Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive970
Another voice required[edit]
Greetings, I'm running into a bit of a dispute with an editor, Macularcarotenoids, related to this edit and my subsequent revert. The editor has a conflict of interest, as explained on her talk page. If anyone wants to give us a hand, the relevant section is here. Thanks! My name isnotdave (talk/contribs) 15:39, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
Hi, just to confirm there is no conflict of interest. These two new studies have just been published relating to MZ and I wanted to add the information to the MZ page. I would like to know why it has been taken down. Macularcarotenoids (talk) 16:17, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
- Whether or not the decision is made to keep the edits in question (and given how they are primary sources, I doubt they should be included until there is secondary source commentary on them), your talkpage reveals that you clearly have a conflict of interest. Grandpallama (talk) 17:11, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
- The cite I just looked at has a DOI 10.4172, which is OMICS, possibly the most notorious publisher of junk predatory open access journals on the planet. That qualifies for a pretty solid "hell no". Guy (Help!) 19:28, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
- I saw something in the page history that might have been you, or someone else who removed stuff cited by an OMICS journal some time ago. @Macularcarotenoids: These sources are never acceptable, and should never be used, I would call them worse than WP:DAILYMAIL level. My name isnotdave (talk/contribs) 19:55, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
- This gave me a good giggle. "Oh, I can assure you that there's no conflict of interest here. If anything it ties in nicely with the work my colleagues and I are doing."
All joking aside, in case there's any confusion, Macularcarotenoids, when we talk about a conflict of interest at Wikipedia we mean in the interest of impartiality. You really should read that article. nagualdesign 20:32, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
Chas. Caltrop still making edits that other editors have to revert or clean up.[edit]
- Chas. Caltrop (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
So I recently tried to bring attention to the long term edit history and behavioural issues (WP:CIVIL, WP:TPG and WP:CONSENSUS) around one Chas. Caltrop (talk). In the ensuing discussion 3 other editors came forwards unprompted with complaints about this user. No admins commented on the situation, and no administrative actions were taken (nerry a warning).
I'd just like to point out that Chas is still making edits that are regularly reverted (Diff 1, Diff 2) by editors who have tried to communicate with Chas - but been met with insult and derision ( talk:Chas._Caltrop#Weasel_Words, talk:Chas._Caltrop#Sentences) (there you'll find separate editors who have not yet commented on these discussions). This course is not the first time someone has tried to highlight this user's behaviour.
Am I to understand that those who pass themselves off as Copy Editors are above the requirements of politeness for Wikipedians - even though their edits generally have to be reverted, cleaned up by others, or are unconstructive/tendentious/damaging to Wikipedia as a whole? Perhaps I'll do some sloppy, politically biased copy editing of my own. I'll make sure all my edit summaries read "CE, completed sentence"; as it seems to provide impunity as an editor regardless of how poorly the end result is. If the goal of administration is to ensure Wikipedia is kept to a high standard, then every now and then difficult to interpret, borderline cases such as this will occur; but they do still need to be actionable (for the sake of the community, and for other editors to feel they've been heard). I understand that this is not a particularly thankful task, and that the violations aren't a particularly obvious breaking of the rules - but it is an ongoing issue and it is damaging (at the very least time wasting)... and the more it is ongoing, the more damage is manifest. Does anyone want to try to bring some deft sanity to these discussions? To at least make this feel like a community, rather than a bunch of peasants yelling at an ivory tower. --Jobrot (talk) 06:09, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
- Comment: The key to success on ANI is to make the clearest of points, as thoroughly as is necessary, with the least amount of words, including a fully adequate number of WP:DIFFs with brief explanations. You failed to do that the first time, and you've failed even worse now. No one wants to read your whining and sarcasm, and no one wants to take the trouble to figure out what you are talking about, especially when you've presented so very little evidence. What you need to do is immediately and clearly make your case and then stop typing. Softlavender (talk) 05:06, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
- SO help me do that! Meanwhile Chas continues to make WP:TEND edits that require reversion: [Diff 3] They are WP:NOTHERE for the right reasons. I don't know how much clearer I can make that. This user is doing this accross multiple pages (which I've linked to the edit histories of, and now made two AN/I posts about - and other users have also made complaints and had similar experiences with this user). --Jobrot (talk) 05:43, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
- Comment: The immediate issue here would appear to be Chas. Caltrop's edit warring at Dunning–Kruger effect. As visible from the article's revision history, Chas. Caltrop made an edit there that another editor reverted, then repeated essentially the same edit, and had it reverted again by another user. I can confirm that this is rather typical behavior for Chas. Caltrop, which appears to be what Jobrot is complaining about. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 21:57, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
User:Akocsg: Ethnic/nationalistic POV pushing, edit warring and IP-hopping[edit]
- Akocsg (talk · contribs) and block log
- Blocked on German Wikipedia [1] (Ethno-POV-Account on a mission)
This user removes the contents which he does not like and replace them with his own personal opinions. He always uses misleading and false edit summaries.
- I mention some of his edits for the comparison:
- The recent issues:
- Ashina Removed sourced content of article by providing a misleading edit summary,[11] then started edit warring and inserted his personal opinions.[12][13][14]. Then switched to IP-hopping.[15][16] That IP-range is from Germany and since this user was active on German Wikipedia, then I'm sure it's him. IP's edit pattern and edit summaries matches with him too. IP targeted related articles[17][18][19][20][21][22] and finally wrote a personal attack on my talk page.[23]
- Baghatur Repeated his old way: Removed the content which he does not like and replaced it with a random non-English citation.[24] Then after 2 month, he repeated it again (non-English sources).[25] And this one.[26]
It's a nationalistic mission/quest by him on English Wikipedia just like German Wiki. Is it necessary to provide more evidences? --Wario-Man (talk) 08:41, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
I would first like to state how surprised and astonished I am by this deceptive behaviour of this user. None of his accusations are true whatsoever. If you check his recent repeated edit diff in the article Baghatur you can see how he simply deleted a statement which was provided with three different academic sources. They simply got deleted by him with the excuse that they are not English and hence not reliable! That's cherry-picking. And not constructive behaviour at all.
The very same case can be seen in the article Ashina, where again a poorly written and unsourced passage was improved and corrected by me backed with sources. He simply reverted them all with the accuse that it's POV, which is the main accusation based on the same examples here! The result was that my objection got a result and the passage was finally removed after an input by another neutral user in the talk page. See here: diff2, the adding of sources by me: diff, then he does it himself what I said should be done, deletes the whole passage: diff3. As you can see, what he first accused me of turned out to be right.
And those older edits, which I mostly can't even remember anymore, where mostly backed by sources back then. Most of them are minor edits anyway, and not destructive in any way. They were definitely not POV pushing or a "nationalistic mission" or whatsoever. This user apparently wants to simply get me blocked because of personal reasons, it seems. See the Baghatur article, where sources simply get deleted on his whim... If you check my personal histoy here in the English Wikipedia, you will see that I made at least thousand edits and created/wrote many new articles. Most of them in the field of sports. Based on this fact alone one can see that I am not a POV-pushing User on a mission, like this user wants to make you believe.
But this part of his report is the best. Please do check this out, it's important and shows how he is trying to manipulate you (if he is aware that it's not me):
"...and finally wrote a personal attack on my talk page. 23"
That was made by some totally different user. By this one: User:2003:6:212f:ef43:40f0:fbd0:1966:e577 You can confirm that by checking the history in his talk page. That was not by me! But it is simply reported by him as if it was me. This is a serious accusation!
And that IP user is not me nor does not have anything to do with me. Please do an IP check or whatever is necessary to clarify this case. And as a major part of his accusations are based on that dubious IP account, one can see how this reporting is based on practically no consistent foundation. Regards, Akocsg (talk) 15:44, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
@Doug Weller and EdJohnston: Would you (or other admins) please look at this report? 72H has passed and I see no replies from the admins. --Wario-Man (talk) 06:49, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
- Can the admins please make it clear that comments like "What is it with Turks and their extreme nationalism?" are not acceptable - since when is it ok for IP editors to post racist comments on ANI? I'm not involved in this content dispute but a comment that all Turks are extreme nationalists easily fits the dictionary definition of racism, canard, racial stereotyping, etc. If someone wrote "What is it with the Jews and their shystyness" I imagine there would be a round of objections. Seraphim System (talk) 08:17, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
- I've removed the comment in question. To be clear: No, comments like these are not helpful to resolving a discussion and they not acceptable to make. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 09:57, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
- Can the admins please make it clear that comments like "What is it with Turks and their extreme nationalism?" are not acceptable - since when is it ok for IP editors to post racist comments on ANI? I'm not involved in this content dispute but a comment that all Turks are extreme nationalists easily fits the dictionary definition of racism, canard, racial stereotyping, etc. If someone wrote "What is it with the Jews and their shystyness" I imagine there would be a round of objections. Seraphim System (talk) 08:17, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
I would like to point out once again that all the accusations in the passage "the recent issues" of Wario-Man are from that already blocked IP account (2003:6:212f:ef43:40f0:fbd0:1966:e577) mentioned above. They have nothing to do with me. Regards, Akocsg (talk) 13:21, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
I'm still waiting for administrators and their comments (this report submitted in 28 October). --Wario-Man (talk) 08:18, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
- Wario-Man - All of the diffs and events you referred to in your initial statement are least three weeks in the past; I'm not sure what you want us to do now. Can you provide diffs of recent edits that show the disruption is currently ongoing and requires action at this time? ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 09:28, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
- @Oshwah: All of the mentioned diffs describe his disruptive edit pattern and behavior. Ashina/Baghatur diffs was recent when I submitted this report but if you need recent ones:
- Aq Qoyunlu: Removed sourced info and replaced it with his OR/POV, plus removal of related navbox.[27] Then started edit warring as usual[28], [29], [30]. Then two editors warned him (one of them is an admin).[31], [32] But he ignored them and started edit warring again.[33] Another editor reverted his edit[34] but he ignored that editor and just repeated same things.[35] and just stopped when he was blocked by an admin: 17:14, 15 November 2017 MSGJ (talk | contribs) changed block settings for Akocsg (talk | contribs) with an expiration time of 72 hours (account creation blocked) (Edit warring - change expiry to 72 hours)
- Bayandur: POV-pushing [36], [37], [38] and ignored the edit warring/3RR warning and edited like previous article.[39] How his edits are POV? Anonymous user (IP) who was involved in content dispute with him, described it on talk page.[40]
- Dastan Edit warring [41], [42], [43], [44]
- As I said, I summarize his behavior as: Writing misleading edit summaries while removing sourced content and replacing them with his POV/OR and personal opinions. Ethnic/Nationalist warrior and WP:BATTLEGROUND. I think there is a valid reason why he is indef-blocked on German Wikipedia. I don't ask same thing for English Wikipedia but since his account is old and he should be familiar with WP rules, then I suggest topic ban or longer timed block. Even a serious warning may be enough, but due to his edit history, I doubt he attends to any warning message. Or any other solution by admins which solves this case. --Wario-Man (talk) 04:44, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
- @Oshwah: All of the mentioned diffs describe his disruptive edit pattern and behavior. Ashina/Baghatur diffs was recent when I submitted this report but if you need recent ones:
- If you would check the content of my edit in the Aq qoyunlu article, you would see that I didn't push POV or make disruptive edits at all. All I did there was add brackets and properly place two pictures as well as add relevant categories. What about that is pushing POV and ethnic nationalism?? Same in the Dastan article. All I did was add relevant names in similar languages. I'm wondering why you are desperately trying to show such edits as ethnic nationalist POV-pushing?
- You are accusing me of misleading summaries, then what is this listing of simple edits as nationalistic POV here, whcih they aren't? Besides, the dispute in those two articles has already been dealt with (including talk page), so there is no reason for further action. Regards, Akocsg (talk) 13:05, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
Petition to indef block: Even if this user was blocked indefinitely on the German Wikipedia 8 years ago, and still has no will to contribute properly anywhere else, the consequences could Baton Pass over to other Wikipedia language sites, regardless if there are records of other mishaps and aftershocks. Whereas, the Meta Wiki Foundation could step in, and look into all of this. Slasher405 (talk) 19:39, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
- As an added update, the user left a message on my talk page, imitating my message, and performing forgery of my signature. There's no point in view that this user is still performing foul play. What can we do about this? Slasher405 (talk) 01:07, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
- This issue has been resolved on Slasher405's talk page. No forgery or whatsoever was intended by me. I just wanted to make sure that the response was noticed, that's all. Regards, Akocsg (talk) 01:51, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
- Not even close to resolved. Matters to be made worse, he did not reply on the proper page either. He was supposed to reply all of the messages on his own talk page, not mine. Still, it may not be a good idea to copy one message and post it on another one's talk page, and reply the debate from there. Slasher405 (talk) 12:39, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
- This issue has been resolved on Slasher405's talk page. No forgery or whatsoever was intended by me. I just wanted to make sure that the response was noticed, that's all. Regards, Akocsg (talk) 01:51, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
@Admins: Does user Slasher405 even have a right to petition anything here? Since he is no admin I mean. And as can be seen in the few comments above, he distorts facts about me (about not replying on my own talk page). Regards, Akocsg (talk) 15:27, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
- I am no admin, but my biggest concern is, just copying and pasting a message from one talk page to the other does not really make sense, even if has a different signature. Before all of this was ever discussed, no one even posted an ANI notice on the user's talk page until I actually did, as the rules require to post an ANI notice when mentioning anyone who could be the main source of an incident. I still feel undetermined about what is really happening, but there is still a bit of unusual history of Akocsg here. Slasher405 (talk) 19:31, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
- Um, yes, yes he does. Anyone who is an editor in good standing does. This board is for addressing matters that urgently require the attention of an administrator, not the admins-only club. - The Bushranger One ping only 07:58, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
- I've had people copy my talk page comments from one page to another before and I haven't really minded, I don't see what the harm here is and he already said he would not do it again since it bothered you. The complaint itself is hard to follow since it involves edits from IPs which we can't really assume were him. The rest seems like a content dispute, and both sides are edit warring. The first hit on google books sources the addition of Oghuz Turkic for Aq Qoyunlu [45] and there are many other sources also [46] - I don't really see why this should have devolved into an edit war in the first place. Seraphim System (talk) 08:59, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
User:Amisom[edit]
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.
Editor requested I take them to admins [47], so I did:
I have concerns that User:Amisom's edits and behaviour need further scrutiny, with possible immediate action to stop multiple PRODs (and AfDs), in particular:
- Rapid, multiple deletion requests without WP:BEFORE & PROD sometimes despite multiple RS (my involvement when I created stub of multi-redlinked item, now at AfD) [48] [49] [50] [51] [52] [53] [54] [55] (consensus is unanimous keep at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Outposts: Journeys to the Surviving Relics of the British Empire)
- Incivility (in general) "Boring" [62] "you're not an admin I don't want to hear from you" [63] [64] "Why did you leave that message twice? Silly" [65], "Duh", "paper tiger" [66] "So rude" [67]
- Refusal to discuss generally on their talk, replying in edit summary only [68], (seems not to even read templates [69]) inviting to take up their behaviour here.
Seems disruptive / borderline WP:NOTHERE.
Minorly, refdesk trivia not in aid of building encyclopedia (per WP:RD/G "service to the encyclopedia") [70] [71] [72](marked as minor, it's minor)- Long-term issue - see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive959#Amisom_violating_0RR_restriction , and [[73]] [[74]]. Widefox; talk 14:06, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
Comment from Amisom: Widefox has a very unhelpful attitude. They have repeatedly accused me of disruption, just for making points that they disagree with - eg calling the Campaign Against Antisemitism afd “disruption” just because they want the article kept (other users have argued for deletion) - and they have even accused me of “forum-shopping” by starting a discussion on an article talk page. It’s just silly and a bit OWNy. Amisom (talk) 14:28, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
- Good link - it sums the disruption well "(general behaviour to be taken up at ANI per issues on user's talk). Point is, when reverted by two editors in 24hr and still don't discuss on the talk, then taking straight to AfC with a non-neutral nom (even !voting) may give the impression of going against consensus and WP:FORUMSHOP. When the RfC is about something that doesn't apply, then it appears disruptive." [75] (of course it's not forum shopping on the talk, but it's a malformed, against edit consensus, non-neutral RfC with no previous discussion per WP:RfC indicating editor doesn't need to discuss their edits, doesn't need to follow RfC discuss on talk first, doesn't need to engage on talk 2x BRD BRD and has contempt for the current consensus, shorthand FORUMSHOP although not one) Widefox; talk 14:41, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
Also @Widefox:'s criticism of me for using the refernce desk - which is a long-standing feature of Wikipedia - is silly. They're clearly just looking for things to complain about and should be given a quiet WP:TROUT and asked to move along. Amisom (talk) 17:54, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
- @Amisom: Multiple editors have warned you on your talk for months about disruption "..misrepresentations.." "We don't decide things by straw polls at local pages." [76] [77] [78] [79] [80] [81] only warning [82] [83] Dismissing even admins with "you're not an admin I don't want to hear from you" "..accusing others of behaviour that is just not true.." rollback removed, NOTHERE accusation . None of those are me. Can you answer the above first? Especially rapid deletions without performing WP:BEFORE (B, D) even (and when asked that, don't answer [84]) but give a personalised uncivil answer "Duh", and the AfD where nobody agrees with you due to lack of BEFORE. How this is a plus for WP? Widefox; talk 18:18, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
- No, I'm not going to answer you at all. Amisom (talk) 18:22, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
- It's me now, but over 10 editors on your talk recently, right? You dismiss all (including admins) as non-admins and refuse to discuss, which you were even warned about by another admin! [85] Widefox; talk 02:17, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
- No, I'm not going to answer you at all. Amisom (talk) 18:22, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
- COI and legals There's an editor with a COI (with pending legal issues) discussing Amisom's edits at the AfD [86],
that alludes to Amisom having a COI(it is clear as mud there). So, Amisom, do you have any connection with any of these articles, people, etc? Widefox; talk 18:34, 15 November 2017 (UTC)- They did not allude to me having a conflict of interest. Also nice piece of forum shopping yourself. Amisom (talk) 18:42, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
- Well. I don't see how questions at the Refdesk are preventing us from building an encyclopedia. I looked at one or two of the PRODs and AfDs; I reverted a PROD, and the AfD for that CAA article is probably going to close as "keep". So what? Those two articles were in fact terrible, and while AfD is not for cleanup, I can't really fault them for it. I am not sure what kind of political agenda I am supposed to see in their edits, and that supposed COI complaint at the AfD is clear as mud: I don't get it at all. Maybe I'm dense. But then, if you, Widefox, are faulting the editor for useless or poorly-thought out edits, what about this one, where you seem to be arguing for notability based on two websites? Drmies (talk) 19:01, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Outposts: Journeys to the Surviving Relics of the British Empire closed per SNOW. Drmies (talk) 19:07, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
- Drmies I'm concerned about mass PROD, AfD without BEFORE yes. (the refdesk is a miniscule point about NOTHERE) I stand by my dePROD there and said take it to AfD where it was uninimous Keep. Would it have been deleted if I hadn't? A good edit. What about all the other PRODs, AfDs? I don't know what's going on, all I know it's an editor against consensus on most of these deletions, claiming GNG failure when there's 30 sources etc. This is not new - POV removals accused here by an admin "MO..remove content you don't like, even if it's properly sourced..." [87] Widefox; talk 20:05, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
- Editor restriction editor has not changed this MO, [88] here is WP:IDHT, this is no change from per previous problematic indef block / 0RR at (Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive959#Amisom_violating_0RR_restriction . Editor history is overwhelmingly deletion and removals. What sort of editor restriction would prevent 20-30 editors a year complaining about this editor (just on their talk)? Widefox; talk 12:37, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
- I just saw this report and have to add today’s experience with Amisom, an editor I have not before encountered. I am attempting to rescue a section of Card counting which Amisom has deleted three times. I made it clear in the edit comments and in discussion with them that I am continuing my attempts to salvage the section. The editor is Wikilawyering on my Talk and the article’s talk while I’m trying to work on the article. Although I have reduced unsourced text substantially, added refs to the article, and am researching further refs, the editor has just deleted my work. This is not helpful. O3000 (talk) 21:42, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
- I deleted it because it was unsourced and quite contentious (accusing casinos of systematically “harassing” their customers is a biggie to throw in without a reference). You restored it in direct violation of WP:BURDEN which says that unsourced material should only be restored WITH sources, not before. Come on. Don’t break an explicit policy and then accuse the other guy of wikilawyering. Amisom (talk) 21:52, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
- This is the first mention you've made of the section being contentious. If you’d like me to add all the lawsuits casinos have lost for harassing players, I will. (Actually, there is already a ref in the article.) But, you are making it difficult to work on the article. Particularly since I need to move text between sections. I didn’t write the section in the first place. But, it is worth salvaging. We are here to build an encyclopedia, not pettifog. O3000 (talk) 22:04, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
- Note to admins - @Widefox: has been editing their comments in this thread, after replies had been posted, without marking the edits [89] [90] [91] [92] [93] - in violation of WP:REDACT. Amisom (talk) 08:25, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
- Wikilawyering-look-over-there-desperation - @Amisom: read WP:REDACTED allows "add links". ([94] = adding titles to links, and links, [95] = ditto, didn't bother checking more) . I will not respond to this nonsense again. Widefox; talk 10:38, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
- Great news Amisom (talk) 13:47, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
- Great news that I've done nothing wrong, yes. (still, accusations against you by two editors here, and 20-30 on your talk wait for an answer). Widefox; talk 00:04, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
- Great news Amisom (talk) 13:47, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
- Wikilawyering-look-over-there-desperation - @Amisom: read WP:REDACTED allows "add links". ([94] = adding titles to links, and links, [95] = ditto, didn't bother checking more) . I will not respond to this nonsense again. Widefox; talk 10:38, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
- User:BU Rob13 Is this unblock advice binding? "take under advisement the fact that you're currently under heavy scrutiny. If you fail to discuss your edits, follow the bold, revert, discuss cycle, or otherwise keep your edits constructive, you will be blocked again, and that one may not be lifted." [96] . All three of those are breached in diffs above. Widefox; talk 09:59, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
 | This request for help from administrators has been answered. If you need more help or have additional questions, please reapply the {{admin help}} template, or contact the responding user(s) directly on their own user talk page. |
- Apologies for using the {{adminhelp}} teplate above but I think this seciton - which has been dragging on for six days now with zero interest from anyone relevant - has probably served its purpose and should be hatted? Amisom (talk) 21:20, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
- During this ANI, there's ongoing disruption (per O3000 above) blanking of sourced content, e.g. RS = www.lasvegassun.com was reverted 6 months later [97] , repeated blank repeated blank, 2nd in 24hr (restored [98]), against consensus at Talk:Card counting#Countermeasures section & another MO non-neutral RfC Talk:Card counting#RfC on unsourced material. Widefox; talk 12:00, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
- I have removed the adminhelp template, as placing such template here is counter productive. Alex Shih (talk) 10:24, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
- @Alex Shih: then how else do you suggest I attract an admin to this thread (which has so much been almost totally ignored) to close it and end the ridicuousness? Amisom (talk) 10:30, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
Interaction ban violations[edit]
Despite an interaction ban C. W. Gilmore (talk · contribs)continues with following me. He has complained that I violated it by posting in a thread he started, but I was not responding to him, I was agreeing with DHeyward and I had already taken part in that thread. All anyone need do is look at the INDENT, I was not responding to him, I agreed with another editor and reiterated my point made previously. Since Gilmore brought this up he has followed me to the AFD and the new article I created, links above. Can someone ask him to stop following me around. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:12, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
- Support Mutual TBAN: enough is enough. Unless they can come to some other agreement, ban both of them from AP2 topics and be done with this nonsense. power~enwiki (π, ν) 16:15, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
- Or we could just hold Gilmore to the terms of the ban already in place? Rose City Antifa has two editors in total (3 if you count the editor who made one category edit). Why on earth would Gilmore go to the talkpage there if not to poke at DS? And posting at an AFD DS opened? Its pretty clear Gilmore is stalking DS' edits at this point. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:19, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
- So someone violates a IBAN and your answer is a TBAN for the one who did fuck all wrong? Darkness Shines (talk) 16:21, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
- Comment There are many areas where interest overlap in regards to America, but I do not interact with the other editor and in the case of the AfD, I was following the AfD page since a page I created was put up for deletion. The problem is that I'm not being allowed to (as is allowed in the IBAN), comment on a page without being directly contacted or commented on by other editors, like this current AN/I. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 16:34, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
- I see violations of the spirit of the IBAN from both editors. The goal of both the IBAN and a TBAN is to prevent this bickering about Antifa articles from happening. That said, if a mutual "Antifa" TBAN is enough to keep you two apart, I'm fine with the TBAN to be limited to that scope. power~enwiki (π, ν) 16:31, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
- Bollocks, I've not violated anything Darkness Shines (talk) 16:39, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
- Comment Please, just enforce the current IBAN, strictly and completely! I'm tired of being dragged here every other day by DS. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 16:40, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
- Bollocks, I've not violated anything Darkness Shines (talk) 16:39, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
- Perhaps DS could explain how someone "follows someone around" by posting BEFORE the other person? I don't think causality works that way. --Calton | Talk 16:33, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
- He is referring to the two links at the start of his post. An article where DS is one of two editors, and an AFD DS started. There is no good reason for Gilmore to have gone to either article. The third link is where both editors contributed *prior* to the interaction ban being in place. Sensible people (and in this DS should really also pay attention) who have been interaction banned should back out of discussions where they have previously mutually contributed. It does not mitigate showing up at the other two locations however. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:40, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
- What the hell are you on about? If I created the article and he then turns up how is that not following me around? Darkness Shines (talk) 16:36, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
- Comment As per the WP:IBAN, which I have followed, I have had no interactions with other editors, in fact, I create a new section in an article for discussion separate from the other editors. The allegations of 'following' are absurd as follow the AfD boards since [99] as I follow all the other Admin boards and many administrators. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 16:26, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
- Of the diffs in the original complaint, Special:Diff/811115725 seems to be an obvious violation by DS. He claims that the indentation means it's not a reply, but it's immediately after Gilmore's comment and takes a position in opposition to it. Special:Diff/811431271 seems to be an obvious violation by Gilmore. He claims that being in a new section means it's not interaction, but the page was recently created by Darkness Shines and the comment was obviously in response to DS's content additions. The AfD vote is also probably a violation by Gilmore. As both parties seem to want the IBAN "strictly enforced" and seem unaware of their own violations, perhaps both editors need to be blocked. power~enwiki (π, ν) 16:45, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
- Please explain how I interacted with the other editor? I even started new sections to avoid them. Rose City Antifa is an article that I was working on, but DS published it first[100] As you can see from User:DrmiesTP. This being the case, I stated my work suggestions in a separate section and was going to leave it at that. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 16:56, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
- I was leaning in that direction myself, but hadn't done enough research yet to feel comfortable imposing the solution. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:47, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
- At best DS commenting in a thread (in which he had already contributed) directly after Gilmore is unwise. Gilmore showing up at an article DS started and is one of the only two editors editing is frankly stalking. Likewise showing up at an AFD DS started. Its neither credible or plausible they are not following DS around at the moment in order to prod them. Its also clear from the reply below that Gilmore is only interested in wikilawyering around their interaction ban in order to do so. Given DS quite short temper, this is an obvious attempt to provoke them. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:58, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
- You indent with :: You comment with *, so no I was not fucking replying to him, I want nothing to do with him. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:08, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
- Just as an FYI notice to admins, after mulling it over, I did decide to leave both users with a warning. However, the next violations will see some action happening from me or other admins.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 17:26, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
- I would recommend blocking both of them, but I respect your decision in this instance — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:32, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
- I'm always hesitant taking such actions on users that have proven to be productive, setting aside issues. I always feel there has to be a different option to resolve matters. I have an idea what the next step would be, but I'm hoping this ANI can help resolve it before I toss it up to the community for review.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 17:38, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
- I would recommend blocking both of them, but I respect your decision in this instance — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:32, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
- Comment I think a stricter enforcement of the IBAN is needed, and I'd support a TBAN for C. W. Gilmore beyond that. Both of these editors are clearly spending significant portions of their time on Wikipedia just poking at each other, but Gilmore's tendency to feel the need to respond to every critique or perceived negative comment with outraged defensiveness and walls of text that rely heavily on wikilawyering increasingly feels like someone who is here to fight a war rather than edit productively. Grandpallama (talk) 17:47, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
Interaction ban definition[edit]
The purpose of an interaction ban (IBAN) is to stop a conflict between individuals. A one-way interaction ban prevents user X from interacting with user Y. A two-way ban prevents both parties from interacting with each other. Although the parties are generally allowed to edit the same pages or discussions so long as they avoid each other, they are not allowed to interact with each other.
Editors subject to an IBAN are not permitted to:
- edit each other's user and user talk pages;
- reply to each other in discussions;
- make reference to or comment on each other anywhere on Wikipedia, directly or indirectly;
- undo each other's edits to any page, whether by use of the revert function or by other means;
- use the thanks extension to respond to each other's edits.
- Note To comment by creating a new section or to vote (speaking to the Admin of AfD) is not direct interaction from the way I read what is above. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 16:52, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
- Sigh I fully recommend TBAN for both of them. Enough is enough. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 19:08, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
- Interaction bans only work if both parties fully embrace and honor the ban. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:15, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
Proposing a new kind of ban (TIBAN)[edit]
Well obviously this is going nowhere, so I've been formulating a new type of ban which will hopefully be the solution to all of this. I call it the Topic-Interaction Ban. If it works it could be added to the list of sanctions to be imposed on parties. It is an extension of an IBAN and expands itself on to topics automatically.
Here are the terms of the ban:
- Parties of this ban are prohibited from making edits to any page, or it's talk page, if another party of the TIBAN is actively engaged on said page or talk page.
- A party is considered to be engaged with the page if they are making edits to the page regularly. The edits must be meaningful and useful to qualify.
- More than 3 edits must be made in a week to be considered regular editing, and only if the edits provide substantial and meaningful changes. This includes talk page discussions.
- This ban applies to all pages every party's participation has overlapped in. Whoever was the first to edit the page, or it's talk page, with meaningful changes will be allowed to continue editing said pages. Remaining parties must stay away.
- Making obvious reverts of another party on said page or talk page, even if the user is allowed to edit the page is a violation of this TIBAN.
If this is worth considering implementing, I also propose adding it on to DS and CWG's current IBAN.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 19:39, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
- Support - I've been watching this unfold on Cyberpower678's talk, and it's now the third IBAN-turned-into-more that I've seen this year. One turned into a TBAN, one boomeranged into a 1-way IBAN, but this fits neither option (and clearly the IBAN isn't working). I'd say this is a good step that allows each to go along their merry ways. Primefac (talk) 19:48, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
- Support I'm on board with this as well. Get them completely away from each other, because this sniping back and forth is beginning to resemble two siblings each complaining to their mom that the other one touched him first. Katietalk 21:25, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
- Tentative support I'm not convinced this will solve the "get them completely away from each other" problem, but it's an interesting solution, and should be given a chance to work. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:28, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
SupportFor the moment at least... Both parties should read WP:!HERE and understand that confrontational behaviour does not prolong ones tenure as a Wikipedia editor. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 21:54, 21 November 2017 (UTC)- Oppose Massively over-thought and terrible idea. In the event of any reported infraction you would need to a)determine what is 'actively engaged' - is correcting a spelling mistake active engagement? Adding a category? b)so easy to game its unreal. Either editor could make 3 non-substantive edits to an article and pre-emptively lock the other out from editing it. Long experience has shown that ever more complicated sanctions do not help anything. You could achieve the desired effect here by just topic banning Gilmore from US politics broadly construed. Only in death does duty end (talk) 00:02, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose. Too easy to game, and too complex. A topic ban works just as well. Neutralitytalk 00:03, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose Too damn complicated. And the more complicated it is the more game-able it is. And the more complicated and game-able it is, the more drama it will cause. This isn't solving the problem, this is making it worse. Volunteer Marek 00:06, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
- Note As a concerned party, this proposal adds clarity to the defining lines of "reply to each other in discussions" and "make reference to or comment on each other anywhere on Wikipedia, directly or indirectly" while allowing both parties to work on subjects (just at different times). Yes, it may seem complicated but it does give clearer guidance and wider boundaries; given that wide variety of articles that are worked on and the overlap on some of the topics. A standard TBAN does not work, when differences of opinion run across wide areas of discussion from history to current politics (both in the UK and the USA); increasing TBAN is not the answer (tried before). I believe this approach of widening the distance between the parties will work and reduce complaints being brought to the AN/I; at least it's worth a try in my opinion. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 00:51, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose, it would just incentivize each user to rush to grab as many articles as they can and "pre-emptively lock the other out". GABgab 03:59, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
- Well actually they would have to continue making edits to the article otherwise, the other party can edit it. They have to keep editing the article. Making one edit and then leaving will not lock the other out.—CYBERPOWER (Message) 04:02, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
- But making trivial edits on a continuous basis would. Likeiwse editor A makes two edits, editor B makes two edits, they both make a third edit within say a day of each other - who is editing it regularly? Editor A was there first, Editor B can argue they shouldn't be locked out of something they are actively editing. That's just one of the many scenarios that this would cause a headache. If the goal is to stop editors interacting, and one/both of them has a very defined topic area, just ban the one that is least productive and most problematic from the topic and be done with it. By any standard that's Gilmore. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:19, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
- Well actually they would have to continue making edits to the article otherwise, the other party can edit it. They have to keep editing the article. Making one edit and then leaving will not lock the other out.—CYBERPOWER (Message) 04:02, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
- OR Ban either party from a site or it's pages for 24hrs after the last post by the other party, so there is no overlap or interaction. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 09:30, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
- OR and this is a crazy thought, we could topic ban the person who is most disruptive and has been clearly stalking the other editor. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:23, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
- Going back to my proposal, which maybe is too complicated, the general idea is if both are making trivial edits, both can make edits to the article. If all they are doing is fixing typos, the edits are meaningful, but not substantial. The point of it is that if one party is making meaningful substantial changes, they are considered to be engaged in an article, and when they stop making said substantial changes, they are no longer engaged. This would keep them from stepping on each other's toes. The complexity of it, is to factor in possible attempts to game the restriction.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 13:14, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
- OR and this is a crazy thought, we could topic ban the person who is most disruptive and has been clearly stalking the other editor. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:23, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
- OR Ban either party from a site or it's pages for 24hrs after the last post by the other party, so there is no overlap or interaction. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 09:30, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
Honestly, I think you've been more than accommodating to both parties. Far too accommodating in the face of obviously disruptive editing. TBAN now. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 14:11, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
- Then I'll leave it to other admins then.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 14:24, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
Continued discussion[edit]
It's fairly clear from the thread on Cyberpower's talkpage that both editors are at fault here and neither is willing to admit their own breaches. And they are crying foul when told that more misbehavior will result in escalation to a TBan. It's not clear that Cyberpower's "TIBan" would solve the problem, but it is clear that if they abide by the stricture Cyberpower posted on his talkpage: "Clarifying IBAN, both of you should follow this directive. Don't respond, AT ALL, to discussions started by the other" (in addition to the other aspects of an IBAN), that the situation would be resolved. Either they have the maturity and patience and calmness and self-control and wisdom to abide by that, or they don't. And if they don't it's either a TBan (if they both are at fault) or a block (if only one is at fault) the next time. Pretty simple. I say we give them a chance with this in mind, and ask them to have the maturity and patience and detachment to stay away from each other and each other's discussions. Softlavender (talk) 11:07, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
Reverting whithout discussion at PFC Cherno More Varna[edit]
There is a longstanding content dispute at PFC Cherno More Varna. I tried to start a discussion on the article's talk page on 10 August, inviting Rebelheartous immediately. I asked him again to discuss the matter one month later, on 10 September. On 3 October, I left a talkback on his user talk page. When I hadn't heard from him in two weeks, I left another talkback. When he still had not responded in 10 days, I edited the article and he reverted me again, still without discussing. The guidelines say that I can't get dispute resolution without talk page discussion. What should I do? Isn't continuing to revert my edit without discussing it with me disruptive editing? Yavorescu (talk) 18:06, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
- Rebelheartous suggested on the Bulgarian talk page we follow the procedures on the English article. Now it seems he is the one not following the procedures by reverting without discussion. Okalinov (talk) 15:02, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
New Nate Speed sockpuppet[edit]
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.
Can an admin take a look at edits by 130.193.181.138? It looks like a WP:DUCK of block evasion by User:Nate Speed. See, for example, the user is readding edits that another Nate Speed IP added previously. Because this banned user jumps IPs frequently and abuses proxies, it might be prudent to semi-protect the articles he is editing. 青い(Aoi) (talk) 04:03, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
vandal backlog[edit]
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.
