Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1102

More IPs on this /64, 2604:b000:b127:fee1:65eb:bdd:eb0c:f25f (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) and 2604:b000:b127:fee1:3d82:2502:83d9:93fe (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), have been making similar all-caps demands calling for Wikipedia and the rest of Wikimedia to be shut down (and the first of those involved editing someone's talk page archive…), something the already-blocked IP has called for as well. I suspect all this might also be evading a block on 70.45.219.42 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), which has the same ISP as the /64 and would respond to their blocks with similar "SHUT DOWN WIKIPEDIA!" demands. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:23, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

I've blocked the /64 for a couple of weeks.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:32, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

• 2001:FB1:156:19B5:A9FC:A0E8:7B6E:B140 (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 2001:FB1:156:19B5:701B:3F11:F8FB:B9EC (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 2001:FB1:156:19B5:CE8:93FC:E81E:CB61 (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 2001:FB1:156:19B5:B8D5:ECF:C52D:F16C (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

An IP hopping over a range in Thailand has been making repeated disruptive postings, all of which are basically identical to this: [7] and this: [8]. Many of the postings are on User talk:Doc James, but others have been on various article talk pages. There are no constructive edits from these accounts. I don't know much about IP ranges, but I hope that an admin with experience in rangeblocks can put a stop to this. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:34, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

That's one /64 range. Also 2001:fb1:156:19b5:90a:97a:79d9:4756 from the 16th. Block it. --StellarNerd (talk) 20:13, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

Going back, on the 24th of May it was 2001:fb1:155:d92:b6e6:2aff:fe8a:2b1e which is a different /64. And on the 9th of June it was 2001:fb1:155:7aaf:b6e6:2aff:fe8a:2b1e --StellarNerd (talk) 20:15, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

2001:FB1:140:0:0:0:0:0/42 covers it. Or part of it. --StellarNerd (talk) 20:20, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

Well, I've blocked 2001:FB1:156:19B5::/64, which covers Tryptofish's report, to be going on with. I can't, or daren't, handle /42:s. Bishonen | tålk 21:26, 22 June 2022 (UTC).

Thanks! --Tryptofish (talk) 21:58, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

As IP ranges go, that /42 range isn't super-active - there would be some collateral, but not a huge amount. Tryptofish, if you notice this continuing after this current block, give me a shout and I'll see if I can figure out a block that would do the trick. Girth Summit _(blether) 22:11, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

Will do. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:28, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

@Girth Summit: 2001:FB1:154:3115:8851:B080:AF69:2EAB, with gloating over getting past the block. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:03, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

I see that Blablubbs has gone ahead and blocked the /44 range for a month. Let us know if they keep at it and we can look at widening, extending, etc. Cheers Girth Summit _(blether) 19:17, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping @Girth Summit, I didn't realise there was an ANI thread about this. As far as I can tell, the /44 catches the same number of recent bad edits as the /42, but with a little less collateral. I think it's fairly likely that this will need tweaking at some point (since there indeed seem to be some edits from a couple months ago that are contained in the /42 but not the /44), but I'm hoping this will do the trick for the time being. --Blablubbs (talk) 19:30, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Yes please. I've cleaned Doc James' page too often in the last couple of days. - Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 23:09, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

OK, late to this party and I was commenting on Trypto's post only, as incompetence led me to believe that all this good work hadn't been done yet. Sigh. - Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 23:11, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

While there are often disagreements among WikiProject users, I have always found there to be a sense of civility and mutual respect. HumanxAnthro has disrupted this atmosphere with hostility and personal attacks, for example calling User:Ss112 "elitist", and basically admitting they don't care about consensus: "You users have vague, not-based-in-any-guidelines and against-Wikipedian-principles standards for chart inclusion, so I'm not gonna even bother to have these discussions. You frankly should be topicbanned, for the good of the website, from leading chart inclusions if this is how you all think. I'll edit however fast I want to edit, and add whatever edits need to be made regardless". They have been warned on their talk page to slow down with the contentious edits multiple times, including by an administrator, but less than 24 hours ago have continued adding chart peaks for which there is no consensus for inclusion. Heartfox (talk) 20:10, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Can I ask you something? Was that Official chart from radiomafia existent and published in the 1990s? User:HumanxAnthro (Nina CortexxCoco Bandicoot) 20:30, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

OK, fine, you all

WP:WIN. I'm staying out of charts from now on because apparently anyone will dismiss my contentions on the talk page as a "personal attack" no matter much not-personal-attack rationales I give. I'm out of the charts, I'll work on not chart-related stuff. Happy? Just, let's stop this here before this gets any worse. User:HumanxAnthro (Nina CortexxCoco Bandicoot

