has been inserting BLP violations into Momoiro Clover Z: adding Nanako Fujita as an "orange" member (when Nanako Fujita is a horse racer, a completely different occupation), and (twice) merging the former members table into the current members table to imply that the two former members have not quit. I have undone these edits all under WP:3RRBLP, notwithstanding the 1RR restriction on that article.

I just issued some warnings, but then had a look at their Japanese Wikipedia contribution history and see they are blocked for 3 months for trolling, and block evading ja:Special:Contribs/2400:2413:9483:7B00::/64 which was doing the same antics on the Japanese Momoiro Clover Z article. In light of that, it's clear that they are WP:NOTHERE and should be blocked here as well accordingly. It is not possible to cover both IPv6 ranges with less than a /39 block, so just block them separately if the need to block both arises.Jasper Deng (talk) 12:30, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jhingur Mahan Chand (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

An allegedly new contributor, who in the space of two days has been spamming Wikipedia with endless badly-sourced and grossly promotional articles, along with at least one blatant hoax (the now-deleted Draft:Maximo Group Network which claimed that an obscure or possibly non-existent Brazilian music company owned DHL Group). The user has repeatedly moved content from draft space into main after being told it is unacceptable. The user has also blatantly misrepresented sources as supporting content they say nothing about.

There are also strong grounds to suspect sockpuppetry and paid editing, given the apparent familiarity with article creation process if not Wikipedia policy on appropriate content, and given the intersections with other contributors, which suggest a sockfarm (see threads on User talk:Sphilbrick[126] and User talk:Bbb23[127])

Please forgive me if I don't provide diffs - they are in my opinion redundant, since selecting more or less any edit of Jhingur Mahan Chand's at random will lead directly to content that is contrary to Wikipedia policy in one way or another. The user is pumping out promotional garbage faster than it is possible to properly check and needs stopping immediately. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:28, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Deleting a PROD notice with the ES "Paid fluff removed" isn't an encouraging sign (diff1). Nor is this ES "Reference added" (-256 bytes) (diff2). Narky Blert (talk) 13:34, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Support block. User is clearly WP:NOT HERE. Creating unnecessary burden on volunteer editors by their Useless contributions. Maliner (talk) 13:42, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Support block.--S Philbrick(Talk) 15:41, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just as a note, I've indef'd the user. They can find somewhere else to promote. RickinBaltimore (talk) 15:43, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. Someone with the necessary tools might well find a checkuser SPI productive, per earlier discussions linked above. I have a suspicion this might have been a sock of sockmaster User:KibangaWiki, or at least connected in some way, and there may well be other accounts about. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:55, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User:HKGBIGHAM appears to be WP:NOTHERE, as they're continuously adding unsourced material to Pava LaPere, despite being warned on their talk page and having their edits reverted by me and Annwfwn. Isi96 (talk) 02:34, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is a new editor with just 10 edits. They’ve gotten 2 warnings about “disruptive edits” but no explanation about what was disruptive about them. I suggest you nicely explain the idea of citing reliable sources to them before escalating further.

Thanks for caring about our articles.

—A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 04:02, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have blocked HKGBIGHAM for edit warring and persistently adding unreferenced contentious material to the biography of a recent murder victim. Welcoming new editors is well and good, but we cannot allow overt and unreferenced POV pushing in an article that the murder victim's family and friends are likely to read. Cullen328 (talk) 05:26, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think the block was correct, and I truly thank @Isi96 for patrolling the article. I also agree with @A. B. here. Isi96 initially added a warning about reliable sources, but then removed it after adding a disruptive editing warning, likely before the user saw it. I think the {{subst:Uw-unsourced1}} approach would be a softer escalation without reducing our ability to protect Wikipedia and its readers.