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Football_Association_of_Malaysia&action=history
can an admin block this guy please Govindaharihari (talk) 07:13, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
- Hey Govindaharihari. Taken care of. Next time consider WP:AIV. GMGtalk 07:19, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
- I reported it there first - no one was manning that reports page, it was back logged. 7. 02 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism&diff=prev&oldid=811827511 Govindaharihari (talk) 07:23, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
| Edit conflict that was supposed to go below. But sometimes edits wind up in the wrong places, here in...The Twilight Zone. |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Cadence Design Systems[edit]
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.
Could a handy admin look at this diff and decide if a rev/del is warranted. I think it is. -Roxy, Zalophus californianus. barcus 13:50, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
- Thx. Have now warned IP. -Roxy, Zalophus californianus. barcus 13:59, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
- It's a clear WP:BLP violation, and I've rev deleted. But in future, please do not report such things here (as per the big red warning you see when you edit this page) on what is one of the most widely watched pages on Wikipedia, as we don't want to advertise such things. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:05, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
- Nobody reads that crap, but I accept the admonishment. I have no idea how to use templates like that though. -Roxy, Zalophus californianus. barcus 14:03, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
- Not an admonishment, just a friendly request for next time - and there's more at Wikipedia:Revision deletion#How to request Revision Deletion. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:05, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
- Nobody reads that crap, but I accept the admonishment. I have no idea how to use templates like that though. -Roxy, Zalophus californianus. barcus 14:03, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
Weird cross-wiki talk page vandalism[edit]
Resolved, NAC SwisterTwister talk 17:59, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Mainly 124.106.128.178 (talk · contribs · count); it's happening on my talk pages here, Wiktionary, and also Commons. ViperSnake151 Talk 15:35, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
- Already blocked here. This seems related to repeat vandalism at User talk:Dreaded Walrus, a user that hasn't edited enwiki in 6 years and doesn't seem to have any crosswiki contribs. Weird. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:53, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Need a quick delete + revdel + block[edit]
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.
If it hasn't been done already: [101]. -- Softlavender (talk) 09:58, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
- Done. Indeffed the IP, that can be changed if others think it is appropriate. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 10:55, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
Sockpuppetry, edit warring by a banned user, using racist language[edit]
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.
Yes I did reported this on WP:SPI on Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Nangparbat (a banned user), but this is also a case of WP:NOTHERE. If you see the recent edit warring on Jammu, Mirpur, Pakistan, you would find this really racist and disruptive,[102][103] yes the user is using his IP and account both, to edit war. Capitals00 (talk) 17:36, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
- Blocked. I agree with Capitals00, and have indeffed User:ShaniAli1lo and blocked the static IP 82.132.242.130 for two weeks. Thank you for reporting, Capitals00. Bishonen | talk 18:37, 24 November 2017 (UTC).
- Comment: There is still concern that the indef blocked account might be a suspected sock of a previous account, per investigation. Nevertheless, the previous account is also indef blocked, but even if both were indef blocked, there's not that many more paths to go from here. Slasher405 (talk) 19:42, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
Behavioral and content dispute[edit]
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.
Hi! Im contacting you because you are listed as an editor willing to provide behavioral and content assistance. I would like you to take a look at the content dispute and the behavior of the editors Katolophyromai, Khirurg and Dr. K as well Kuru, the administrator that backs them .
The full content dispute of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Pythagoras is found here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=811537461 since a fellow friend editor Dr. K who seems to be a meatpuppet of the editor I am having the dispute with erased my last entry. I would like you to look at the sources I have provided and my analysis on the source he has provided (which leaves out plenty of ancient biographers that state Pythagoras's father was from Tyre) and to bring an objective view into this discussion.
I would also like you to look into this editors behaviors as him and fellow editor friends (Dr K and Khirurg) seem to be meatpuppets as per https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sock_puppetry#Meatpuppetry. When editor Katolophyromai felt like he was losing the debate he resorted to accusing me of sockpuppeting to his fellow meatpuppet Dr. K which you can look at here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Dr.K.#ViamarisBalbi_is_back_under_two_new_sockpuppet_accounts
This is the second (or perhaps third) time Katolophyromai and Khirurg has gotten help from his fellow friend editor Dr. K who does not participate in the discussions/talk page in a productive/objective way but is always ready to take their side and game the system as per https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Gaming_the_system to support his friend editors with their edit reversals. The previous time they accused ViamarisBalbi of personal attacks against the editor he was having a content dispute and got him blocked when in reality if you look at his appeal on his talk page he really wasnt making personal attacks. Dr. K always resorts to administrator Kuru who always takes their side and does not seem to care that editors Katolophyromai, Khirurg and Dr. K are involved in the edit reversal of sourced contents which is obvious vandalism and POV pushing. You can see previous examples of their meatpuppetry in the following cases:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Thales_of_Miletus#Phoenicia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Thales_of_Miletus#Trash_source https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Thales_of_Miletus#Ancient_sources_and_19th_century_sources https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Euclid#Arabian_sources_of_Euclid https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Euclid&diff=810206844&oldid=810205477 (Here Dr. K supports Khirug act of vandalism in which Khirug puts down a statement from a very legitimate source and adds his own and removes an important blue link in the sentence) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Atomism&diff=809056910&oldid=808621458 (Here Khirug removed ViamarisBalbi edit that has a legitimate source and later here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Atomism&diff=810213721&oldid=810211103 Dr. K helps him doing the same Khirug does it again here without a legitimate reason/discussion https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Atomism&diff=810230721&oldid=810221056
Katolophyromai, Khirurg and Dr. K as well Kuru, all edit on similar articles related to Ancient Greece and Greek nationalism. It also happens that their usernames all sound Greek and start with letter K which makes their connection seem a bit too obvious and suspicious. I would highly appreciate your time and help on looking on this. ViamarisBalbi and I believe that legitimate sockpuppeting might be the only way to stop this harassment since filling ISP reports for meatpuppeting sometimes get lost in limbo or take too long to be reviewed and these editors wont stop Wikihouding as per https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Harassment#Wikihounding and continue their witch hunt as per https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Witch_hunt to prevent ViamarisBalbi and CalinicoFire from making sourced contributions. ThanksCalinicoFire (talk) 23:37, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
- Far from one single editor, we are many. Just look at those names: four Ks, hmmm. That is indeed suspicious. Drmies (talk) 23:41, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
- The removal of a blue link is really nothing, at least not something to drag someone to ANI for, and neither is replacing one source with another. Why are you not contributing to the discussion on the talk page about those sources? Drmies (talk) 23:47, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
- This editor's recent posts indicate that they are WP:FORUMSHOPPING. I suspect that the OP does not understand how things work at the 'pedia. [[User:|CalinicoFire]] you need to wait and see how things turn out at WP:DRN. Considering that the other editors involved are all in good standing I would also suggest that you refrain from making accusations of sock/meat puppetry without substantial proof. MarnetteD|Talk 23:50, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
- OK lets try the ping again CalinicoFire. MarnetteD|Talk 23:51, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
- This editor's recent posts indicate that they are WP:FORUMSHOPPING. I suspect that the OP does not understand how things work at the 'pedia. [[User:|CalinicoFire]] you need to wait and see how things turn out at WP:DRN. Considering that the other editors involved are all in good standing I would also suggest that you refrain from making accusations of sock/meat puppetry without substantial proof. MarnetteD|Talk 23:50, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
- What is it with these sock warriors? Can't you at least pretend to be better at it? Someone please consider filing the paperwork--I think ViamarisBalbi is the oldest, but maybe Hughesshots is. I'm going to block them all indefinitely, CU-confirmed, since they are clearly abusing these different accounts. Also blocked: Enion Glas. Drmies (talk) 23:54, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
- The
ViamarisBalbi and I believe that legitimate sockpuppeting might be the only way to stop this harassment
line had me completely fooled. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:08, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
- The
- Comment - The Original Post is syntactically in English, but I don't know what the semantic meaning is. There are two possible responses. The first is to block the Original Poster for competence. The second is to ignore the post, and for now that may be the better option. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:00, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
- Concur. The only thing I can make out is "they all start with K and sound Greek to me, they have to be socks!". - The Bushranger One ping only 02:43, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
- It's not clear how he gets to Greek with "Kuru." Fore or Sanskrit, for sure. The best read of the semantics would be "I'm mad that one of my socks was blocked for a 3RR at ANEW a week ago, and now a passable SPI has been filed, so I'm going to commit suicide by ANI before a checkuser shows up to work the queue and maybe someone will buy this cuckoo bananapants bullshit." I reckon. Kuru (talk) 03:04, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
- Well, the CU came, saw, and block-ered, so I think we're done here. - The Bushranger One ping only 06:10, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
- It's not clear how he gets to Greek with "Kuru." Fore or Sanskrit, for sure. The best read of the semantics would be "I'm mad that one of my socks was blocked for a 3RR at ANEW a week ago, and now a passable SPI has been filed, so I'm going to commit suicide by ANI before a checkuser shows up to work the queue and maybe someone will buy this cuckoo bananapants bullshit." I reckon. Kuru (talk) 03:04, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
- Why isn't Kudpung and Krakatoa Kate on that list? I used to live in Kalamazoo, perhaps I should be too. John from Idegon (talk) 03:11, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
IP Unblock request[edit]
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.
Greetings, I am conducting an edit-a-thon on English Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons in Guntur, Andhra Pradesh, India. The IP has been blocked mistaking it for use of multiple accounts (sockpuppetry). The message shows "This block has been set to expire: 10:44, 26 November 2017. The block ID is: 8020841. The event link can be referred on Outreach Dashboard. Requesting for immediate unblock. --Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 06:41, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
- The block is related to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Koushik Avula and was placed by 5 albert square. — JJMC89 (T·C) 07:00, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
- OK IP should now not be automatically blocked however the user is still blocked until they address the issues raised especially regarding using copyrighted images 5 albert square (talk) 07:12, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
Hitler[edit]
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.
Please see read information under the last bold heading on the following link:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Adolf_Hitler
Sirs, I am new here, and I am not sure of the process. Any guidance you can give me will be great.
I recently read the book, "The Rise and Fall of The Third Reich", and I have what I believe to be important information about the origin of Adolph Hitlers dislike of the jews. Since the main Wikipedia article on Adolph Hitler is protected, see
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Hitler
...I posted my two paragraphs in the sandbox for the editors to review and comment on. My information is very valid. But if you read the responses to it, I am obviously being screwed by immaturity and some sort of vengeance by editors who are less than knowledgeable on Adolph Hitler. I would like this to stop. Can you help me? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Music man214 (talk • contribs) 11:21, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
- I've had a look at what you were proposing to add and I agree that it's not suitable for inclusion. Try reading WP:AGF. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 12:26, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
Minneapolis child sex abuse ring[edit]
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.
I've just deleted Minneapolis child sex abuse ring as a possible BLP violation and would appreciate some other input. Per WP:BLPDELETE, there was no version of the article that was clearly BLP compliant.
Several members of the Somali-American community were charged with sex trafficking in 2010. Three were convicted. I made some copy edits to the article today and found a source that said the convictions had been overturned and the appeal upheld in 2016 (see Talk:Minneapolis child sex abuse ring#Appeal). The article has been contentious because it was created by a new editor and it's a sensitive issue. I therefore decided to err on the side of caution and delete until someone can create an accurate version. I've suggested on talk that it be written in draftspace.
Pinging TonyBallioni, Drmies, Kablammo, NatGertler, and Chrissymad, who have been dealing with this, and the creator, Jack Coppit. If someone thinks I ought not to have deleted it, please feel free to undelete without consulting me. SarahSV (talk) 20:48, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
- I'm not sure that was a good delete. It might be a BLP issue but it met with extensive news coverage and while one person was exonerated, that still doesn't negate the notability of the article. Sir Joseph (talk) 20:57, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
- The "forjustice.org" source discussed here and on the article Talk page refers to a Tennessean case, not a Minnesotan one. Is this correct? - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 21:00, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
- The names of the three convicted in the article are the names on that website, and it says the convictions were overturned. The case was heard in Tennessee. I don't know why it had Minneapolis in the title; several states were involved, I believe. The title was one of the issues of contention on the talk page. I'm not involved in this and have very little knowledge of it, except that I've seen several editors express concern. I'm hoping the others can clarify. SarahSV (talk) 21:12, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
- I am not sure why you think that merited a deletion. The individuals were convicted and if they were subsequently overturned then a sub catergory for “appeal” would be far more suitable than simply removing the page. It took up a large amount of news coverage and it is certainly notable. The page should be reinstated. Jack Coppit —Preceding undated comment added 22:01, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
- The names of the three convicted in the article are the names on that website, and it says the convictions were overturned. The case was heard in Tennessee. I don't know why it had Minneapolis in the title; several states were involved, I believe. The title was one of the issues of contention on the talk page. I'm not involved in this and have very little knowledge of it, except that I've seen several editors express concern. I'm hoping the others can clarify. SarahSV (talk) 21:12, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
- I would like to also point at the related BLPN discussion. —PaleoNeonate – 21:41, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
- From BLPN, pinging Eggishorn, Cullen328, Tornado chaser, John from Idegon. SarahSV (talk) 21:55, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
- Thank you, SarahSV, and thanks for finding that site, which links to the decision on appeal. It seems that some people think that the default position is to repeat allegations in the news as fact, rather than to wait until actual facts are established. Your actions here are commendable. Kablammo (talk) 22:04, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
- Sir Joseph, all three of the defendants in question were acquitted by the trial court judge after the trial, and that judgment of acquittal was affirmed by the Sixth Circuit. United States of America v. Idris Fahra et al. Kablammo (talk) 22:13, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
- I didn't know that the convictions were overturned - then definitely delete. The coverage was always on the immediate events - arrests and trials - so it fell into WP:NOTNEWS. (The article also had problematic racist overtones.) So at this point what we have is an accusation that failed to secure a conviction and no sign of lasting impact. If there was crime involved, tragic though it may be, that tragedy does not confer notability. --Nat Gertler (talk) 22:22, 17 November 2017 (UTC) (And now having read through that ruling - there's real problems with any claim there was a sex trafficking ring at all. There's no there there. What the article's author tried to portray as a sex ring handling 200 girls turns out to be the highly problematic claims of two Janes Doe. --Nat Gertler (talk) 22:48, 17 November 2017 (UTC) )
- Kablammo, thanks for finding that document, which explains what seems to have happened. There's nothing here for Wikipedia, per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:BLPCRIME. SarahSV (talk) 22:53, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
- If you google "mall of america prostitution" you'll see plenty of info about the subject, possibly starting with this 2003 article from Newsweek.[104] It doesn't name any names, of course. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:42, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
- I don't see how that 2003 article had anything to do with the supposed ring that was claimed in 2010; this was not a generic article on prostitution in Minneaoplis. --Nat Gertler (talk) 22:48, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
- Hard to tell, given the generic nature of the article title. And note that most of the articles are from the last couple of years. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:52, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
- I don't see how that 2003 article had anything to do with the supposed ring that was claimed in 2010; this was not a generic article on prostitution in Minneaoplis. --Nat Gertler (talk) 22:48, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
These articles shows more of the reasons why we should be skeptical with these cases:
- St. Paul cop on leave amid claims she lied to grand jury
- Claims against St. Paul police investigator near $200 million
- St. Paul officer's work under review after scathing federal Court of Appeals decision
- After failed prosecution, defendants fight to sue, which says "As prosecutorial fiascos go, it’s hard to imagine a more colossal one than the massive child sex trafficking investigation spearheaded by Sgt. Heather Weyker of the St. Paul Police Department."
and there's much more, for anyone interested. Kablammo (talk) 23:31, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
- I saw the rev-delete go by today and looked again at the history of the article, including my own removals--I always thought this was iffy at best, the title being one of the problems. At the time I read all the sources and because they were there and were reliable, I chose not to take it any further, but I did not know there were acquittals or, indeed, that there was so much more (thank you Kablammo). This is a BLP; we should err, if we err, on the side of caution, and I am perfectly happy with the deletion. I hope that the involved editor/s will find other things of interest on Wikipedia than this particular topics.
Note: that there's so much newspaper interest in such cases is often a problem for us; there is a similar thing in Britain and we have an article on it--that article (also) strikes me as a honey pot for those who see a good opportunity to bash some Others. Drmies (talk) 00:06, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
- I deleted an earlier version of this article as a BLP violation and explained our policies briefly but forcefully to Jack_Coppit in the first minutes of November 13. He removed my message indicating that he had read it. I was aware that another version of the article had been written and it was my understanding that it did not mention people who were not convicted. I have not had time to take a deeper look at that article and the underlying sources and issues, so I am very grateful to Kablammo and SarahSV for investigating and deleting. Well done. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 00:35, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
- There is also the image of the accused to deal with. See Commons:Deletion requests/File:E808d3-20101109-suspects.jpg. SarahSV (talk) 00:38, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
A new editor, in complete good faith, started a new article based on wire service news articles. The article stated as facts what were mere allegations-- which were allowed to stand despite objections. The article then was truncated (by me) and then deleted (by Sarah, who found a site, by itself perhaps not authoritative, which said the convictions were reversed, and had a link to the most reliable source of all on that-- the Court of Appeals). We now find that, in the views of the trial and appellate court, that the indictments and convictions may have been procured by false testimony, and defendants spent years in prison for charges that were later dismissed.
Perhaps there should be a list of "best practices" for the guidance of new editors as well as the rest of us. We should not assert as fact what are only allegations. (The presumption of innocence should apply even on Wikipedia.) Google searches should be done for the names of the defendants. Where a court action has taken place, searches should be done to see if there are later rulings (and often Google searches for defendants' names will produce links those rulings). Kablammo (talk) 01:31, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
- Kablammo, your last point could be added to WP:BLPCRIME, namely that editors should google defendants' names, particularly when creating an article, to make sure they're aware of all the rulings. SarahSV (talk) 01:56, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
- While it would help to search, another big problems is that there's often disproportionate coverage. This isn't so much an issue in extremely high profile examples like this, but with a relatively unknown individual from what I've seen it isn't uncommon there is a flurry of initial coverage, and some coverage of the initial court case and outcome and then very little afterwards even if there is some significant change. I say change here because I think civil cases are often even worse. Countries where court cases are far less routinely available online (i.e. many outside the US) mean we often don't even have primary sources. (Sometimes we have the problem where one party has made the court case documents available. While it's probably unlikely they've modified the documents, it's definitely not the best situation. And of course if there is yet another change they may not add these documents to their collection.) Fortunately many of these just don't belong on wikipedia but sometimes you may have an example where you have something which perhaps seems to have significant enough coverage, and the person just meets the notability requirements and we have an article on them but there are potentially new details on the case we just can't find. Nil Einne (talk) 14:56, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
- Sounds like the article should be renamed Heather Weyker lying cop scandal. EEng 03:16, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
- BLP/innocent-until-proven-guilty goes both ways you know... - The Bushranger One ping only 04:22, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
Wow. So, Jack’s article was an egregious defamatory lie of omission. I say “lie” because he clearly knew enough about the case to have known the omitted outcome. Well done all. Jack should be shown the door. -Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 07:55, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
- So the author was given a level 4im warning for creating the deleted draft, makes a bunch of POINTy edits to other sex scandal articles, re-creates another article in mainspace that is now deleted and turns out to be cherry picked at best? And there is a debate on what to do? I'd say that clearly an indeff for Jack is called for here. Per NOTHERE and RGW. Are we being hesitant to act because this involves child sex trafficing? To me it appears to be much more about racism. John from Idegon (talk) 08:50, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
- There are reasons beyond the fact that his article creation has focused on building one about this very selective and ultimately false picture of this. Even given the sources he had, the editor was spinning it as a case of Somali men (and yes, they were mostly from the Somali community in the US) selling 200 (by interpreting number of witnesses rounded up for the case - most of whom were not used in the case - as victims) American girls (actually from the same community as the accused) to Somali clients (no source for that!) in one of the largest such rings in the area (unsourced). This gives me pause about whether the goal was an accurate depiction of events, or whether some certain spin might be involved. --Nat Gertler (talk) 12:49, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
- I've added this sentence to WP:BLPCRIME: "Before publishing that an individual has been convicted of a crime, editors should take reasonable steps to determine whether the conviction was overturned." I've left "reasonable steps" undefined, but we could add advice in a footnote about what to look for. SarahSV (talk) 19:43, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
- Oh and I should add to my above comment (wrote many hours ago, just posted) that besides the sources problem, we have the same issue with our contributors namely that everyone gets super excited about it early on, so it's added to the article, then no one cares about it when it's changed (and for the reasons highlighted above they probably don't know anyway) so it's never updated. Nil Einne (talk) 15:02, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
Misuse of sources Fabrication of quotes/Misrepresentation of sources[edit]
Jack Coppit altered the Child sexual abuse in the United Kingdom article to remove the phrase "at least", with an edit summary intimating that the source was being misquoted. diff I read the source document, found that it wasn't being misquoted and corrected this. diff Jack later removed the key phrase "at least" again. In the edit summary he placed a quote that does not exist in the source document. diff I fixed this, and explained the quotes, using page numbers, here on the talk page and here on Jack's talk page. He reverted again, and in his responses at both talk pages has provided "doctored" quotes from the source document. The document - a pdf - is available here. The quotes are from page 30. Quite clearly, this doctoring of the quote is POINTy and intellectually dishonest. Neil S. Walker (talk) 14:25, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
- If you indeed look at the PDF, the statement says according to the inquiry that " at least 1400 children were sexually exploited between 1997 and 2013." it should be noted that the inquiry includes numbers from boys too in this 16 year period. As per 4.16 "Generally, there has been relatively low reporting of sexual exploitation of young males, with the exception of the police operation and a criminal conviction in 2007 of an offender who abused over 80 boys and young men. Over the years, this was identified at inter-agency meetings and in CSE plans as an issue that required attention in Rotherham. That continues to be the case today" and continues with more detail in 4.19.
- Therefore these should not be included in the "grooming gang" statistics as they are not. The estimate is 1400 for a reason and is explained within the report how they got to that figure. If a separate section needs to be added explaining how "At least 1400 children including boys were sexually exploited over the 16 year period" then fine, but it is wrong to mislead, especially as most will think it is at least 1400 "white girls" who have been abused, which is not what the report says. The statement within the scandal regarding grooming gangs should state "estimated" not "at least" in regards to them specifically.Jack Coppit (talk) 14:54, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
If you indeed look at the PDF, the statement says according to the inquiry that " at least 1400 children were sexually exploited between 1997 and 2013."
So why did you provide your alternative version and claim that it stated: "that an estimated 1400 children..."? Why did you then screw down the lie further by writing:not once is this "at least" I am therefore undoing your edit
? You doctored a quote in an effort to "win" and make another of your ongoing series of POINTy edits. You quite clearly cannot be trusted to add material to articles because you ignore what the sources say, and fabricate your own versions of the sources to back this up, then accuse others of being dishonest when they call you out. All this while claiming to be "an historian"! God help us. Shame on you. Neil S. Walker (talk) 15:03, 21 November 2017 (UTC)- The quote I used was from memory of reading the PDF and one I have seen used elsewhere on this "encyclopedia" clearly upon re-reading the PDF I was wrong, but upon discovering various other parts such as the boys who were abused it is clear why in the executive summary the "estimate" is stated. I accept in my haste I was wrong to state "no where does it state "at least"" however as just explained the "an estimated 1400" should remain in relation to the grooming gangs specifically. I am not surprised you feel the need to resort to personal attacks given your edit history. Hopefully you can accept that "an estimated" is the term that should be used.Jack Coppit (talk) 15:08, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
- The article is about "Child sexual abuse in the United Kingdom", not
the grooming gangs specifically
, and the sentence uses "children" not "girls". With regard toI am not surprised you feel the need to resort to personal attacks given your edit history
- good luck finding personal attacks in my contributions! Neil S. Walker (talk) 15:16, 21 November 2017 (UTC) The quote I used was from memory of reading the PDF
So you remembered it exactly word-for-word ... all 168 words, 1057 characters, punctuation, brackets, capitalisation ...except the 2 words in question which you fabricated? Pull the other one - it's got bells on. Neil S. Walker (talk) 15:24, 21 November 2017 (UTC)- The original text was as follows "widespread child exploitation in Rotherham, South Yorkshire, England, between 1997 and 2013, estimated to have involved at least 1400 children who were subjected to 'appalling' sexual exploitation by gangs of men, many of Pakistani heritage.[8][9]" This is incorrect as at least 1400 were not subjected to abuse by gangs of men of mainly Pakistani heritage, an estimated 1400 were. At least 1400 children were abused over the 16 year period in total, including boys, and children abused by family members. Therefore you can either choose to edit it to state "at least 1400 children were abused in a 16 year period in the town" then that would be fine, but to state that at least 1400 were abused by men of Pakistani origin, would be misleading and dishonest.
- In regards to your contribution history you are very aggressive and many of your contributions and responses display this, especially the one in reply to myself.Jack Coppit (talk) 15:22, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
Therefore you can either choose to edit it to state...
Stop framing this as a content dispute. My complaint is that you fabricated sections of direct quotations from the source, initially denied that you had done so, and brazenly insisted the words "at least" did not appear in the source. How can you be trusted to add material and how can you be trusted in any content dispute when you have demonstrated that you are willing to fabricate quotations to support your position? This was a content dispute: that's why I started a discussion on the talk page. You responded by adding a falsified quote in which you omitted the actual words used and substituted your own version. That is the moment it ceased to be a content dispute and became a conduct issue. Neil S. Walker (talk) 19:08, 21 November 2017 (UTC)- I have already accepted the quote from memory and the exact same one I have already seen posted on this "encyclopedia" is one I have falsely parroted. I wrongly believed the quote to not have the words "at least" in them. As I have explained however this is indeed a content dispute, not a conduct one. If anyone's conduct should be noted it is of your own who has resorted to personal attacks and who is extremely aggressive in your tone. I have accepted fault for the initial transgression and subsequently explained how my suggestion is still the correct one. Even the report itself is of ALL child sexual abuse in Rotherham, not of specific gangs, this adds to the credibility of my suggestion.
- As I said, if anyone's conduct should be noted, it is yours. Personal attacks, and an aggressive tone do not reflect well for you.Jack Coppit (talk) 20:30, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
Even the report itself is of ALL child sexual abuse in Rotherham
/sigh. The report specifically states that it relates to the "sexual exploitation of children", not "ALL sexual abuse", i.e. it concerns children who are groomed with "food, accommodation, drugs, alcohol, cigarettes, affection, gifts, money" in return for "performing, and/or others performing on them, sexual activities." Neil S. Walker (talk) 22:16, 21 November 2017 (UTC)- Highlighting where you changed the words in a quote to support your edit warring is not a PA. Given the apparent intellectual dishonesty outlined in the section above (which attracted comments such as
Wow. So, Jack’s article was an egregious defamatory lie of omission.
So the author was given a level 4im warning for creating the deleted draft, makes a bunch of POINTy edits to other sex scandal articles, re-creates another article in mainspace that is now deleted and turns out to be cherry picked at best? And there is a debate on what to do?
Even given the sources he had, the editor was spinning it as a case of Somali men (and yes, they were mostly from the Somali community in the US) selling 200 (by interpreting number of witnesses rounded up for the case - most of whom were not used in the case - as victims) American girls (actually from the same community as the accused) to Somali clients (no source for that!) in one of the largest such rings in the area (unsourced). This gives me pause about whether the goal was an accurate depiction of events, or whether some certain spin might be involved
)
- suggests that this pattern of conduct is far from an isolated instance. Neil S. Walker (talk) 22:26, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
- yes, as in ALL children, not just the girls affected by the gangs. This is quite obvious as there is a section about gender and about the many boys affected too. Again, I have already accepted my first article is poor. This however is literally about using “estimated” instead of “at least” about something that is obviously correct to use estimated considering it’s only “at least” when you include ALL children as I said. Jack Coppit (talk) 07:25, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
- The original text was as follows "widespread child exploitation in Rotherham, South Yorkshire, England, between 1997 and 2013, estimated to have involved at least 1400 children who were subjected to 'appalling' sexual exploitation by gangs of men, many of Pakistani heritage.[8][9]" This is incorrect as at least 1400 were not subjected to abuse by gangs of men of mainly Pakistani heritage, an estimated 1400 were. At least 1400 children were abused over the 16 year period in total, including boys, and children abused by family members. Therefore you can either choose to edit it to state "at least 1400 children were abused in a 16 year period in the town" then that would be fine, but to state that at least 1400 were abused by men of Pakistani origin, would be misleading and dishonest.
- The article is about "Child sexual abuse in the United Kingdom", not
- The quote I used was from memory of reading the PDF and one I have seen used elsewhere on this "encyclopedia" clearly upon re-reading the PDF I was wrong, but upon discovering various other parts such as the boys who were abused it is clear why in the executive summary the "estimate" is stated. I accept in my haste I was wrong to state "no where does it state "at least"" however as just explained the "an estimated 1400" should remain in relation to the grooming gangs specifically. I am not surprised you feel the need to resort to personal attacks given your edit history. Hopefully you can accept that "an estimated" is the term that should be used.Jack Coppit (talk) 15:08, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
[outdent]No, this about your conduct at Child sexual abuse in the United Kingdom and Talk:Child sexual abuse in the United Kingdom where you:
- Fabricated a quote to support your 2nd revert:
Source states "An estimated 1,400 children in the South Yorkshire town were sexually exploited by criminal gangs of men who were predominantly of Pakistani origin between 1997 and 2013"
. diff That sentence appears nowhere in either of the appended sources. - When challenged about your misrepresentation of the source and its inclusion of the words "at least", you dismissed this by saying
This is incorrect
and then presented as your 'evidence' 2 paragraphs of text quoted from the Jay report in which you deliberately omitted the words "at least" and substituted instead "an estimate". diff - You reiterated that in the Jay report "at least" did not appear:
not once is this "at least"
diff - Having been caught out providing a doctored quotation to support your edit warring you have instead attempted to couch this purely as a content dispute. That's a different matter altogether, and anyway relies on SYN of the report to reach your conclusions.
- My issue is that you fabricated a quotation, and deliberately altered another, to support your position, "win" a content dispute and justify your edit warring. When you do this, you make a mockery of any attempt to resolve a content dispute, and such intellectual dishonesty and willingness to game the system to "win" destroys any credibility you have as an editor. Neil S. Walker (talk) 10:09, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
- I have already explained my position on the quote and that I parroted it falsely after very firmly believing it.
- If you believe my conduct worthy of a ban then go ahead, but it still does not make your claim of "at least 1400 were abused by British Pakistani men" any more credible, of which it is not. The Report says at least 1400 children were abused, not atleast 1400 were abused by the gangs, this number includes at least 80 boys too as per the gender section of the report.
- I say again, I falsely believed I was correct and parroted this, I have accepted that I was wrong and this must mean the various places I have read said quote is also wrong (including on this "encyclopedia") This does merit your personal attack and very aggressive tone, which also does not make your claim credible. You simply cannot claim that "at least 1400" were subjected to abuse by the gangs because the report does not corroborate this.
- So finally, if you wish to ban please do go ahead, but my edit should stand as it is correct. Otherwise this "encyclopedia" has no credibility whatsoever, and a narrative is pushed.Jack Coppit (talk) 12:21, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
- @Jack Coppit: the Jay report was not discussing all local children who had been abused, but those who had been sexually exploited. That phrase in this context refers mostly to localised grooming, which is what prompted the inquiry. The relevant paragraph (4.7, p. 36) says: "Taking all these sources together, the Inquiry concluded that at least 1400 children were sexually exploited between 1997 and 2013. This is likely to be a conservative estimate of the true scale of the problem." I can't see why you would remove "at least" and continue to argue that you were right to do so. Anyway, that is just one of the issues. I wonder whether you should volunteer to stay away from child-abuse articles until you've edited for longer in other areas. SarahSV (talk) 19:33, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
- @SlimVirgin: That is what I said, ALL children, not just those affected by the gangs, but ALL children. Including young boys. Therefore the statement should read that "at least" 1400 CHILDREN were sexually exploited in this 16 year period according to the Jay report. You cannot say "at least 1400 were abused by Pakistani men" as this was not what the Jay report said. That is my issue. You can either say an estimate of 1400 were abused by the gangs, or you can say at least 1400 children total were sexually exploited in the town. This is very straight forward. The Jay report does not state that at least 1400 were abused by grooming gangs, and it would be misleading to say so.Jack Coppit (talk) 19:44, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
- @Jack Coppit: the Jay report is about these groups and the localised grooming of children that they engaged in. It was commissioned to research that issue. The sources it used had been created in response to that issue. Yes, other forms of child sexual exploitation were discovered during that research, including that some girls had been abused by the same men in the home rather than first being found in the street. The report as a whole has to be read carefully. Have you done that? SarahSV (talk) 19:53, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
- @SlimVirgin:Indeed, have you? if you had, you would notice it also mentions "ten boys who were groomed and abused by the lone male prosecuted and sentenced in 2007, and a further seven files of boys/young men who were his alleged victims." and also "The Inquiry team did a detailed analysis of four cases involving young boys.....) the importance of making sure that judgments about child sexual exploitation are consistent and gender neutral, for example by asking if the same level of risk would be acceptable if the child was the opposite gender;" "In 2008, the Safeguarding Board began to formulate policies and procedures relating to the exploitation of boys and young men." also "Rotherham was described as not having a 'street scene' but there were a 'significant number of girls and some boys who are being sexually exploited';" and "police operation and a criminal conviction in 2007 of an offender who abused over 80 boys and young men." So yes, there is a considerable number of boys and young men that is included in the "1400" figure. If YOU had read the report you would be aware of this. You would also be aware it takes note of eater European girls who had been sexually exploited and not just local girls, such as Operation Carrington in 2012. So again, it is wrong to say that "at least" 1400 were abused by the grooming gangs as this is categorically not what the Jay report says. I wonder whether you need to read it very carefully yourself? Perhaps you should before coming to false conclusions.Jack Coppit (talk) 20:03, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
- You need to take the whole report as a whole as (unfortunately for discussion here), it presumes some familiarity with the problem, but when you read the framing material leading up to section 4, it is clear what cases they are trying to count/estimate. If one took the stance that the 1400 number includes cases outside that, then based on everything outlined in section 4, even saying "estimated 1400" (as opposed to "at least 1400") is wrong because that number could include the other cases you are suggesting. My read of the entire report is that the analysis of 1400 is narrowed down to the grooming gangs, even if they don't explicitly state that in context of the "at least 1400" lines. And given they are clear it is an estimate (knowing there were unreported cases), "at least" is perfectly in line here. --MASEM (t) 20:10, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
- @SlimVirgin:Indeed, have you? if you had, you would notice it also mentions "ten boys who were groomed and abused by the lone male prosecuted and sentenced in 2007, and a further seven files of boys/young men who were his alleged victims." and also "The Inquiry team did a detailed analysis of four cases involving young boys.....) the importance of making sure that judgments about child sexual exploitation are consistent and gender neutral, for example by asking if the same level of risk would be acceptable if the child was the opposite gender;" "In 2008, the Safeguarding Board began to formulate policies and procedures relating to the exploitation of boys and young men." also "Rotherham was described as not having a 'street scene' but there were a 'significant number of girls and some boys who are being sexually exploited';" and "police operation and a criminal conviction in 2007 of an offender who abused over 80 boys and young men." So yes, there is a considerable number of boys and young men that is included in the "1400" figure. If YOU had read the report you would be aware of this. You would also be aware it takes note of eater European girls who had been sexually exploited and not just local girls, such as Operation Carrington in 2012. So again, it is wrong to say that "at least" 1400 were abused by the grooming gangs as this is categorically not what the Jay report says. I wonder whether you need to read it very carefully yourself? Perhaps you should before coming to false conclusions.Jack Coppit (talk) 20:03, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
- @Jack Coppit: the Jay report is about these groups and the localised grooming of children that they engaged in. It was commissioned to research that issue. The sources it used had been created in response to that issue. Yes, other forms of child sexual exploitation were discovered during that research, including that some girls had been abused by the same men in the home rather than first being found in the street. The report as a whole has to be read carefully. Have you done that? SarahSV (talk) 19:53, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
- @SlimVirgin: That is what I said, ALL children, not just those affected by the gangs, but ALL children. Including young boys. Therefore the statement should read that "at least" 1400 CHILDREN were sexually exploited in this 16 year period according to the Jay report. You cannot say "at least 1400 were abused by Pakistani men" as this was not what the Jay report said. That is my issue. You can either say an estimate of 1400 were abused by the gangs, or you can say at least 1400 children total were sexually exploited in the town. This is very straight forward. The Jay report does not state that at least 1400 were abused by grooming gangs, and it would be misleading to say so.Jack Coppit (talk) 19:44, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
- @Jack Coppit: the Jay report was not discussing all local children who had been abused, but those who had been sexually exploited. That phrase in this context refers mostly to localised grooming, which is what prompted the inquiry. The relevant paragraph (4.7, p. 36) says: "Taking all these sources together, the Inquiry concluded that at least 1400 children were sexually exploited between 1997 and 2013. This is likely to be a conservative estimate of the true scale of the problem." I can't see why you would remove "at least" and continue to argue that you were right to do so. Anyway, that is just one of the issues. I wonder whether you should volunteer to stay away from child-abuse articles until you've edited for longer in other areas. SarahSV (talk) 19:33, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
- @Jack Coppit: I've read the Jay report, Casey report, independent police review, the evidence submitted to the Home Affairs Committee, a couple of the books, and the newspaper articles. At this point, I'm not sure what your view is, so if you could post here a high-quality secondary source that you regard as accurate, that would be very helpful. SarahSV (talk) 20:23, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
- @SlimVirgin: My view is that you simply cannot state "At least 1400 were groomed by men of Pakistani origin" As this is not stated and does not corroborate within the report. If we look at the following for example: "4.3 The Inquiry was given a list of 988 children known to children’s social care, or the Police. 51 were current cases and 937 historic. We read 66 case files in total. 4.4 We took a randomised sample of 19 current and 19 historic cases. In 95% of the files sampled, there was clear evidence that the child had been a victim of sexual exploitation. Only two children (5%) were at risk of being exploited rather than victims. From the random samples, we concluded that it was very probable that a high proportion of the 988 children were victims" This clearly does not break it down via gender and clearly is not just talking about the gangs. In 2007 it mentions an abuser who abused "over 80 boys" who would have of course made up part of those 988 case files. Why would they not have been? The boys were sexually exploited, and therefore would have made up part of that number. How can you possibly ignore them? In fact after that conviction in 2008 the safeguarding board began laying out policies and procedures to actually help young boys and men in Rotherham who were being sexually exploited. Is is painfully obvious that it is talking about ALL children and not just those at risk to the gangs, even Op Carrington explains how it was about Eastern European girls. If you want to state that at least 1400 children were abused over 16 years that's fine, but you cannot say that at least 1400 young girls were abused by pakistani men. Unless you simply wish to push a narrative like unfortunately a lot of the articles on this "encyclopedia" do already.Jack Coppit (talk) 20:42, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
- @Jack Coppit: please post here a high-quality secondary source (such as a newspaper article) that supports your view. That's how Wikipedia works. We read primary sources, then we rely on secondary sources to interpret them. SarahSV (talk) 21:28, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
- @SlimVirgin: From the Yorkshire post itself: [1] "Independent investigations have been conducted over the past three years into a series of issues relating to the child sexual exploitation scandal, in which an estimated 1,400 victims were abused over a 16-year period in the town - largely by men of a Pakistani-heritage background." States an estimated 1400 victims, and that they were largely by men of Pakistani origin. Note they were not ALL abused by men of pakistani origin, this may be due to them being abused by white men, or boys being abused. Note this one too: [2] "The National Crime Agency (NCA) said most of the potential suspects were Asian men and most of the estimated 1,400 victims in the town were white British girls and young women." Note how it says estimated, and also "most" not ALL. This corroborates with my claim that "at least" should not only not be used in direct relation to the gangs, but that if it is to be used, it needs to include boys too. "NCA's senior investigating officer Steve Baldwin said the 1,400 victims identified by Professor Alexis Jay last August in her damning report on child sex abuse in Rotherham was a "very good estimate"." [3] "With it being widely reported that an estimated 1,400 children were sexually exploited in the town over a 16 year period up to and including 2013, it’s a bold move from the council." [4] "The Rotherham Inquiry uncovered horrific child sexual exploitation of an estimated 1400 victims, in the South Yorkshire town, from 1997-2013." Just to name a few. Jack Coppit (talk) 21:41, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
- ^ https://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/rotherham-abuse-scandal-six-reports-into-blatant-council-failures-and-alleged-thefts-to-be-published-1-8738504
- ^ https://news.sky.com/story/rotherham-sex-abuse-inquiry-has-300-suspects-10354821
- ^ https://www.sanctuarysocialcare.com/news/rotherham-council-enlisting-support-from-cse-victims-to-drive-change-51543142120
- ^ http://www.barnardos.org.uk/what_we_do/corporate_strategy/scotland/scotland_news.htm?ref=98846
Break[edit]
@Jack Coppit: those news sources make clear that the children were victims of localised grooming, which you seemed to be disputing.