) 20:32, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Also, Ss112 does have

WP:OWNERSHIP over nearly all of the discography articles that list charts in the table, so the "elitist" label was not meant to be an insult. He's admitted on my talk page (Diff and Diff) that he has a watchlist of nearly every discography article and reverts any users' edits the instance he notices them. User:HumanxAnthro (Nina CortexxCoco Bandicoot

) 20:37, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

This is a miss characterisation of @Ss112: who yes does work on a lot of popular music topics but nowhere has Ss112 said they have every discography page on wikipedia or that all edits everyone does are reverted. Fairness where it is due - lets not mischaracterise the fact that HumanXAnthro has made a huge number of changes which are not supported by existing practice, with little or no attempt to discuss or engage with other project editors instead swamping discussions with reasons why the rest of us misunderstand their point of view. Tagging Ss112 in case they want to comment too - its unfair to mention them and not give them opportunity to chip in. ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 20:51, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

I've linked the diffs if people want to figure out for themselves whether what I said was a fair characterization. User:HumanxAnthro (Nina CortexxCoco Bandicoot) 20:53, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Also, you're giving a skewed picture of the book's reliability. Only very recent entries in that book below 20 have Spotify positions listed, a small chunk of the book, and that's only one SIGNLEVENDOR chart, not "some" single vendors. User:HumanxAnthro (Nina CortexxCoco Bandicoot) 20:40, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Chipping in my two pennies, consensus isn't built by ram-raiding through changes and making humungous amounts of edits that aren't inline with project guidance and existing consensus at

WP:RECORDCHARTS. Multiple editors asked HumanXAnthro to stop and engage in discussion or an RFC first. Some of my questions of HumanXAnthro were met with comments like "and it would only not indicate that to a moron", as well as me being asked to "stop controlling how they edit" when I politely asked that they may wish to consider changing their signature as it does not match their username and emojis don't display properly on mobiles. ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk

}- 20:45, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

I've done what you've recommended nearly everytime, including here, and clearly everything I'm saying is being viewed as a "personal attack" as a result. Can we just end the discussion and have me topicbanned me from WP Talk:RECORDCHARTS if it makes you all feel any better? User:HumanxAnthro (Nina CortexxCoco Bandicoot) 20:48, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

I didn't notice the change in signature. Thanks for doing that. It wasn't an attack just a genuine request to prevent confusion about who is editing and to enable others to find your talkpage/username quicker. Regarding everything about "what we've recommended" we all pointed you in the direction of

assume good faith, deleting the message from the talkpage and then accusing me of trying to control what you edit. Mass changes outside of established practice should always be discussed and consensus sought rather than mass changes which are time consuming to undo. In the face of opposition, did it not occur to take a breather and start a forum RFC or ask other uninvolved editors. I'm sorry to hear you think you need to be TopicBanned to make us feel better - from my side that's not going to help. If someone wants to contribute to the project and add missing charts that's always welcome but surely you stop and wait for a discussion to conclude before going ahead and making mass edits? ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk

}- 20:56, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

That "moron" comment is not a personal attack against you. It's a way of stating something is so obvious that somebody with

WP:COMMONSENSE could not not notice something. Stating that something isn't true to widely-understood standards of truth is not an insult or a personal attack. A bad choice of words, I'll retrospectively say, but not an insult. And it's not hostile to call out when things are not based in guidelines and claim they should be expected standards of argumentation from administrators and established users. User:HumanxAnthro (Nina CortexxCoco Bandicoot

) 20:51, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

I accept you weren't intending to insult. Its difficult to engage in conversation with someone though when they use such language and all the while you're continuing to make edits not supported by the project or other editors. That's not in the spirit of consensus or community ownership. It screams "I'm right and I'll do what I want regardless of what others say or how many people object. I know better...". ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 20:59, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

• I was separately asked to weigh in on this situation. My two cents was that HumanxAnthro should want to cut this out right away, because they're concurrently very visibly frustrated and also completely failing to persuade anyone in these disputes. My approach was to wait and start intervening if things escalated any further, but I certainly wouldn't oppose any more pro-active approaches. I recommend disengaging immediately adding a more constructive means of editing Wikipedia. Sergecross73 msg me 21:03, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

  I've declared that I'm staying away from anything chart-related. Now. Staying away, not even thinking about it. User:HumanxAnthro (Nina CortexxCoco Bandicoot) 21:04, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

  I think that's a good idea. If you stick with that stance, then I'd say we're all set here. Sergecross73 msg me 21:06, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