And to be clear I believe Isi96's actions were entirely good faith and within policy, even the 4 reverts were within WP:3RRNO, so this is just a retrospective look to suggest where editors can do a bit better next time. —siroχo 05:34, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Seconded. There's a difference between a good faith editor getting lost - and someone using Wikipedia to push their politics on a recently deceased person because they want to get their kicks at some perceived irony that makes them squeamishly happy about being such a fucking racist. We need to spend 0 effort "welcoming" racist assholes.--v/r - TP 05:37, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at User talk:HKGBIGHAM, is 72 hours enough? User is offering threats that were repeated at UTRS. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 12:14, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely time for a WP:NOTHERE block. I'll go do the honours. --Yamla (talk) 12:17, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have revdel'd the BLP violations. Feel free to undo if you so desire. @Yamla: thanks -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 12:19, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, I think the disruptive editing warnings and blocks are--- suboptimal. They convey no meaningful information. We should use descriptive warnings and blocks-- unsourced content, edit warring, etc. with perhaps an unsourced welcome. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 12:23, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User received "unsourced" welcome in 2016. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 12:32, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

When I first looked at HKGBIGHAM’s edits, I naively thought “that’s nice, Ms. LaPere was a supporter of racial justice”. After the comments above about racism, I went and checked online —there’s an awful meme going around racist websites about Ms. LaPere. I stand corrected — y’all were absolutely right about coming down hard on HKGBIGHAM. This was vicious disruptive editing, not ignorance. I’m fine with a triple-indef superblock. —A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 14:14, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I find it interesting that this account made edits on a random soccer player 7 years ago, never edited since, then all of sudden makes these edits. Almost would guarantee this was WP:COMPROMISED. (Side note: Ms. LaPere's death is a HUGE story here. Not surprised that the trolls are pulling this.) RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:27, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There's a certain, je ne sais quoi about this. An LTA sort of feel. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:37, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly, I've seen this on other sites where admins confirmed it was not a case of a user being compromised, just the same person (apparently radicalized) remembering they had an account somewhere & deciding to go on a crusade. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:47, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User:ChineseMan26

ChineseMan26 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 113.197.13.148 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 118.102.87.42 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

ChineseMan26 has violated WP:NPOV, WP:3RR, WP:PA, and possibly WP:LOUTSOCK.

He has pushed his POV on several articles, personally deciding who was actually an emperor and arbitrarily deciding what constitutes an empire. There is clearly significant bias here. Here are some examples (please read his edit summaries): [128][129][130][131][132]

He has repeatedly deleted properly sourced content, simply ignoring what others say. For example, here I explained to him that what he's deleting is sourced and valid.[133] He totally disregards WP:RS. Now he has performed more than three series of reverts on Korean imperial titles within a 24-hour period.[134][135][136][137]

He has now accused others of being "ultranationalists". He said "Lol, Korean ultranationalists got mad by my edits". This is in response to my response, where I simply asked had he read the article because it mentions why Korean Kings were called Son of Heaven domestically. [138]

I think he possibly edited while logged out. The first IP I posted has edited several of the same pages shortly after ChineseMan26 in the same manner. And the second IP I posted has done the exact same edit as ChineseMan26.[139][140] [141]

He stubbornly engages in denialism about Tibet. August: [142][143][144][145] October: [146][147] He clearly has an agenda, this has clearly been proven by academics that there Tibet has been sinicized regardless of our opinions and beliefs on it.

I mentioned that because he claims he is a neutral party[148] while accusing OTHERS of being "ultranationalists". I want to emphasize I myself am NOT a Korean ultranationalist and do not support the territorial expansion or any ethnic/cultural superiority of Korea. Meanwhile however, he has labeled himself a Chinese nationalist on what I'm assuming was a draft of his Wikipedia profile.[149] (see the categories)