I've just noticed that you changed a quotation from a source on 20 November at Rotherham child sexual exploitation scandal. It is a quotation from the 2014 Jay report in footnote i. It said: "Taking all these sources together, the Inquiry concluded that at least 1400 children were sexually exploited between 1997 and 2013" (bold added). That quotation is from para 4.7, p. 30, of the Jay report. At 09:32, 20 November 2017, you changed Jay's words to: "Taking all these sources together, the Inquiry concluded that an estimated 1400 children were sexually exploited between 1997 and 2013" (bold added). SarahSV (talk) 22:20, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
- @SlimVirgin: Incorrect, the only contribution I made on the 20th was the following, you can see this as per my contribution page. [1] I did not edit any footnotes. And the next edit was of the event box. [2] Infact if you simply click "next" on the very link you yourself provided you will see the footnote completely intact. Why do you feel the need to lie?
- In regards to your other comment, they make it clear that an estimated 1400 victims were abused in that period, they do not mention gender or that "at least 1400". I am dumbfounded at this approach of yours.Jack Coppit (talk) 22:27, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
- I see you said "quote" I misread and thought you referred to the footnote only, which I left untouched. I should have looked better at that. I am still dumbfounded at this blatant attempt to interpret things as per your own narrative. If this "encyclopedia" is to state facts and facts alone, then it should state "at least 1400 children were abused in the town over 16 years" as you simply cannot state that at least 1400 were abused by men of pakistani origin.Jack Coppit (talk) 22:32, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) The diff of your edit is in my post. Here it is again: 09:32, 20 November 2017. The second removal of "at least" is you changing the source's words. SarahSV (talk) 22:33, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
- Yes you are correct on that, I hadn't realised that at the time. I accept fault for that. But again, I wish to maintain that it still doesn't make the claim any more credible when referring to the gangs.Jack Coppit (talk) 22:42, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
- At 16:17, 12 November 2017, at the same article, you changed a quotation from the BBC. It said "at least 1,400", and you changed it to "an estimated 1,400". You're changing the sources so that they use the words you want to use. SarahSV (talk) 22:46, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
- How when the quote itself does not include the entire sentence? It's also not even correct. The inquiry didn't find that at least 1400 were abused by gangs of Pakistani men, it says that 1400 were abused in total. It seems that different news sources like to have their own narrative. As I do myself, and as clearly you do.Jack Coppit (talk) 22:51, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
- I am going to make this very easy for you to comprehend. You can ban me you can choose to do whatever you like. But what matters to me and what should matter to you mind you on this "encylcopedia" is the facts. And the facts are if you use the Jay report alone that "at least 1400 children were sexually exploited" that's it. You cannot then jump to "at least 1400 were sexually exploited by gangs of pakistani men" because this is not corroborated with the report. It is really that simple. Jack Coppit (talk) 22:57, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
- If you're willing to change the sources' own words, it means we can't trust what you write. In the BBC quote that you changed, the quotation marks were right next to the words in question, so you would have seen that it was a quotation. SarahSV (talk) 23:14, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
- You’re right, I should have seen them. Whether it was in my haste, or whether I willingly did so is indifferent. I did not. Again, I do not care if you ban me, my ban is irrelevant to the facts about this case. Jack Coppit (talk) 23:20, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
- If you're willing to change the sources' own words, it means we can't trust what you write. In the BBC quote that you changed, the quotation marks were right next to the words in question, so you would have seen that it was a quotation. SarahSV (talk) 23:14, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
- indeed. How is a book by “Adele Gladman” who’s opinion of it is that “the worse child sexual exploitation in the history of the U.K.” any more valid than a national newspaper? Your bias is showing with your opinion of said newspaper. What makes her book and opinion more credible? I could source something from a blog somewhere, does that make it more credible?
- This is the reason why Wikipedia is not a reliable source, because bias is often influenced including opinions, such as the one you have just shown. Well done. Jack Coppit (talk) 23:26, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
- And that makes her opinion more correct? Because is it the worst in history? By what measure? Years? Savile would have that beat. Estimation of victims? Savile would also have that beat. Savile even abused children in hospitals that were brought to him by nurses. Actively covered up for decades. I would say with some certainty that his child abuse was worse. I can go outside and say the sky is green. But If something is demonstrably false, such as this being “the worst in U.K. history” then it shouldn’t stand in an “Encyclopaedia” the phrase “one of the worst” is more accurate and fitting.Jack Coppit (talk) 23:45, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
- You continue to deflect and attempt to turn this into a disagreement about the interpretation of sources or, now, the reliability of sources. It isn't. It is about the deliberate alteration of direct quotations from the sources in order to advance your position. That is a form of intellectual dishonesty which is considered just as serious as plagiarism in academic circles; as Sarah says above,
If you're willing to change the sources' own words, it means we can't trust what you write.
Your continued use of ironic inverted commas around the word encyclopaedia suggests you don't have much respect for this project anyway; perhaps you should consider writing elsewhere. Neil S. Walker (talk) 11:03, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
- You continue to deflect and attempt to turn this into a disagreement about the interpretation of sources or, now, the reliability of sources. It isn't. It is about the deliberate alteration of direct quotations from the sources in order to advance your position. That is a form of intellectual dishonesty which is considered just as serious as plagiarism in academic circles; as Sarah says above,
- It is not an "interpretation" it is literally stating what the source says. The source does not say "at least 1400 were abused by men of pakistani origin" therefore it would be false to say so. It is very much that simple. If you care so much about the facts, state them clearly, do not put a bias on them and your own view point. At least 1400 children were abused according to the report, and that figure included eastern Europeans as well as over 100 young men and boys. Either state the facts, or don't state anything. Hence my use of "encyclopedia" as it is very much a spin of general opinions as opposed to stating facts. You have problems with these apparently.Jack Coppit (talk) 22:26, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
- You're doing it again. It doesn't matter what the source says, what matters is that you directly quoted the source, placed it inside quotation marks, and then altered some of the words of that direct quotation to make it say what you wanted it to say. I don't believe you are incapable of understanding the preceeding sentence, so I must assume that you are just being obtuse. Neil S. Walker (talk) 22:57, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
- Then ban me? Again, I do not care if you ban me. That is irrelevant to what my argument is about. You can ban me, you can choose to do whatever you like, I don't live online I actually have real world things that are of far more importance. What matters to me is facts though. "It doesn't matter what the source says" All credibility you have as an "encyclopedia" gets entirely eroded by uttering that sentence. The entire website is focused on what the source says, and unfortunately that article as far as I can see has been plagued by POV interpretations rather than stating facts for some years now. Which again, says a lot about this "encyclopedia". Sarah, if you weren't already aware, who also has a history of using sock-puppet accounts, and other various discrepancies.Jack Coppit (talk) 00:31, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
- First, if you actually read what Neil said, you'd see that you're quoting him out of context in your eagerness to jump onto your high-horse about "encyclopedic credibility". Since he said that in the context of this discussion it does not matter because you are altering what you are quoting from it.
Furthermore, apparently you need to be reminded that unsubstantiated accusations of sockpuppetry are considered personal attacks, so I strongly suggest you strike the last part of your sentence there with regard to SlimVirgin.- The Bushranger One ping only 01:00, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
- First, if you actually read what Neil said, you'd see that you're quoting him out of context in your eagerness to jump onto your high-horse about "encyclopedic credibility". Since he said that in the context of this discussion it does not matter because you are altering what you are quoting from it.
- Then ban me? Again, I do not care if you ban me. That is irrelevant to what my argument is about. You can ban me, you can choose to do whatever you like, I don't live online I actually have real world things that are of far more importance. What matters to me is facts though. "It doesn't matter what the source says" All credibility you have as an "encyclopedia" gets entirely eroded by uttering that sentence. The entire website is focused on what the source says, and unfortunately that article as far as I can see has been plagued by POV interpretations rather than stating facts for some years now. Which again, says a lot about this "encyclopedia". Sarah, if you weren't already aware, who also has a history of using sock-puppet accounts, and other various discrepancies.Jack Coppit (talk) 00:31, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
- Hello Bushranger, I have already stated, if you wish to ban me for this then please do so. It does not change my actual argument, and the main one of focus. Also, they are not "unsubstantiated accusations of sockpuppetry" What I said was "has a history of sock-puppet accounts" which I think you will find.. Is correct. See here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Sweet_Blue_Water This is not an allegation, this is stating that they do indeed have a history of sock-puppet accounts. Again, why are you so obsessed with POV instead of actual facts??? This is mindboggling.Jack Coppit (talk) 01:09, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
- Alright. But that doesn't change the fact that one thing ten years ago is not a bludgeon you can wave around and say "a history of". And digging back ten years for something to use to attempt to discredit those you are in a dispute with says a lot about your attitude towards Wikipedia. - The Bushranger One ping only 02:48, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
- It's not only the sockpuppetry, there are various other incidents that are well known outside and within the community dating back many years. Not only does it show that certain editors prefer POV over actual facts, but it also shows that certain bais exists and has existed on pages for some years, again discrediting this website as any form of a reliable source (which it isn't). Also note that Neil's mention of "you're claim of a historian hur hur" would also come under a personal attack, by using not only something that USED to be on my user page, but going through old edits and trying to discredit me here on an unrelated discussion. Perhaps you should look at his conduct more closely. I will re-iterate; I do not care if you ban me, I care about facts and using an article to misread the facts and paint a false narrative is the wrong way to run an "encyclopedia" anyone can agree with that. My comments stand.Jack Coppit (talk) 10:20, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
- Alright. But that doesn't change the fact that one thing ten years ago is not a bludgeon you can wave around and say "a history of". And digging back ten years for something to use to attempt to discredit those you are in a dispute with says a lot about your attitude towards Wikipedia. - The Bushranger One ping only 02:48, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
- Hello Bushranger, I have already stated, if you wish to ban me for this then please do so. It does not change my actual argument, and the main one of focus. Also, they are not "unsubstantiated accusations of sockpuppetry" What I said was "has a history of sock-puppet accounts" which I think you will find.. Is correct. See here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Sweet_Blue_Water This is not an allegation, this is stating that they do indeed have a history of sock-puppet accounts. Again, why are you so obsessed with POV instead of actual facts??? This is mindboggling.Jack Coppit (talk) 01:09, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
Questions for Jack Coppit[edit]
Mr Coppit:
- When you wrote the article on the alleged "Minneapolis child sex abuse ring" a few months ago, were you aware that:
- the May 2012 convictions of three of the defendants in 2012 had been vacated by the trial court after trial five years ago?
- the case was appealed by the government to the 6th US Court of Appeals, which affirmed the trial court actions in March 2016?
If not, why not? Did you check for later history on the 2012 convictions? Did you Google the names of the defendants?
And why did you find it necessary to state the religion of the defendants in your article?
Your article reported as fact what were only allegations made before trial. Why did you not note that? And why did you not correct that when it was challenged?
Did you believe then, and do you believe now, that your draft and your article complied with WP:BLP?
Kablammo (talk) Kablammo (talk) 16:45, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
Hello Kablammo, I genuinely had no idea, I had seen it related in a forum online and immediately looked to Wikipedia for confirmation, after some googling I found many sources from the FBI to the BBC to the NYTimes regarding this, after finding no article I thought ah, I shall make it myself.
I admit for a first article it was poor and I should have done far better. I even went as far as to get a photo of said defendants and tried to place that within said article, this was obviously wrong.
I believed at first it was sourced correctly and I stood by this, this was an error of judgement by myself, I trusted the BBC and NYTimes as well reputable and I possibly should not have done.
Jack Coppit (talk) 16:51, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
- Thank you for your answers. I agree that BBC and NYT are excellent sources; the issue is whether we report allegations as established facts. Best wishes. Kablammo (talk) 15:49, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
- No worries friend, I will have to do better in future. All the best. Jack Coppit (talk) 16:18, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
Need a third rangeblock[edit]
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.
We are still getting disruption from a date-changing/wrong facts vandal who has been using the range Special:Contributions/2A00:23C1:B380:BA00:0:0:0:0/64 since early September. The last block was for a week. Binksternet (talk) 23:10, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
- CU blocked for three months by Bbb23. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:07, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
Accidental revdel?[edit]
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.
Don't know if this was an accident, but all edits (136 in total) to this noticeboard between 22:06 23 November 2017 and 20:56 24 November 2017 have been revdel'd. It seems unusual for an entire day (almost) to be blocked out. Was that intentional? Marianna251TALK 17:43, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
- Primafacie, this sems to be intentional to supress outing as mentioned in the edit summary of the first non-suppressed diff. which redacted the outing.Winged Blades Godric 17:48, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
- Ah, gotcha. If the outing wasn't noticed for a while, that would explain why so many edits were revdel'd. Marianna251TALK 17:51, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
Edits by IPs beginning with 2620:22:4000:110[edit]
Start with this example on Paul Martin: "In order to weaken Quebec separatism, Martin allowed provinces to determine his own health care speeding priorities." Not vandalism, not POV pushing, just mild disruption (which I've now corrected). But I claim it's been repeated enough to be considered "persistent" disruption because in the contributions pages of 2620:22:4000:110:1ffc:bcea:27f7:db00 2620:22:4000:110:1ffc:c1d0:4a4:945a 2620:22:4000:110:1ffd:3468:bcf1:660a 2620:22:4000:110:1ffc:541c:ec79:5450 2620:22:4000:110:1ffc:bbd9:687e:132f 2620:22:4000:110:1ffe:7fa6:7864:4214 2620:22:4000:110:1ffe:d581:f819:3651 you can see that this editor (I think it is only one editor) has done many edits, particularly on Canadian politicians' BLPs, but not talk pages. I tried to get the editor's attention by pinging in a long messge on the Andrew Scheer talk page, in vain. I also reverted some changes, always mentioning talk pages. Notice in particular these three cases where the editor reverted my reversion where I'd said "Please take all contentious edits to the talk page." reverted my reversion where I'd said "I fear reader boredom when they read every trivial remark Scheer ever made. We have a talk page." reverted my reversion where I'd said "Some of it has been discussed before on the talk page, which you appear to be ignoring" -- which I take as WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE violations. I also left a message on the 2620:22:4000:110:1FFD:3468:BCF1:660A talk page, which is where I'll place a subst:ANI-notice too. Most recently, here, another editor reverted 2620:22:4000:110:1ffe:e641:f406:4b0d and suggested joining the talk page -- and then 2620:22:4000:110:1ffe:e641:f406:4b0d ignored the suggestion and put some of the reverted material back. (In the diffs, compare "In August 2017, Scheer was criticised for not denouncing the Rebel quickly" in what was removed, to "In August 2017, Scheer was criticised for not denouncing the Rebel quickly" in what was re-inserted, etc.) I've been told that the range 2620:22:4000:110::/64 can be blocked. Unfortunately similar-looking activity goes on in other Canadian politician pages, so it won't be a complete solution. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 23:28, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
- I advised that this editor be brought here. Are there good reasons not to block the range? Doug Weller talk 14:03, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
- I have blocked Special:Contributions/2620:22:4000:110:0:0:0:0/64 for a week for disruptive editing. If the editor makes any kind of response we could re-evaluate. (The fact that an IP-hopper has no real talk page makes it hard to leave a message for them). EdJohnston (talk) 04:46, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
Article Siegfried Borchardt[edit]
Dear Admins,
I came across the aforementioned article and realised that it resembles the German WP article very closely without an import of the history ever having taken place. What is your stance on this issue? Thank you. Best, --Niklas 555 (talk) 02:32, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
- It's a straight translation of this version, as far as I can tell (and incidentally still in some need of polishing). Porting articles between language WPs is entirely fine but needs to be attributed correctly; I have added the attribution notice. There's no requirement to import the page history (the oldid link in the attribution provides that info) but if you do wish to have it there, you can ask for import at Wikipedia:Requests for page importation. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 07:49, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
Addition of non-notable and false information[edit]
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.
Hello. An IP-changing user keeps readding false information to an article. Not only is this building currently not under construction, which makes it non-notable, but also hasn't been proposed yet. It's just a vision of an architect. Sandvich18 (talk) 10:18, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
- When the facts are combined that 1.this is the only IP to edit the article since September; 2. they've been attempting to put this WP:CRYSTAL-violating content in the article since at least August and have been reverted by multiple editors, and 3. they have been making personal attacks in edit summaries, I've reverted their most recent attempt and protected the article for two weeks. (As a footnote, while 'currently not under construction' usually means 'not notable', it's not an absolute.) - The Bushranger One ping only 10:30, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks for your help! Sandvich18 (talk) 14:41, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
- Just really repeating what The Bushranger said: theoretical future buildings can be notable without being under construction, if they draw significant attention and comment in reliable sources, but it's highly unlikely. Even Burj Khalifa didn't have an article until 6 months after its construction was underway. I doubt that "would be the 23rd tallest building in the United States" merits much attention, given that the only source on it indicates it's hasn't even been formally proposed yet. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:30, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks for your help! Sandvich18 (talk) 14:41, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
- The Illinois. EEng 20:27, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
Behavioral and content dispute[edit]
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.
Hi! Im contacting you because you are listed as an editor willing to provide behavioral and content assistance. I would like you to take a look at the content dispute and the behavior of the editors Katolophyromai, Khirurg and Dr. K as well Kuru, the administrator that backs them .
The full content dispute of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Pythagoras is found here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=811537461 since a fellow friend editor Dr. K who seems to be a meatpuppet of the editor I am having the dispute with erased my last entry. I would like you to look at the sources I have provided and my analysis on the source he has provided (which leaves out plenty of ancient biographers that state Pythagoras's father was from Tyre) and to bring an objective view into this discussion.
I would also like you to look into this editors behaviors as him and fellow editor friends (Dr K and Khirurg) seem to be meatpuppets as per https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sock_puppetry#Meatpuppetry. When editor Katolophyromai felt like he was losing the debate he resorted to accusing me of sockpuppeting to his fellow meatpuppet Dr. K which you can look at here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Dr.K.#ViamarisBalbi_is_back_under_two_new_sockpuppet_accounts
This is the second (or perhaps third) time Katolophyromai and Khirurg has gotten help from his fellow friend editor Dr. K who does not participate in the discussions/talk page in a productive/objective way but is always ready to take their side and game the system as per https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Gaming_the_system to support his friend editors with their edit reversals. The previous time they accused ViamarisBalbi of personal attacks against the editor he was having a content dispute and got him blocked when in reality if you look at his appeal on his talk page he really wasnt making personal attacks. Dr. K always resorts to administrator Kuru who always takes their side and does not seem to care that editors Katolophyromai, Khirurg and Dr. K are involved in the edit reversal of sourced contents which is obvious vandalism and POV pushing. You can see previous examples of their meatpuppetry in the following cases:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Thales_of_Miletus#Phoenicia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Thales_of_Miletus#Trash_source https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Thales_of_Miletus#Ancient_sources_and_19th_century_sources https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Euclid#Arabian_sources_of_Euclid https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Euclid&diff=810206844&oldid=810205477 (Here Dr. K supports Khirug act of vandalism in which Khirug puts down a statement from a very legitimate source and adds his own and removes an important blue link in the sentence) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Atomism&diff=809056910&oldid=808621458 (Here Khirug removed ViamarisBalbi edit that has a legitimate source and later here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Atomism&diff=810213721&oldid=810211103 Dr. K helps him doing the same Khirug does it again here without a legitimate reason/discussion https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Atomism&diff=810230721&oldid=810221056
Katolophyromai, Khirurg and Dr. K as well Kuru, all edit on similar articles related to Ancient Greece and Greek nationalism. It also happens that their usernames all sound Greek and start with letter K which makes their connection seem a bit too obvious and suspicious. I would highly appreciate your time and help on looking on this. ViamarisBalbi and I believe that legitimate sockpuppeting might be the only way to stop this harassment since filling ISP reports for meatpuppeting sometimes get lost in limbo or take too long to be reviewed and these editors wont stop Wikihouding as per https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Harassment#Wikihounding and continue their witch hunt as per https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Witch_hunt to prevent ViamarisBalbi and CalinicoFire from making sourced contributions. ThanksCalinicoFire (talk) 23:37, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
- Far from one single editor, we are many. Just look at those names: four Ks, hmmm. That is indeed suspicious. Drmies (talk) 23:41, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
- The removal of a blue link is really nothing, at least not something to drag someone to ANI for, and neither is replacing one source with another. Why are you not contributing to the discussion on the talk page about those sources? Drmies (talk) 23:47, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
- This editor's recent posts indicate that they are WP:FORUMSHOPPING. I suspect that the OP does not understand how things work at the 'pedia. [[User:|CalinicoFire]] you need to wait and see how things turn out at WP:DRN. Considering that the other editors involved are all in good standing I would also suggest that you refrain from making accusations of sock/meat puppetry without substantial proof. MarnetteD|Talk 23:50, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
- OK lets try the ping again CalinicoFire. MarnetteD|Talk 23:51, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
- This editor's recent posts indicate that they are WP:FORUMSHOPPING. I suspect that the OP does not understand how things work at the 'pedia. [[User:|CalinicoFire]] you need to wait and see how things turn out at WP:DRN. Considering that the other editors involved are all in good standing I would also suggest that you refrain from making accusations of sock/meat puppetry without substantial proof. MarnetteD|Talk 23:50, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
- What is it with these sock warriors? Can't you at least pretend to be better at it? Someone please consider filing the paperwork--I think ViamarisBalbi is the oldest, but maybe Hughesshots is. I'm going to block them all indefinitely, CU-confirmed, since they are clearly abusing these different accounts. Also blocked: Enion Glas. Drmies (talk) 23:54, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
- The
ViamarisBalbi and I believe that legitimate sockpuppeting might be the only way to stop this harassment
line had me completely fooled. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:08, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
- The
- Comment - The Original Post is syntactically in English, but I don't know what the semantic meaning is. There are two possible responses. The first is to block the Original Poster for competence. The second is to ignore the post, and for now that may be the better option. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:00, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
- Concur. The only thing I can make out is "they all start with K and sound Greek to me, they have to be socks!". - The Bushranger One ping only 02:43, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
- It's not clear how he gets to Greek with "Kuru." Fore or Sanskrit, for sure. The best read of the semantics would be "I'm mad that one of my socks was blocked for a 3RR at ANEW a week ago, and now a passable SPI has been filed, so I'm going to commit suicide by ANI before a checkuser shows up to work the queue and maybe someone will buy this cuckoo bananapants bullshit." I reckon. Kuru (talk) 03:04, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
- Well, the CU came, saw, and block-ered, so I think we're done here. - The Bushranger One ping only 06:10, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
- It's not clear how he gets to Greek with "Kuru." Fore or Sanskrit, for sure. The best read of the semantics would be "I'm mad that one of my socks was blocked for a 3RR at ANEW a week ago, and now a passable SPI has been filed, so I'm going to commit suicide by ANI before a checkuser shows up to work the queue and maybe someone will buy this cuckoo bananapants bullshit." I reckon. Kuru (talk) 03:04, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
- Why isn't Kudpung and Krakatoa Kate on that list? I used to live in Kalamazoo, perhaps I should be too. John from Idegon (talk) 03:11, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
V.S. Ramachandran: use of edit summary window for personal attacks.[edit]
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.
Vilayanur S. Ramachandran Since Nov 12 NeuroWIKI99 has made a series of edits in which he/she has used the edit summary to make personal attacks against Neurorel. Note that NeuroWIKI99 is attempting to add information about Neurorel in the edit summaries. These are the only contributions NeuroWIKI99 has made.Neurorel (talk) 15:40, 25 November 2017 (UTC) Here is the most recent example:
18:41, 22 November 2017 (diff | hist) . . (-405) . . Vilayanur S. Ramachandran (→Testimony at the Lisa Montgomery trial: NeuroEL (AG) - why all the efforts to discredit and portray VS Ramachandran in a negative light. You do it on multiple WIKI sites. You're not balanced in your edits, your intentions are questionable!)
- @Neurorel: I agree with you that those edit summaries are very inappropriate, but NeuroWIKI99 has not edited for a few days, and not since they were warned about personal attacks in edit summaries (which was only a few minutes before you posted this thread). If they continue with the attacks, there may be cause for an admin to step in, but so far they haven't had a chance to change their behaviour. Also note that you have to notify them of this discussion. The easiest way is by posting the template {{subst:ANI-notice}} to their user talk page. --bonadea contributions talk 15:54, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
Repeated attempts to change the subject of Knights Templar (Freemasonry)[edit]
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.
- Claíomh Solais (talk · contribs)
- Knights Templar (Freemasonry) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Claíomh Solais (talk · contribs) is repeatedly making changes to the Knights Templar (Freemasonry) which would indicate that the article is about the Great Priory of England and Wales and its Provinces Overseas rather than the masonic body itself which is governed by several entities such as the Great Priory of England and Wales and its Provinces Overseas, the Grand Encampment of Knights Templar of the United States of America, the Great Priory of Scotland, Great Priory of Ireland and other national organizations. Articles on masonic bodies mention their governing entities but those entities have their own separate articles. I've attempted to start a conversation on the article talk as well as their personal talk page, but I have not gotten a response. They just keep adding the same off topic material over and over again. PeRshGo (talk) 03:21, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
- @PeRshGo: I briefly reviewed the edit history and I think you would be better off hatting this request and pursuing it as a content dispute on the talk page. If history is a guide, being "right" is not the criteria used on this noticeboard to assess action. The criteria that is used will not favor you based on my cursory review. This board looks at behavior and often punishes passion in favor of tranquility. I don't mean to dissuade you from pursuing the content changes,, rather just warn you that this board will not endorse any content. --DHeyward (talk) 03:57, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
- @DHeyward The issue they have not responded at all. They just keep adding the same off topic content. I know it may seem opaque, but to those familiar with the subject it is the equivalent of taking the article on Airplanes and continuously rewriting the lede as if it were about Airbus without any participation on the talk. It is simply not the topic, and I don't see any recourse given they will not participate in any conversation on the matter. I have no clue to their motivations. PeRshGo (talk) 04:31, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
Based on the sheer number of red-links in the initial complaint, it seem clear this is primarily a content dispute. I've added the page to my watchlist; and ideally multiple administrators will do so as well. However, IMO no action is required at this time. WP:DR/N would probably be the correct place to escalate any content disputes that continue into the future. power~enwiki (π, ν) 05:54, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
83.110.105.51[edit]
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.
- 83.110.105.51 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
IP 83.110.105.51 has blanked Domesday Book 10 times today Seraphim System (talk) 05:41, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
- NM, they were just blocked for 72 hours. Seraphim System (talk) 05:44, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
Anon vandalism of Aspect ratio (image) article[edit]
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.
IP 2A02:A03F:2CFE:CE00:6D4A:3ECD:3AFB:89BD appears to exist solely to vandalize Aspect ratio (image). (A lot.) Help? Thanks. Jessicapierce (talk) 06:08, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
- I fixed the original link, and added a wikilink in the title of this section. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:50, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
- Thank you. Please note that I have deleted my original comments to avoid causing any confusion. Beauty School Dropout (talk) 06:56, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
The Daily Mail[edit]
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.
- Monkey selfie copyright dispute (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
At Monkey selfie copyright dispute a couple of editors insist on adding material sourced to The Daily Mail.
Example: "...and a camera started by a monkey 'Fascinated by her reflection in the lens'. (Daily Mail).[1]
References
- ^ "Cheeky monkey! Macaque borrows photographer's camera to take hilarious self-portraits". Daily Mail. 4 July 2014. Retrieved 15 November 2017.
This has continued after they were informed about the clear consensus at WP:DAILYMAIL.[105] I would have no problem with a mention that The Daily Mail published the image, but quoting from a TDM article in this way goes against the RfC.
I do not wish to edit war, so I am bringing this matter up here so that our policy on quoting statements printed in The Daily Mail can be clarified.
All participants have been notified.
Related: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#Monkey selfie copyright dispute, User talk:Guy Macon#Daily Mail --Guy Macon (talk) 07:17, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
- That's the least of that article's moral and fundamental problems. However, they aren't using the Daily Mail to support a statement of fact or an assertion - as a source, as such - rather they are quoting something the Daily Mail said, directly. I don't think that WP:DAILYMAIL covers that. fish&karate 09:06, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
- There doesn't seem to be much wrong with the DM article because it is largely a reprint of Caters News Agency material that has appeared elsewhere. This gives the now standard explanation of how the monkeys came to take the photographs, leading to the US Copyright Office ruling that Slater could not hold a copyright on the photos. The original piece is on Caters' website here.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 09:23, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
- Indeed, the policy doesn't cover the edits Guy Macon is regarding as contentious. Covering The Daily Mail is allowed (which is what is happening), but covering anything with The Daily Mail information is not. --QEDK (愛 ☃️ 海) 09:33, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
- Concurring with the above: there is no problem with this use of the paper as a "source". It mentions 1. that the paper was one of those involved in publicising the photographs, and 2. how the paper described them. For that useage the Mail is no more or less reliable than any other primary source. - The Bushranger One ping only 10:12, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
- Daul Mail said X, source, Daily Mail saying X? That’s WP:PRIMARY. We should defer to secondary sources establishing that this is actually significant. The Mail is unlikely to have had any effect on the legal outcome, after all. Guy (Help!) 08:24, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
- Um, yes, that is in fact WP:PRIMARY, which is exactly what I said. Primary sources are perfectly acceptable in that sense. If it was establishing the notability of "monkeys taking selfies", it would not be, but that's not what the primary source is being used for here, it's "this was a news phenomenon, here are some example quotes of what the news was saying about it," therefore it is absolutely appropriate. The fact it was a media sensation should be secondarily sourced. Direct quotes of the news should be sourced to the quoted publication. - The Bushranger One ping only 09:09, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
- Daul Mail said X, source, Daily Mail saying X? That’s WP:PRIMARY. We should defer to secondary sources establishing that this is actually significant. The Mail is unlikely to have had any effect on the legal outcome, after all. Guy (Help!) 08:24, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
- Concurring with the above: there is no problem with this use of the paper as a "source". It mentions 1. that the paper was one of those involved in publicising the photographs, and 2. how the paper described them. For that useage the Mail is no more or less reliable than any other primary source. - The Bushranger One ping only 10:12, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
- Indeed, the policy doesn't cover the edits Guy Macon is regarding as contentious. Covering The Daily Mail is allowed (which is what is happening), but covering anything with The Daily Mail information is not. --QEDK (愛 ☃️ 海) 09:33, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
- There doesn't seem to be much wrong with the DM article because it is largely a reprint of Caters News Agency material that has appeared elsewhere. This gives the now standard explanation of how the monkeys came to take the photographs, leading to the US Copyright Office ruling that Slater could not hold a copyright on the photos. The original piece is on Caters' website here.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 09:23, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
- As one of those that did readd DM to that article, I assert that its use is well within the bounds set by the DM ban. DM is noted to be a contributing factor to the story, and that is the only point it is being used for. We're not using it to support any quoted material outside of their own words which lead to part of the controversy in the story, and only to say what those words are, not that they are reliable or anything else like that. The DM ban is not 100% "never can use at all", as clearly noted by the closures there. --MASEM (t) 14:18, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
- Using the DM as a primary source was one of the examples of appropriate use the closers thought about, and tried to allow in that RFC close. If the DM is being used as a primary source here, that is likely perfectly acceptable. Tazerdadog (talk) 03:04, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
- I agree with the above; "this is what the Mail claimed" is a perfectly acceptable use of the Mail as a source, and the RFC closers were explicit in that (and the same is true of any other normally unreliable source; we'd accept Sputnik or Infowars as sources when writing about what Sputnik or Infowars said regarding a given topic, provided we weren't claiming in Wikipedia's voice that what the Mail, Sputnik or Infowars said was necessarily true). We don't have and never have had a ban on the use of primary sources provided they're used appropriately and in context. From Wikipedia's perspective, citing the Mail in this context is no different to citing a work of fiction to illustrate that a topic has been mentioned in a novel. ‑ Iridescent 09:18, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
IPv6 user on Talk:February 29[edit]
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.
An IPv6 user with address keeps editing an old post on the talk page (Revision history), despite being told in the reverting edit summaries not to. The IPv6 address begins with 2603:300B:E01:BF00 and the end is then dynamic with a new one each day, which makes it pointless to address the person on one of the IP adresses talk page. I don't know if there is a way to send a talkpage message to a range of IPv6 addresses, but this person obvoiusly doesn't understand the concept of leaving other people's contributions on talk pages alone, and I don't see any way of making him/her aware. I would suggest a rangeblock of the IPv6 address for a few days or a protection of Talk:February 29. --Marbe166 (talk) 14:09, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
- @Marbe166: a couple things. First, have you ever tried to leave the editor a note on the talk page for whichever IP they're currently assigned? You can't expect people to know to look for notes in an edit summary, especially newbies. Second, to be honest, there's not really much we can do about it. It looks to me like all they're doing is wikilinking terms in an old comment, maybe as tests, without changing the meaning of the comment. It might just be best to let it go. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:18, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
- @Ivanvector: I'm doing that right now, as I happened to catch him/her in action (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2603:300B:E01:BF00:84C4:837D:23A4:4A18). That doesn't help. I see that @SkyWarrior: is also taking action now. --Marbe166 (talk) 17:05, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
- ...and now @Favonian: has blocked that particular IP, thanks. A range block might be necessary, though. --Marbe166 (talk) 17:07, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
- As predicted, similar edits to the same page coming from that IPv6 range have reappeared again. @Favonian:, could you (or any other admin reading this) put up a range block for IPv6 addresses beginning with 2603:300B:E01:BF00? Thanks. --Marbe166 (talk) 22:33, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
- Anonymous edits from 2603:300B:E01:BF00:0:0:0:0/64 blocked for 72 hours. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 22:42, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
- As predicted, similar edits to the same page coming from that IPv6 range have reappeared again. @Favonian:, could you (or any other admin reading this) put up a range block for IPv6 addresses beginning with 2603:300B:E01:BF00? Thanks. --Marbe166 (talk) 22:33, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
- ...and now @Favonian: has blocked that particular IP, thanks. A range block might be necessary, though. --Marbe166 (talk) 17:07, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
- @Ivanvector: I'm doing that right now, as I happened to catch him/her in action (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2603:300B:E01:BF00:84C4:837D:23A4:4A18). That doesn't help. I see that @SkyWarrior: is also taking action now. --Marbe166 (talk) 17:05, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
Mass page moves[edit]
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.