That looks like standard practice for

WP:SPI. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk

) 10:56, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

I see no issue with this, they appear to be discussing and monitoring a potential sock puppet. — Czello 11:22, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Sorry short on time this week.....evidence is there just need to compile will do so this weekend. In the mean time have asked for "Temporary extended confirmed protection: Persistent sockpuppetry" for United States. Moxy- 11:50, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Also, re: the "rope" comment, it's in reference to

WP:ROPE. Nothing malicious, simply illustrating that the sock puppet they're discussing is likely to expose themselves further. — Czello

12:11, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

• I've blocked EstWhenever as a sock of Mrbeastmodeallday.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 15:50, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
• You think the IP here could be related? They have knowledge of
  WP:BEANS. – The Grid (talk
  ) 16:23, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

  Was going to do a report with IPs and any other accounts...check user was my intent. That said wonderfull to see others helping out with this as its pretty clear by page edit history we have an ongoing problem. I do think that if the page was "Temporary extended confirmed protection" it would be less of a time sink for us at the article. But that would have the affect of 500 edits to other pages we may have to deal with. Thank you all. Moxy- 16:48, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

  @

  talk

  ) 00:27, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

  Correct they said they would do this. The talk page did have some protection...but that expired days ago. Not sure why this sinkhole isn't being recognized. Moxy- 02:21, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

Socks blocked. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 01:26, 27 June 2022 (UTC) (non-admin closure)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Need some help with

WP:NOTHERE. Have tried to talk with both accounts to no avail. Main problem today is at Hungary where they are adding info about the press. They are pasting in goverment position on the media dispite the fact the country has a problem source...let alone spaming all media sites in this overview summary article. SOCK BAN or NOT HERE BAN?Moxy-

13:19, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

Socks blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:29, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

Thank you. Moxy- 13:37, 25 June 2022 (UTC)\

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I feel User:The admans refuse to ban me and User:Wei49eb are sockpuppets, each claiming a sister or brother used their account. Both have account creation blocked, so are they using different IPs? Nythar (talk) 08:17, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

I don't think these are related. The first is clearly a troll,

WP:RBI. —Kusma (talk

) 08:20, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

It's pretty obvious even without sockpuppetry confirmation that they're

Contact me | Contributions

). 11:13, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

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

I have implored this editor to read multiple notices on their talkpage regarding disruptive editing [9][10][11]. In the final warning I mentioned

To help the user find their talkpage, I have blocked them, with a link to the page in the block log. Communication is required. Bishonen | tålk 19:42, 23 June 2022 (UTC).

And I've reblocked as a sock; one of our beauty pageant frequent flyers.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:07, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Ahem. An aviation passenger is a flier. A flyer is e.g. an advertising handbill. You can thank me later. EEng 20:14, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

To be fair, given the abject promotoin, the sock is a combination of both.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:18, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Not if you are British. DeCausa (talk) 07:17, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick work everyone. "Beauty pageant frequent flyers" brought a much needed smile to my face. I suspect this is not the only sock right now -- a number of pageant articles recently lit up with similar editing. See my edit history. There's a parallel discussion at User talk:Bbb23#It's beauty pageant sock season again that is probably relevant to this discussion, too. ☆ Bri (talk) 21:25, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Uncommunicative pageant editor #2

• Satur3435 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I feel sheepish to bring up another one so soon but its kind of the same thing all over again. They are reverting my edits, don’t use their talkpage, and don’t leave edit summaries. Notified for second time here, continued disruption here (just one example). ☆ Bri (talk) 04:46, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

So, I've done the exact same kind of block again, and also feel sheepish. Ponyo may have a sockblock up her sleeve. Bishonen | tålk 07:08, 24 June 2022 (UTC).

Not this time. They are, however, CU-blocked on Commons.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 17:31, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

Hi, I wanted to ask for assistance with the singer Chris Brown's page. I believe that the edits on his page are violating

I don't see a discussion about the lead on the article's talk page (only about the phrase "King of R&B"). You should start there. Schazjmd (talk) 00:13, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

That is what I was referring to, sorry if I didn’t clarify that. The conversation here talk:Chris_Brown#The_King_of_R&B? is where several editors have complained about the "King of R&b" title. Also as I stated before Billboard magazine's words were twisted to fit the editor’s narrative. Nowhere in the Billboard article is that stated, and it says "according to Billboard". Kanyfug (talk) 07:45, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

dispute resolution avenues you can use to resolve the content dispute. Schazjmd (talk)

