Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents: Difference between revisions

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.

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]

@

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]

@

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]

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

Even new discussion about edits are turned into "false allegations" and "misinformation" [43] [44]. This last sentence may be why [45] and what's influencing their outlook. Vacosea (talk) 22:09, 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

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

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

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

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

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
  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,

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]

• Support P-block per THTFY. A caution might suffice if there was a single issue, but a cocktail of COI, LOUT and BLUDGEON demands something further. Basically, continuing the behaviour that takes one to ANI while one is at ANI demonstrates either incredibly poor judgment or a complete disregard for community behavioral expectations. Serial 18:10, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• I am inclined to close this discussion as passing the proposed caution, but have first sought input from the editors at
  WP:FRINGEN who have dealt with this subject within the past few months. BD2412 T 17:58, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

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

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: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]

• this looks distinctly like a content dispute that got out of hand. I think neither of you will benefit from bringing it here at this stage. For content disputes, a relevant noticeboard or wikiproject (such as one of the many listed at the top of the article talk page) will be a more productive use of both of your times. And cut it out with the edit warring, both of you. The article will stay at the wrong version it's at right now, and until some more editors weigh in to establish an actual consensus, It'll stay that way. _{this non-admin advice was brought to you free of charge by:} --Licks-rocks (talk) 12:39, 9 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]

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

]

@

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. Regardless of where you buy it, generic medicine is predominantly of Indian origin. I wouldn't care every much if the topic was about shoes.

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

Assume Good Faith is a templated answer that's easy to drop after reading a few lines and without understanding the issue. It would be nice if a senior Wikipedia editor could kindly share their thoughts on this matter.

Maybe I should have provided more examples to support my case, and maybe it's necessary to read the whole cited article to understand the malicious edit #2 that I outlined earlier. All of this is time-consuming; it took me a few days to compile this. This person has never taken the time to research and write an article (new content); they haven't even bothered to read the cited articles before making their edits. Their contributions are limited to minor edits, where they have consistently removed well-sourced content and replaced it with nonsensical information. I have provided seven examples of malicious edits below:

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

2. Zydus Lifesciences: (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zydus_Lifesciences&diff=prev&oldid=1178272575) They deleted something that is explicitly stated in the cited source. The source says, Cadila responded saying they had not seen similar adverse events elsewhere—an incorrect statement. (see malicious edit #1 that I described earlier)

3. Zydus Lifesciences: (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zydus_Lifesciences&diff=prev&oldid=1178272151). An Ahmedabad doctor stated that "in the confusion of the pandemic, it was hard to attribute the death to either underlying covid co-morbidities or to the medicine". Their edit is not a replacement for the death toll of the contaminated Remdesivir, which they deleted with a nonsense edit summary. It is explicitly stated in the article that the death toll of Zydus' conaminated Remdesivir is an underestimate because of the lack of follow-up data from those who received the tainted medicine during the chaotic period of the COVID-19 pandemic. (see malicious edit #2 that I described earlier)

4. Zydus Lifesciences: (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zydus_Lifesciences&diff=prev&oldid=1178273531). They removed an award for Cadila Pharmaceuticals as non-notable. The award has a Wikipedia Page:

Welcome Trust. A simple Google provides multiple sources for the award, like this one: https://www.apnnews.com/cadila-pharmaceuticals-secures-wellcome-trust-award/

.

5. Zydus Lifesciences: (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zydus_Lifesciences&diff=prev&oldid=1178273876). You can figure out that they made a bad edit here, and their edit summary is nonsense. Their other edits on the Zydus Lifesciences' page are similar questionable, as they seem to disregard well-established and verifiable information.

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

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

Turk185 (talk) 05:52, 10 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

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:[86]. 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

Cryptic 16:24, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T214201

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

]

Image content analysis like this is one of the single things computers are worst at; there's even an XKCD about it. --172.59.229.109 (talk) 15:23, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[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]

For starters, that's from 2010... And while some people at Commons wanted to keep anything no matter how problematic, JW wanted to delete e.g. 19th c. art he found objectionable, all in response (IIRC) to some faux-outrage from US right wing media (Fox, I think it was). He literally called for " immediate deletion of all pornographic images." and tried to force it through with threats, which basically ended his reign as god-king. So this wasn't about child porn but much, much more. All ancient history and not the best episode from either side, but hardly relevant for the issue at hand.

Fram (talk) 08:44, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[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]

An easy way to address this would be to require registration to edit. TarnishedPath^talk 02:42, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The gripping hand is this user was marginal years ago and is unlikely to appeal their block in a convincing way. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:20, 8 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

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): [87][88][89][90][91]

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.[92] He totally disregards

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. [97]

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.[98][99] [100]

He stubbornly engages in denialism about Tibet. August: [101][102][103][104] October: [105][106] 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[107] 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.[108] (see the categories)

I think they also did

(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]

  I just blocked them for a week for this. I also haven't had time to dig in to this situation, but now we have a week to do so, and to let a consensus develop. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:56, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @ScottishFinnishRadish thank you for doing so, I just read the reply they had sent and it was disappointing to read them continue their personal attacks. They resorted to attacking my character rather than address any of the points I had raised here. Sunnyediting99 (talk) 01:23, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @ScottishFinnishRadish or @Girth Summit or any other admin, could you please investigate and if found true, block @129.127.113.244 for sock puppetry?

  It seems to be a sock puppet of ChineseMan26, it is reverting all the edits I had made back into those ChineseMan had made (Following up on the threat to make more accounts). Sunnyediting99 (talk) 02:08, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I had reversed the edits by @129.127.113.244 because their edits were following patterns similar to the previous user, and because they were attempting to change categories so that non-Chinese states with Emperors for their titles. At least based off their very negative comments of me, there is a high likelihood that they were indeed a sock puppet.

  [1] "Stop calling others sockpuppets when you are one yourself. Chanyu is not an imperial title. Go study history before making things up Sunnyediting, and stop harassing people"

  [2] "Go study history, instead of making it up. Chanyu was a monarch that existed in antiquity. And stop harassing editors"

  [3] "Stop calling people sockpuppets for harmless editing of history, its harassment" Sunnyediting99 (talk) 05:24, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• I've increased it to an indef block for the obvious LOUTSOCK block evasion. Feel free to report any more IPs doing this to AIV. Girth Summit _(blether) 07:40, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• and another IP 193.115.98.77 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) edit summary: "Sunnyedit99 stop vandalizing my edits please". Lavalizard101 (talk) 10:08, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  And another user

  WP:ANI#Sunnyediting99 constantly harassing editors and spreading misinformation). Lavalizard101 (talk) 10:36, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply

  ]

• 115.64.38.105 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Bamnamu (talk) 10:29, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Thank you everyone, the comments/edits they left were uncivil, I think it's important to stop this type of behavior on Wikipedia. Sunnyediting99 (talk) 12:26, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And another IP sock 115.166.24.194 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). pinging @Zzuuzz: who blocked the last lot. Lavalizard101 (talk) 23:12, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked, and protected a few pages. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:21, 9 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]

Special:Contributions/2001:448A:11A4:1821:A507:FAD2:C869:A1D9 is another example which has arisen today. Another edit made by a similar user with a similar style of unexplained edits shows that the person in question is familiar with wiki's rules, perhaps this is someone who has been previously banned? https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Wikisurfer1234&diff=prev&oldid=1179137185 Vt320 (talk) 11:23, 8 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]