Zacharycook597 (talk · contribs) Has been moving dozens of articles, no reasons given, needs to be mass reverted. Cards84664 (talk) 16:08, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
- As he has continued moving (and re-moving) pages after notice of this report had been posted to his talk page and has also ignored questions about his conduct previously, I have blocked for two weeks. I'm a bit busy at the moment to look at the page moves carefully enough so if anyone wants to deal with the moves feel free, otherwise I'll look at them later. Nthep (talk) 17:34, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
- Looking at some of his NASCAR race moves, some of them appear cromulent, while others are just...odd. I've pinged the WikiProject there to take a look at them, thanks. - The Bushranger One ping only 20:01, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
- cromulent? That's a fighting word! (or is it a word of praise???) Drmies (talk) 22:59, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
- Mmm, cromulence. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:19, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
- My brain has trouble processing words that were coined when I was 44 years old. I am sure that my granddaughter will handle it just fine. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 00:01, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
- One way to think of it: If you had a crom, and I borrowed it, that would be a crom-u-lent. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:36, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
- My brain has trouble processing words that were coined when I was 44 years old. I am sure that my granddaughter will handle it just fine. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 00:01, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
- Mmm, cromulence. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:19, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
- cromulent? That's a fighting word! (or is it a word of praise???) Drmies (talk) 22:59, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
- Looking at some of his NASCAR race moves, some of them appear cromulent, while others are just...odd. I've pinged the WikiProject there to take a look at them, thanks. - The Bushranger One ping only 20:01, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
Lifestyle edits[edit]
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.
There's a whole series of weird edits from October and November, by a series of single-edit SPAs that have been reverted and readded, for the most part, it is an unattributed copying of the intro from Lifestyle (sociology). This seems like an edit-war and sockpuppetry. (so... I posted at ANI as it is multiple issues) Several of these user accounts have had warnings about the additions to Lifestyle. -- 70.51.45.76 (talk) 06:56, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
Lifestyle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Sayli 21 (talk · contribs) diff
- Sayali04 (talk · contribs) diff
- Vishakhapatil14 (talk · contribs) diff
- Sonali doltade143 (talk · contribs) diff
- Piusamu (talk · contribs) diff
- It's a bit odd, they've each made a single edit... I'm not sure there is anything deliberately malicious going on here... Catfish Jim and the soapdish 10:58, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
- So far, most of the mentioned accounts have been blocked by Bbb23, except for Piusamu, who is still a suspect on the loose. Question is, who is the real sockmaster behind all those accounts? Slasher405 (talk) 19:46, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
- I've blocked the last account listed here. The edit from the account and between the others show that there's no question that this is another sock puppet account. The oldest account in this list is Sayli 21, so I'd say that this account is most likely the master (unless there's others I don't know about). I've created the SPI so that this particular sock puppetry incident is documented. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 12:31, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
- More oddly, each account made only one edit before they were blocked, according to their global contributions. It wouldn't be necessary to say that the sockmaster is a repeat offender, but, there has been an unusual turn of events lately. Slasher405 (talk) 15:28, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
- I've blocked the last account listed here. The edit from the account and between the others show that there's no question that this is another sock puppet account. The oldest account in this list is Sayli 21, so I'd say that this account is most likely the master (unless there's others I don't know about). I've created the SPI so that this particular sock puppetry incident is documented. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 12:31, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
- So far, most of the mentioned accounts have been blocked by Bbb23, except for Piusamu, who is still a suspect on the loose. Question is, who is the real sockmaster behind all those accounts? Slasher405 (talk) 19:46, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
Update: Sayli 21 (talk · contribs) is the sockmaster, while all other accounts have been confirmed and tagged by GeneralizationsAreBad (talk · contribs). Another user, Shwetashinde20 (talk · contribs), unlisted, has also been tagged and blocked. So I guess we can close this discussion and move on from here. Slasher405 (talk) 16:37, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
Threatened to be blocked.[edit]
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.
I disagreed with an addition to the article Religious views of Adolf Hitler, changed it and reverted an edit with an explanation, then the user, User:Beyond My Ken threatened to block me, "do not change again unless you want to be blocked from editing" [[106]]. 2601:982:8200:4790:F4CC:BED6:E5BA:4C8A (talk) 01:56, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
- ANI notice left on BYK's talk page. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 03:25, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
- The simple explanation is that you are edit warring. Between your present IP and your previous IPs Special:Contributions/2601:982:8200:4790:3C54:492B:BC0C:BE05 and Special:Contributions/2601:982:8200:4790:34CA:C371:767:D96D you are right at the borderline for violating Wikipedia's three-revert rule. Admittedly User:Beyond My Ken could have been a shade less brusque in his response but he was absolutely correct on the substance; i.e., if you revert this again, you risk being blocked for edit warring. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:06, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
Sorry, how it was typed alarmed me and seems like intimidation. He used the word change, I can understand revert/undo, like changing anything in the article I could face being blocked? 2601:982:8200:4790:F4CC:BED6:E5BA:4C8A (talk) 02:19, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
- Beyond My Ken is referring to edit warring, or the repeated back-and-fourth reverting of an article between another user over content that is in dispute. On Wikipedia, if you begin to face a content dispute with another editor like this, our dispute resolution guidelines mandate that you start a discussion on the article's talk page with the other editors involved (which, for this particular article, is located here) and come to a consensus regarding the dispute. Then, you can make the appropriate edits, if applicable, that reflect the agreement that was reached. A guideline we frequently refer to as an indicator of edit warring behavior is the three-revert rule, which pretty much says that if you're at the point that you've made more than three reverts within a 24-hour period to an article in order to restore it back to your preferred version, you will almost always be considered edit warring and action is usually taken to stop the disruption. I highly recommend that you review these policies before you proceed with editing, as they're important to this project, will answer your questions, as well as address your concerns. Looking at your contribution history, you'll see the concerns that were observed. Please let me know if you have any more questions, and I'll be happy to answer them. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 03:20, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
Removal of user rights[edit]
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.
On 21 November 2017, Sarr Cat (talk · contribs) made four vandalous BLP edits to the trending page Ajit V. Pai while it was under discretionary sanctions and Extended Confirmed Protection. These edits were added maliciously over the course of 20 minutes, and remained visible for roughly half an hour, where it was screenshotted and shared over social media. The user was then indefinitely blocked by Bilby (talk · contribs) because he thought the user's account was compromised. The user was then unblocked after they proved they were still in control of the account and did indeed make those edits with malice, and apologized.
I personally don't think there should be any long term block, as I don't this will happening frequently. However, I find this to be a gross and intentional misuse of the user's permissions as an Extended Confirmed editor. This user has shown that they cannot be trusted with these permissions. I believe this issue should be treated just as if someone abused any other permission, such as rollback, template editor or sysop, which should result in removal of the right to prevent further damage to Wikipedia.
Sorry if this is not the correct venue for this discussion. Gamebuster19901 (Talk║Contributions) 11:33, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose. Such sanctions will serve no purpose other than making some feel good that they meted out justice. Sarr Cat has made assurances that this won't happen again[107] and I see no reason not to trust him. Given that depriving Sarr Cat of ECP rights would result in his inability to continue contributing to this project in a meaningful way, as he has done to-date (with one exception), I can't see how this would improve Wikipedia. Hence, oppose. — kashmiri TALK 11:59, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose - Accidents happen; things happen. Let's assume good faith, forgive, and move on. The timeline described here outline the course of a single event, not a repeated issue or a series of problems that the user has been repeatedly talked to or warned to resolve and to no avail. This is where we'll normally remove or revoke user rights, but not in this situation. Not now. Editors are also correct in pointing out that the removal of the EC user right is only done in situations where accounts are clearly making dummy or useless edits with the sole intention of reaching the required edit count and gaining the user rights, or if the right was manually applied early by an admin. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 12:36, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose. Good long-term contributor who went astray briefly, and I see no reason to doubt their sincerity. Any further sanction would be punitive and of no benefit to Wikipedia. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:44, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose, we all make bad decisions and errors in judgment sometimes. If this becomes a pattern, we can revisit the question, but I don't think this will happen again. Seraphimblade Talk to me 15:51, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose (with frustration): This was a deliberate act of vandalism undertaken to make a political point. It violated basic Wikipedia policy. There is no reasonable excuse for this act, just anger over ongoing political events. This is one of the few cases that makes me wish we had punitive sanctions, but we aren't allowed to sanction to deter, just to incapacitate wrongdoers while they're still wrongdoers. It frustrates me to no end that the message we're sending in this case is "Everyone can vandalize Wikipedia to make a political point and violate fundamental policy one time provided they make a mea culpa later!" But, of course, we are bound by the policy we have.The only sanction I could come up with that might pass muster is a topic ban on articles related to net neutrality. But even that would be a stretch based on a single occurrence, and given vandalism and BLP violations are considered obviously disallowed acts, not really sensible targets for a largely self-enforcing sanction. I definitely would say, however, that Sarr Cat should consider himself subject to a final warning, that any vandalism or BLP violations, especially related to net neutrality, could and should result in a long block. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 16:01, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
- Support - User rights were abused, and these were bad enough (individually and collectively) that they required an indef and revdel, that is sufficient grounds for removal. I can't help but feel that the only reason this is contentious is because it's extended confirmed; if it were rollback or template editor, for example, it would have been removed post haste as the user has demonstrated that they are unable to be trusted with those tools. I treat this the very same way I would treat that. Mr rnddude (talk) 16:11, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
Comment: That's precisely what builds trust towards an editor: a long history of valuable contributions, with which also come EAP rights. And yes, we would be much more likely to indef a newly registered SPA that a user with 3000+ good edits. Sure, vandalism of this kind should have never happened in the first place, and expanding on @Mendaliv's suggestion I think that Sarr Cat should voluntarily take a long break from editing on net neutrality. But punishing a member of our community only in order not to send a wrong message would be, for me, hard to accept. — kashmiri TALK 16:37, 26 November 2017 (UTC)- Oppose. We do not remove extendedconfirmed except in cases of gaming to get it. My response would be very different if this were a user right that's granted by an admin, not automatically, but extendedconfirmed is not meant to be granted with discretion or removed upon some issue. If this occurs in the future, we can topic ban or block. ~ Rob13Talk 17:26, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose this is a clear case of the opposite of the Super Mario Problem scenario applying; while the conduct would be enough to de-sysop an administrator, it's not enough to support any permanent sanction on a non-admin editor. power~enwiki (π, ν) 17:38, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
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.
The first edit of this user was to add a 3k draft of an article, complete with infobox and photo into their userpage. They also placed it in Draft:Kelvin Roy and at Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons (from where it was promptly deleted). This was all back on 10/29. Then today, they put this article into Kelvin Roy - overwriting the existing article of a different person of the same name. They also made edits to several existing articles of just adding a single space (perhaps to build enough edits to be autocomfirmed?) This all seems rather suspicious. MB 00:49, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
- If this is all up in the air, then the user is WP:NOTHERE. It cannot duplicate any sort of description to another page or article. I would recommend to delete and revert all edits of the duplicates as a further precaution. Slasher405 (talk) 01:01, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
- At first glance, the person they're trying to write about appears to be notable enough to warrant inclusion. Perhaps they are just having trouble with where to locate the draft? Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 20:14, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
Rangeblock evasion[edit]
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.
The range currently blocked as Special:Contributions/2602:306:CDA2:E890:0:0:0:0/64 is being evaded by Special:Contributions/2600:1700:F91:A610:0:0:0:0/64 from the same area. This person is a long-term genre warrior, uncommunicative, with no sign of stopping. Binksternet (talk) 22:42, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
- Anon blocked the range for block evasion.
— Berean Hunter (talk) 22:53, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
Need block[edit]
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.
Please see Acamprosate and Talk:Campral1234. Editor is edit warring copyright violations into the article. Jytdog (talk) 02:11, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
- Talk:Campral1234 is a redlink. What diffs in specific? What page are they copied from? SQLQuery me! 02:15, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
- Shit. User talk:Campral1234. Jytdog (talk) 02:15, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
- User indeffed, copyvios revdelled. --NeilN talk to me 02:32, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
- Shit. User talk:Campral1234. Jytdog (talk) 02:15, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
IP harassment[edit]
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.
106.133.173.219 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has resorted to harassing and possibly threatening me on my Talk page after I reverted their continuous additions of a list containing a single entry at List of British films of 2016. Please look into their recent edits. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk • contribs) 03:04, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
- Nonsense. Look at the facts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 106.133.173.219 (talk) 03:07, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
- Lists of British films has no entry for 2016. Were there none? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:09, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
- I removed it because it was a redirect loop at the time. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk • contribs) 03:10, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
- Isn't the IP trying to create the article needed for 2016? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:16, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
- It appears they are, but every revert still contains the single entry, which I see as insufficient for a list article. See WP:SAL. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk • contribs) 03:19, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
- I am currently unaware of a guideline that discourages single-item lists, but if there is, please let me know. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk • contribs) 03:23, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
- Isn't the IP trying to create the article needed for 2016? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:16, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
- I removed it because it was a redirect loop at the time. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk • contribs) 03:10, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
- Well, I have a hunch, here, but let's check and be sure:
- IP creates article from redirect: 0245
- You revert: 0249, four minutes later
- IP attempts to recreate list, 0251
- You revert: 0252, one minute later
- IP attempts to recreate list, 0254
- You revert: 0254, less than one minute later
- ...and my feeling was right: WP:BITE. Good grief, how do you expect anybody to work on expanding the list when you're reverting them almost instantly, in one case literally within seconds? The only result of this is going to be the IP throwing up their hands and no longer bothering, since by the time they have more to add you've already wiped out their prior work. Also I find it hard to imagine there was only one notable movie put out by England in 2016. WP:NODEADLINE. - The Bushranger One ping only 03:28, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
- @The Bushranger: Thanks for informing me of this guideline. I have decided to revert my reversion and remove the listing from ShortPages, which is where I kept finding the page. I will make sure to be careful before making these kinds of reversions in the future. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk • contribs) 03:31, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
- Thank you The Bushranger. jd22292, did you get the point? I'm not sure what guideline you were looking for--you don't need a guideline to tell you that your reverts were very, very unproductive. Drmies (talk) 03:33, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
- No problem. As a footnote, having looked at the history of JD's page, the IP needs to remember WP:NOTVAND, as well, but given they were pretty thoroughly bitten I think they can be forgiven for getting a mite testy. - The Bushranger One ping only 03:41, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
- ...and my feeling was right: WP:BITE. Good grief, how do you expect anybody to work on expanding the list when you're reverting them almost instantly, in one case literally within seconds? The only result of this is going to be the IP throwing up their hands and no longer bothering, since by the time they have more to add you've already wiped out their prior work. Also I find it hard to imagine there was only one notable movie put out by England in 2016. WP:NODEADLINE. - The Bushranger One ping only 03:28, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
- Just some thoughts from another perspective (with respect to The Bushranger, just voicing my disagreement on minor details). 02:49 was a standard revert, perhaps based on misunderstanding, but with appropriate edit summary. IP did not "attempt to recreate list", but to revert the revert at 02:51 with the edit summary "revert vandalism". What should have been done at this point by Jd22292 (in the ideal world where everyone is on self-enforced 1RR) is to manually write a message at the IP's talk page (a message was left at article talk page, but in this case it was unrealistic to expect the IP to see that without explicitly telling them so at their talk page, even though they left a message there first), since no obvious polices/guidelines were broken. 02:54 revert by IP (with the same "revert vandalism" edit summary), if this was a regular user, would be considered disruptive, especially considering it was immediately followed by this post (which was in response to this revert, which was unproductive as Drmies mentioned, but at the very minimum, it was written with the kind of edit summary that shows attempt to communicate. I just wish people can manually write messages more at user talk pages, instead of templated warnings. I'll stop my rambling here, but I guess my point is that I disagree with the assessment that the IP was "thoroughly" bitten, but I agree with the rest of the assessment of this situation. Seeing that Jd22292 is planning to take a break, I think this is a good idea too, and I'll be waiting for their return. Alex Shih (talk) 04:35, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
Incorrect edits made by Clue bot especially[edit]
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.
There are many mistakes made by various people and by CLUE BOT especially on religious articles during editing specifically regarding Islam on e.g. wudu, Hazrat Abu Bakr(R.A). Such mistakes are undoubtly unacceptable to all muslims such as removing S.A.W and R.A which is written after Hazrat Muhammad(S.A.W) and his companions respectivelyin order to respect them. Therefore , it is suggested to edit all Islamic articles on wikipedia under various true Islamic scholars and protect these pages to prevent any vandalism. I surely believe that my suggestions would obviously be considered as a priority and would be implemented. As it is not just for me it is for the muslims all over the world. Why should we spread unauthentic information especially on the matters of religion to the people who are unaware of such precious matters? It is true that racialism has spread all over the world so why should we give such people a chance to spread the wrong information in order to fool others. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Muhammad25199907 (talk • contribs) 16:36, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
- Please see WP:SAWW. —PaleoNeonate – 16:44, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
- The link above is to the Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Islam-related articles. If you disagree with this guidance, please discuss it on the MOS talk page, which is the appropriate location. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:47, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
- I would add that our policy is the same towards people venerated by other religions. For example Jesus is, unless there is an overriding reason justified by the context to do otherwise, referred to as "Jesus" rather than "Jesus Christ". There is nothing racist about using neutral names for religious figures. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 19:21, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
- Muslims are not a race. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:27, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
- For better or for worse, 'racism' has become a catch-all term for 'bigotry' (even when that term itself is already the catch-all for, well, bigotry). - The Bushranger One ping only 22:04, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
- Pinging in Cobi, I cannot see that the OP has notified him and as the ClueBots are his bots I think it only fair.
- Muhammad25199907 when ClueBot NG reverts anything it reverts it as POSSIBLE vandalism. ClueBot NG is not human therefore it cannot read articles or reference the Internet to see if an edit is true. I looked up one of the articles you said that the bot had operated on and I found this edit. The bot was correct to make this reversion I'm not saying that the editor making the edit is a vandal, however as I'm sure you can appreciate "sex" is a word a lot of vandals will use when vandalising. ClueBot NG has picked up on that and reverted it because ClueBot NG is an anti-vandal bot.
- If the bot has reverted something it shouldn't have, use the instructions at the bots talk page. 5 albert square (talk) 19:50, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
- Looking at the bot's edit that 5 albert square (talk · contribs) linked, it's borderline, but understandable why the bot decided to revert it. The user already had one warning on their talkpage, they had made this edit minutes before, and this edit, also the username sounds vandalistic, and the edit in question had a typo in it. All of these factors taken in as a whole made the bot decide that this borderline edit should be reverted. -- Cobi(t|c|b) 21:24, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
- If the bot has reverted something it shouldn't have, use the instructions at the bots talk page. 5 albert square (talk) 19:50, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
Making all the religious articles private[edit]
Sorry this was really unacceptable for me when I read an article regarding Islam . However , all religions should be respected so to prevent any wrong information to be spread through wikipedia a well-known websites for authentic information even for me, all the religious articles should be kept private to prevent incorrect edits made by other people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Muhammad25199907 (talk • contribs) 01:39, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
- Please read the advice given a couple of sections above: there is no such procedure on Wikipedia,and your suggestion cannot be implemented from this noticeboard. Acroterion (talk)
- @Muhammad25199907: Many religious articles are protected when they are vandalized or when false information is repeatedly inserted. However, we don't protect all articles related to religion as a blanket policy. Further, Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy means that information is presented neutrally, so adherents of some religions may feel that some content is incorrect or disrespectful; however, Wikipedia's policies make an intentional effort to be neutral and treat all religions fairly. —C.Fred (talk) 01:44, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
All articles of all religion[edit]
Look what I mean is all the religions from Christianity to Islam should be kept private . If you take a look at the articles Hazrat Isa (A.S) i.e. Jesus some information is also incorrect there. Islam also says to believe and respect all the previous Prophets which came before Hazrat Muhammad (S.A.W). If a Muslim doesnot respect the previous Prophets he is not a true Muslim. I too believe in Jesus and Moses that they were the Prophets of Allah, our God. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Muhammad25199907 (talk • contribs) 01:54, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
- Unfortunatly, that is not how Wikipedia works. Anybody (who is an editor in good standing) can edit any topic, whether they're Muslim, Christian, Jewish, American, Russian, Indian, Martian, or even Randy from Boise. And Wikipedia is written from a neutral point of view; to use a slightly flippiant but entirely accurate description of how that works here, if members of every religion belive their articles are "incorrect" in some way, they're probably all neutral. - The Bushranger One ping only 02:07, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
User:Salomeeaalexandru899 impersonating an admin[edit]
Resolved, NAC SwisterTwister talk 18:05, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Salomeeaalexandru899 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) is impersonating an admin by misusing warning and blocking templates, as evident by this edit. He was also warned for similar behaviour on 7 October. --Marbe166 (talk) 16:11, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
- Left a rather stern message on their page. If they do such a thing again they'll be the one blocked. Canterbury Tail talk 17:23, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Incorrect edits made by Clue bot especially[edit]
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.
There are many mistakes made by various people and by CLUE BOT especially on religious articles during editing specifically regarding Islam on e.g. wudu, Hazrat Abu Bakr(R.A). Such mistakes are undoubtly unacceptable to all muslims such as removing S.A.W and R.A which is written after Hazrat Muhammad(S.A.W) and his companions respectivelyin order to respect them. Therefore , it is suggested to edit all Islamic articles on wikipedia under various true Islamic scholars and protect these pages to prevent any vandalism. I surely believe that my suggestions would obviously be considered as a priority and would be implemented. As it is not just for me it is for the muslims all over the world. Why should we spread unauthentic information especially on the matters of religion to the people who are unaware of such precious matters? It is true that racialism has spread all over the world so why should we give such people a chance to spread the wrong information in order to fool others. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Muhammad25199907 (talk • contribs) 16:36, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
- Please see WP:SAWW. —PaleoNeonate – 16:44, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
- The link above is to the Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Islam-related articles. If you disagree with this guidance, please discuss it on the MOS talk page, which is the appropriate location. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:47, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
- I would add that our policy is the same towards people venerated by other religions. For example Jesus is, unless there is an overriding reason justified by the context to do otherwise, referred to as "Jesus" rather than "Jesus Christ". There is nothing racist about using neutral names for religious figures. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 19:21, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
- Muslims are not a race. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:27, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
- For better or for worse, 'racism' has become a catch-all term for 'bigotry' (even when that term itself is already the catch-all for, well, bigotry). - The Bushranger One ping only 22:04, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
- Pinging in Cobi, I cannot see that the OP has notified him and as the ClueBots are his bots I think it only fair.
- Muhammad25199907 when ClueBot NG reverts anything it reverts it as POSSIBLE vandalism. ClueBot NG is not human therefore it cannot read articles or reference the Internet to see if an edit is true. I looked up one of the articles you said that the bot had operated on and I found this edit. The bot was correct to make this reversion I'm not saying that the editor making the edit is a vandal, however as I'm sure you can appreciate "sex" is a word a lot of vandals will use when vandalising. ClueBot NG has picked up on that and reverted it because ClueBot NG is an anti-vandal bot.
- If the bot has reverted something it shouldn't have, use the instructions at the bots talk page. 5 albert square (talk) 19:50, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
- Looking at the bot's edit that 5 albert square (talk · contribs) linked, it's borderline, but understandable why the bot decided to revert it. The user already had one warning on their talkpage, they had made this edit minutes before, and this edit, also the username sounds vandalistic, and the edit in question had a typo in it. All of these factors taken in as a whole made the bot decide that this borderline edit should be reverted. -- Cobi(t|c|b) 21:24, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
- If the bot has reverted something it shouldn't have, use the instructions at the bots talk page. 5 albert square (talk) 19:50, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
Making all the religious articles private[edit]
Sorry this was really unacceptable for me when I read an article regarding Islam . However , all religions should be respected so to prevent any wrong information to be spread through wikipedia a well-known websites for authentic information even for me, all the religious articles should be kept private to prevent incorrect edits made by other people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Muhammad25199907 (talk • contribs) 01:39, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
- Please read the advice given a couple of sections above: there is no such procedure on Wikipedia,and your suggestion cannot be implemented from this noticeboard. Acroterion (talk)
- @Muhammad25199907: Many religious articles are protected when they are vandalized or when false information is repeatedly inserted. However, we don't protect all articles related to religion as a blanket policy. Further, Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy means that information is presented neutrally, so adherents of some religions may feel that some content is incorrect or disrespectful; however, Wikipedia's policies make an intentional effort to be neutral and treat all religions fairly. —C.Fred (talk) 01:44, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
All articles of all religion[edit]
Look what I mean is all the religions from Christianity to Islam should be kept private . If you take a look at the articles Hazrat Isa (A.S) i.e. Jesus some information is also incorrect there. Islam also says to believe and respect all the previous Prophets which came before Hazrat Muhammad (S.A.W). If a Muslim doesnot respect the previous Prophets he is not a true Muslim. I too believe in Jesus and Moses that they were the Prophets of Allah, our God. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Muhammad25199907 (talk • contribs) 01:54, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
- Unfortunatly, that is not how Wikipedia works. Anybody (who is an editor in good standing) can edit any topic, whether they're Muslim, Christian, Jewish, American, Russian, Indian, Martian, or even Randy from Boise. And Wikipedia is written from a neutral point of view; to use a slightly flippiant but entirely accurate description of how that works here, if members of every religion belive their articles are "incorrect" in some way, they're probably all neutral. - The Bushranger One ping only 02:07, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
User:Northerncedar: Disruptive editing on Mohs surgery[edit]
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.
- Northerncedar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Mohs surgery (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User Northerncedar (talk) has been repeatedly removing the infobox image in Mohs surgery without a reasonable rationale other than how it offends him in some way, with a rambling edit summary accompanying each removal. He additionally wrote a message on his own talk page and then proceeded to copypaste it here and here. He claims he is a Mohs surgeon, and is therefore basically attempting to force his point of view on the topic. sixtynine • whaddya want? • 02:36, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
- The user seems to think that Wikipedia is somehow a way to promote different medical procedures... it is not. --Tarage (talk) 02:54, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
- Discuss at the talk page: Hasn't hit 3RR, doesn't even look like an edit war. It absolutely doesn't look like promotional activity; I don't understand how the above comments distilled that from Northerncedar's commentary. Northerncedar appears to have an honest concern, but is voicing it in a poor manner. Honestly, if he or she is an actual Mohs surgeon, then perhaps we have a potential source of better imagery. I actually don't really disagree with the comment, if of course he or she is correct in that the image of Mohs on the ear postop is not really an accurate depiction of typical outcomes, then that should be discussed. There are, honestly, many cases when no image is better than a problematic image (if it is problematic). In any event, ANI is the wrong venue to air out a content dispute like this, even though Northerncedar has evidently, probably due to inexperience, reverted instead of discussing. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 03:14, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
62.28.64.102[edit]
- 62.28.64.102 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
Not sure what to make of this. Many of this editor's edits are fine, but all are unsourced and have no edit summary. Multiple warnings on IP's talk page have been ignored. I just reverted one at Warren G. Harding thinking it was vandalism, but with no edit summary I'm not sure. @Drmies: Editor has become active again after a short block from you, with no apparent improvement in behavior. Kendall-K1 (talk) 05:45, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
- Well, if their edit at Warren G. Harding is at all representative, we should be giving the IP a barnstar instead of complaining. Harding's mother's first name was Phoebe not Mary. The IP was correcting subtle vandalism. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 08:50, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
- On the other hand, their edits to Joseph P. Kennedy II and John F. Kennedy Jr. are complete bullshit. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 08:53, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
- Their Rose Kennedy edit was also garbage. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 08:56, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
- On the other hand, their edits to Joseph P. Kennedy II and John F. Kennedy Jr. are complete bullshit. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 08:53, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
Me again[edit]
Well the weirdness with my edits not being saved is happening again (now on Antisemitism in the United Kingdom, no warning or notice is appearing, they are just not being saved. It is when I try to undo an edit.Slatersteven (talk) 11:52, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
- I wonder if this could be related (but I could ultimately see an error after a long hang). WP:VPT might possibly be where you wanted to post? —PaleoNeonate – 12:00, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
- Might be, but I seem to recall it was the same editors edits (and the same page) I was trying to revert last time as well.Slatersteven (talk) 12:55, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
Johndoe10001 and WP:EL violations on Nabeel Qureshi (author)[edit]
- Johndoe10001 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Nabeel Qureshi (author) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Johndoe10001 has been continuously adding two links that violate Wikipedia's external link guidelines on the article of Nabeel Qureshi (author). The first external link from the website Bismika Allahuma is a Muslim apologetics site that mostly just criticizes the subject of the article and his views. The second external link titled Christianity Today is an obituary from a Christian apologetics site that supports the subjects views. Either way both these links violate WP:ELPOV and other guidelines put in place over external links. Johndoe10001 has repeatedly reverted any edits made to remove these links. I posted on the user in question's talk page to try to discuss the topic but they never responded back. A look at the user's contributions shows that they have made a a total of 8 edits (mostly reverts) on the Nabeel Qureshi (author) with no attempt to explain their actions. Inter&anthro (talk) 23:40, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
- If these are external links in violation of policy, we should warn the user, and if it continues, action can be taken. The warnings don't seem to be at the level where I think action is fair yet. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 19:14, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
- @Oshwah: how should I proceed then? I have already warned the user in question on their talk page but they did not respond and continue to re-install the content. I do not want to violate the WP:3RR. Inter&anthro (talk) 21:44, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
- @Johndoe10001: I am tagging the user being talked about here so s/he can explain his/her edits. Inter&anthro (talk) 21:44, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
- Inter&anthro - If nothing else comes of this ANI report and nobody else gives input or suggestions, I can add a discussion and warning to the user's talk page so that it's made clear that their edits are problematic, and that it can't continue. If that doesn't result in the user responding or correcting the concerns expressed, we can take things from there. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 21:57, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
- I am not sure if the user will respond as with this edit they did not give any reason. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 22:00, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks Oshwah that sounds like the best course of action. Also for the record I am not trying to get the user in question blocked, it's just that I am against the POV pushing their edits (appear) to be promoting. Inter&anthro (talk) 22:03, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
- Inter&anthro - If nothing else comes of this ANI report and nobody else gives input or suggestions, I can add a discussion and warning to the user's talk page so that it's made clear that their edits are problematic, and that it can't continue. If that doesn't result in the user responding or correcting the concerns expressed, we can take things from there. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 21:57, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
65.182.125.30 trying to act like an admin[edit]
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.
IP user acting like an admin, see the post history. Modifying talk pages and putting block notices. User 261115 (talk) 17:57, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
- User has been warned, spurious sock block warning deleted. I don't think any further action right now is needed. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:02, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
Where's a diff of the IP saying he had blocked you?←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:06, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
- This is block evasion by User:MechMaster Katzenstein, and I've blocked the IP again. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:46, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
- I've also reverted edits that were either vandalism or disruptive editing if that helps. Callmemirela 🍁 talk 19:02, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
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.
- BelAirWhale (talk · contribs)
- Fake news (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Plus, I've been accused of editing for money and censorship [108]. Some diffs [109]; [110]; [111]. Thanks, 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 02:14, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
- Warning themselves and
"I operate so much like a bot that most humans like you may be offended on occasions."
....???? Callmemirela 🍁 talk 02:19, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved.
As stated: "Plus, I've been accused of editing for money and censorship" The agenda is self-evident. Done. BelAirWhale (talk) 02:20, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
- Just for fun, regarding the previous report, I've also been accused of being a sock [112]. Apparently I'm more corrupt than I thought possible. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 02:22, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
- Their reply made no sense at all. I've reverted their edit per NPOV and lack of sources. To use your POV that The Economist is a bad source because who runs it is seriously troubling. Callmemirela 🍁 talk 02:25, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
- There appears to be a pattern of proclaiming defense of the truth while accusing other editors of concealing the same. See the response to last month's warnings [113]. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 02:30, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
- In addition to the above points, BelAirWhale seems to like threatening other editors. Not quite on to legal threats yet, but I'd certainly classify these as attempts at intimidating other editors into backing down. (I also undid this extremely dubious edit to Wikipedia:Academic use. Wikipedia is never a reliable source!) Marianna251TALK 02:38, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
- I just reverted this [114], a pointed little addition to the intro that has little or nothing to do with the article subject. There may be a long edit history that merits review. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 03:16, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
- In addition to the above points, BelAirWhale seems to like threatening other editors. Not quite on to legal threats yet, but I'd certainly classify these as attempts at intimidating other editors into backing down. (I also undid this extremely dubious edit to Wikipedia:Academic use. Wikipedia is never a reliable source!) Marianna251TALK 02:38, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
- There appears to be a pattern of proclaiming defense of the truth while accusing other editors of concealing the same. See the response to last month's warnings [113]. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 02:30, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
- Their reply made no sense at all. I've reverted their edit per NPOV and lack of sources. To use your POV that The Economist is a bad source because who runs it is seriously troubling. Callmemirela 🍁 talk 02:25, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
- Editor is very clearly not here to build an encyclopedia. Endorse a short block so hopefully they get the message. --Tarage (talk) 08:38, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
- There are very obvious NPOV issues with Special:Diff/811502956. If BelAirWhale (talk · contribs) is unable or unwilling to understand that, a block will be necessary. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:27, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
- Hello power~enwiki,
Thank you for your concern and.. clarification? You are late to the party.
Best regards,
BelAirWhale (talk) 19:37, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
- That borders on a non-sensical response. The goal of a discussion here is to determine consensus through the assessments of many participants; a discussion that completed in 48 hours would be considered quick. Do you feel there are WP:NPOV issues with that commit? power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:01, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
Propose indef block[edit]
First of all: apologies, this got a bit long. Short version: I think BelAirWhale is trying to edit in good faith, but has some hefty WP:COMPETENCE issues and hasn't shown any willingness to take on board feedback or learn from more experienced editors.
I've gone through a bit of BelAirWhale's contributions (nowhere near all) and they're kind of all over the place. A few are decent, but far more are POV, unsourced, original research or have other serious issues. Apart from the Fake news article, I've reverted BelAirWhale's edits to Whisper (app) due to their POV problems alongside misrepresentation of sources. If I try really hard to assume good faith, it's just about possible that BelAirWhale strayed into WP:SYNTH without intending to, but that's stretching good faith to breaking point:
- They used an irrelevant Daily Mail article about husbands resenting their wives as a source for the statement "Whisper is also continuously being investigated by journalists and government authorities for Whisper's dishonesty to their entire subscribed users about Whisper's false statements about their privacy policy in regards to their users" [115].
- They claimed that "Whisper has had to layoff 20% of their 71-employee staff due to a lack of revenue and operating plans which were based solely upon investment capital" ... except that the source mentions nothing about Whisper using investment capital and is actually fairly positive overall about their revenue potential [116].
- They claimed that Whisper manufactured a story to "falsely indemnify" themselves against allegations made by the Guardian [117], with the only source being an article about the Guardian's retraction of their allegations - nothing about Whisper manufacturing a story. Basically, the source for the "manufactured story" claim was the allegedly manufactured story, which is practically the definition of original research. They also claimed that this meant Whisper's CEO had committed fraud - both OR and a BLP violation.
- They claimed that even though the allegations were retracted, "the facts remain and there has been more proof that Whisper has breached the trust of its users identities, it's users locations, and its users activities", with the only source being the original allegations, which had been retracted by that point [118] (also note the edit summary "removed biased content made by paid contributors for Michael Heyward".)
There are other, more minor issues with some of the edits I came across, showing a general lack of understanding of Wikipedia in general and sourcing in particular:
- It's pot luck on whether or not their edits actually reflect the sources given. In addition to the Fake news and Whisper edits, I've just reverted this edit to the Isabel dos Santos article, because the sources provided only state that dos Santos was fired, with absolutely nothing to support the line "Authorities in Angola have recently taken action against and made criticism towards dos Santos in regards to the methods used by her to acquire her wealth and utilize her advantage in her business deals". Marking this edit as minor with the summary "corrected mispelling, grammar, clarified, added sources" is misleading as well. This was BelAirWhale's response to my cautioning them for doing so, asking if I am "afraid or biased"; when I explained the issue, I got this in response. (FYI, two more of today's edits by BelAirWhale were reverted by other editors for causing more problems than they fixed; the edits BelAirWhale made were good faith but nonetheless not helpful, further showing their lack of understanding/competence.)