13:38, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

I'm open to engaging in dialogue and resolution as per BRD. I felt you were bold in your edit and its fine to be bold but if someone feels that bold edits were not constructive they are allowed to revert them and that alone does not constitute edit warring. Rather than engaging in dialogue with me on my talk page or the article's take page you created an ANI notice over 1 revert on 1 article. Nevetheless I will address the points you brought up. The length of the lead is appropriate given the length of the rest of the Wikipedia article. Lengthy leads can also seen on articles for artists such as Michael Jackson and Elvis Presley who have a long article and need a longer lead to provide a summar on their respective careers. The title "King of R&B" is honorific title similar to the title "King of Pop" for Michael Jackson or "King of Rock & Roll" for Elvis Presley. These are not official titles for anyone but are included as honorific titles for different artists in different genres. They are bestowed on artists by their industry peers and I can see that on your talk page someone already provided you various references for the honorfic title for this artist that are not limited to a statement from a radio host. You ignored that before creating this notice. Furthermore aside from the radio records and the other claims you are disputed were not added to the article by me. I only agree with the inclusion of this content as good lead for the artist. The radio records can be rearraged. I already removed one from the lead before you created this notice. I can also include a better references for the one of the most influential r&b singers. As you can see on the talk page of that article there is already a proposition for a legacy section which states his influence. Lastly the point about being one of the most successful r&b acts doesn't even need a reference as there's referenced content in the lead that cites him as of the best selling artist of all time, one of the most decorated Billboard artists and r&b artist in history and the 3rd most successfull billboard artist of the decade for the 2010s. It's a prelude to cited and verified information to come in the same section. Thanks. Instantwatym (talk) 16:41, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

I've pinged you both to Talk:Chris Brown, which is where this discussion should be taking place. Schazjmd (talk) 17:38, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

There's actually been a discussion here recently about this, but it concerns a single draft. Now it seems to have reached mainspace. Chobblesome seems to be a recent trend of vandalism going on. From what I can tell, the page was created on the NL Wikipedia and deleted, and it looks like this has gone a bit viral and people are trying to do the same on the English Wikipedia. I've found some pages and diffs that relate to this vandalism: Chobblesome, Draft:Chobblesome, [12]. Is it possible to add this word to filter 614? Mori Calliope fan talk 17:36, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

I've deleted and salted the main article. RickinBaltimore (talk) 17:43, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

It seems to be a mid-adolescent phase where there's a compulsion to create new words, that is probably the original source of language. We used to see this a lot more before edit filters and draftspace were implemented. There is probably a linguistics/psychology dissertation to be written about this. Acroterion (talk) 22:26, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

It's also from a video from last week, it'll likely die off in the next few weeks entirely. Canterbury Tail talk 22:36, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

• Sickdearkorat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Fakhroddin Modarres (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I tagged Fakhroddin Modarres, a recently created article, for speedy deletion because it was copied entirely from [15] (link to Earwig tool for the current version). User:Sickdearkorat, the article's creator, has removed the CSD tag three times without rectifying the copyright issues and without responding to my messages on their talk page asking them not to remove CSD tags from articles they've created. As of right now, the page is still a copyright violation but I am asking an administrator to delete it since Sickdearkorat keeps removing the standard tag. DanCherek (talk) 03:49, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

@Sickdearkorat: You are not post to Remove CSD G12 tags from Fakhroddin Modarres because it is a copyright Violation, and Fakhroddin Modarres will be deleted by an admin because it is a copyright violation. Chip3004 (talk) 03:59, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

{{db-g12}} says not to remove this notice from pages that you have created yourself. Maybe we should place more emphasis on that sentence? weeklyd3 (message me | my contributions) 04:01, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

Let's make it red. And bold. And in a 48-point blackletter font. And blink. Or we could just accept that it's being deliberately ignored. I've speedied the article and blocked. —

Cryptic

04:38, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

• Gatitoar12 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Sarah-Nicole Robles (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs
  )

Can somebody please have a word with editor Gatitoar12. The editor is reverting articles that were redirected after Afd discussion. He had a final warning for other stuff. Thanks. scope_creep^Talk 05:58, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

• Yes. You should have a gentle word with this new user, instead of weighing straight in at ANI. 86.4.34.187 (talk) 07:31, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

  The user carried on with this behaviour well after

  Phil Bridger (talk

  ) 07:52, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

  (Notified through my watchlist) If I remember correctly, I had first declined an AIV report about the user because messages such as Sergecross73's one had not been written back then. As that has now been attempted unsuccessfully, I have blocked the user. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 11:01, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

  Good block. I was going to do the same had I caught them doing that. (Last I checked they hadn't edited since my warning.) Sergecross73 msg me 14:38, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

• The editor also always (with 1 exception) marks their edits as minor. Gusfriend (talk) 08:27, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

Some relevant synonyms of the user:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/131.203.251.134 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/210.48.190.95 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/210.48.190.88 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/223.26.27.203 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/131.203.30.137

This user has a particular dislike of the passive voice and the use of the verb to be in general, and frequently removes them in ways which damage the prose of articles.