I think they also did WP:NOTHERE.Sunnyediting99 (talk) 12:20, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(Non-administrator comment) I looked into his editing histories for a bit. I think @ChineseMan26 is at least *confused* or *unaware*, for they are quite strict on the usage of the "emperor" title and on whether some states would be classified an empire. I suppose that the user is not fully aware on how English Wikipedia works, as what they have done can be more described as a selective clean-up regarding their own criteria. If a state has proclaimed itself to be an empire, or if someone uses the title "Son of Heaven", as long as there are reliable sources supporting the information, Wikipedia can include it. Applying a selective criteria of emperorship is a type of POV. I hope the user becomes aware of this. -- TheLonelyPather (talk) 14:27, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• I've blocked ChineseMan26 for 31 hours for the personal attack and incivility exhibited in the edit summary of this edit. I haven't looked into the other matters here, but any repeat of an edit summary like that will be met with a substantially longer block. Girth Summit _(blether) 15:24, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There appears to be a single person who is making changes using this range in Indonesia. This person has been warned multiple times, but continues to make disruptive changes, which range from outright vandalism (e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Windows_8&diff=prev&oldid=1177147146) to subtle changes of numbers and figures in articles without citation (e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Locana&diff=prev&oldid=1178409750). They switch from IP addresses within this range making it difficult to warn them consistently. This range appears to already be partially blocked, I would recommend considering a more thorough block. I am leaving notification at User talk:2001:448A:50E1:EFCC:DDCB:A531:43C5:B2DF. Vt320 (talk) 16:45, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Vt320: Can you have a comprehensive list of the IP's involved? I doubt a full /32 range is needed; the two IP's in these diffs can be covered by a single /47. A full block of a /32 needs CheckUser involvement to clear it of collateral damage.--Jasper Deng (talk) 18:26, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There are slightly different patterns within the range. None of it helpful, but possibly different people. I've blocked 2001:448A:5070:3656:0:0:0:0/64 for a week; they've been disrupting Michelin star articles for the last couple of days. And I've blocked 2001:448A:50E1:EFCC:0:0:0:0/64 for six months; their interest seems to mainly football and they've been on that /64 since August. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:27, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, some of the IPs involved are:

* Special:Contributions/2001:448A:11A3:1754:B03C:959:89CB:7DFD

* Special:Contributions/2001:448A:11A2:1972:748F:59AA:F5ED:5592

* Special:Contributions/2001:448A:11A4:1821:8C9:FAF4:1C87:79D0

* Special:Contributions/2001:448A:11A2:1E4B:6969:9BA8:149D:C97A

* Special:Contributions/2001:448A:11A3:1307:448F:1D50:FD72:E9E

* Special:Contributions/2001:448A:3030:42B1:2898:F675:D13E:E6AE

This is a non exhaustive list - the user in question seems to switch between multiple IPs per day.

Edits involve a pattern of changes with explanation to articles, particularly relating to Indonesia, France and sports, and often undoing reverts done by other users. Vt320 (talk) 19:09, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Editors have been asked not to restore a bundled collage of images at 2001 as consensus has leaned against its inclusion. User:Wikieism decided to ignore this consensus and restored it anyway with this gem of an edit summary. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 19:21, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Thebiguglyalien: Can you please explain why this warranted hauling them here before giving them any sort of warning or attempt to discuss? There seems to be no such occurrence in their previous edits.--Jasper Deng (talk) 20:05, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

They've had at least one previous civility warning. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 20:07, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's still only two instances. A firmer, more detailed warning is probably what's needed. I think potentially more pressing instead would be the fact that they're restoring an edit of Celebration99 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) which is blocked as a sock of 망고소녀 (talk · contribs).--Jasper Deng (talk) 20:12, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've filed Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/망고소녀.--Jasper Deng (talk) 20:17, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

User appears to be spamming their own website https://pandittrimbakeshwar.com/ to articles as references which appear to not be related or only marginally related to the info the website is being used as references for. e.g. here the cite added is a link to an about page on himself. User is obvious WP:NOTHERE and is only here to WP:ADVERT WP:PROMO himself and his website. Lavalizard101 (talk) 10:23, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]