- They mark almost every single edit as minor (89% of their mainspace edits), even when adding a substantial amount of content [119][120][121][122][123][124][125][126][127][128][129]. In fairness, this issue has not been pointed out to them before.
- This was their cleanup of one article - personally, I would still tag that as needing a major cleanup.
- They regularly use IMDB and other self-published sources [130][131][132]; comparatively minor, but even more of a problem considering that they tend to cherry-pick what they take from the sources.
- And, of course, they think that Wikipedia is a reliable source.
Generally BelAirWhale seems like they want to edit in good faith, and probably think that they are doing so. Unfortunately, their edits are frequently unhelpful, they don't seem willing to listen to feedback and their response to this ANI has been very lacking. If they're willing to work with other editors, they could become a good editor and a great help to Wikipedia, but they haven't shown any willingness to do so.
Therefore, I propose an indefinite block for BelAirWhale, unless they show some willingness to take on board the feedback given and work with other editors.
@BelAirWhale: please could you join this discussion? Marianna251TALK 22:28, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
- Edited for clarity: until BelAirWhale shows sincere willingness to take on board feedback and work with other editors, short-term sanctions would be a waste of time. We'd just end up coming back here again and again. Marianna251TALK 23:18, 22 November 2017 (UTC))
Could someone besides Mariana join this discussion because Marianna has made grave errors in her corrections.
When making claims that state articles that are “poorly sourced,” including claims that state information entered in a Wikipedia article is not correct, such claims are without merit when there is evidence that some of the articles are both not being read as well as manipulatively using other sources to claim that such sources were used to represent information entered in a Wikipedia article. This husband and wife article had nothing to do with the sentence that Marianna was claiming.
For the record, since I know this is a contentious issue in U.S., I am unbiased: Female, Male, Genealogy, Personal identifying characteristics mean nothing in terms of errors made in editing and sourcing data.
While there may be errors that I have made in mislabelling any “minor” edits. I certainly do not understand what is minor and what is not. I will appreciate receiving a clear definition of what is considered minor.
Is there someone available that does not have an emotional or prejudiced basis in their analysis of my edits?
I am always open to learn, without bias and without prejudice.
Best regards, BelAirWhale (talk) 22:55, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
- Could you clarify why you feel I have "an emotional or prejudiced [bias]", please? Regarding minor edits, Help:Minor edit will explain what should and should not be counted as a minor edit. If in doubt, it's always better not to mark an edit as minor.
- (FYI, I'm on British time so I'll be logging out for the night soon. I'll respond to further comments/queries in the morning.) Marianna251TALK 23:10, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
- Endorse proposal for indefinite block. Not a surprise, since I brought this here. Given the frequency with which the editor provides copious sources that don't support controversial or irrelevant claims, this seems appropriate. I've already mentioned the bizarre edits at Fake news and [133], and see that this edit to Kim Kardashian was reverted earlier this evening [134]. Not only are these off-kilter, tend toward personal commentary and often aren't supported by sources, they consistently veer into WP:BLP concerns, with a reliably nasty tone. Thanks to Marianna251 for digging deeper. This goes beyond a competence issue. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 05:19, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
- Well, thank you Marianna251 for providing the clarification on Help:Minor edits. "Minor" is always a point of view (POV) so this Help:Minor edit clarification really helps.[1]
References
- ^ Regan A. R. Gurung; R. Eric Landrum (2015). "Scholarship of Teaching and Learning in Psychology". American Psychological Association: 1(4), 269–282. ISSN 2332-2101.
{{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires|journal=(help)
- I do recognise the "nasty" attacks on me from multiple users here so I would like to enquire why people are proposing an indefinite block on my Wikipedia account, rather than seeking a constructive resolution that has a target of problem solving, rather than emotionally loaded pleas to administrative personnel for retaliation against mistakes of Wikipedia formatting.
- BelAirWhale (talk) 12:30, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
- (I've indented your comment per WP:THREAD so we can have a clear line of discussion. Hope that's okay.)
- In response to your comment... There haven't been any attacks on you. Whenever an issue has been raised, it has been about the edits you have been making, with supporting evidence, not you yourself. We all get things wrong - it is not a personal attack on you to point out a mistake. It is a personal attack to respond by accusing others of bias [135], prejudice [136], manipulation [137] (or all three [138]), a conflict of interest via paid editing [139][140][141], or call them an embarrassment [142].
- I'm glad you found the minor edits help page useful. I'm guessing that you haven't had a chance to read it yet, though, since you are still marking non-minor edits as minor. Adding or removing references are not minor edits, whereas fixing a reference already in the article would be. Hope that helps.
- While I'm here, you still haven't explained why you feel I have an "emotional or prejudiced [bias]". Please could you provide evidence for that assertion? Marianna251TALK 14:41, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
- Hello Marianna251,
- I read it again just now: I was relying upon "A good rule of thumb is that edits consisting solely of spelling corrections, formatting changes, or rearrangement of text without modification of content should be flagged as minor edits."
- I misinterpreted "formatting changes" as a category of "adding a source." Thank you for that clarification.
- Is there a significant value for Wikipedia in drawing upon past assertions?
- This chat page is not well organised.
- Regards,
- BelAirWhale (talk) 15:53, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
- "Is there a significant value for Wikipedia in drawing upon past assertions?" - yes, there is. You asserted during this discussion that I have an emotional or prejudiced bias/basis. That is a blanket way of trying to dismiss every single concern I have raised without actually addressing the concerns. I have provided evidence for everything I have said; if you're going to accuse me of something, prove it. Otherwise I have to conclude that you can't argue against what I've written, so you're trying to remove me from the discussion via a combination of straw man and ad hominem fallacies.
- I'm quite prepared to pull a Jeremy Paxman and not stop asking until you actually answer the question. If you're not sure how to provide evidence, WP:D&L will guide you through looking at diffs and making links to them. Marianna251TALK 19:23, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
- Hello Marianna251!
- I must say that you are starting to make this entertaining now. Are you serious?
- Jeremy Paxman and Michael Howard. Is this a fantasy of yours or just some Forecasting of a Psychological projection. I don't have the interest to carry on with pointless bickering over something that you have decided to cherry pick out of context. I believe all of the points have been made clear to me. I have also thankfully learned more about how to properly contribute, and learn with the Wikipedia. I say you did something again and you carry on with endless bickering with me. I say you did not then we can focus on something of value, shall each of us move on or pull more meat from the dead turkey?
- Best regards and Good evening,
- BelAirWhale (talk) 20:06, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
- You still haven't explained why you feel I have an "emotional or prejudiced [bias]". Please could you provide evidence for that assertion? Marianna251TALK 21:21, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
- Hello, BelAirWhale. Can you please confirm that you have read and understood Wikipedia:Conflict of interest? Deb (talk) 12:45, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
- Hello Deb
I have, of course, read the Wikipedia:Conflict of interest policy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BelAirWhale (talk • contribs) 13:20, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
- Support indef. this recent edit by BelairWhale, while not offensive, is apt. In addition to the the diffs already brought, see tthis diff which could not be a more blatant "sell" for the PR director of the museum .This person is NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia, but is doing an excellent job of wasting everyone's time here. Jytdog (talk) 07:14, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
- Reading thru the defiant nature of the user's responses on his/her Talk Page, I see a whole boatload of trouble on the horizon - agree he/she is not here to build an encyclopedia. Support the block.104.169.28.113 (talk) 08:01, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
- Support indefinite block. The user's attitude makes it difficult for me to belief the user is sincerely acting in good faith. 青い(Aoi) (talk) 05:35, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
- I'm about to close this, but I'll add a "regular" remark--I picked a substantial edit at random to see if these editors above, calling for a block, knew their ass from their elbow. So I grabbed this one, and indeed, asses and elbows were properly identified and marked: the edit reads like an undergraduate essay, in which a general discourse about how the "Western media" vilify the Russian media is allegedly referenced...by a BBC story on the bias in RT and Sputnik and their deranking by Google, and a slew of articles from RT itself (including one on that strange case in Texas, with the F--- Trump sticker). So we have POV editing, unencyclopedic writing, references that don't bear out the text (to put it mildly), either individually or in combination. In other words, I find for the plaintiff, despite some claim of ... what is this? It has a theological flavor to it. Drmies (talk) 17:03, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
Users Störm, Saqib, Landscape repton[edit]
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.
Relating - Ehsan Sehgal - Zarb-e-Sukhan - The Wise Way - Muslim United Nations
This case was reviewed and suggested by my private friends' team, who went through the real conspiracy and dig into it, to brought up the matter, which deliberately and with the hired ones, who illegitimately, violating all the rules for their bad faith motives that achieved with the calibration of the visible and invisible contributors. My team has selected the major things that can help the neutral and honest and fair contributors, who work for the best of Wikipedia, not for intelligence agencies or personal hatred or jealousy. I am sorry if I don't use the Wiki way of language. I don't know the rules, it is just my feeling that I feel some contributors brutally misused the Wikipedia, even I doubt the involvement of some admins behind this game, because, I update all social media accounts of the subject, many of you know the relationship of it. I am thankful of those friends, who searched and provided me the facts, alone, for me was it very difficult, as the subject would never help in this regard. I don't worry if the result goes against this case, I want only that this case should be handled by the native speakers, who know the policies better than those ones, who misuse it.
1 - The subject's mistake was that we misused his name, to create the account with his real name, we were not aware of that will be the ugly problem, the whole history is on Wikipedia, admins can easily find that on subject's talk page, which lead personal motives than rules.
2. Small events are ignored, but issues started from here, 1
3. About my role and others, who added the information in the subject's article, were explained by the subject through email privately, as I know, the subject and admins involved were satisfied, but not the opponents, they remained against the subject, with different accounts, and waited for lang for that and they finally succeeded.
I come up to recently, in July 2017, started to mess the articles of the subject, and articles created by the subjects, it happened after I blocked several admins and contributors of Wikipedia, who were on friend list of the subject on its social media accounts, which I was time to time updating besides the subject. I don't want to reveal the conversation among them, I respect subject's privacy and those, who tried to --- (?) ---. Maybe, some of those got anger, I didn't realize, when I got email in July that pics, uploaded by me were for deletion, I without notice the subject, became aware that someone, not only nominated the pics on Commons but also subject's articles and created articles were under deletion, and messed, and well-sourced content was removed mindlessly. Mess the article Ehsan Sehgal started after that as such comments:
Saqib disclose the identity of Justiceoo7, for that Saqib got just a warning from Drmies, but damage was done. Such unjust practices lead that Justice retired from editing permanently
Just after six months, planned bad faith practice started by Greenbörg (talk), now User:Störm, on article Ehsan Sehgal as this [well-sourced authentic weekly magzine of Daily Nawaiwaqt group source no-5. and so on- exceeding of hatred and bad faith resulted as these tags,and planned reaction.
And helpers appeared, as Landscape repton and Saqib and double helper of both sides, as strangely NitinMlk, who one side criticized and other side to encourage for deletion or merging, telling the most comprehensive reliable sources, as:
Comment – The links provided by the above anon user show that the cited offline sources of this BLP not only exist but also discuss the subject in detail. I also looked at the revision history of this BLP. It's clear that most of its online sources are archived at archive.is & Internet Archive. I am adding some of those archived sources here: Bilingual literary read. Daily Times. Daily Jang. 15 May 2012. Daily Jang. 24 November 2012. A splendid poetry collection. Daily Times. Geo Urdu. 2 January 2014. Urdu, surviving against odds. Daily Rising Kashmir P.S. As one can see in the BLP's revision history, User:Landscape repton – who registered here a few days ago – has cleaned it up, which includes addition of 20 plus tags by them. And its lots of sources & content has been deleted. So, I guess one will have to look at older revisions like this one for analyzing the sources. BTW, the user has also done similar sort of edits at the subject's book article – see here. - NitinMlk. Contributors can read through all comments to realize the bad faith and of citation templates. Only that three most honest contributors each after each spoiled the article, no one bothered to stop them, it had shown the complete conspiracy and preplanning agenda and motives, which was and is against the Wikipedia. Not only this, they went to all articles, created by the subject and user Justice, for deletion, in which those articles were deleted that subjects had received government award and prizes, it was very shameful practice but happened. Even though article Zarb-e-Sukhan well-sources, with comprehensive 5 sources had been merged by the nominator, who voted for deletion, and his self-closed as merge, it is a great surprise but no one's matter, more surprising, he with so called good faith went here too, for deletion all pics 1
I just want to ask the nuetral and western contributors to judge and review the matter. It is not the compelete case, I will add more facts as my team ready to give me the draft for submit here, these are my comcerns, which I asked my friends to help me, they are not from Wikipedia, but somehow aware of that, we are busy from july 2017. I today also commented this. Moona Sehgal (talk) 22:48, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
- It makes me more surprised what it means or something els? I will write after finding facts.
On User talk:Mar4d - page: - 1 - 2.
Moona Sehgal (talk) 23:10, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
- i am not here for tricks, no one is using my account, my friends just make the draft that i paste, i tell that because i write in small letter as my habit. i fairly tell the truth, my concerns in another way of writing, i have asked many contributors through email, just help me, where to go and how to deal. it is a harassment that they don't dare to comment because later they will be targeted by such ones. i am not alone to say this. you can see others too, here. 1
saqib & storm violated a rule, you mention here 1. thank for it, i am learning this, while i am not interested to contribute, i was just for upload pics of my father. my first task is to get delete my father article, which caused him humiliation, damage in private life, i don't think wikipedia is for this purpose, but these two have done this, "Posting another editor's personal information is harassment, unless that person has voluntarily posted his or her own information, or links to such information, on Wikipedia. Personal information includes legal name, date of birth, identification numbers, home or workplace address, job title and work organisation, telephone number, email address, other contact information, or photograph, whether such information is accurate or not. Posting such information about another editor is an unjustifiable and uninvited invasion of privacy and may place that editor at risk of harm outside their activities on Wikipedia. Unless unintentional and non-malicious (for example, where Wikipedians know each other off-site and may inadvertently post personal information, such as using the other person's real name in discussions), attempted outing is sufficient grounds for an immediate block. This applies to the personal information of both editors and non-editors.
Any edit that "outs" someone must be reverted promptly, followed by a request for oversight to delete that edit from Wikipedia permanently. Any administrator may redact it pending oversight, even when the administrator is involved. If an editor has previously posted their own personal information but later redacted it, it should not be repeated on Wikipedia, although references to still-existing, self-disclosed information are not considered outing. If the previously posted information has been removed by oversight, then repeating it on Wikipedia is considered outing."
don't ask me, just go and dig in the article history and talk pages, you will know what is reality. i am busy to add more things, as i have. Moona Sehgal (talk) 10:26, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
- About Muslim United Nations, disgusting remarks of Landscape repton: It is just a pamphlet repton and Greenborg, as "he is a critic of UN so he wrote that charter and that's it." . It was deliberately insulting and degrading the subject, is the Wikipedia ground of such conduct or checking the reliability of sources or insulting of the subject, to enjoying self-egoism? While utmost two reliable sources were cited, as [144] Family Magazine of Daily [145] Nawaiwaq group, stated in second leads, "Muslim United Nations Founding Chairman Ehsan Sehgal, residing in the Hague, magazine issue of 1998 and Daily Hurriya Karachi, the biggest daily newspaper of its time, mentioned lead in box: To establish Muslim United Nations Is My Mission-Ehsan Sehgal - Good faith contributors had that seen and cited too, but working on agenda could not see, even making jokes in insulting way- They could not find that-- 1, 2, 3
My friends are busy to help me, I come with all answers to bad faith contributors. It is not just conspiracy, it is a big conspiracy and very accurate planned to humiliate the subject. It has to come more, I am busy. Moona Sehgal (talk) 21:16, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
- Comment: In the interests of making life easier for everyone concerned, could I just ask that you outline what the concern actually is, without the flowery language? Is it an issue of users deleting content when they shouldn't have done so, outing other editors, a combination of the two or something entirely different? If anything's going to come of this, it will come of it due to facts and policies, rather than oratory. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 23:37, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
WeI don't know exactly what we are here for, butweI do know that none of us are currently in a conspiracy, as far as I to my knowledge hand on heart. Drmies (talk) 23:40, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
- Are you admitting that multiple people are using your account? --Tarage (talk) 00:09, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
- This is a simple baseless allegation against editors by this SPA who has merely made 67 or so edits since 2011. Instead I suggest this SPA be blocked for COI editing and for accusing editors of hatching a conspiracy. --Saqib (talk) 05:46, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
- I can see at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ehsan Mehmood Khan what you are pointing too but I can assure you whatever I had done was in good faith. Interestingly, you have developed an interesting story for us to read. Thanks. Störm (talk) 07:11, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
- my helping text:
You and your supporters assuming good faith, having no any clue what does it mean, make me surprised. You call it good faith? An IP removed term Scholar for having not citation that you and your supporter blindly first removed all sources, and then tagged multiple templates, and blaming subject's connections with media, you are well aware of my father's personal life than I do?? very interesting! The most insulting game did your supporter, as; A student of Urdu literature, you both had no manner of respect and civility, it was inserted without citation, is it good faith?
Your good faith openly shows a reality, while you have more knowledge of a subject, even you tag Hoax, a completely planned and conspired edits. You still determine to be a good faith contributor? Do not worry, my friends helping me, you and your supporters can not damage Wikipedia. I am still busy to collect the facts, there is more of this conspiracy. Moona Sehgal (talk) 14:52, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
- Storm, you and suspicious account Landscape repton, which was created within the minutes and directly he or she found your adventure on Ehsan Sehgal, which you illegitimately messed the article, Landscape repton with its dubious tricks, as a newbie contributor demonstrated as an experienced administrator of Wikipedia. You stormed the policies on the subject and taking the gun of promotional, knowing nothing that was promotional? While here is your list of articles that you created, all fall under WP:COI and Wikipedia:Identifying blatant advertising, your all articles are upon Pakistani subjects, while you are English speaker and from Australia, it is so strange that you are interested in Pakistani subjects, not the Australian ones???. You have let your previous account name Greenbörg, deleted, where, a contributor Mar4d posted you the Wiki Barnstar, while you asking him to help too, how you knew him?These are the question but my friends know the answer, I will come up later about this, Wikipedia is not a platform to misuse for personal use. I am not accusing, I am telling the truth if admins let me continue that because I and my friends are not much familiar, we step by step finding the facts. Don't forget, I have proof of harassment to the subject on its social media and real life, by the ISI and RAW agencies and at the same time, his articles were messed? Collibration of you, Landscape repton and Saqib, from different worlds, show doubts??
You also targeted hundreds of other articles blindly because just to cover your way as normal practice while your created most of articles fail to pass notability, and you clearly breach COI and Advert policies, for example, these articles 1, 2 have none of the sources that establish WP:notability, just promoting subjects here as like things of supermarket. Well aware of rules may review your list of articles, most of the single line articles and fall under WP: COI and Wikipedia:Identifying blatant advertising articles. There is more to come, I will defend the credibility of the Wikipedia until I am allowed to do that.Moona Sehgal (talk) 13:11, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
- Strom, Landscape repton, and Saqib, would you explain that to have an article on Wikipedia, the subject must not have any relationship with anywhere, anything or any subject or object that you tried to get points on your bad faith messing on the discussing subject, as you described in referring Chief Editor of Daily Dharti, with these links that were out of the article, which had no season to be discussed at any level, as 1? The subject is a professional journalist (read his articles) and has worldwide connections if any media, any institution or any figure admire or appreciate or publish his work is prohibited, just because of having an article on Wikipedia, it is a senseless and mindless point. I am proud that the subject encouraged a Wiki-Contributor to grant an award him, as you mentioned: The Daily Dharti have recently covered Ehsan Sehgal giving out a prize for editing Wikipedia, is here any matter of jealousy or question of reliability, while it was a personal matter of subject, but you tried to get point for your bad faith motives. Daily Dharti has an editorial oversight, even Google search shows it on top as Dharti - Voice of Overseas Pakistani's. A Newspaper from Green DHARTI., which you three mislead the community of Wikipedia. About Daily Jang in regarding the subject, your wording of own choice and belief that I failed to verify. I don't think, Jang can write that kind of statement., but Jang wrote that. Various singers sang Ehsan Sehgal Ghazals and Zarb-e-Sukhan have been widely acknowledged and admired in India and Pakistan and he received Faiz Award from Urdu Tahreek London and his books have been translated into Dutch and English too, You all three on each source misguided the community and persisted on your bath faith point. Moona Sehgal (talk) 15:42, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
- Look out for that boomerang. - The Bushranger One ping only 20:08, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
- I am a Dutch woman, wife, mother, sister, and daughter, I am here to ask fairness, not to threaten anything, but good for Wikipedia. Discussion on talk pages was not anymore possible, in a situation of three bad faith editors and their supporters, who occupied the editing process, no one was allowed to do, what they want they did, preplanning edits, if you will not allow me to express my concerns, as I am also contributor of Wikipedia, should not be taken side of anyone, it should be different here than the talk pages, but I feel harassment here too?
As on article talk page, a contributor, User:Renzoy16 commented this
As a result, a pinging contributor Jytdog went to the Renzoy talk page, rather reply on article talk page, it was openly way of harassment, that's why I am here. Working on agenda will try to cause me blocked, for me is not a problem that, I will not stop until there is not a fair investigation and decision, otherwise, I will take my case to The Wikipedia Arbitration Committee. I hope, admins will give me, right to say my concerns, which are in the favor of Wikipedia. Moona Sehgal (talk) 08:45, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
I will not stop until there is not a fair investigation and decision
Well, I see why you're upset, then. You're getting a fair hearing but that it isn't what you wanted. Marianna251TALK 13:07, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
- i am not upset, i am sad, a father who defended its daughters and self became humiliated on wikipedia. i trust fair admins. Moona Sehgal (talk) 13:22, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
- @Moona Sehgal: Why are you hiding behind other names? Be brave! Come up and discuss. You should start AfD where you think my created articles are promotional. I can assure that you will never do that. I want to hear more. Störm (talk) 16:49, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
i don't understand what you want to say, give the answers that are raised here, if you can't, plz go to school and first finish your study. i am here for fair investigation, not for your ordinary questions. Moona Sehgal (talk) 20:36, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
--**"My Last Comment"** - My concerns are that restore the well-sourced version, and neutral originally Eglish speakers copy edit if there is promotional content, to make balance rather than deleting it, or delete the entire article, to let us free from COI, which remain the target of bad faith contributors. there is all content, someone can rewrite for Wikipedia, it is not a difficult, and also restore well-sourced, zarb-e-sukhan covered with five major mainstream international newspapers. I repeat a comment of — Myk Streja (when?), who was convinced to delete vote.
Recently bad faith edits of Strom are not as the sources state. In lead, he added false claim while it was Zarb-e-Sukhan. Similarly, such edits created the problems by such contributors since it was created. Now I will only focus to upload pics in commons. Moona Sehgal (talk) 09:25, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
- Note: I have tried a half-dozen times or so to read this section, and I could not make heads or tails of it, it's simply impenetrable. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:46, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
- The impression I get is "content dispute, OP decides that since all the other editors disagree with their position they must be socks or at least a cabal, and when their ANI gets befuddled-yet-generally-opposing responses they double down, while playing the what a nice person I am/what terrible people you are card multiple times, all of this with a side of sounding seriously like a shared account or something indistinguishable from same". Having gotten a triple word score on Wikipedia Bingo, this should probably be closed while adding the '...before the boomerang', 'belongs at DR', and 'please try to be clearer with your complaint there' cards to the deck. (Now, that isn't to say there isn't fire under this smoke - see above - but this, as it is, is only going to hurt the issue, not help.) - The Bushranger One ping only 02:03, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
- Wow, you got a lot more from it then I could. The major problems here are the English-language capabilities of the major participants, which are poor, and, to be trite, the formatting. I don't think people realize how important it is to use short paragraphs, indent properly, etc. so that the reader's eyes don't glaze over in trying to take in the information. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:00, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
- In all seriousness, I think it actually helped that when I looked at this it was at 6:30 in the morning after being up all night and I was about to fall over asleep. - The Bushranger One ping only 05:13, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
Dispute over CAGE_(organisation)[edit]
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.
User talk:Pincrete is constantly deleting new content from the CAGE_(organisation) article. Due to the fact he is reverting the new content since a long time, the article is usually outdated. User Pincrete do not react to arguments and for example reverting to the false quotaion, only because his POV. Plaese help me to resolve dipute with him. Cautious (talk) 21:56, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
- Comment - Why should a content dispute be settled at ANI? And you did not bother to provide diffs. Regardless, it appears Pincrete perfectly described the issues with your additions here. It is much more appropriate to discuss with him and, if there is no resolution, perhaps initiate a RfC.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 22:45, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
- Note By the looks of this discussion, Cautious has been particularly uncivil, accusing Pincrete of misrepresenting sources, POV-pushing, and being "blind". I find the accusations of misrepresenting sources as the most ironic as it appears Pincrete thoroughly describes how you are the one actually committing such an act.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 22:56, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
- This diff illustrates TGS's last point quite well. Mathsci (talk) 23:14, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
- User Pincrete removed sourced quotation from Rabbani, who said that it was "moral victory". Cautious (talk) 23:21, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
- User Pincrete also replaced quotations regarding Zakat appeal with false quotation. Cautious (talk) 23:21, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
- The main problem is that User Pincrete is reversing changes to that acrticle since long time due to that fact the content of the article is outdated. He is not even filling the reverted content with his version. He is removing content, because of some POV reasons. Cautious (talk) 23:21, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
- Mathsci this is not point of dispute. I answered his question, kind of open discussion. Above I mention 3 problesms I have with user Pincrete. Cautious (talk) 23:26, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
- Rabbani did not say it was a 'moral victory', CAGE did in a headline on a press release, this I added back into the article Cautious's text, My addition of the shortened text, My explanation on talk, though the reason why many of these additions are unacceptable (analysis of a primary source), had already been explained several times. Cautious does not live up to his name and appears determined to use the article to put his own opinions of CAGE and its staff. His English is not always clear either.Pincrete (talk) 23:29, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
- https://cage.ngo/press-release/muhammad-rabbani-we-have-won-the-moral-argument/ Here is quotation from Rabbani: we have won the moral argument. Cautious (talk) 23:45, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
- You said "add CAGE (not Rabbani's) statement, which does not mention any 'demonstrations' ... see talk", while in the source the demo is clearly visible. You are reverting, ignoring sources, without reading sources. I propose to discuss sources first and than make decision to improve.Cautious (talk) 23:48, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
- You are simply ignoring sources and writing content based on your imaginationCautious (talk) 23:48, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
- That is not the source you were using. It still would not justify WHERE you put the text (splitting up citations), nor the claim of a 'demonstration, which appeared invented by you. I have no objection to saying that both Cage and Rabbani claimed a moral victory and will add it myself. What do you mean VISIBLE? Are you now interpreting photos? Pincrete (talk) 23:56, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
- There are plenty of sources you choose to ignore. I just proven my point, why are unable to acknowledge it? In the previous source there are photos, clearly showing Rabbani within the crowd. Again, you are not reading the sources! Cautious (talk) 00:07, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
- I don't know how to 'read' a photo and your interpretation of one is not a source. You seem really determined to prove that you lack the competence, experience and neutrality to edit in a controversial topic area. I suggest you close this ANI before it blows up in your face. Pincrete (talk) 00:19, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
- It's been awhile, and I'm an old curmudgeon, but I'm pretty sure "this is a photo, I see X in the photo, therefore the photo is a reference for X" is pretty much one of the textbook examples of WP:SYNTH. - The Bushranger One ping only 02:04, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
- Finally I found the source, where I took the gathering from. Following the judge’s verdict yesterday Rabbani addressed supporters and members of the press outside Westminster Magistrates Court. http://5pillarsuk.com/2017/09/26/cages-muhammad-rabbani-to-appeal-guilty-verdict-in-schedule-7-trial/ Cautious (talk) 05:19, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
- I just noticed that Pincrete removed the whole chapter related to Political activities of Cage based on their article to remove US and UN Based soldiers from Africa. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=CAGE_(organisation)&oldid=810837495#Political_activities https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=CAGE_%28organisation%29&type=revision&diff=812266638&oldid=810837495Cautious I believe it is important to know that the allegededly charity organisation has also political agenda. (talk) 05:24, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
- Finally I found the source, where I took the gathering from. Following the judge’s verdict yesterday Rabbani addressed supporters and members of the press outside Westminster Magistrates Court. http://5pillarsuk.com/2017/09/26/cages-muhammad-rabbani-to-appeal-guilty-verdict-in-schedule-7-trial/ Cautious (talk) 05:19, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
- There are plenty of sources you choose to ignore. I just proven my point, why are unable to acknowledge it? In the previous source there are photos, clearly showing Rabbani within the crowd. Again, you are not reading the sources! Cautious (talk) 00:07, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
- Rabbani did not say it was a 'moral victory', CAGE did in a headline on a press release, this I added back into the article Cautious's text, My addition of the shortened text, My explanation on talk, though the reason why many of these additions are unacceptable (analysis of a primary source), had already been explained several times. Cautious does not live up to his name and appears determined to use the article to put his own opinions of CAGE and its staff. His English is not always clear either.Pincrete (talk) 23:29, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
- Mathsci this is not point of dispute. I answered his question, kind of open discussion. Above I mention 3 problesms I have with user Pincrete. Cautious (talk) 23:26, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
- This diff illustrates TGS's last point quite well. Mathsci (talk) 23:14, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
- A photo showing Rabbani talking to reporters + supporters does not = 'a demonstration' . The "allegededly charity organisation has also political agenda" is your analysis of a primary document. CAGE opposes many of the laws and actions perpetrated by US and allies! It says that in almost that few words in their mission statement, yet you imagine you have discovered something important and sinister in their press releases. Read what others (not me) are saying above, you are way out of your depth here . Pincrete (talk) 09:25, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
- Talking to reporters + supporters: quite a crowd! Regarding Political activities chapter, it is your POV that Cage is not sinister organisation. I am only quoting Cage press release with demand of troops withdrawal from Africa and I am nit saying they want it to make space for terrorists organisation to make them freely operate there. Cautious (talk) 10:58, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
- A photo showing Rabbani talking to reporters + supporters does not = 'a demonstration' . The "allegededly charity organisation has also political agenda" is your analysis of a primary document. CAGE opposes many of the laws and actions perpetrated by US and allies! It says that in almost that few words in their mission statement, yet you imagine you have discovered something important and sinister in their press releases. Read what others (not me) are saying above, you are way out of your depth here . Pincrete (talk) 09:25, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
- Re:"it is your POV that Cage is not sinister organisation" Errrr yes, it's also my PoV that Donald Trump isn't a ballet dancer, that the Empire State building isn't made of blancmange. We don't need to say or prove or cite or even discuss what things or people AREN'T. How do you know I'm not a jelly-fish? Shall I prove it? Pincrete (talk) 11:21, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
Seconding the comment made by TheGracefulSlick - why is this at ANI? This is a content dispute and would be better suited to WP:DRN.(Although for the record I think Pincrete potentially has grounds for filing an ANI against Cautious' POV/SYNTH edits plus WP:IDHT attitude. Watch out for WP:BOOMERANG.) Marianna251TALK 12:23, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
- I do not see that you have a good point here. User Pincrete put the Cage article on his watchlist and contantly reverted the new content. When I provided sources, he reverted without reading the new sources. The article became obsolote, the sentence for Rabbani, though extremely important, was not even mentioned. I dont think he has good point to refuse the new content, if it is written in neutral matter and with sources provided. By the way, I provide sources from CAge own page, no hatred pages. Cautious (talk) 12:45, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
- After reading your most recent edit and the source, I've struck out my above comment about taking this issue to dispute resolution. There is an issue here with edits going against policy and an editor who refuses to listen, but it's not Pincrete. I reverted your most recent edit to CAGE because it is very, very clearly your interpretation (i.e. original research) and does not actually reflect the content of the source in anything approaching a balanced, neutral way. If your edits were
written in neutral matter and with sources provided
, then I would agree with you. But they're not. Marianna251TALK 13:32, 27 November 2017 (UTC) - Just to be clear: criticising anti-terrorism laws =/= advocating for terrorism. Marianna251TALK 13:34, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
- As general statement criticising anti-terrorism laws =/= advocating for terrorism is correct. However, please focus on sources. One the source says as following:
- After reading your most recent edit and the source, I've struck out my above comment about taking this issue to dispute resolution. There is an issue here with edits going against policy and an editor who refuses to listen, but it's not Pincrete. I reverted your most recent edit to CAGE because it is very, very clearly your interpretation (i.e. original research) and does not actually reflect the content of the source in anything approaching a balanced, neutral way. If your edits were
- I do not see that you have a good point here. User Pincrete put the Cage article on his watchlist and contantly reverted the new content. When I provided sources, he reverted without reading the new sources. The article became obsolote, the sentence for Rabbani, though extremely important, was not even mentioned. I dont think he has good point to refuse the new content, if it is written in neutral matter and with sources provided. By the way, I provide sources from CAge own page, no hatred pages. Cautious (talk) 12:45, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
We must begin to openly discuss the root causes of violent incidents in a balanced and intelligent manner. This in turn, must prompt a re-examination of the neo-conservative and violent Western foreign and domestic policy towards Muslims.. There are other sources. Let us right NPOV article, not based on presumptions, but factual sources. Let us continue discussion here Talk:CAGE_(organisation)#Advocated_strategy Cautious (talk) 13:50, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
| Regardless of the rest of the dispute involved here, ANI is not the place to propose content. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:10, 27 November 2017 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Competency issues with User:Cautious[edit]
When I first interacted with User:Cautious on the CAGE article, I presumed that he must be a 'newbie'. For anyone who did not understand NPOV, OR or SYNTH to the extent that Cautious didn't, and who insisted on interpreting PRIMARY sources to back up his additions, this seemed the only rational explanation, and I have spent quite a lot of time trying to explain core policies on talk.
In fact Cautious has been an editor since 2002 although the focus of his editing since March 2017 has been almost exclusively on CAGE, his first edit in March and on related pages such as this addition to The Guardian article. Most of Cautious's edits are using PRIMARY sources interpreted by him/her, for example the Gdn addition uses a CAGE press release to claim that a Gdn journalist has "expressed his support for CAGE" and that CAGE has been "investigated due to terrorist connections", this simply because CAGE quoted the journalist in a report. Needless to say, the "have been investigated" claim is not in the source, nor is it true AFAIK and the comment about the journalist is possibly a BLP violation.
His problematic edits include this addition, which is a mixture of unsourced and contentiously phrased, (scroll down to Zakat sections, which again interprets a primary source and categories, which include 'organised crime') and more recently this series of edits including 'political activities', My reply to that series of edits is here.
Almost all of Cautious's edits are based on HIS reading of primary sources and he seems incapable of - or unwilling to - understand why that is unacceptable. Discussion on talk is here.
There is further evidence above of his IDHT attitude above, and TheGracefulSlick and Mathsci both point to his PoV and PA-ish approach, whilst The Bushranger, and Marianna251 endorse his SYNTH and Marianna251 additionally has endorsed that Cautious is misrepresenting sources in violation of OR and NPOV. It does not help that Cautious does not appear to be a native English speaker.
For all these reasons, I am therefore proposing a Boomerang below that Cautious be banned from the CAGE article. If someone has not mastered the basics of NPOV, SYNTH, OR and misuse of sources since 2002, there is little reason to think they are going to do so anytime soon. AFAIK, Cautious is a constuctive editor in his more 'traditional' topic area, which appears to be E. Europe.