1. It was brought to their attention on their talk page that the passive voice is acceptable in wikipedia, to which they replied by arguing the MoS justified their actions in removing the passive wherever possible.
2. This led user:WhatamIdoing to start a discussion at MoS talkpage, which resulted in the removal from the MoS of any language which could be misinterpreted as saying that the passive was not acceptable in wikipedia.
3. The IP user recently posted on that thread somewhat opaquely, implying that despite the change in the MoS, they would continue to edit in the same way.
4. Following this, they made at least two edits replacing the passive against the MoS:

• The first replaced the impersonal "...the topsoil was then typically removed" with "...people then typically removed the topsoil".
• The second replaced "It was first recorded as being cultivated by the ancient
  for medicinal purposes involved the ancient Greeks
  ."

• Also reported last February at WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive341#Advice about an IP user. EdJohnston (talk) 17:43, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
• (after edit conflict) There is no diktat against using the passive voice, which is part of the English language, on Wikipedia. The only advice is to avoid using it when saying something in the active is stylistically better. Matters of style are often not clear-cut, so any particular case should be subject to consensus rather than one user's dislike of the passive. Maybe (and I stress "maybe" - I don't know what the editors there think of this) such a campaign would be better suited to the
  Phil Bridger (talk
  ) 17:47, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
• Will no one rid us of this useless IDHT style warrior? In pursuit of his obsession he's changed The word tapu can be interpreted as to One can interpret the word tapu as and these areas were often surrounded by a protective fence to protective fencing often surrounded such areas. Complete waste of everyone's time. He needs another hobby. EEng 18:12, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
  • You mean, another hobby is what he needs. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:29, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

I'm tempted to add "another hobby is needed by him", but that actually would be wrong.Boynamedsue (talk) 18:39, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

This is the type of arrant pedantry up with which I will not put. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 18:46, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Errant too. EEng 20:25, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Uranus. Atsme 💬 📧 00:55, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

• FWIW, the changes mostly seem value-neutral to me; the MOS doesn't call for them but also doesn't forbid them. If I saw one of these changes in my watchlist I would just sigh heavily and move on, because people are always making changes I find vaguely disagreeable or pointless, but that's the wiki way. I can kind of see the point as to
  WP:NOTHERE, specifically Little or no interest in working collaboratively, but I don't see any accusations that the user has engaged in the kind of actively disruptive conduct that that section seems to target. -- Visviva (talk
  ) 19:21, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

  If I saw one of these changes in my watchlist – Yeah, but what if you saw a flood of them? These kinds of obsessive-compulsive campaigns -- flitting from article to article to remake everything according to what

  WP:MISSSNODGRASS taught him in the seventh grade -- are decided net negatives, and disruptive wastes of everyone's time. Look at the amount of time spent by multiple editors, over at MOS, trying to get him to understand that he shouldn't be doing this dumbfuckery. EEng

  19:42, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Replacing a passive ("x is done") with a construction saying "people do x" is unencyclopaedic prose, and adds nothing, as both phrases mean the same and the former is the option most users of standard English would choose in a formal context. The introduction of the random verb "involves" is introducing ambiguity for the sake of avoiding the passive, as detailed by the ip user below. These are both examples where the writing is damaged. The user ALSO does this wherever they can when both versions are equal, but there are dozens of examples up to now where the prose is worsened. I'm only adding these two in particular because they happened after the consensus was clear. Boynamedsue (talk) 21:40, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

There's only two choices. Deal with the individual 'now', or deal with the individual later. My advice, deal with'em 'now'. Be it per WP:CIR or WP:NOTHERE, the lad must be escorted off the project. GoodDay (talk) 20:31, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

• This change for one is definitely for the worse. "It was first recorded as being cultivated by the ancient Greeks for medicinal purposes" is perfectly clear. "The first historical records of its cultivation for medicinal purposes involved the ancient Greeks" is unclear; how did the records "involve" the ancient Greeks? Were they in favour of cultivation, or against it, or were they mentioned just in passing? This kind of wooly phrasing is not an improvement, and is just for the sake of "removing the passive voice at all costs". -- 2001:16B8:149D:6000:9484:A5D5:8B37:8141 (talk) 21:12, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