Boomerang proposal[edit]
- I propose a topic ban for Cautious from the CAGE article for a period of one month minimum. He simply does not listen or care about his WP:OR, WP:SYNTH, or NPOV editing Pincrete (talk) 18:17, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
- Support indefinite t-ban from CAGE - One month would only temporarily address the issue; if Cautious is even fairly determined to continue to push his POV, he can wait out the month. The editor has had plenty of time to brush up on the basics of reliable sourcing and neutral editing. His I didn't hear that attitude and lack of growth do not make him a net-positive to the article. If he was not constructive in other fields, as you mentioned, I would have proposed a WP:CIR block.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 20:34, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
- Support topic ban on anything related to CAGE (not just the article, given the Guardian edit) for the reasons already detailed. Marianna251TALK 00:37, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
- Against The Cage article has multiple issues undue weight update it is poor quality article in area, where many people have very strong POV. User:Pincrete believs in his POV - example CAGE is opposed to many US and allied actions in the 'war on terror'and they are not 'extremists' or 'terrorists' or advocates for same.. User talk:Marianna251 stated Just to be clear: criticising anti-terrorism laws =/= advocating for terrorism., which is cleraly POV if applied to Cage prisoners . I am doing in-depth researches and providing good sources, mostly from Cage own pages, therefore I consider POV accusations baseless. How come their own page can provide source to provide somebody else POV??? Here is example that Pincrete appreciates source I provided It is a good source and it includes an admission from police that Rabbani was 'targeted', because he was known to be carrying client info about someone allegedly tortured by the US, also that Rabbani believed the guidelines to police (which exclude client info), exempted him from the requirement to 'hand over' his passwords. Pincrete (talk) 18:31, 28 November 2017 (UTC) We can combine our strengths together and make very good, NPOV article. Cautious (talk) 01:09, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
- You DID bring the Rabbani case to my attention, thankyou, it may well ultimately prove to be a 'landmark' case when it goes to the High court. However you made no attempt to present the case in a neutral and complete fashion. Your only interest is in using the source to condemn CAGE as being 'led by a convicted terrorist', a position you still defend below. Someone convicted of a - minor and highly controversial - clause in anti-terrorism legislation, which he had every reason to believe he was exempt from (because of client confidentiality), is not the same thing as a 'convicted terrorist'. Even the Magistrate endorsed that reading. Pincrete (talk) 09:20, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
- Support topic ban on all matters relating to CAGE. He shows clear signs of WP:IDHT, has problems writing English and at the moment is acting as a complete drain on resources (in particular Pincrete). Mathsci (talk) 01:18, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
- Rabbani from Cage is actually convicted due on violation of terror laws, therefore my edits were based on facts. I declare good will in making NPOV edits. Cautious (talk) 01:54, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
User:Michael 182, WP:DE to award list articles[edit]
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.
Michael 182 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Repeated WP:DE on award-related articles without participating in discussions.
User has repeatedly added directors to and changed article format of Academy Award for Best Picture without participating in discussion related to these changes at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film#User splitting award lists by decades & disabling sortability.
Edits to Academy Award for Best Picture:
- Revision as of 12:26, 22 November 2017, change to some table formats but not all.
- Revision as of 11:40, 27 November 2017, revision to all table formats, and addition of Directors, individuals who do not receive the award, as well as addition of multiple blank columns with coding errors
- Revision as of 13:42, 27 November 2017, revision adding Director columns, some blank, as well as formatting issues squeezing data displayed in Production company(s) column
I reverted edit in bullet above 15:25, 27 November 2017, and article was protected 17:49, 27 November 2017 for persistent WP:DE.
Further edits:
- Revision as of 17:56, 27 November 2017, readdition of Directors column, again some blank/some populated, and formatting issues with Production Company(s) column
- Revision as of 11:43, 28 November 2017 Similar revision as of 17:56, 27 November 2017, again with blank columns and formatting issues.
User has engaged in similar WP:DE table formatting to the following articles, most of which has been reversed by other editors:
- Academy Award for Best Supporting Actor
- Academy Award for Best Supporting Actress
- Golden Globe Award for Best Actor – Motion Picture Drama
- Golden Globe Award for Best Actor – Motion Picture Musical or Comedy
- Golden Globe Award for Best Actor – Television Series Musical or Comedy
- Golden Globe Award for Best Actress – Motion Picture Comedy or Musical
- Golden Globe Award for Best Actress – Television Series Drama
- Golden Globe Award for Best Motion Picture – Drama
- Golden Globe Award for Best Motion Picture – Musical or Comedy
- Golden Globe Award for Best Supporting Actress – Series, Miniseries or Television Film
- List of Academy Award winners and nominees for Best Foreign Language Film
- Primetime Emmy Award for Outstanding Comedy Series
- Primetime Emmy Award for Outstanding Drama Series
- Primetime Emmy Award for Outstanding Lead Actor in a Comedy Series
- Primetime Emmy Award for Outstanding Lead Actor in a Drama Series
- Primetime Emmy Award for Outstanding Lead Actor in a Limited Series or Movie
- Primetime Emmy Award for Outstanding Lead Actress in a Comedy Series
- Primetime Emmy Award for Outstanding Lead Actress in a Drama Series
- Primetime Emmy Award for Outstanding Lead Actress in a Limited Series or Movie
- Primetime Emmy Award for Outstanding Limited Series
- Primetime Emmy Award for Outstanding Supporting Actor in a Comedy Series
- Primetime Emmy Award for Outstanding Supporting Actor in a Drama Series
- Primetime Emmy Award for Outstanding Supporting Actor in a Limited Series or Movie
- Primetime Emmy Award for Outstanding Supporting Actress in a Comedy Series
- Primetime Emmy Award for Outstanding Supporting Actress in a Drama Series
- Primetime Emmy Award for Outstanding Supporting Actress in a Limited Series or Movie
User was also asked twice to participate in discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film#User splitting award lists by decades & disabling sortability:
User made unsigned edit to WT:FILM stating "The changes done to the article are necessary in order to achieve a better understanding of the text." [146] However, this does not address the coding, formatting or blank data being added in the user's edits.
AldezD (talk) 17:10, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
- This could probably be resolved through an RFC, which I'm pretty sure I already suggested. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:23, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
- Maybe--but I just reverted on [Academy Award for Best Supporting Actor]] since I do not believe their color changes comply with MOS:COLOR. Moreover, it seems to me they are editing disruptively against consensus (User:Brian W. Schaller? User:Rburton66?) or at least against a very good argument: don't make wholesale changes to a featured list. They're making the same color changes to Primetime Emmy Award for Outstanding Supporting Actress in a Drama Series (and elsewhere, I suppose), and their rather asinine and unexplained summary, "This format allows a better comprehension of the text. Do not modify since the rest of the categories from Primetime Emmy Award will be changed into this format", indicate they attempt to take over an entire area in a way that runs counter to our collaborative spirit. They've only been here a month, so many they don't know we're supposed to work together--but seriously, their talk page contributions are lousy. I would support blocking if they continue what is simply edit warring against a bunch of editors over a wide spread of articles. Drmies (talk) 17:33, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
- Its an accessibility issue with blue-on-blue. WP:COLOUR - the accessibility page has more detail. If they are doing these changes en-masse they need a block.Only in death does duty end (talk) 17:42, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
- Just chiming in to agree with Drmies. I've reverted numerous edits to the Primetime Emmy pages where User:Michael 182 changed the color scheme on the major acting and program categories without discussion. No interest in participating in an edit war. Rburton66 (talk) 19:51, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
- Revision as of 13:52, 28 November 2017—Further WP:DE on the article. AldezD (talk) 19:03, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
- Revision as of 14:08, 28 November 2017—Second WP:DE/WP:EW edit following opening of this ANI. AldezD (talk) 19:22, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
Jewishownership[edit]
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.
- Jewishownership (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Account has made only 9 edits, most of which have been pure SOAP. The username reflects an antisemitic canard. Pretty clearly thiks WP is reddit or something. Jytdog (talk) 18:44, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
- I've given them an indef block for WP:NOTHERE. Their edits, with the username, is pretty telling. RickinBaltimore (talk) 18:49, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
Edit warring[edit]
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.
Context: Singer Zayn's song was nominated for a Grammy Award, but he isn't nominated because he didn't write the song. User TruthSource insists he did write it, however, she doesn't show any source. The user keeps adding the name as composer even though she read the edit summary and her Talk page warnings. The Recording Academy listed the songwriters. Cornerstonepicker (talk) 19:30, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
- Cornerstonepicker this is a content dispute and - at this moment - there has been no discussion on Talk:I Don't Wanna Live Forever. Please post your concerns there. MarnetteD|Talk 19:39, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
Young Sheldon[edit]
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.
Hi all. This is really not a serious incident, and apologies if there was a better place to take this. It's been a long time since I have been involved in a contentious edit. I just want to get an opinion from experienced editors in this area and prevent an edit war from happening. I recently updated the article's inbox episode count to reflect the number of episodes cited with sources in the body which I think is in keeping with WP:MOS. User:Brojam reverted it citing Template:Infobox television. It seems a little odd to me that the infobox of the article has less articles listed than in the body of the article. This creates a discrepancy in information which personally doesn't sit well with me since fundamentally the infobox should be an accurate summary of the content actually in the article. Comments would be appreciated.4meter4 (talk) 22:36, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
- We don't change the episode number count until it actually hits the air (it can be scheduled for the date but news events or last minute changes can change that count easily, thus we don't change it before then), so Brojam was correct here. I think the value personally should be changed to "No. of episodes aired" to make this more transparent, but that proposal is something for Template talk:Infobox television. And I don't think you did anything wrong; this is a good venue to take a question for an admin or experienced user's opinion. Nate • (chatter) 22:41, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
- 4meter4 (edit conflict) IMO this is not the venue for your question as this is not an "incident" nor is there anything requiring admin action. I suggest you ask at the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television. There maybe another place to ask (and anyone should feel free to add it) but I would start there. MarnetteD|Talk 22:44, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
User:Jose34683[edit]
Resolved, NAC SwisterTwister talk 03:29, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
User:Jose34683 has been warned multiple times on his talk page (dating back to September) to not remove AfD notices from articles. A level 4 warning was issued here. Afterward, he once again removed a notice from an article here. Please block accordingly. Thanks. Nikki♥311 19:27, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
- I've given a 31 hour block for disruption. They were told to stop a number of times and continued to do so. Also, this may have been appropriate at AIV as well, since it was continued disruption after a final warning. RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:35, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Talk page spamming[edit]
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.
- Dotyacd (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Talk:Michel Chossudovsky (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
Keeps repeating messages on every thread of the talk page despite warnings ([147], [148]). Example diffs of a recent message reposted on each thread (the same as before which I removed except one instance): [149] [150] [151] [152] [153] [154] [155] [156] [157] [158] (Signbot also obviously missed most of those unsigned posts, but two). Another issue is that this editor calls non-conspiracy theories about 911 "the 911 narrative" which is rather strange. I will personally ignore further posts, so any help is welcome. Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 22:51, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
- I suggest telling Dotyacd that any further multiple posting of the same text within that talk page will lead to a block. (And that minor variations to what is essentially the same text won't work either.) Actually I'd tell Dotyacd this right now, but as the matter has been brought up here I'll first let others have their say. -- Hoary (talk) 23:24, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
- Blocked. The user seems quite unreceptive to being told things. I have blocked for 72 hours for persistent disruption of Talk:Michel Chossudovsky. Bishonen | talk 23:45, 28 November 2017 (UTC).
RichardBennett and FCC net neutrality[edit]
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.
- RichardBennett (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Can someone please look at the comments of this user in these edits (to a talk page), this edit (to a mainpage), and these comments in edit summaries here and here, and intervene as necesssary?
This kind of behavior runs afoul of our rules on civility and personal attacks. I've asked this user not to make personal attacks. He has not substantively responded but has continued to spam these uncivil (and untrue) remarks. I try to have a thick skin, but I feel that this kind of stuff should be dealt with before it becomes more disruptive.
This fits into a pattern with the same user persistently introducing text that (1) isn't supported by the cited source and (2) is blatantly POV. Some examples:
- In this edit, removing text supported by source and introduced text not supported by source - i.e., describing all three founders of a group as "socialist" (not supported by the cited source, and a BLP issue)
- In the same edit, removing sourced text and introducing unsourced POV text - i.e., changing "Ajit Pai and his support for reversing the net neutrality rules" (supported by source) and "Ajit Pai and his support for free enterprise" (not supported by source)
- Introducing a label to an article based on a random self-published website
- Adding the same label again with a citation that does not support the text (and in fact contradicts it)
I've reminded the user that every statement has to have a cited source that directly supports it pointing to WP:V, and also pointed to WP:SYNTH as something that we don't allow (here, here, here, here). I've seen no indication that he has read any of it. Neutralitytalk 23:47, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
- User has been notified of this discussion here. Neutralitytalk 23:52, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
- Neutrality has made repeated biased edits, ignored or misread my citations, and added unsourced material to the page to promote his/her POV that the organization in question does not have an authoritarian/socialist agenda. The person even removed a direct quote from the Chairman of the FCC. Neutrality should not be allowed to edit the Free_Press_(organization) page as he/she is either an employee or a supporter. RichardBennett (talk) 23:57, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
- Blocked. OK, RichardBennett. Even before reading your attack on Neutrality's good faith above, I'd blocked you for 60 hours for persistent personal attacks. Please take some time during the block to read Wikipedia:No personal attacks; it's policy. I'd advise against attacking anybody at all if/when you appeal the block, because any administrator is free to make my block longer if they see fit. Bishonen | talk 00:06, 29 November 2017 (UTC).
Jewishownership[edit]
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.
- Jewishownership (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Account has made only 9 edits, most of which have been pure SOAP. The username reflects an antisemitic canard. Pretty clearly thiks WP is reddit or something. Jytdog (talk) 18:44, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
- I've given them an indef block for WP:NOTHERE. Their edits, with the username, is pretty telling. RickinBaltimore (talk) 18:49, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
OPNsense promotion and harassement[edit]
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.
- netfitch (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) user is main developer for OPNsense project. He appears here after long inactivity to defend his sock or meat puppet account that has been harassing me and other editors. Netfitch has been promoting his own project under pfSense and sever other pages. OPNsense is a pfSense fork and user is directly associated with OPNsense project, which is a clear conflict of interest.
- The page on which Netfitch appears also has several sock and SPA's attacking me, users Giovino1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), The-Me (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and FrankyFire (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). I suspect these are meat puppet accounts but notice they have not been active since.
- Joswp (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) another user directly associated with OPNsense project. Also has been inserting his own project into several pages, including pfSense page. If you check his contribution history you can see work on OPNSense draft as well. Netfitch and Joswp are directly associated with OPNSense project and have been behind a long period of constant self-promotion of their project on Wikipedia.
- ComputerRick (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) user who is actively harassing me and other editors @Meters and @Quasar G. for the past few days. User has gone so far to call me a fascist and has reported me and several editors here for COI, even though now it's clear that he is either sock puppet or meat puppet from the above accounts.
In this month OPNSense promotion has been strongest so far however it has been going on for some time. If you check the deletion log for OPNsense you can see it has been removed 7 times so far. Now I'm targeted by this project in attempt to portray me as bad guy. I can provide more information if necessary.--Mr.hmm (talk) 13:29, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
Considering the recent WIPO ruling that Netgate / pfSense acts in bad faith against the OPNsense project[1] that clearly indicates years of abuse and a business case driven misinformation campaign, this does not seem so unlikely, because a void of OPNsense information was created purposely by Mr.hmm (talk · contribs) here on Wikipedia. For all we know, Mr.hmm (talk · contribs) could be a Netgate affiliate given his years of similar actions towards OPNsense. If Wikipedia wishes to back his censorship attempts that have been going on through 2015 to 2017, that is fine with me, but I feel this is worth mentioning and I accept whatever punishment my actions back in 2015 ensue, although I fail to see the point. Netfitch (talk) 13:47, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
- Netfitch confirms that he indeed is directly associated with OPNsense project. I have no affiliation with anything of what he is mentioning. Netfitch is also "forgetting" to link official their blog post about the whole situation, on OPNsense website. Here you have the above listed Joswp attempting to further spread lies about how they were kept from Wikipedia. Notice he doesn't list that he and netfitch have been doing so for years. What we see here is poor attempt of OPNsense project and netfitch to clear their own malicious deeds and to portray me as someone with COI, despite obvious abuse of Wikipedia by him and his meat or sock puppet accounts.--Mr.hmm (talk) 13:54, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
- Additionally, Netfitch falsely claims that WIPO ruled that "Netgate / pfSense acted in bad faith against". In reality, OPNsense has been using a simple domain trademark dispute ruling to spread their own propaganda because WIPO did not rule that "Netgate / pfSense acted in bad faith". That further reveals how malicious OPNsense project really is.--Mr.hmm (talk) 13:59, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
Request block[edit]
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.
- 103.75.119.100 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Persistent Vandalism and harrasment.Jingiby (talk) 18:48, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
Darkness Shines[edit]
Darkness Shines (talk · contribs) I believe the user has major POV issues that make interacting with him on certain pages a problem.
He has re-added material to this article [159] without consensus (And despite an ongoing talk page discussion).
In addition to accusations of censorship [160]
There are claims that his edit was accurate (when in fact it left out that this was only an allegation, not a fact) [161], [162],[163]
A very battleground mentality over what (he see's as) antisemitism [164] & Getting personal [165], [166]
It is clear to me the user is a POV warrior.Slatersteven (talk) 18:39, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
- When someone's able to point out what in the edit ain't in the source then there ain't nothing wrong with the edit, Slater, who btw is on 4RR over there, needs reminding ANI is not the place to win content disputes, cheers Darkness Shines (talk) 18:42, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
- As I point out the sources do not say he said it, they say he was alleged to have said it (thus this was a BLP violation). In addition there are (as I said) questions of undue and POV pushing. Also I am not at 4RR, if I am please provide the diffs.Slatersteven (talk) 18:45, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
- Sure, 1 2 3 4 Darkness Shines (talk) 18:57, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
- Errr, you are aware that repeating an accusation as if it is fact is a BLP violation?Slatersteven (talk) 19:02, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
We also have attitudes like this [167] to anyone who posts what he does not want to see on his talk page. He really does seem to have a major attitude problem.What is galling is that here [168] he says "Allegations are not facts" yet when disusing the speech at the labour party fringe meeting he argued that an allegation was a fact. So we also have a double standard in operation.Slatersteven (talk) 18:56, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
- So we've gone from you saying it ain't in the source to it's an allegation, of course you know it was reported on from the source you presented on the talk page [169] and of course I wrote that it was reported on, not presented as facts, that's my last comment here, cheers Darkness Shines (talk) 19:06, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
- At the same time saying "Not sure why this matters....", if you cannot see why saying an unproven accusation is a fact (and that is then way you originally worded it) does not matter you should not be editing any BLP material. And I did not say it was not in the source, I said the source does not say what you are, it is not the same, but is a good reflection of the problem here)Slatersteven (talk) 19:10, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
- Comment. Can we have a moratorium on ANI threads beginning DarknessShines has done XYZ in what is almost always a content dispute. and I'm not sure if that 'almost' was actually deserved! — fortunavelut lunaRarely receiving (many) pings. Bizarre. 19:11, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
- Comment: This is, as has been shown many times, par for the course with the way DS operates. They push a very specific POV, make edits against consensus constantly, and simply don't hear things. Perhaps there is a reason why there are so many "Darkness Shines has done XYZ" threads.--Jorm (talk) 19:28, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
- They've got a WP:COI? Great, WP:COIN. Pushing a bias? Great, WP:POVN. Edit warring? WP:ANEW. Etc etc. — fortunavelut lunaRarely receiving (many) pings. Bizarre. 19:53, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
- Is there a continuing pattern of behavior forum?Slatersteven (talk) 19:55, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
- Perhaps there is a reason why there are so many "Darkness Shines has done XYZ" threads. Yes, and perhaps there is a reason a wildly disproportionate number of them seem to wind up as boomerangs. - The Bushranger One ping only 20:19, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
- May I ask what I have done to deserve a boomerang?Slatersteven (talk) 20:23, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
- I'm not saying you have. Just noting in response to others that it seems that a large majority of the complaints against DS wind up boomeranging, and thus the "well maybe there's a reason DS gets dragged to ANI so much" argument may not mean what those who say it think it means. - The Bushranger One ping only 20:46, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
- I think this would answer your question. Callmemirela 🍁 talk 23:55, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
- I'm not saying you have. Just noting in response to others that it seems that a large majority of the complaints against DS wind up boomeranging, and thus the "well maybe there's a reason DS gets dragged to ANI so much" argument may not mean what those who say it think it means. - The Bushranger One ping only 20:46, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
- May I ask what I have done to deserve a boomerang?Slatersteven (talk) 20:23, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
- They've got a WP:COI? Great, WP:COIN. Pushing a bias? Great, WP:POVN. Edit warring? WP:ANEW. Etc etc. — fortunavelut lunaRarely receiving (many) pings. Bizarre. 19:53, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
Maybe instead of derailing this with discussions about others or past actions we should look at this case on it (or lack of them) merits?
Did Darkness Shines repeatedly add material that breached BLP?
Did Darkness Shines refuse to acknowledge this, and continue to say that his edits accurately reflect the sources (did they)?
Does this (and other behaviors) demonstrate a battle ground mentality in relation to certain topics?Slatersteven (talk) 20:54, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
- So now It's WP:CRYBLP, make your mind up. Darkness Shines (talk) 21:11, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
- It was you who said I had breached 3RR, I pointed out they were (to my mind) BLP violations that I reverted. I am asking if this was correct. It if is I did not edit war.Slatersteven (talk) 23:10, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict)(Non-administrator comment)I have edited alongside darkness shines (though I know nothing of the current dispute), and I have seen a pushy, somewhat [[[WP:ICANTHEARYOU]] attitude, and perhaps some bias. However, I am hesitant to support sanctions as I fear overuse of discretionary sections may just make people afraid to debate things. But I will say that the pushiness in the diffs provided above is not surprising to me. Tornado chaser (talk) 21:13, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
- Do you mean WP:ICANTHEARYOU? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:17, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
- Yes, fixing my previous typo. Tornado chaser (talk) 15:13, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
Reporting false vandalism accusations from Me-123567-Me[edit]
- The Orville (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Me-123567-Me (talk · contribs)
diffs
- My edit to the page [170]
- His template vandalism warning [171]
- My edit to his page [172]
- His edit to my page [173]
- My edit to his page [174]
- His second false accusation of "unconstructive editing" for wanting to discuss this with him. [175]
Notes: The Orville has been subject of IPs with one edit to their name attempting to force through changes to the Reception area which go against WP:UGC. My edit was removing one such edit which included duplicated links of Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic as per Wikipedia policy.
I've been an active editor on The Orville page for many months and have regularly updated things such as the ratings and the reception area and kept the area as vandalism free as I could. Today I received a false accusation against me on my talk page and responded on the users page who left. He removed my comment and responded on my page basically saying he could do what he wants if he feels it goes against policy. I responded to this and left a comment on his page to remind him that leaving false accusations of Vandalism goes against Wikipedia policy and if he did that again I would report him on the admin board.
I don't think it's right or fair for a long standing editor to behave this way. He refuses to discuss this situation and is throwing a bad faith accusation against me without any grounds to back this behavior up. I've received two templates from this editor that I feel are entirely unjustified and I would like to request an admin look into it. I've never vandalized Wikipedia in my life.
The user in question also has a history of false vandalism accusations, such as this one [176] 82.15.11.92 (talk) 01:15, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
- Me-123567-Me - I have to side with the IP user on this one. While I'm not 100% certain when it comes to community consensus regarding the use of rottentomatoes.com as a reference and if it's acceptable or not when adding content regarding the ratings of films, these edits made by the IP were definitely not vandalism... especially when the user cites a Wikipedia content guideline in their explanations (see edit summaries here and here) - which to me is a reasonable interpretation of it, even if the user is incorrect in this situation. I think the user was completely reasonable when they messaged you on your talk page and expressed their frustration toward you about it (I personally would't have said, "I thought you'd be mature enough to own up to your mistake and apologize but I guess not" as it starts to direct the discussion toward being "snippy", but it's not a statement I'd consider uncivil). Your response here obviously didn't make the concerns expressed by the user any better. If you think an edit is against a Wikipedia policy and don't know for absolute sure, you should ask and find out for sure first before you revert the edits of others. I'm not trying to be overly harsh here; I've been in this position a number of times before where I've done this in the past. But if you're going to patrol recent changes and take action with any edits, "shoot first and ask questions later" isn't a method that's going to be viewed positively by the community. I highly recommend that you re-evaluate your responses to this user and try to turn his/her frustration around. It's the least you could do (assuming I'm not missing anything obvious, of course). ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 11:08, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
- I noticed that 82.15.11.92 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has been around since August. If they don't know the policy and how to be WP:CIVIL then pergaps they need a refresher. I keep this particular mentioned page on my watchlist. I disagreed with this IP adddy, however, I chose not to engage in a revert war, which based on the tone of some of their messages I could see they would easily engage in. Do I own them an apology? Perhaps if they had a username (so I know who this person is in the future) I might issue one and if they too apologized. Me-123567-Me (talk) 16:09, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
- Me-123567-Me - Aww, c'mon... IPs are people, too, man. You can't forget that fact. Look, I can't tell you what to do - you don't have to listen or do a darn thing I suggest here (and it won't hurt my feelings if you don't... lol). But if you want to grow as an editor and become respected and looked-up upon by the community as a leader and a user who sets the true example of how the rest of us should be, sometimes you gotta be the bigger person... :-). Other than that, there's no administrative action required here. Just be careful with your reverts; that's all that really needs to be said. Cheers -- ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 18:14, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
- I noticed that 82.15.11.92 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has been around since August. If they don't know the policy and how to be WP:CIVIL then pergaps they need a refresher. I keep this particular mentioned page on my watchlist. I disagreed with this IP adddy, however, I chose not to engage in a revert war, which based on the tone of some of their messages I could see they would easily engage in. Do I own them an apology? Perhaps if they had a username (so I know who this person is in the future) I might issue one and if they too apologized. Me-123567-Me (talk) 16:09, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
| Sidebar Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:40, 28 November 2017 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Vandalism at Fish in culture[edit]
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.
A group of IPs are repeatedly editing the Fish in culture article. A little help would be appreciated. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:07, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
- Chiswick Chap - I see that a group of IPs are adding and editing a small addition to the article about literature ("fish in a barrel"), but I don't see obvious vandalism here. What exactly is the issue? ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 19:12, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
- That's been the latest attempt: whether it's humour or enthusiasm I have no idea, but it's certainly uncited and unhelpful (nothing to do with literature), and different IPs have been re-adding it, claiming they are "stopping vandalism". Not very clear what to do. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:20, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
Persistent vandalism by 171.33.252.84[edit]
Resolved, NAC SwisterTwister talk 07:02, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Persistent vandalism by user 171.33.252.84.[1][2][3] He was warned multiple times but that didn't help. It seems that he is pushing a political agenda. Page: Alexandr Zubkov
Cskamoscow100 (talk) 00:38, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
References
- ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alexandr_Zubkov&type=revision&diff=812665018&oldid=812512479
- ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alexandr_Zubkov&type=revision&diff=812668176&oldid=812665899
- ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alexandr_Zubkov&type=revision&diff=812806899&oldid=812723607
- @Cskamoscow100: The IP has now been warned that they'll be blocked if they keep it up so any further instances should be reported to WP:AIV. The last edit contained a serious BLP violation that had to be rev-deleted. --NeilN talk to me 00:44, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
User JudeBob123[edit]
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.
The user JudeBob123 (talk · contribs) has been making a lot of edits (mostly unsourced) over many months in what appears to be an effort to big up particular racial groups or speakers of particular languages such as Tamil. These can range from the innocuous by moving that group of people to be the first mentioned, to those that are deliberate introduction of false information. His edits may give random statistics, compare for example two of his edits here, [177], [178] (both about the same people in the same country - sourced figures may be found here [179]) Other false information added examples include - [180] (Tamil is not an official language of India according to the Official Language Act of India), [181] (Vietnamese is the most spoken Asian language in France - here), [182] (not according to source - [183]). He also deleted other people or language group and valid information for no reason, Hindi appears to be a particular target - for example, [184], [185] [186], [187] [188] [189] [190], [191], as well as making other unhelpful edits. When challenged, the editor is unable to produce valid sources, instead revert valid edits -[192] Others have fixed his edits, but many of his minor alternation and plausible but false information (considered sneaky vandalism per WP:SNEAKY) are missed in poorly curated articles (many are plausible but difficult to check), and it is very time-consuming to check sources and undo his many edits. Hzh (talk) 23:10, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
- More than enough misinformation; more than enough warnings. I'm amazed that JudeBob has never yet been blocked. Start off with a block of a week or so, and if JudeBob resumes this editing pattern thereafter, make it indefinite. -- Hoary (talk) 23:33, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
The user Hzh (talk · contribs) (a native disgruntled Hindi speaker) has been making a lot of edits over many months in what appears to be an effort to big up particular racial groups or speakers of particular languages such as Hindi in a page or article. These can range from the innocuous by moving that group of people who speaks that language natively to be the first mentioned, to those that are deliberate introduction of false information. Hindi language is an official language in India and Fiji (known as Fiji Hindi). Urdu is an official language in Pakistan. This native Hindi speaker (If I'm not mistaken) is trying to vandalize that page by creating India is a country which has only an official and sole language, which is Hindi. Tamil language in that page is being targeted by that user. The page List of countries by the number of recognized official languages should be protect immediately from that person (Hzh (talk · contribs)) to avoid any vandalizing problem. I'm so amazed that he has not been warned by any editor until now. I think he should be given warning or should blocked for at least a week. Thank you ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by JudeBob123 (talk • contribs)
- Hzh (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- JudeBob123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- The dispute appears to be at List of languages by the number of countries in which they are recognized as an official language. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:36, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
- JudeBob123, your message above doesn't present any incriminating diffs. Would we be correct to infer that you'd be unable to do so, and instead are merely fantasizing? -- Hoary (talk) 05:07, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
- I can give some diffs of my and JudeBob123's edits - the first revert I made of JudeBob123's edit on that page is this - [193] because the changes are unexplained - it contains the apparently wrong information that Tamil is an official language of India, and he also removed Fiji as a country where Hindustani is an official language (it is according to the Fiji Constitution). When challenged, he produced sources that show Tamil is an official language in individual states, not the country, and that I removed - [194]. He persisted in re-adding it, so I added a citation needed tag - [195], which he then removed - [196]. As it was still unsourced, I removed it and add the sources for the other countries - [197]. In the latest one he removed my sourced edit, claiming that Hindi is not an official language of Pakistan - [198], note however his subtle change of Hindustani (which is broadly speaking Hindi-Urdu) in the original edit to Hindi (all the valid sources are removed as well, including the one on Fiji Constitution that specifically mentions Hindustani). I don't speak Hindi nor am I Indian, and have no interest in what appears to be a war between speakers of different Indian languages, but only become drawn into this after I noticed the tendency of some people to randomly change demographic data (either to boost or to reduce the numbers) and other information in a number of articles. My original concern was that such misinformation may get spread around as I've seen before odd populations figures given in blogs and other sites, which I suspected originated as unsourced numbers in Wikipedia and are then used as sources in Wikipedia. Hzh (talk) 10:51, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
185.26.183.45[edit]
185.26.183.45 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
- Massive addition of BLP violations (the info is apparently correct, but refuses to add references to the articles; additionally personall attacks in edit summaries (for example, this one refers to me as a "Russian moron", which is factually wrong).--Ymblanter (talk) 20:14, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
- Now continues as 185.26.183.66 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), again with personal attacks in edit summaries, probably a block range needed.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:18, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
- This is a good one:[199] "rus is loosers". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:19, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
- Block placed. Drmies (talk) 22:28, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
- Ymblanter, this is probably not news to you--it's your old friend from Donetsk bus shelling incident, so this goes back a while. Drmies (talk) 22:35, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
- I think they're switched to 178.93.236.175 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). Probably need some fairly wide-spread semi-protection for a bit. Ravensfire (talk) 00:16, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
- What are they doing with those category edits, like this? Is that useful at all? Sure it's the same person, and I could block again, but if the edits from that IP are constructive, and they leave out the semi-literate insults, what's the point? Drmies (talk) 00:38, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
- That's the odd part, and I almost wonder if this is a different IP user. They did add doping categories to Sergey Chudinov without any sources, which I reverted. I just added them back, after adding the ban info to the article with a solid source that was dead simple to find. Given the hostility of the early IP's and the strong nature of the claims, I'm comfortable with my revert; just wish the 178 IP had bothered to take 30 seconds to add something to the article with a source to support the doping categories. Ravensfire (talk) 00:59, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
- In the end of the day, all this info was restored, and everything is unsourced (the generic source would be this one. I am not sure why they refuse to add sources (thus making BLP violations), but at this stage probably we need to go after them and add sources ourselves. Reverts do not work, they just hop to a new IP and continue reverting.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:42, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
- That's the odd part, and I almost wonder if this is a different IP user. They did add doping categories to Sergey Chudinov without any sources, which I reverted. I just added them back, after adding the ban info to the article with a solid source that was dead simple to find. Given the hostility of the early IP's and the strong nature of the claims, I'm comfortable with my revert; just wish the 178 IP had bothered to take 30 seconds to add something to the article with a source to support the doping categories. Ravensfire (talk) 00:59, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
- What are they doing with those category edits, like this? Is that useful at all? Sure it's the same person, and I could block again, but if the edits from that IP are constructive, and they leave out the semi-literate insults, what's the point? Drmies (talk) 00:38, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
Hmm a lot of Nazi stuff this evening[edit]
I just blocked someone for, well, I don't want to repeat it. Also of note are recent edits to Keith Olbermann and Joseph L. Goldstein: we have a joker who takes images on Commons and turns them into antisemitic caricatures, and then uses those in our articles. You can see what happened in the histories of those articles. A lot of you who read this page also follow Recent changes; the new image names were minor variations on the old. Please be aware of edits to images in our articles. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 04:21, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
- User:TonyTheTiger, you found one, unwittingly perhaps. On my favorite article! Drmies (talk) 04:29, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
- Well, I put those three biographies on my watchlist but who knows which bio that troll will hit next? Why a 77 year old scientist other than pure hate? So sad. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:36, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
- Those images are now deleted and I'm sure they'll catch it on Commons if that happens again. No, my friend, it's on to the next one. I saw Tony's by pure chance, and the ball got rolling because I saw a strange edit in Recent changes, which led me here, User talk:2620:0:E50:3400:184B:973B:A52B:69EE--I cannot ascertain if they have anything to do with it. CU revealed nothing that I can make sense of, but I emailed the CU list. On Commons, PumpkinSky and Guanaco have been deleting files. Thanks Cullen, Drmies (talk) 04:40, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
- Well, I put those three biographies on my watchlist but who knows which bio that troll will hit next? Why a 77 year old scientist other than pure hate? So sad. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:36, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for looking to see if an underlying IP (or range) could be blocked. I found several of these yesterday morning: User:James Edward Washington, User:Not (((them))), User:Bornsteadfast, User:J3wboss, User:Super editor 2. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 06:26, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks Paul Erik. Bornsteadfast came with User:Risingbull82. Super editor 2 also came in the 1 vesion. Washington and (them) were the same. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drmies (talk • contribs)
- Thanks, Paul Erik. Good work. I wonder why somebody would bother to spend the time messing with Eddie Cantor who died well over 50 years ago, but I am no psychiatrist. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:41, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
- There was a bit of speculation about a returning sockpuppet known for white supremacy stuff over at Talk:Nathan Damigo earlier. Not sure if it's related but it wasn't the only time I witnessed stuff like this today. Could be related, might be just coincidence. -- Longhair\talk 06:47, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
- Probably worth noting that repeating parentheses (at least three sets, as in the username above) seems to be an alt-right meme; you might get a decent hit rate on a search or edit filter. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 07:25, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
- See also[200]. Admin eyes on Filter 877 pls. -- zzuuzz (talk) 07:29, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
IP Sock 90.146.213.80 block evasion[edit]
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.
WorldCreaterFighter, banned for a year for using IP socks to evade bans, started using another IP, 90.146.213.80, to evade the one year ban. Please check [201]. VeryGoodBoy (talk) 02:33, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
IP blocked. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:44, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
Insult[edit]
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.
Azerifactory (talk · contribs) is an sysop on Azerbaijani Wikipedia. I told her: Instead of threatening me, you answer my questions. He replied: Geograf22, I don't answer enquiries of socks. Please pay attention ([202]). Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Geograf22 (talk • contribs) 06:39, November 30, 2017 (UTC)
- en.wiki has no control over the actions of users at other wikis. This is not something we can help behaviour. In fact, he is a sockpuppet of banned Aydinsalis (talk · contribs) many times in Azerbaijani Wikipedia. Yet he each times makes lots of sockpuppets. Regards with here. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:20, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
- I've notified them of this thread. I note the user was warned back in 2015 about creating frivolous SPIs -- There'sNoTime (to explain) 08:15, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
- Hello, I've not created any accounts but this is a sockpuppet that is accusing me of poor --Azerifactory (talk) 08:18, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
- Hello - if Geograf22 is a sockpuppet of a blocked azwiki editor, why aren't they currently blocked on azwiki? Pinging Berean Hunter as they may have some insight per checks. I also think some clerk presence at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Aydinsalis would be useful -- There'sNoTime (to explain) 08:24, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
- There'sNoTime (talk · contribs), then why is he accusing me of something, especially when I've never met him? He is definetely sockpuppet of that user. He is not registered in Azerbaijani wikipedia but the style of accusation includes after banning of sockpuppets. --Azerifactory (talk) 08:56, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
- Perhaps, and the initial edits of the user here on enwiki do seem suspicious.. I'll let Berean, who I pinged above, take a look at this. Also, they do appear to be registered on aziki -- There'sNoTime (to explain) 09:06, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
- But what about my insult and humiliation? There is no reason to justify insults. Other issues should be discussed elsewhere. For example, here. Because these issues are not related to EnWikipedia. Do you agree with me? Since we will be dealing with this issue shortly in more depth, let me stop here, and I will be ready to answer any questions. Geograf22 (talk) 09:59, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
- I'm not seeing an insult there. Sometimes it's helpful to be able to shrug things off. El-Ahrairah see damage⁄berate 10:57, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
- Calling someone a sock without presenting evidence is a personal attack on ENWP. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:45, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
- Hence Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Aydinsalis. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 11:56, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
- Elahrairah but how can I understand the word socks in this sentence (`I don't answer enquiries of socks`). And since I'm convinced that I'm sock? Geograf22 (talk) 12:06, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
- @Geograf22: Socks in that case refers to sockpuppets. Since there is a good-faith investigation under way, it's not a personal attack to refer to you as a (suspected) sockpuppet. —C.Fred (talk) 12:24, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
- Also, when your contributions have only been to here or the SPI page, that looks extremely suspect. If the account's only contributions—and apparently only purpose—are to participate in this discussion, then it suggests something inappropriate: the account is likely either being used by the named party or by a close associate. —C.Fred (talk) 12:29, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
- Elahrairah but how can I understand the word socks in this sentence (`I don't answer enquiries of socks`). And since I'm convinced that I'm sock? Geograf22 (talk) 12:06, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
- Hence Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Aydinsalis. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 11:56, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
- Calling someone a sock without presenting evidence is a personal attack on ENWP. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:45, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
- I'm not seeing an insult there. Sometimes it's helpful to be able to shrug things off. El-Ahrairah see damage⁄berate 10:57, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
- But what about my insult and humiliation? There is no reason to justify insults. Other issues should be discussed elsewhere. For example, here. Because these issues are not related to EnWikipedia. Do you agree with me? Since we will be dealing with this issue shortly in more depth, let me stop here, and I will be ready to answer any questions. Geograf22 (talk) 09:59, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
- Perhaps, and the initial edits of the user here on enwiki do seem suspicious.. I'll let Berean, who I pinged above, take a look at this. Also, they do appear to be registered on aziki -- There'sNoTime (to explain) 09:06, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
- Hello, I've not created any accounts but this is a sockpuppet that is accusing me of poor --Azerifactory (talk) 08:18, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
- This also relates to this request at meta which was opened after this thread seemed to have slowed. I have sent some raw data to the CU mailing list so that other CUs and stewards will have access since this involves cross wiki issues.
— Berean Hunter (talk) 14:49, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
Interaction ban violations, again[edit]
C. W. Gilmore (talk · contribs) continues to violate this interaction ban.
I'm in an editing dispute with Slatersteven and Gilmore heads over to his talk page and calls me a Pig He adds OR to an article I created and am still working on, so now I can't do anything to it. Can something be done now to stop this constant messing about. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:12, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
This is a comment on a source I had just added. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:22, 26 November 2017 (UTC) You can still edit that article, you just cannot undo his edits. You should also inform parties mentioned as party to a dispute you have launched an ANI against the, You have failed to do so.
As to the comments on my talk page, they do not mention you by name. But they may well be about you given the timing of them. Hence why I said to Gilmore he was sailing close to the wind.Slatersteven (talk) 17:27, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
I have now informed them.Slatersteven (talk) 17:28, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
- I find a clear violation of the interaction ban here. Aside from taking sudden interest in the Rose City Antifa article and editing it after the interaction ban was imposed, these messages here are a clear attempt to push the envelope and refer to the user without actually mentioning them by name. C. W. Gilmore has been blocked for 36 hours. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 17:45, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
- For the record on Rose City Antifa, I mention that I wanted to create the page on Drmies TP [[204]] and within 10hrs, like a miricale, the page was there, but not by me[205]. I had been working on Rose City Antifa for two weeks and all that work wasted. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 13:27, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
Request block[edit]
- Ilyasien_seven10 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Persistent Vandalism and harrasment. Tommy1933 (talk) 19:15, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
Block or topic ban requested -- User:Drdbkarron[edit]
Edward E. Kramer, after a long legal battle, pled guilty to multiple counts of child sexual abuse. Drdbkarron has been repeatedly removing accurate, solidly referenced content related to the conviction from the article, describing it as "libelous vandalism".[206] Enough is enough. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 14:02, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
I have requested special supervision for this page to insure it complies with Wikipedia BLP policies of people facing legal challenges. Lawyers are vetting my history of Kramers legal challenges. No, your material has dead links to popular press and blogs, which are not court documents and primary sources such as pleadings. Gwinnett county does not yet have its court docket items publically viewable on the internet. I am working on publishing the primary court material on the internet archive and linking it to the court docket. It is a lot of material and it has to be vetted by a number of people.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Drdbkarron (talk • contribs) 23:11, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
- Wikipedia will not use any primary court documents as references in a biography of a living person. So your time will be wasted. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:16, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
- @Drdbkarron: You can work out sourcing issues on the article's talk page (keeping in mind what Only in death said) but do not disrupt the article itself. --NeilN talk to me 14:21, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
- Saying that, this is an issue with ongoing court cases or where someone has appealed. Until its worked its way through, secondary sources may be unavailable. I have just removed a couple of the sentences at the end which were sourced to primary documents - but essentially the subject is claiming his alford guilty plea was coerced/improper and wants it set aside. There is a bias in media to avoid covering appeals in depth where they have previously sensationally reported on the subject - in case it turns out they were wrong. Which means in cases like these, appeal coverage is sparse compared to the plethora of sources on the conviction. I am sympathetic (in general rather than this specific case) as given the amount of unfair convictions the US has... but our policies do not have any leeway here. Quite a few of the online links are dead as well - which doesn't exclude them from being accurate, but if anyone has time to update them. It looks like the AJC ones were lost in an website upgrade by the host (or moved). Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:32, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
Here is the critical point I am working on sourcing to primary materials (as a paralegal). After 11 months in solitary confinement, Kramer was offered a deal to get out of prison by making a deal involving two apparently attractive options: Make an Alford Plea under the Georgia First Offenders Act, which would have made the entire matter 'sealed' and would NOT be considered a conviction. I want to site the plea agreement that supports the defendant making the plea. It is recorded by the court. Or should be. Ths issue is not guilt or innocence, but did the prosecution renege on its plea bargain? I understand the terms included immediate freedom, no record of a conviction, and other elements I'm researching. False convictions and false confessions are a big problem, as witnessed by the number of convicted rapist and murders who confess falsely when coerced and manipulated into make these deals only to discover they were effectively lied to. Child Molestation is a horrible crime, and too many people are being coerced into making uninformed pleas and don't realize this plea will have lifetime adverse consequences. For example in many cases, a non citizen who pleas guilty to a misdemeanor does not realize that that conviction means INS/ICE confinement and deportation. These plea bargains are being reversed on that basis (uninformed coerced consent). I see lots of templates for inclusion of primary court documents. If we want to establish as a matter of fact. That the crime is jaywalking on the grass or murder/rape/cannibalism/ritual disembowelment (for an example of the extremes) is not the issue. The plea agreement contained specific terms that were adhered to or ignored by the prosecution, one would seek to have the primary documents as sources. I am working on a way to publish primary sources and make specific citations into specific paragraphs in immense documents without hiding the context. Pro Publica does this in their document cloud, but you need to be a registered investigative journalist and have their support to use their precision primary publication tools. I should source this all the details but I'm busy with the sources, not the argument here. This is an intricate case and the truth is hard to discern without primary reliable sources that are both admissible in Federal Court but the court of public opinion. People yelling and threatening banishment when simple supervision by a responsible adult would seem to be the proper solution as the truth and primary sources emerge. As a scientist I try to get the evidence to "speak' facts, not other people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drdbkarron (talk • contribs) 15:05, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
- The short answer is: Unless a reliable independent secondary source comments on this, we cannot include it in the article. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:11, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
- (ec)...And that's a perfectly valid way to analyze a topic. The trick here is that that sort of analysis is entirely unsuited for encyclopedic writing - because we don't do original research. We don't determine, from the facts in evidence, whether the prosecutor's office engaged in shenanigans. We state what reliable sources state - no more, no less. I agree that this is an intricate case - which is another reason why we should not be providing our own analysis. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 15:13, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) As a scientist, trying to introduce the results of your experiments as "evidence" in an article would not be acceptable either. We use secondary sources like reputable newspapers, academic journals, etc., to "analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize material". --NeilN talk to me 15:18, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
- Just so it's made completely clear: the most relevant alphabet soup is WP:BLPPRIMARY, which explicitly says, with emphasis in the original...
Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person
- ...although WP:OR is, as noted, also relevant, as may be WP:VNT. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:44, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
Repeated vandalism by multiple suspected sockpuppets accounts on Twiggy Ramirez.[edit]
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.
Multiple ip addresses are vandalzing the article by removing sourced information about his rape allegation, The edit summaries by the accounts are all the same https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Twiggy_Ramirez&action=history and the ip addresses all trace back to the same area (the same area where twiggy lives). Jaydogg1994 (talk) 06:28, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
- Semi-protected three days and blocked one of the busiest IPv6 addresses.
— Berean Hunter (talk) 06:50, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
Please block a Thai editor Golf-ben10 again[edit]
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.
hi sir, please Block Golf-ben10 again, he is back to spam on many pages of The Face, The Face Thailand season 3,The Face Men Thailand season 1, The Face Vietnam season 1-2 again and again after he got unblock. he still did not stop to spam on The Face and many pages of Wikipedia, please block him. thank you.Anybodyfitfit (talk) 09:06, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
- @Anybodyfitfit: I don't see the spam. Can you give some examples of such edits? Yngvadottir (talk) 16:29, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
- Doesn't looks like spam to me. Looks more like a content dispute / edit war / lack of communication: taking The Face Thailand (season 3) for example, these content additions [207] [208] [209] [210] [211] appear identical (corresponding to the prior deletions [212] [213] [214] [215] [216] (by different users), and are marked minor and have no edit summary. The talk page only has a third party entreating the edit warriors to come talk it out, and no discussion from them. The request from the reverting editor (looks like it is one person with dynamic IP who then created an account) is to "use same color code with Thai page" and to not "spam", but the edit doesn't look like spam to me. Both parties should go to the talk pages of the affected articles (this pattern seems to occur on other articles also, judging by Special:Contributions/Golf-ben10) and discuss the issue — we've got the "B" and "R" of WP:BRD (and some more Rs for good measure), so it's well overdue to Discuss, I think. There's no deadline, so it's not a big deal if the article is stuck on the "wrong" version for a while until a consensus is reached. —{{u|Goldenshimmer}}｜✝️｜they/their｜😹｜T/C｜☮️｜John 15:12｜🍂 18:48, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
- @Yngvadottir: @Goldenshimmer: can you check his Contribs? i dont know how to sent an examples for you. if it's spam please block him, his got blocked many times before but after unblock his always back to edit same thing on the same pages as spam again and again such as The Face, The Face Vietnam and some sport page that he like to edit the name or other with no reason and source. he always do this when other editor undo back to the right. he didnt read his talk page, many editor send msg to him but he never reply or talk. thanks.Anybodyfitfit (talk) 02:09, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
Repeated removal of AfD template after warnings[edit]
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.
Kitechandra1995 (talk · contribs) has been repeatedly removing the AfD template from Nayak Prasad Singh despite repeated warnings. Phuzion (talk) 14:44, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
- Editor blocked. I then looked closely at the article and found it was a copy of this. Speedy deleted. --NeilN talk to me 14:56, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
Spoofed talk page comments by Purleau1[edit]
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.
Purleau1 (talk · contribs) is a suspected sockmaster that has been attempting to remove cited content from the article on the Hammond School. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Purleau1
In this edit, purleau1 posted a spoofed comment her user talk page that she falsey attributed to me with a forged signature. Billhpike (talk) 19:23, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
Username:ජපස aka jps[edit]
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.
User:ජපස has previously had nine usernames in seven years, namely:
- User:ScienceApologist
- User:Joshua P. Schroeder
- User:VanishedUser314159
- User:ScienceApologist (second usage)
- User:Previously ScienceApologist
- User:QTxVi4bEMRbrNqOorWBV
- User:I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc
- User:WoKrKmFK3lwz8BKvaB94
- User:9SGjOSfyHJaQVsEmy9NS
After complaints about the frequent username changes, especially the ever-changing 20-character line-noise usernames, at ANI earlier this year K6ka was quoted as saying "Please keep in mind that this is likely the last time we'll be accepting another username change request from you." [217] And yet today here we are, with a tenth even more troublesome, untypable username: User:ජපස.
I would like to propose to the community that this user switch to a non-random, non-symbol, permanent username, and be topic-banned from changing it. Softlavender (talk) 22:31, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose. Jps is transparent about it (you got the list of previous names from his own information page which is linked from his userpage, didn't you, Softlavender?), and he does it in order to avoid serious real-life harassment. As I understand it, the username switches don't work 100% to this end, but they help. He has conferred with me and User:K6ka (who you pinged, Softlavender) about it, and with User:28bytes who performed the latest change (and now I've pinged him), and they're on board with it. I don't actually see much problem with calling jps "jps" or "Josh" in conversation, and copypasting the name ජපස for pinging. This is something I myself do for practically all pings, and I find it convenient enough. I suggest we deal with this quickly — hopefully K6ka and 28bytes are on line — and then archive, because I think a thread like this might do harm. Bishonen | talk 22:51, 1 December 2017 (UTC).
- What "serious real-life harassment"? There's nothing transparent about someone's edits coming up in edit summaries with a different username every 8 months. It also creates problems, if not impossibilities, for people to ping him or otherwise type his username, especially on a cell phone. Softlavender (talk) 23:03, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
- I really don't think we necessarily have to demand of the editor in question that he publicly provide evidence, do we? WP:AGF would seem to apply. And I can personally attest, although I am not inclined to provide evidence either, that some opponents of editors or supporters of fringe theories in particular can and do go to truly extraordinary efforts to make life uncomfortable for people with whom they disagree. John Carter (talk) 23:11, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
- What "serious real-life harassment"? There's nothing transparent about someone's edits coming up in edit summaries with a different username every 8 months. It also creates problems, if not impossibilities, for people to ping him or otherwise type his username, especially on a cell phone. Softlavender (talk) 23:03, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
- Strongly allowing namechamge as per Bishonen above.John Carter (talk) 22:53, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
- Support I cannot see what point there has ever been to this, but it's certainly awkward for other editors. I cannot see any credible virtue for "avoiding serious real-life harassment".
- Do we need a general ban on usernames with "difficult" characters? Where would the boundary be? Andy Dingley (talk) 22:54, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
- I'd say 1) no, and 2) Wikipedia policy. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 23:12, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose per Bishonen. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 23:03, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
- What rule does it violate? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:08, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose. The new username uses Sinhala characters, and English Wikipedia allows usernames using non-Roman alphabets, so I see no en.wiki policy-based justification for this proposed rename topic ban. Speaking as a global renamer, the only potential technical problem I see is that User:ජපස has more than 45,000 edits, and we need to be cautious when approaching the 50,000 edit mark (I think that's the approximate limit) as a rename can then start to put a bit of a strain on the server - and renames are then generally only done in exceptional circumstances. But the global renamers will deal with that if it becomes a problem, and there's no need for anyone here on en.wiki to concern themselves with that aspect. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 23:11, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
- Oh, and I forgot to say I agree with what Bishonen says too. (And I'd also suggest that time would be much better spent helping to build an encyclopedia rather than trying to police things that aren't causing any problem.) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 23:26, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose. Anyone who really feels aggrieved by the username has too much time on their hands. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:21, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose- Anyone who doesn't believe real-life harassment can create the need for an editor to do something like this hasn't spent time in fringe corners of the wiki where there be dragons. The user is as transparent about this as he needs to be. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 00:14, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose - while the sig is a bit awkward, I think a friendlier approach would have been far more productive than force-feeding. I can certainly understand the RL-harassment issues, too. Atsme📞📧 01:22, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose: JPS made this name change request to deal with unwelcome offsite attention from banned editors. Drawing attention to it here serves to embolden this offsite attention and it's unfortunate that people felt compelled to bring it here. Regardless, there is no policy violation with the new name (usernames in non-English language scripts are permitted) and frankly it's much less cumbersome than the old one. Leave him alone and let him edit in peace. 28bytes (talk) 01:43, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
User:ClueBot NG is malfunctioning[edit]
| WP:DENY |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
I messed around a bit with one page Daniella panabaker and that got fixed. That was okay. But then I made a genuine change to gulag that I feel was justified as I removed peoples opinions and then summarised the actual facts on the matter gulags. Yet still cluebot did not allow my edit claiming it was vandalism — Preceding unsigned comment added by Imagination dragons (talk • contribs) 12:00, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
|
False vandalism reporting by editor[edit]
The editor of the New Mexico State Guard is filing false warning to ensure that the government Public Affairs Officer is the only person allowed to make post in Wikipedia. The additions added are accurate and have references, which the government wants to censure and is misusing the claim of vandalism
DELETED BLPVIO — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:6000:B4CD:CFF0:DEB:3D85:16A4:3653 (talk) 02:04, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
- Facebook and random blogs aren't reliable sources for Wikipedia articles. While not vandalism, repeatedly using such sources is disruptive editing. --NeilN talk to me 02:08, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
- IP editor, the proper place to discuss this content dispute is Talk: New Mexico State Guard. This noticeboard does not get involved with content disputes. You will get nowhere on Wikipedia if you try to use Facebook and blog posts as references. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 02:17, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
- And let it be noted that WP:BLPPRIMARY is relevant to this. Also...honestly I'm getting a twitch towards the revdel for the above with the allegations and claims against living people that are not backed up by reliable sources. I've collapsed it for now, but can somebody take a look and see if this meets the criterion for revdel? - The Bushranger One ping only 03:20, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
- Yeah. RD2. Bye. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 03:39, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
- And let it be noted that WP:BLPPRIMARY is relevant to this. Also...honestly I'm getting a twitch towards the revdel for the above with the allegations and claims against living people that are not backed up by reliable sources. I've collapsed it for now, but can somebody take a look and see if this meets the criterion for revdel? - The Bushranger One ping only 03:20, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
- IP editor, the proper place to discuss this content dispute is Talk: New Mexico State Guard. This noticeboard does not get involved with content disputes. You will get nowhere on Wikipedia if you try to use Facebook and blog posts as references. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 02:17, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
Can anyone revoke talk page access for this range IP? Multiple IPs seems to be spamming this on their own talk pages. This looks like a LTA of My Royal Young. theinstantmatrix (talk) 07:47, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
- Correct, the IP range was use by My Royal Young. SA 13 Bro (talk) 07:53, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
- Talk page access revoked for that range. Should something be done for the talk pages themselves? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:33, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
- @Jo-Jo Eumerus: Could you help blank some pages and ask the steward to globally block the user via m:SRG for the global blocking as well. --99.109.85.105 (talk) 14:10, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
- I've deleted the not yet blanked ones under WP:CSD#G3 since that's what they are. Checking global contributions now... Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:43, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
- OK, I can't tell. 99.109.85.105 if you can find any problem edits on the other projects you can report that yourself on the Steward board. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:49, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
- @Jo-Jo Eumerus: I found 112.198.64.0/18. He's attacking Zzuuzz a CheckUser. Could you revoke talk page access for this range and let me help Ajraddatz to globally block two ranges on m:SRG and I leave Filipino cases alone. --99.109.85.105 (talk) 02:16, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
- Talk page access revoked again and more deletions and rollbacks issued. I don't think that global blocking is warranted unless there is crosswiki activity, but I'll see what @Zzuuzz: may propose here. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:42, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
- Typically, there is cross wiki abuse and global blocks.[218] See also ranges at WP:LTA/MRY. -- zzuuzz (talk) 10:53, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
- Maybe i'm bad for vandalizing my talk page, RadiX could you help global block two ranges been abused for vandalism. 99.109.85.105 (talk) 14:37, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
- Typically, there is cross wiki abuse and global blocks.[218] See also ranges at WP:LTA/MRY. -- zzuuzz (talk) 10:53, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
- Talk page access revoked again and more deletions and rollbacks issued. I don't think that global blocking is warranted unless there is crosswiki activity, but I'll see what @Zzuuzz: may propose here. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:42, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
- I've deleted the not yet blanked ones under WP:CSD#G3 since that's what they are. Checking global contributions now... Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:43, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
Vandalism by edits — user 136.61.198.171[edit]
All edits to date are mere vandalism. The first one revealed some agenda, which the others do not, as being merely ridiculous additions, (as shown on their talk page, dated 29 Nov).
I hope I've reported this and added tags correctly... please correct me, if not. Thank you. AHampton (talk) 20:25, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
- Hi AHampton. Thanks for reporting this but if you look at the contribution history you'll see their last edit was over ten days ago. The person using that IP has likely moved on. If you are interested in reporting future vandalism have a look at WP:RVAN. --NeilN talk to me 20:47, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
- Hi NeilN. Question: do I need to supply as much info as I did next time? In this instance, since the initial edit had not been reversed, I thought they might try again, and it didn't seem blocked already. After all, they're only 4.573 clicks away from every other Wikipedia page! ;)AHampton (talk) 00:23, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
- @AHampton: If you go through the WP:RVAN info you'll see it points you to WP:AIV as the place to report after the vandal ignores warnings to stop. Here is a sample of what AIV looks like when it contains reports. Point #4 in the green part shows you what template to use when reporting a vandal. If you want to help Wikipedia out in this area (vandal fighting) then a tool like Twinkle automates the warning/reporting process. If you have further questions, I'd be happy to answer them on my talk page or just use the Help Desk. --NeilN talk to me 00:36, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
User:Hesselp violation of topic ban[edit]
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.
- Hesselp (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
I consider [219], and several other edits at Talk:e (mathematical constant) to be a violation of User:Hesselp's topic ban, which I have only now read in detail. But regardless of interpretations of "remotely related" in the statement of the topic ban, in my opinion, the user is engaging in the same behavior that led to the original two topic bans, and this therefore warrants further intervention. Sławomir Biały (talk) 23:08, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
- No action: I don't see this as a topic ban violation. I also don't see this as being particularly egregious bludgeoning behavior. It's all of, what, eight comments/responses? Is there a pattern of ongoing conduct here, or is this just an attempt to nip Hesselp's argumentative responses in the bud? I'm just not seeing actual disruption, just disagreement. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 02:26, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
- No action yet- I am worried this will develop into Hesselp transferring his obsessive ramblings from the subject of series to... whatever it is he's trying to say now. But we're not at that point just yet. Suggest keeping an eye on the situation and leaving the possibility of expanding the topic ban open. Reyk YO! 07:35, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
- An even more explicit violation of the tban: [220]. Note the series appearing in the post. Any takers yet? Sławomir Biały (talk) 22:57, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
- Maybe a warning that he's getting close? The topic ban is "all articles on or related to mathematical series". The closer's statement includes the phrase
This is understood to include all articles on mathematical series, those who developed them, theories on mathematical series, practical applications and uses for mathematical series, etc, as well as the article talk pages on related to the mathematical series in question.
I don't think e (mathematical constant) is primarily an article about a mathematical series. That said, the argument I saw someplace that just about every mathematics topic can be discussed in terms of a series rings very true, so arguably e (mathematical constant) could be considered an article related to mathematical series in that respect. However, it's quite clear that the topic ban is not a topic ban from all mathematics articles, or even most mathematics articles; it's clear it's intended to be a fairly limited subset of mathematics articles. I definitely don't read the topic ban as saying he can't talk about series at all.And even then, his conduct at Talk:e (mathematical constant) still has not risen to the level of being disruptive. If he's being annoying and is obviously wrong, say so and ignore him. He's made seven edits to the talk page. I'm not even sure if this isn't somehow a content dispute. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 04:20, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
- Maybe a warning that he's getting close? The topic ban is "all articles on or related to mathematical series". The closer's statement includes the phrase
- Of course e is directly related to mathematical series, and the comments on the talk page concern mathematical series. That is a topic ban violation. Johnuniq (talk) 04:35, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
- So simply because e can be expressed using a series, the page is entirely off-limits? There's virtually no mathematics articles that you can't say that with respect to. No, that's not what the topic ban was. If you want a topic ban from all mathematics articles, then propose it. You can't bootstrap sanctions out of another topic ban. The topic ban doesn't cover talking about series either. It covers participation at articles and article talk pages where the subject is a particular mathematical series, mathematical series theory, biographies about people known for series theory, and the like. Discussing mathematical series on the talk page of an article that isn't obviously off-limits isn't a violation of the topic ban. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 06:17, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
- I agree. However, the link Sławomir Biały provided shows the same long-winded and argumentative rambling that led to the original topic ban. It is worth considering whether to extend the ban to cover all discussion of mathematical series, which I would support. Reyk YO! 06:41, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
- I’m on the clock at work and have only a moment’s downtime, but I can preliminarily attest that he is definitely in violation of his topic ban - he’s not supposed to be editing any talk pages for series, and the article says it’s part of a series. If he wants to discuss the matter of changes to a series page it would need to be done on a project talk page for the series in question such as wiki project mathematics or on a user talk page (more probably the former than the latter). That being said, the ban is amendable by community consensus at ani, so if ya’ll wanna move to amend the ban here be your chance. TomStar81 (Talk) 04:24, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
- I think that is a different kind of series than the kind the TBAN is talking about... —{{u|Goldenshimmer}}|✝️|ze/zer|😹|T/C|☮️|John15:12|🍂 06:20, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
- Whether or not he is in violation of his ban, I would strongly suggest that, in the spirit of WP:DENY he be ignored. Paul August ☎ 10:46, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
- Site ban: For me, it is unclear wether he has formally respected the topic ban. But he has been topic banned twice for disruptive behavior, the first time from the article Series (mathematics) and its talk page, and the second time from anything that is related with series. Each time, he has reproduced the same behavior on articles that are not formally implied by the ban. Thus, he clearly refuses to question his own behavior. This is clearly a case of WP:RECIDIVISM. Thus it is highly probable that, if the ban is enforced, he will find new articles for continuing his disrupting behavior. For example, if he is topic banned from mathematics, he will continue with some philosophical or linguistic articles (his comments involve philosophical and linguistic (WP:OR) points of view (respective meanings of the words series and sequences, what is a mathematical concept?, ...). Therefore, a unlimited site ban seems the only way for avoiding further WP:RECIDIVISM. D.Lazard (talk) 21:18, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
- Sławomir Białys support and agreement, here and here, can be seen as new facts? -- Hesselp (talk) 12:25, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
- Definite violation assuming this topic ban is defined as "broadly construed", as bans normally are. Editing e at all is probably pretty close to a violation, but the second diff of violation above involves the user giving a detailed explanation of compound interest which is a mathematical series any way you look at it. Was it disruptive? I think not. Does it matter? No. But a warning to be more careful should be tried before further sanctions. And to that end: if the community wants to refine the scope of the ban, this is the place to do so. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:34, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
- The topic ban didn't have broad construction, and applied to articles and their talk pages. Including e in that definition is, frankly, such serious overreach that you might as well hold that the original topic ban applies to all mathematics articles. And in any event, Hesselp was never banned from incidentally mentioning series theory. The big deal here is that it's not a disruptive discussion. At worst, it's annoying. The answer is for the individuals on the talk page not to engage Hesselp. We're not talking about conduct so offensive that it's understandable and acceptable for other individuals to become upset... at the start of this thread you couldn't even really call it disruptive. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 00:07, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
- Apology A considerable part of the discussion with me in the section 'Circular Definition' was about my proposal for an altenative start of the article on 19 November 2017. The words 'has doubled the start value' in this proposal, were interpreted as 'has doubled the abscissa at the start', while it was meant as 'has doubled the ordinate at the start'.
I've seen much too late that the original wording was not unambiguous (as being myself very familiar with the picture of the 'exponential surplus'). I regret that I didn't see this earlier, and I apologize for that. As an extra argument to clarify my proposal, I used the well known situation with growing bacteria, not realizing that this could be seen as having a link with the earlier discussion concerning the subject 'series'. -- Hesselp (talk) 23:50, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
Admin closure requested[edit]
Just for preventing automatic archiving without admin closure. In fact, this thread needs an admin decision, whichever it is. D.Lazard (talk) 09:34, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
Moving Forward[edit]
So it seems that we are in a general agreement that Hesselp has violated the spirit of the topic ban, if not the actual letter. Two proposals above have been put forward: one for a complete site ban, the other for a complete ban on all mathematical articles. And of course, there is always the option of doing nothing (not that its a good option, but it is an option). Stake your claims, ladies and gentlemen, and we will see where the consensus dice land. TomStar81 (Talk) 15:10, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
- Doing nothing Not any concrete example of disruption is mentioned here. And not any concrete example of violation of the conditions described in an actual ban (not every formula with addition-signs denotes an object that can be seen as being included in it; an exponential process or function is not included either). -- Hesselp (talk) 21:20, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
- What? There is clearly no consensus above for any sanction, let alone consensus that Hesselp violated the topic ban. This thread should have archived by now. It's dead. Let it die. Falsely claiming that there's a consensus that the topic ban was violated is unhelpful. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 00:13, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
- Comment - there is definitely not a "general agreement that Hesselp has violated the spirit of the topic ban". Suggest this is closed with no action, and everyone finds something better to do. fish&karate 12:31, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
JonTron page[edit]
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.
On the JonTron wiki page, his name has been edited to Jonathan Aryan "Jon" Jafari and whenever it is changed it will be edited back straight away. This is is obviously not what the websites purpose is as it spreads false information and creates a prejudice about this particular person. The information about what happened is provided below in a separate section, and people should be able to form their own opinions about the matter as opposed to reading on a supposedly non biased website that his name is apparently Johnathan Aryan Jafari. I have left a warning that the person will be reported if it continues to be edited but I would like some help on this matter if possible. Thanks in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a02:c7d:7856:8700:a5bd:155c:3d51:b20c (talk) 15:56, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
- Please read over this section on the talk page. This was discussed and agreed to in an RFC earlier this year. Also, there is a clear note that says to NOT remove his middle name from the page when you edit the page. RickinBaltimore (talk) 21:10, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
- To my knowledge, his name IS Jonathan Aryan Jafari. Aryan is not an uncommon Persian name and JonTron's father (or maybe grandfather) is Persian. For all intents and purposes, the source being used to identify his middle name as Aryan is himself. Mr rnddude (talk) 21:15, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
- It is, the video that is used as the source is of JonTron. He explains that it is a Persian name, and pronounced "Ari-Anne". RickinBaltimore (talk) 21:17, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
IP vandal evading blocks and ignoring warnings[edit]
Blocked at WP:AIV
|
|---|
|
Failure to get the point, and disruptive editing. Intervention requested.[edit]
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.
Sergioca369 is engaging in a slow-burning edit war with me over at List of most viewed online videos in the first 24 hours. The main point of contention is the inclusion of ...Ready for It? in the list at #13. The central point of contention comes from the source used as verification, but after asking at RSN the rough consensus was that while the reference isn't great it's not bad and thus can be used for verification purposes. Sergioca refuses to accept this point, also repeatedly removing the statistic from the article itself (Special:Diff/812993667 and Special:Diff/812041152). They do not (or will not) wait for consensus before making changes; they keep trying to add a "#21" to the page, despite having no consensus to increase the number from 20.
I have tried discussing the matter on the talk page (pretty much every post after this one), and there are plenty of warnings on their talk page. Basically, communication isn't working.
I am recommending and asking for a topic ban from Sergioca369 editing List of most viewed online videos in the first 24 hours and ...Ready for It?. I would ask for a full DE block since these two pages are about the only things they've edited, but that seems a bit excessive. However, their IDHT attitude may necessitate it. Primefac (talk) 18:54, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
- I only took "Ready for it..." because Yoshiman6464 is saying that "kworb" is not a reliable source, if you "Primefac" have a problem, then go talk to Yoshiman6464, OK??!!!!
- I get it that you are a Taylor Swift fan and that you want to bring people down for not liking her because she's a BITCH SNAKE!!!, but I won't let you do it to me, so go FUCK YOURSELF YOU PUSSY! Sergioca369 (talk) 19:09, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
- Huuuuuuu boy. The above screams not here... --Tarage (talk) 19:22, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
- And for the next 24 hours, they won't be. :-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:28, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
- They continued with insults on their talk page, extended indef as WP:NOTHERE. Max Semenik (talk) 01:56, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
- And for the next 24 hours, they won't be. :-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:28, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
- Huuuuuuu boy. The above screams not here... --Tarage (talk) 19:22, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
User:Alansohn[edit]
Alansohn has been edit-warring on the Millville Senior High School page, and just followed that up with a litany of personal attacks against me, when I was attempting to discuss my changes to the page. The personal attacks can be found in this edit, which he summarized with "Reply to WP:DICK". In this one edit he stated, "I've dealt with abusive editors like you before" (I have not been abusive towards him), said I was "a genuine WP:DICK", and finished with "get lost and fight some other edit war to impose your bullshit preferences."
To give some context, I originally removed a sports blog as a reliable source, and replaced it with a Philadelphia Daily News reference. He reverted that, and when I tried to engage him in discussion about why blogs aren't as good a source as a newspaper, he reverted back and later claimed he was reverting because of WP:CITEVAR and WP:DATEVAR (my reference was in vertical format, and my dates were a different format). I changed the dates to the format of the rest of the dates on the page in an attempt to mollify him, but that apparently wasn't good enough. I also pointed out this RfC, which clearly and unequivocally stated that vertical and horizontal cites could co-exist, but he apparently ignored that as well, and continues to use the citation style excuse as a reason to revert a valid change.