  It's not a good change, but the original is also rather clunky and suboptimal. There has to be a crisper and more informative way to write this. Of course, figuring out how to rewrite it tends to require some topic knowledge, which I think is what is tripping up the contributor here. What are these mysterious "historical records" anyway? Maybe "Ancient Greek historian X reported that people in Y used it for medicinal purposes." Rare is the sentence on Wikipedia that couldn't benefit from some tuning. If the irritation spurred by these changes leads to some work towards language that improves on both the original and the anon's modifications, that seems like it would be beneficial to the project. From that standpoint I don't see this as radically different from people parachuting into an article to add citation-needed or clarification tags, even when no citation or clarification is particularly necessary in context. That is, it's mostly an annoyance and sometimes downright wrong, but occasionally it may spur positive change. -- Visviva (talk) 03:05, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

  If the irritation spurred by these changes leads to some work towards language that improves on both the original and the anon's modifications, that seems like it would be beneficial – That's a great idea! Making an article worse is a great way to get other editors off their asses and improve it. We should have whole teams of editors making articles worse! EEng 03:30, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

  I mean, the community is cheering on such an editor on

  WT:V right now, but I digress. The anon has scraped off a little bit of cobwebs and mildew from this article (by adding a source and correcting the factual statement in the article to match the source), and I noticed a duplicate ref that annoyed me so I scraped off a little bit more. That's definitely an improvement for an article that has been languishing without any substantive edits since at least 2015. -- Visviva (talk

  ) 04:56, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

  Update on my above comment: Looking more closely at the diff, I don't think the anon's changes are being characterized accurately. Yes, the passive voice is being replaced, but in the same edit the contributor is adding much-needed references to several statements. In addition, the change to the "involved" language is actually supported by the quote in the citation provided (in a sentence that was formerly uncited). The quote says that the tansy was being cultivated and that ancient Greeks used it for medicinal purposes, but not that the ancient Greeks were the ones cultivating it. I think the anon is actually making a significantly positive contribution in this case. -- Visviva (talk) 03:18, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

  Sorry, but that's silly. the first historical records involved the ancient Greeks – You must be kidding. EEng 03:30, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

I don't think there is any way to paint the introduction of ambiguity in the word "involved" as a positive change, but I have no problem with their occasional adding of references. They also occasionally add dates and some of their proofreading is ok. I am a little more suspicious of the way they fiddle with the format of references, it seems a little pointless but there may be good reasons for it. Boynamedsue (talk) 04:39, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

I'm not saying it's great phrasing, but I am saying that it is correct for the source given, and the previous phrasing was not. The source (which the anon helpfully quoted, a rare and very beneficial practice) says that The first historical records of common tansy cultivation are from the ancient Greeks who used it for a variety of ailments. It says the ancient Greeks used it, and it says that they recorded its cultivation, but it does not say that they were the ones cultivating it. Hopefully a better source will be added, since this one isn't great. But until it is added, what we say in the article should reflect the source we have. Had the anon not changed the language, the cite would not have supported the sentence. -- Visviva (talk) 04:56, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

I take a backseat to no one on careful use of sources, but V does not require us to abandon our common sense. By your reasoning, if a source says "The first indication that Disease X had spread to the US came in 1992 when a man sought treatment at a San Francisco emergency room", we're not allowed to say, "The first known US case of Disease X was seen in a San Francisco emergency room in 1992" because, ya know, maybe the guy went in for a sprained ankle and happened to "indicate", along the way, that his Aunt Sally had a case of Disease X. It's silly. EEng 05:46, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

I think you are giving the user too much credit there, I'd be surprised if they looked at the source. The reason the editor chose the word "involved" there is specifically to avoid using the verb "to be", they hate any structure containing it. If there had been an edit which introduced a sentence, with an edit summary stating the same as you, I would have considered it nitpicky but I wouldn't have worried unduly. Boynamedsue (talk) 05:11, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

They literally added the quote from the source, you can see it right there in the diff that you provided. (And I checked it against the citation, it is an accurate quote, and it isn't present anywhere in the previous version of the page, so they definitely checked the source.) (Actually they added the quote twice, which I've fixed with a named ref, but if inexpert citation practice was a bannable offense very few of us would be here.) I'm not sure where the hostility to this user is coming from, but it seems to be based on something other than the diffs provided. -- Visviva (talk) 05:30, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

Ok, I take the bit about not looking at the source back. The difs provided are just the two most recent of dozens, perhaps hundreds of edits which reduce the quality of wikipedia. This user actually had the MoS changed specifically for them, but is still making the same errors. A little frustration is, I think, understandable. -Boynamedsue (talk) 05:43, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

• The changes are generally for the worse, and more to the point it's anti-consensus behavior. We just had a big discussion about why this kind of "death to passive voice" prescriptivist activism behavior is misguided.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  21:16, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

fAgree, I do. Solve this problem, we must. Herostratus (talk) 21:30, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Yes, this is a problem that would be advisable to have solved. Such unhelpful Wikipedia editing that is contrary to consensus advice sometimes results in accounts or IP addresses being blocked. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 22:11, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

• Why is the anon user so unwilling to properly engage? Most of their changes degrade the text. Please stop this behaviour. Tony (talk) 00:50, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

• Would it not be possible to topic ban the editor from making grammatical changes? I mean AFAIK the editor is sincere (altho he might not be). 100 years people ago were brought up to avoid the passive altogether, and remember in those days grammar teaching was entirely prescriptive. Even 50 years there was still a rear-guard action being fought for that notion --
  Strunk & White, maybe the last gasp of strict anti-passivism, was published only 60 years ago. There are probably a few cases where this is still passed down parent to child even into this century probably. We do not want to throw people overboard if it is avoidable? This is why I suggest maybe a topic ban, perhaps he can find other useful things to do here? Herostratus (talk
  ) 01:22, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

  I definitely don't think a topic ban on "grammatical changes" would be in any way ambiguous, or lead to endless hairsplitting, or anything like that. Clear and well defined. Surgical. EEng 02:04, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

In principle I agree with such a topic ban, but the amount of effort they put into wikilawyering over this suggests it will lead to more trouble. They seem to enjoy arguing with us far more than editing. Unless they appear here and indicate some understanding of what we want them to stop doing, I feel your reasonable suggestion will be unfeasible.Boynamedsue (talk) 04:39, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

If you thought my comment was serious then you might want to take your irony detector in for recalibration. EEng 15:23, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

• I do not see any consensus at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style#Wikilawyering_over_passive_voice that the active voice is bad or that the passive voice should never be replaced, such that the anon's edits would be "anti-consensus". The consensus that emerged from that discussion -- indeed, the only topic on the table at all -- was to eliminate language that might be construed to encourage edits like the ones the anon has engaged in. But there are lots of acceptable editing behaviors that we don't encourage. That there was a consensus not to encourage a particular kind of editing does not make such editing "against consensus". -- Visviva (talk) 05:06, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

  Just to clarify, nobody here is arguing that the active voice is bad, or that replacing the passive is always incorrect. We argue that the way the anon user is doing this is not appropriate and that they should stop it.Boynamedsue (talk) 05:38, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

  Exactly. Look, I happen to think the word accolades (as in

  List of accolades received by Gravity (film)) sounds idiotic. But I don't go around changing it to awards and recognition everywhere just to scratch my obsessive itch. EEng

  05:58, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

  ^{Only on Uranus.} Atsme 💬 📧 00:57, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

• There's no clear, bright-line rule about this issue. The MOS just has some
  waffle buried in one of its many footnotes. That was changed recently but is still not crisp or clear cut. So, this is just a matter of prose style and taste and so de gustibus non est disputandum applies. There are lots of gnomes who make gratuitous copy-edits of this sort and that's inevitable, given the open nature of Wikipedia. "The price of freedom is eternal vigilance". Andrew🐉(talk
  ) 11:04, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

  Someone heedlessly going around making edits others have to fix needs to stop or be stopped. Whether MOS has anything to say about the specific thing being done is irrelevant, as is Thomas Jefferson.

  It's unfortunate this thread was opened as "IP removing the passive against advice in the Manual of Style", because that's a red herring; it should have been entitled "IP making a lot of poor changes others have to revert all the time". EEng 15:30, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

What is this? Where am I? What hell-hole have I wandered into? Is this part of Musk's simulation? Get me outta here. Carlstak (talk) 02:16, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

• I left the IP a message at User talk:131.203.251.134#Warning. If the problem continues, please post in that section with a diff of the edit and {{ping|Johnuniq}}. Johnuniq (talk) 04:14, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

@Johnuniq: That didn't take long > dif --Boynamedsue (talk) 07:53, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

And another here. --Boynamedsue (talk) 08:26, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

I had assumed each IP had been notified about this discussion. That had not happened. I have just put a warning on each of the following talk pages and will act on any future edits from these IPs.

• 131.203.251.134 (talk · contribs)
• 131.203.30.137 (talk · contribs)
• 210.48.190.88 (talk · contribs)
• 210.48.190.95 (talk · contribs)
• 223.26.27.203 (talk · contribs)

Johnuniq (talk) 09:34, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

Oh, in that case I suppose we should wait a couple days before taking action, in case defendant promises to cooperate. Unlikely, and in that case, probably just throwing the editor overboard is justified. (I think a topic ban, either like "no edits primarily just for grammar changes" or "no grammar chances of exiting material at all" could be enforced easily enough.) He hasn't been taken to ANI before, usually you give them one chance to turn it around IF they come here and convincingly promise to be good. That doesn't seem likely here and so we can go right to plan b I guess.

(As to the principle, even leaving aside that a lot of this editor's contributions make the text worse, I usually roll back wording changes that are not an improvement, even if they aren't worse either, on that grounds that it's roiling the text to no gain, substituting your personal preference for the personal preference of the person who did the actual work of researching and writing the material, and per BRD take it talk and convince us of the merits (if possible, which it generally isn't). I don't know of any rule that indicates you can't or shouldn't do that, and if there was, I'd ignore it.) Herostratus (talk) 15:35, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

I think you are probably right in terms of natural justice. I don't have a problem in principle with a topic ban like that, I'm just not convinced it will work. --Boynamedsue (talk) 18:51, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

Hello English Wikipedia sysops, I am sorry to write this report in such a hasty way. During the inspection on Chinese wiki, we found that a user 折毛 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has written a lot of false information, and most of his references are fictitious. The local discussion is on [here]. After a cross-wiki check, we found similar problems with her contributions to the English wiki, with the following specific articles --PAVLOV (talk) 15:04, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

with the following specific articles. What articles?--Bbb23 (talk) 15:32, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Siege_of_Borovsk, False Dmitry I#Death and Vasili IV of Russia#Life PAVLOV (talk

) 15:37, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Siege_of_Borovsk

, couldn't be found on any search engine.

Due to the absence of the corresponding text and the user's previous contribution was a mixture of genuine and fake content, such as hoaxes and original research. We have to request the community to help with the verification process and ask for help from Russian-speaking users and who are familiar with Russian History. Thanks again! PAVLOV (talk) 15:07, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Courtesy @葉又嘉, Antigng, Outlookxp, 如沐西风, and Ericliu1912: those who found 折毛's hoaxes on Chinese Wikipedia. PAVLOV (talk) 15:16, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Siege of Borovsk is a pretty blatant hoax. Someone who was supposed to be killed during that siege wasn't even born, and there were no people of that name being princes during that time. It isn't even a well-crafted hoax and I am astonished that it passed draft review.Lurking shadow (talk) 16:32, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

There is ru:Волконский, Михаил Константинович Хромой, who according to the article died in the year and place mentioned. 82.132.185.134 (talk) 16:52, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

That was the name in the article, but a link to Mikhail Volkonsky was added by the reviewer in a "cleanup" edit and the Russian name was removed by another editor. 82.132.185.134 (talk) 17:19, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

I have presumptively removed the content added by 折毛 to the other two articles, since they were specifically named by PAVLOV and could not access the book sources directly. WikiProject Russia has been notified of this discussion because most of 折毛's edits are about Russian history. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 18:56, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Another affected article: Chinese Wikipedia article

Deportation of Chinese in the Soviet Union. Now our community found this articles contains many fictitious information, many informain in this article was not mentioned by the sources it cites (see discussion on Chinese Wikipedia). Since the English article is translated from the Chinese article, the English article may also have this problem, I wish the English community to help with the verification, Thanks a lot! (I am not good at English, I feel sorry if my words are difficult to understand) BlackShadowG (talk

) 02:02, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

@BlackShadowG Hi, sorry for the interruption. Have you found any other articles be translated from Chinese Wikipedia with hoaxes into here? PAVLOV (talk) 09:30, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

I haven't found it yet, and it takes time to check because there are so many affected Chinese articles. BlackShadowG (talk) 06:33, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

A summary of the project to remove hoaxes has been created at

I don't think it is necessary to create such a summary page in this wiki, as this incident has much less influence here. --№.N (talk) 03:58, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

I see the merit of this page. It allows quick sharing of findings without opening a case each time there's a positive hit. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 02:16, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

A comment from Borovsk (where I live each summer). While I cannot see the contents of the deleted

1. In June 1610, after the Battle of Klushino, the joint force of Jan Piotr Sapieha and False Dmitry II marched towards Moscow via Medyn and Borovsk;
2. Borovsk, a run-down wooden stockade, could not stand an assault, so local governor Mikhail Volkonsky retreated 3 kilometers west to the fortified Pafnutyev-Borovksy Monastery;
3. Volkonsky's force repelled the initial Polish assault;
4. On July 15, 1610 (Gregorian calendar) the Poles breached into the monastery walls. Volkonsky was killed in action.

That's it. All other details, including the treason among Russians, the incompetent actions of Volkonsky, and the number of casualties (4 thousands in Polish records) are disputed and cannot be taken for certain. Retired electrician (talk) 18:55, 25 June 2022 (UTC)