I was baffled by his insistence on using the sports blog as a source, but after his personal attack, I dug a little deeper and found two things. One, Alansohn edits a lot of New Jersey-related pages, and while the vast majority of what he contributes is excellent and valuable, he does tend to display WP:OWN behavior rather often, as he reverts a lot of changes to NJ-related pages that he regards as "his." Two, I recently nominated Claudia E. McCarthy for deletion, and he weighed in on that deletion discussion with a "Keep" vote, so there may be an element of WP:BATTLEGROUND at play here as well. Either way, I did not expect to be attacked in this way, as its been years since his many blocks for bad behavior, and as he doesn't seem to want to discuss the changes further, I thought it best to ask for intervention here first. Rockypedia (talk) 19:19, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
- Rockypedia seems to be having some challenges with projection here.He has been edit warring to insert his preferred citation format. As I've discussed with him on multiple occasions, both via edit summary and talk page discussion, his changes violate both WP:CITEVAR and WP:CITESTYLE, as discussed in the RfC he cites. I told him to walk away from this edit war -- as I already had -- and his next step is to perpetuate his WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality and manufacture an incident, all over his efforts to insert a source that already exists in the article in question.As to his assertion that this has something to do with an AfD for Claudia E. McCarthy, I voted earlier this month and haven't been back since. It appears that Rockypedia is the person who has been editing that article (I haven't since this edit in September) or the AfD he created (since this edit two weeks ago). Alansohn (talk) 19:32, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
- To be clear, the closing admin for that RfC stated: "There is a clear consensus that the usage of vertical and horizontal templates does not fall within the purview of WP:CITEVAR." In other words, if you read the entire RfC, vertical and horizontal cites are style differences, not format differences, and can co-exist. But this is just a distraction; I already said you should go ahead and change the format to horizontal if you really want to (in this edit on your talk page); that was two hours ago and I think is pretty clear proof that "He has been edit warring to insert his preferred citation format" is a false accusation, and I'd appreciate an apology acknowledging that. Rockypedia (talk) 19:42, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
- So now I see the confusion. The issue I raise per WP:CITEVAR and WP:CITESTYLE, as cited in both, is whether or not citation templates should be used. Rockypedia believes that this has something to do with the use of citation templates in either a vertical or horizontal format, an issue that isn't the case here. The RfC is clear that citation styles should *NOT* be changed, and the remainder of the article for Millville Senior High School does not use citation templates. Alansohn (talk) 20:08, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
- As I said multiple times: change the style if you want. I don't care. And thanks for not attacking me this time by calling me a "DICK" in caps. I suppose that's progress? Rockypedia (talk) 20:11, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
- Calling someone a DICK over a minor dispute over sourcing and formatting is quite uncivil, and a symptom of ownership. While this editor has a long record of incivility and personal attacks, they seemed to have been getting along better with others lately. Maybe I was wrong, perhaps other editors have just abandoned New Jersey articles. Name calling is wrong, even if someone succeeded in having an essay by that name for a time.Jacona (talk) 20:46, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
- Rockypedia, per CITEVAR and CITESTYLE, I did make the citation style consistent in this edit, two weeks ago. Isn't that what you want me to do? Alansohn (talk) 21:14, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
- You've conveniently left out the part where you re-added a sports blog as a source. You also ignored Coal town guy (talk) when he told you the same thing I was trying to remedy: Yahoo sports blogs are not reliable sources. This is more gaslighting on your part, and honestly, I can't understand it. It's bizarre. Rockypedia (talk) 21:20, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
- Rockypedia, there is no issue with using a moderated blog as a source and Yahoo Sports meets that criteria. You've conveniently left out the fact that you kept on changing the citation format in violation of both WP:CITEVAR and WP:CITESTYLE. I am not going to be drawn into an edit war over your misunderstanding of an RfC. Your "remedy" created its own problems and you have persistently refused to fix the problem. If you want to fix the problem you created, revert the edits to the status quo. Alansohn (talk) 23:19, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
- Passing by and must chime in, dismissing Yahoo Sports as just "a sports blog" is disingenuous. The front page right now had columns by Pat Forde, Kevin Iole (who should have an article, being an award winner), Shalise Young from the Boston Globe, and so on. These are real, credentialed journalists, not a guy in his "home office" tapping out rants. It is as reliable as ESPN. ValarianB (talk) 15:23, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
- I'm not saying all of Yahoo Sports is a blog. The piece in question is clearly marked is part of the blog section, and merely summarizes stuff that's in two other reliable secondary sources, links directly to them, and even attributes to them! ("According to the Newark Star-Ledger, Philadelphia Inquirer and other sources...") It's a tertiary source piece, and there's nothing in there that isn't in the secondary sources, one of which was already there, and the other which I added myself. Rockypedia (talk) 00:33, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
- You've conveniently left out the part where you re-added a sports blog as a source. You also ignored Coal town guy (talk) when he told you the same thing I was trying to remedy: Yahoo sports blogs are not reliable sources. This is more gaslighting on your part, and honestly, I can't understand it. It's bizarre. Rockypedia (talk) 21:20, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
- As I said multiple times: change the style if you want. I don't care. And thanks for not attacking me this time by calling me a "DICK" in caps. I suppose that's progress? Rockypedia (talk) 20:11, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
- So now I see the confusion. The issue I raise per WP:CITEVAR and WP:CITESTYLE, as cited in both, is whether or not citation templates should be used. Rockypedia believes that this has something to do with the use of citation templates in either a vertical or horizontal format, an issue that isn't the case here. The RfC is clear that citation styles should *NOT* be changed, and the remainder of the article for Millville Senior High School does not use citation templates. Alansohn (talk) 20:08, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
- To be clear, the closing admin for that RfC stated: "There is a clear consensus that the usage of vertical and horizontal templates does not fall within the purview of WP:CITEVAR." In other words, if you read the entire RfC, vertical and horizontal cites are style differences, not format differences, and can co-exist. But this is just a distraction; I already said you should go ahead and change the format to horizontal if you really want to (in this edit on your talk page); that was two hours ago and I think is pretty clear proof that "He has been edit warring to insert his preferred citation format" is a false accusation, and I'd appreciate an apology acknowledging that. Rockypedia (talk) 19:42, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
Ya'll need to go the the respective talk or user pages. This won't be going anywhere here unless one of you is goaded into losing it. Arkon (talk) 23:23, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
- Arkon, I did first go to the talk page. That was when I was called a "DICK" and various other things, and I saw no further progress coming from that route from this editor. Interestingly, coming here seemed to create progress, as suddenly Alansohn became very civil, completely reversing how abusive he'd been before any administrators got involved. It's why I came here, so I guess I'm glad I did it. The other choice would have been to abandon the edit and just let Mr. Sohn continue with his bullying. I'm not okay with that, and I'm even more resolute after two other editors emailed me to let me know they're watching this case because they too have had similar dealing with Mr. Sohn, and gave up because, in the words of one of them, it raised their blood pressure too much. I encouraged them both to post here as well, but I totally understand why they wouldn't want to. Rockypedia (talk) 00:37, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
- Sorry, I suppose it did seem like I said ya'll hadn't tried before, it's just that I don't think this section is going to go anywhere, or if it does will burn all parties involved. I see editors getting really annoyed with each other, sucks, but happens. I don't have a solution either, but don't think AN/I is it currently. Arkon (talk) 00:41, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
- Per ValarianB above, there is no issue with use of Yahoo Sports. Effectively acknowledging the issue with WP:CITEVAR and WP:CITESTYLE using his own phrasing, Rockypedia has already largely self reverted his edit (see " reformatted cite style in an overbundance of trying to mollify an OCD editor"). The only outstanding issue is the use of Yahoo Sports, and I will take that to WP:RSN before reinserting the other source Rockypedia has removed as "a sports blog". Alansohn (talk) 16:47, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
- "Per ValarianB"?? I think ValarianB might take issue with you taking a statement out of context like that. The Yahoo blog piece in question is a tertiary source, merely summarizes what the secondary sources state ("According to the Newark Star-Ledger, Philadelphia Inquirer and other sources..."), and as such isn't necessary at all, since those secondary sources are cited in the article. Your fight to have it re-inserted is based purely on WP:OWN - you added the source originally, you wanted to fight about my replacing it with the secondary Philadelphia News source, and now you want to "win." You've displayed this behavior many times before, although you've been smart enough to not get blocked in recent years. You called me a "DICK", an "abusive editor", and told me to "get lost and fight some other edit war to impose your bullshit preferences". Enough already. Rockypedia (talk) 00:30, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
- Many news sites have "blogs" about sports. This is not the same sense as, say, a Wordpress or Blogspot (or are those one and the same now?) blog, it's the sense of 'we call it a blog because blogs are trendy'. They are, in fact, just as reliable as anything else from those sites; the word "blog" is not a shibboleth for reliability. - The Bushranger One ping only 04:04, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
- "Per ValarianB"?? I think ValarianB might take issue with you taking a statement out of context like that. The Yahoo blog piece in question is a tertiary source, merely summarizes what the secondary sources state ("According to the Newark Star-Ledger, Philadelphia Inquirer and other sources..."), and as such isn't necessary at all, since those secondary sources are cited in the article. Your fight to have it re-inserted is based purely on WP:OWN - you added the source originally, you wanted to fight about my replacing it with the secondary Philadelphia News source, and now you want to "win." You've displayed this behavior many times before, although you've been smart enough to not get blocked in recent years. You called me a "DICK", an "abusive editor", and told me to "get lost and fight some other edit war to impose your bullshit preferences". Enough already. Rockypedia (talk) 00:30, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
Excessive citations at WATL[edit]
2602:304:cc34:87d0:d43e:8538:8b70:56d0 keeps adding unnecessary citations to the WATL article, resulting in WP:OVERKILL. Could someone edit the article to remove the overkill? Mvcg66b3r (talk) 01:24, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
- Hm. I can't say there's something obviously disruptive happening. A lot of those redundant refs actually appear to be refs to different back issues of Broadcasting Yearbook. They may actually be quite relevant to the content they're attached to. I can't tell from a cursory glance. Some though are obviously misunderstandings of Wikipedia referencing style (such as ref 49 linking generally to a website about a topic that was just mentioned in the article). Anyway, my take is that this is a content issue, and not really something for administrative action. You're free to edit the article yourself, of course, as well as to try and engage with the anonymous editor to reach a consensus. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 04:10, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
IP Block Daveydolphin/Preston Hazard addresses[edit]
Could someone please block the IP addresses used by the Daveydolphin sockmaster? I'm tired of repeatedly cleaning up the same stuff he creates. He's been ban-evading and recreating deleted pages and other content on the same non-notable topics for the past year, as documented on his sock-puppet investigations page. His core behavior hasn't changed at all in this time, except to find more creative ways to insert his non-notable self-promotion (now he's creating wikidata items directly, apparently to avoid scrutiny). While he still occasionally uses accounts, a most of his edits are now from a small number of IP addresses that appear to be somewhat static. It's clear from he numerous attempted wikipedia autobiographies that he's a high school student, so hopefully he'll grow out of this after a long block.
His main IP address seems to be 24.151.94.76, which he's used over a long period of time. He's also used 24.43.218.2, 24.107.231.252, and 71.88.55.177.
- GretLomborg (talk) 06:23, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
- 24.151.94.76 hasn't edited since Oct. 2
- 24.107.231.252 has two edits and possibly under an autoblock
- 71.88.55.177 hasn't edited since June 9
- 24.43.218.2 hasn't edited since June 11
- Not really justified.
— Berean Hunter (talk) 06:42, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
- @Berean Hunter:: 24.151.94.76 and 24.107.231.252 have been much more recently active on wikidata doing the same stuff, see [[221]] and [[222]]. This person has been doing this same stuff for over a year, so he'll be back after when the autoblock expires. - GretLomborg (talk) 07:01, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
White space adding[edit]
Rural Lyra who started editing on Wikipedia in September 2017, has been making 'un-necessary' edits to several articles (mostly Republic of Ireland & List of Presidents of the United States), mainly adding or moving 'white space'. He/she has been doing so in spurts, without edit summaries & no responses at article talk-pages or his/her own talk-page. We may need help here. GoodDay (talk) 14:46, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
- (Non-administrator comment) Haven't reviewed many of the edits. What I did see looks like it might be another 30/500 issue, but it might not as there are some other, more major edits. Not any accusations, just that it could be. A lad insane talk 17:02, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
- It's certainly a strange editing history. Lots of moving images around (usually from just before a paragraph to just after) and new line inserts; no edit summaries or minor edit markers. Some borderline contentious edits (on Congressional Black Caucus); no real content addition but some half decent wikignome activity; nothing outrageous. Really not sure what to make of it. WaggersTALK 11:37, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
Uija123[edit]
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.
I think this user is clearly not to build an encyopedia. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 07:20, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
- That certainly appears to be the case: adding a letter, removing the same letter, adding it back, removing it again, adding a space where the letter was, removing the space, etc. Could be 500/30 gaming. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:26, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
- Given their apparent interest in Chutiya Kingdom, I would agree. Nihlus 07:31, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
- Indefinitely blocked. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:32, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
- Given their apparent interest in Chutiya Kingdom, I would agree. Nihlus 07:31, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
Implied legal threat[edit]
User:AZAL QSC (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Left a message on my talk page including: As we have a Legal department, so they can explain to you why it happened.. AZAL QSC is an wp:SPA repeatedly removing content from Silk Way Airlines (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) regarding weapons which appears to be well-sourced. Jim1138 (talk) 10:37, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
- There's conflict of interest issues in play here, which seem apparent when they leave edit summaries of "Silk Way Airlines Management" and "Weapons for terrorists" is that it's not a true. If you would like to know the real facts of deleting, then please give us an e-mail & we can send the document with full information attached". -- Longhair\talk 10:44, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
- Refer this edit left on my talk page where the editor identifies as 'CMO of Silk Way Airlines'. They don't seem to want to take any notice of COI notices left on their talk page but have since stopped edit warring over the weapons related content. -- Longhair\talk 11:41, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
- Hmm. This doesn't seem to rise to the level of a WP:NLT-violative legal threat, but throwing out a mention of their "legal department" isn't a good thing. Anyway, a WP:DOLT analysis suggests there's real concerns with respect to the content added to Silk Way Airlines. The phrase in the added content,
the leading Bulgarian daily newspaper Trud, which has a reputation for investigative crime reporting
strikes me as reading like advertising copy or of being essay-like, and the source cited for the point that Trud has a reputation for investigative crime reporting strikes me as adding a WP:SYN flavor to the paragraph. I think this needs a deeper look, particularly given the claim that there is "investigative crime reporting" going on for something that the paragraph in the article itself appears to concede was undertaken in compliance with IATA regulations. I could also easily argue there are WP:UNDUE problems in giving two huge paragraphs in what's about a six-paragraph article to this development. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 13:36, 29 November 2017 (UTC) - Not a legal threat (yet). What's important is that we wait until the user in question responds to the COI claims and confirms our suspicions, it isn't exactly a very disruptive content dispute, atm. --QEDK (愛 ☃️ 海) 15:45, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
Vandalism in 2017 World Taekwondo Grand Prix[edit]
The user with the IP, 95.136.82.118, made two vandall edits on the page, and the page has no protection, please block him or protect the page, I've put a lot of effort on it — Preceding unsigned comment added by Phospor (talk • contribs) 15:22, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
- Phospor, we appreciate the work you've done but this looks like a test rather than anything else. I've added an appropriate message to the IP's talk page. --NeilN talk to me 15:46, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
Deletions without valid reasons[edit]
My first message has been deleted by the user NeilN from it's talk page, but the second discussion can (at least at this moment) still be read here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:NeilN#Deleting_whatever_you_like_for_no_valid_reason.3F
Deletions and accusations he makes seem to be taken based on personal reasons and not objective ones. I will not speculate about the reasons behind his actions, but they are not valid ones, and the end result is that I haven't been able to bring a useful contribution. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.76.167.0 (talk • contribs) 18:14, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
- I have posted at user talk:NeilN to notify NeilN about this thread being started. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 18:26, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
- I fully and completely agree with the removal of the content. It was a direct word for word copy and paste from the source, therefore being a copyvio. It also was indeed refspam. That being say I saw the CC BY-SA on the page, however I'm in agreement, this was refspam. RickinBaltimore (talk) 18:29, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) This appears to be a content dispute at this stage; no attempt appears to have been made on the article talk page to discuss the content. Please see WP:BRD for guidance on how best to proceed if an edit is reverted. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 18:33, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
- So it's clear the copyvio is not a valid reason as the site permits distrbution of copy if source is being given. Also not all text came from same source, read carefully, and there is no spamming, promotion or advertising involved. Text and link being contributed has similar characteristics to other accepted submissions. No valid base reasoning just rushed decisions.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.76.167.0 (talk • contribs) 18:37, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
- I consider this WP:REFSPAM: "Citation spamming is a subtle form of spam and should not be confused with legitimate good-faith additions intended to verify article content and help build the encyclopedia." If we accept these types of sources we can look forward to commercial businesses spending twenty minutes to crib content from a reliable source, putting it up on their website, and adding links to Wikipedia articles. --NeilN talk to me 19:06, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
- Oh, I've seen that done a few times already. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:00, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
- @Boing! said Zebedee: How do you handle it? --NeilN talk to me 20:20, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
- I think it's usually safe to remove it as not being an RS - copying from a reliable source doesn't reproduce the reliability of the source. And if they continue, block them as a promo-only account. A more insidious variant I've seen is replacing a dead link with a link that superficially looks good, and then sometime later replace the target page with advertising. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:32, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
- @Boing! said Zebedee: How do you handle it? --NeilN talk to me 20:20, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
- Oh, I've seen that done a few times already. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:00, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
- Actually even if the text is under a compatible licence, you need to make sure you follow the terms of licence. If it's a BY variant of a CC licence attribution is required. Technically linking to it as a ref may comply with the terms of the licence but it is not an acceptable way to copy such content into wikipedia since there's a very good chance no one will notice or know that the content was copied from elsewhere under a compatible licence. Therefore the ref and attribution could easily be removed in the future. Since you are the one copying the content you have a responsibility to correctly attribute the content to try and prevent this from happening by following the process outlined at Wikipedia:Adding open license text to Wikipedia. I'd note that the CC BY SA is also not compatible with GFDL but by giving almost zero indication you copied the content, people are likely to incorrectly assume it was your own content and therefore licenced under the GFDL when it isn't because it isn't. That said, I agree with others that even if correctly attributed, this content doesn't belong in wikipedia. (Notably I also question whether we can really trust a source like this to be copyvio free. We have enough problems with people coming here posting their own copyvio content let alone bringing in problems from elsewhere.) Nil Einne (talk) 03:04, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
- I consider this WP:REFSPAM: "Citation spamming is a subtle form of spam and should not be confused with legitimate good-faith additions intended to verify article content and help build the encyclopedia." If we accept these types of sources we can look forward to commercial businesses spending twenty minutes to crib content from a reliable source, putting it up on their website, and adding links to Wikipedia articles. --NeilN talk to me 19:06, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
- So it's clear the copyvio is not a valid reason as the site permits distrbution of copy if source is being given. Also not all text came from same source, read carefully, and there is no spamming, promotion or advertising involved. Text and link being contributed has similar characteristics to other accepted submissions. No valid base reasoning just rushed decisions.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.76.167.0 (talk • contribs) 18:37, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
- that was definitely refspam. the drama following the removal is a real tell. Jytdog (talk) 03:23, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
[edit]
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.
- Avaya1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Avaya1's behavior in the Israel article is well summarized in the first point of WP:OWNBEHAVIOR: "An editor disputes minor edits concerning layout, image use, and wording in a particular article daily. The editor might claim, whether openly or implicitly, the right to review any changes before they can be added to the article."
Last year, I tried repeatedly to remove an image (which was pushed into the article by Avaya1 years ago [223] [224] [225]) from 'Literaure' section because there is no room for it, but Avaya1 reverted me, and I was blocked for 24 hours. Based on other editors' responses, they didn't look into the problem and were in favor of the status quo just to stop the edit-warring. Recently, another editor raised the issue and consensus was reached for the removal, which I implemented. Avaya1 added it back twice citing old consensus ([226] [227]), falsely stated that a minority supports the removal and called me sad stalker. Finally, I posted a RfC, which ended with overwhelming support for not including the image.
In 'Military' section I replaced Avaya1's image with an image that he edit-warred out of the article in 2016. Then he tried to replace it with different images and rationales, including "no consensus", although there was no consensus for his additions ([228] [229] [230] [231]). I opened a RfC, which ended in favor of an image closest to the one I was trying to restore.
After Avaya1's image in 'Tourism' section was replaced by me with more notable tourist site, he tried to replace it first with a location outside of Israel's recognized borders, then with a place that is not related to tourism. Now he's asking other editors to nominate new image, without ever giving a reason why it should be replaced in the first place.
At 2014 WP:AE, admins agreed that Avaya1 is close to a topic ban, but at the time decided: "Avaya1 is subject to a zero revert restriction on all Arab-Israeli conflict-related articles, broadly interpreted. If Avaya1 wishes to change or revert another user's edit (which does not unquestionably fall within the standard exemptions) they must propose the change on the article's talk page and obtain a consensus. Avaya1 should not be the one to determine whether a consensus exists." --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 03:54, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
- Support Almost two months ago, Triggerhippie4 came here to ask for assistance with Avaya1's disruptive editing. At that time, I suggested that both editors' behavior at Israel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) had been bad. Since that time, Triggerhippie4 has done everything by the book, and Avaya1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) has been nothing but obstructionist. It's time to put an end to this. I know no administrators want to wade into the Israel–Palestine conflict, but Avaya1's behavior has nothing to do with the conflict. They have to do with which images best illustrate the state of Israel. Pretend he was behaving this way at Sun or Moon or whatever your favorite article is. You know what you would do. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 04:46, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
- 1. Malik Shabazz I have simply requested editors to discuss the tourism image edit. Check the image - it has been replaced by Triggerhippie4 here and here. My response has been to open a discussion here rather than edit warring or reverting, while Trigghippie4's response was just to revert. And Triggerhippie4's is to revert and try to get a topic-ban rather than responding to my attempt to open the discussion on the talkpage (I have not reverted his edit). How is this obstructionist? Note his response here is in response to this edit by me here.
- 2. Likewise, Triggerhippie4 edited in a picture into the military section here and here and here - which was reverting edits not just by me, but by another user. My response was not to revert anymore but to let him revert, but to open up a discussion on the talkpage here. Which resulted in the consensus we have for the new image choice.
- 3. Triggerhippie4 opens highly personal attacks on the talkpage. And then when I open the discussion on the talkpage, he responds with things like "If Avaya1 was an honest person, the captions would be". this
- 4. Count the reverts on the page. In both the edit-wars, he reverts more times than any other editor and always has the last revert. Which I accept is fine, if there is a consensus for those edits on the talkpage first. Rather than reverting his last edits, I opened a discussion section on the talkpage in both cases (the last one needs input), while he reverted in both cases without any consensus. My opening the discussion for voting on the talkpage is the thing that stopped the reverting in of his choice of the military image which had been going on for a year or so, and which he had the final edit on. It resulted in a better image choice - which has consensus support. This was by the book.
- 5. He refers to my trying to open discussion on the talkpage here as 'this joke' here. I opened the discussion to get a consensus, after he reverted the same image choice twice without discussion. I have not reverted him, but opened a discussion so we can get more input. Avaya1 (talk) 05:52, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
- 1. I gave strong arguments in those reverts' summaries. You proposed to change the image on the talk page without a replacement or explaining why.
- 2. Another user didn't oppose the inclusion of the image but noted a Manual of Style issue, which I fixed.
- 3. In your proposal, you captioned your image that no one supported as "One image that has been used", and the image that you were removing from the article for almost two years against four users (including me) as "Triggerhippie4's choice".
- 4. You reverted my edits for months citing "no consensus", and opened a proposal on the matter just three weeks ago.
- 5. See 1. --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 07:52, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
Support topic ban, if not 1-way I-ban. Avaya1 is not going to be any help on this page, and his interactions with Triggerhippie4 are against our principles. I wouldn't go to a block yet, though. TomBarker23 (talk) 09:13, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
- @Avaya1: As far as I can see, you are still subject to a 0RR "with respect to articles related to Arab-Israeli conflicts". Although these particular edits don't look particularly related to the Arab-Israeli conflict, the article itself definitely falls into that category. Can you please explain how the diffs linked above are not you violating that restriction? GoldenRing (talk) 11:53, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
- After a quick search I can provide a recent example of him violating not 0RR but 1RR when both article and edits are directly related to WP:ARBPIA: early April in 'Ariel Sharon'. --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 12:52, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
- There's a difference between trying to prevent disruption and trying to get someone in trouble. No one is going to take any action against a user for an edit made 7 months ago, barring extraordinary circumstances. Joefromrandb (talk) 06:04, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
- After a quick search I can provide a recent example of him violating not 0RR but 1RR when both article and edits are directly related to WP:ARBPIA: early April in 'Ariel Sharon'. --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 12:52, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
- Not familiar enough with the nuances that inevitably come with editing in this area to formally support or oppose anything, but I feel comfortable saying that Malik's summary seems to be spot-on. Joefromrandb (talk) 03:59, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
- All I am going to say about this is that any edits about the IDF, including the photo, are edits about the conflict broadly construed. It would be considered part of the conflict area if the edits were about photos of Hamas, wouldn't it? Seraphim System (talk) 06:20, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
So what's the decision? --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 02:44, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
- The silence is deafening. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 04:01, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
David ngoviet[edit]
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.
What do I do about User:David ngoviet making personal attacks on my page? Cara777 (talk) 07:05, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
- He's blocked for several months on Danish Wikipedia for sock puppetry and harassment. That doesn't seem like a good sign. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:30, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
- He's issued a (copy-pasted) apology to several users now, including Cara777. Whether it is sincere and his behavior actually changes, time will tell. Given his behavior on da.wiki I don't have high hopes but one never knows. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 12:51, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
- He's now indef blocked on this wiki for sockpuppetry. Marianna251TALK 02:25, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
- He's issued a (copy-pasted) apology to several users now, including Cara777. Whether it is sincere and his behavior actually changes, time will tell. Given his behavior on da.wiki I don't have high hopes but one never knows. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 12:51, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
Inappropriate mass messaging by User:Ser Amantio di Nicolao[edit]
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.
- 04:05, 26 Nov 2017 Ser Amantio di Nicolao (talk · contribs) sent a mass message to WiR list 2 (Women in Red World Contest).
- The message was malformed (no signature).
- The message was sent to users who did not subscribe to it, e.g. to me, without any explanation why.
- User:Ser Amantio di Nicolao speedily deleted WiR list 2 without mentioning a relevant criterion.
Please ban User:Ser Amantio di Nicolao from sending mass messages. Yecril (talk) 01:23, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
- Alright, in order: diffs please? Without diffs nobody can do anything. Secondly, the relevant criterion is G7 - he created it, he deleted it, so that point is irrelevant. Finally, what is so urgent about this that you brought it to AN/I six days later? - The Bushranger One ping only 01:28, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
- User talk:Yecril. No, I do not think this is urgent. I did not say that there was no relevant criterion, only that they did not mention it. But in a way, it is inappropriate to speedily delete a page that is linked to from a recent log in this way. And they should not have created an article for the purpose in the first place. Yecril (talk) 01:47, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
- Also, @Yecril:, I see you ignored the huge, red-text message at the top of the page that says you must notify someone on their talk page when starting a discussion about them at ANI. You should probably fix that. - The Bushranger One ping only 01:31, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
- I have notified them. Yecril (talk) 01:47, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
- Normal black text on a dark yellow background, at least on my PC. (And he did, at 1:30.) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:33, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
- No action: I don't see a violation of any particular policy here. Perhaps Ser should have included a visible sig in the MassMessage (but I'm not sure what normal practices are with MassMessage messages). The deletion of the mainspace page, which appears to have been created in error, doesn't strike me as problematic per the above; G7 applies, and we typically don't require the same level of formality with admins executing their own G7 deletes as with other deletes (perhaps we should require that G7 be mentioned, but that's neither here nor there; it's not a uniform practice let alone policy).Honestly, this complaint strikes me more as a request to enact freestanding policy with respect to MassMessage usage (and there appears to be a paucity of policy on the use of MassMessage). Particularly given many editors are set up to receive e-mail notices when their user talk pages are edited, maybe we should have more policy with respect to unsolicited newsletter-like content, but again, an ANI complaint against Ser is the wrong vehicle for change and I don't intend to start a discussion in that vein. Put briefly, I don't think there's an actionable complaint here. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 01:57, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
- It looks as though Ser Amantio di Nicolao made a couple of mistakes when carrying out the mass messaging but we don’t ban people when that happens, we expect them to learn from it. Nothing wrong with the deletion. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:15, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
Revoke Talk page acces, please...[edit]
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
2001:8003:5322:F600:3401:57EA:4C9:62CF abusing Wikipedia (and now the TP) as a soapbox. Can a friendly admin please revoke TPA? Thanks. Kleuske (talk) 13:51, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
User consistently disrupting AfD process[edit]
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.
Störm (previously Greenbörg) has a problematic history with AfD nominations, particularly within the Pakistan topic area. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive955#Excessive nominations of Pakistani schools for AfD from User:Greenbörg in May for example, where he amongst other articles nominated 75+ Pakistani school articles in a single day. Back then, the excessive nominations were dealt with through procedural closure following input from several editors (Swarm, Squeamish Ossifrage, SL93, SpacemanSpiff, Jacknstock etc.). The user was asked on his talk to limit himself or abstain altogether from deletion discussions temporarily, and advised by Kudpung that "If you don't stop what you have been doing, there is a very strong chance that the community will take measures to limit your editing or even stop you editing altogether." [232]
However, not much has changed since then and unfortunately, the same pattern of drive-by AfD sprees is prevalent with little to no consideration of WP:BEFORE. In July, I left this message asking Störm to reconsider his strategy after he nominated 48 articles within the space of 4 days. The problem, other than the volume, was the very little time (one to three minutes, sometimes less) between the dozens of successive nominations, which suggested little effort (if at all) was usually paid to verification, sourcing and notability checks, as my participation in several AfDs would later on indicate. This is actually a minimum requirement. Last month, I was forced to leave another notice on the user's talk urging him to pay greater care, after he nominated a further 30 odd articles within 48 hours, several within minutes, where again no evidence of due process was apparent. What I got, instead of an acknowledgement, was this on my talk labeling me "stupid".
Usually, the copy-pasted nom. statements consist of vaguely worded one liners, which offer no explanations of concerns specific to the article. This AfD on a mainstream artist for instance, was opened with "Not much coverage in WP:RS. No achievement yet. Fails WP:NMUSICIAN", although that was clearly not the case. What is more unfortunate is that subjects which meet notability, but have poorly written articles, end up becoming a victim of these spree AfDs without the necessary background checks, due to the user's carelessness. For instance, this AfD was closed delete, only to have the article restored after I was able to provide multiple sources here. I have dozens of other examples but it will not be possible to list them all here.
Since 17 November, there's been another 78 new AfDs from Störm in very much the same drive-by twinkle-per-minute manner. And as one user (L3X1) already noted, it's replete with the same issues all over again. Not surprisingly, another editor, Soman, also raised the same issue recently here and here. What is consistent with Störm's rampage of AfDs is that very little thought and research goes into them beforehand, and as can be viewed from the editing history, the articles usually belong to the same set of topics. For example, if there's a newspaper AfD, the next dozen or so noms. will most definitely be newspapers. If it's a television show, the next dozen will be other of those. If it's books, companies, poets, scholars, and scientists, then vice versa. He picks a category, list or template and then bulldozes it. This defeats the purpose of AfD, which IMO is a self-corrective process looking at each article by its own merit. Some days back, it was all articles under Category:Pop albums by Pakistani artists. Before that, it was articles on Pakistani-Australians [233] [234] [235] [236] [237] etc. What accumulates after these questionable, tedious noms. is a huge backlog of un-participated discussions, with no one having the time and resources to do the user's own homework, and the articles meeting their fate. And when I mention that little thought goes into these AfDs, the user's frequent habit of self-withdrawing noms. is self-explanatory: [238] [239] [240] [241][242] [243] [244] [245] [246] [247] [248] etc.
I am raising this issue here after exhausting other methods and believe it warrants discussion. On account of the user's lack of WP:COMPETENCY and long-term disruption being caused to the project from this habit, I propose that an indefinite ban be placed on Störm from nominating any AfDs for the forseeable future. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mar4d (talk • contribs) 14:14, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
- I strongly urge you to stop using my previous username which I changed to hide my real-world identity. I don't think I'm that much bad what Mar4d posted above. This is more like cherry-pickings from my AfD nominations and accumulating it to portray bad of me. My quarrel with Mar4d started when we disagreed on 'Kashmir' topic categories then some Pakistani diaspora categories and then Pakistani nuclear scientist who participated in Project 706. My point was to give it a neutral view per our policy whereas Mar4d wants to portray them as heroes. This is what I had done in the past and majority of them are Pakistani articles. What I urge is to strictly follow WP:GNG but there are some users who follow old-style guidelines and consider anyone notable if that got trivial mention which I disagree with. Whatever I done so far was to raise the standard of Pakistani articles owing to the fact there are limited editors working on South Asian articles. I don't want to discuss what Mar4d has done in the past because he is discussing me here. I generally disagree with cherry pickings Mar4d above. Thanks. Störm (talk) 14:32, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
- I was asked by Störm to comment as a regular AfD participant in some of the subject areas he nominates (as may be seen here Störm / Icewhiz editor interaction. As a mildly inclusionist editor, I often vote against his nominations (but I have agreed on some) - but I do think that his noms are generally (at least lately and the ones I participated in - e.g. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kamran Farid (2nd nomination) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reactions to the March 2016 Istanbul bombing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fatma Omar An-Najar Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Integrated Dynamics Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wadie Jwaideh Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GIDS Shahpar Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SATUMA Mukhbar Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vo Duc Van Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Integrated Defence Systems - are generally made in good faith and on articles with significant issues - even on the ones I disagreed with, I saw/see where he was coming from (though possibly failing on BEFORE quality). Unlike some other deletion nominators - I have not seen POINTy behavior at least lately. And the fact he is willing to readily and promptly withdraw noms when presented with compelling arguements and sources (as opposed to beating the dead horse endlessly and arguing the case, or just letting it linger there) - saves community time. Withdrawing a nom is not a bad thing - to the contrary - it is an indication of an editor willing to listen!Icewhiz (talk) 15:08, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
- I strongly urge you to stop using my previous username which I changed to hide my real-world identity. I don't think I'm that much bad what Mar4d posted above. This is more like cherry-pickings from my AfD nominations and accumulating it to portray bad of me. My quarrel with Mar4d started when we disagreed on 'Kashmir' topic categories then some Pakistani diaspora categories and then Pakistani nuclear scientist who participated in Project 706. My point was to give it a neutral view per our policy whereas Mar4d wants to portray them as heroes. This is what I had done in the past and majority of them are Pakistani articles. What I urge is to strictly follow WP:GNG but there are some users who follow old-style guidelines and consider anyone notable if that got trivial mention which I disagree with. Whatever I done so far was to raise the standard of Pakistani articles owing to the fact there are limited editors working on South Asian articles. I don't want to discuss what Mar4d has done in the past because he is discussing me here. I generally disagree with cherry pickings Mar4d above. Thanks. Störm (talk) 14:32, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) This ([249], [250], [251]) looks an awful lot like WP:CANVASSING. Stop it.
- This is a gargantuan amount of AfD nominations and that's no cherry picking.
- Just looking at the nominations today: 13:21, 13:24, 13:29, 13:32 raises the question of how you even had time to find the articles and nominate them, much less do anything resembling WP:BEFORE. GMGtalk 15:19, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
- Of the 3 articles just mentioned as nominated today, Future Sonics is sourced to primary, deadlinks, and non-reliable sources; Amar Audio has been tagged ofr sourcing for 2 years and, as the nominaiton states, page has no sources; Dewan Salman Fibre is an unsourced article tagged for sourcing since 2008. We do get an awful lot of PROMO on non-notable companies; someone has to birng it to AfD.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:24, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
- Yeah... so... Progressive Education Network Pakistan was nominated three minutes after their last AfD nom. So, just for shits and giggles, I pulled out a stop watch, and it took me one minute and 38 seconds to just read the article from top to bottom, no looking at sources, no conducting independent searches. So if we're asking the question "How did this user perform a thorough BEFORE?" Well, let me save you some trouble and let you know that if you're looking for an answer that doesn't begin and end with "they didn't", then it's the wrong answer. GMGtalk 17:39, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
- And stop the clock. 11 minutes 45 seconds, not counting the time it took me to read the article. Express Tribune, Pakistan Today, and oh look, apparently they had a case study published in the Harvard Business Review. Is the company notable? I dunno. The Harvard source is behind a pay wall and I don't know what the name of the organization in Urdu might be. Are those all things that need to be considered before someone opens an AfD? Yes. GMGtalk 17:59, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
- Given that it was written by someone whose username contains the letters "PEN" and is full of sentences like "The rationale behind this model is that by adopting under-performing public schools, PEN can leverage the existing infrastructure of public schools to focus on the quality of education delivery." I suspect the issue is not "should this go to AfD?" but "should it have been tagged as a G11 speedy"? Black Kite (talk) 21:12, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
- Meh. None of that changes the fact that if you are nominating dozens of articles in a day and spending less time on your BEFORE than it takes to make a cup of coffee, something isn't lining up quite right. And it's certainly not the first time something like that has come up. In that case, the editor voluntarily walked away from nominating, would have been TBANNED a month ago if they hadn't, and for fairly similar behavior: rapid fire noms, dozens of nominations, and little to no BEFORE. GMGtalk 21:18, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
- Given that it was written by someone whose username contains the letters "PEN" and is full of sentences like "The rationale behind this model is that by adopting under-performing public schools, PEN can leverage the existing infrastructure of public schools to focus on the quality of education delivery." I suspect the issue is not "should this go to AfD?" but "should it have been tagged as a G11 speedy"? Black Kite (talk) 21:12, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
- I was asked to join this discussion, possibly because I interacted with this editor just yesterday at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Harvard Dorm Crew, a useful nomination of an article of the type that undergrads often slip into Wikipedia. Other nominations in my analyzer seem reasonable: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ben Behrouzi, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Durr-e-Shahwar Syed. We interact frequently at terrorism-related discussions like 2017 Islamic inspired bomb plot on Australian aeroplane:[252], and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2016 Hanover stabbing: [253] where Störm's comments seem reasonable and normal. We have also interacted on Pakistan-related articles: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bomb blasts in Parachinar since 2007, where Störm nominated the article, but changed his view. On Pakistan-related articles where we agreed: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anjou Soares, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Durr-e-Shahwar Syed, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Saman Shad, [[254]]; And on Pakistan-related articles where we differed: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Iqbal Marwat, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zaynab Khadr, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wadie Jwaideh, but where I do not find this editors nominations to be WP:POINTy, or unusual. E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:24, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
- I've come across a large number of Model UN articles nominated by this user. While (at first glance) the nominations are all correct, it's still a *lot* of work to go over them all. I definitely don't support a TBAN, but some limit may be called for. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:35, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
- One could argue, per WP:NMODELUN (no, we don't need that nonexistent notability guideline), that regional Model UN projects are rarely notable. These are probably a case of locating the problem area (student created Model UN articles), some quick verification on each one (particularly given the lack of strong sources in the article itself), and then nomming the bunch. I don't think he was wrong here.Icewhiz (talk) 06:27, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
- I agree that individual regional model UN events aren't going to be notable; a single batch nomination containing one type of page would be fine. A few of the noms were of organizations that run multiple sites or other Model UN related topics. I spent probably 45 minutes on the 15 nominations (30 minutes at vote time, and 15 minutes of general research when I first saw them), and there's probably a need for 2 or 3 other people to spend that time as well. Again, nothing that justifies a TBAN, just exhausting when they show up on the AfD page en masse. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:13, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
- One could argue, per WP:NMODELUN (no, we don't need that nonexistent notability guideline), that regional Model UN projects are rarely notable. These are probably a case of locating the problem area (student created Model UN articles), some quick verification on each one (particularly given the lack of strong sources in the article itself), and then nomming the bunch. I don't think he was wrong here.Icewhiz (talk) 06:27, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
- I was asked by Störm to comment as a regular AfD participant The nominations are in good faith at the time of nomination and looking at his Last 500 nominations over 70.4% of AfD's were matches at the time of typing here.I do not support a TBan at this point Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 22:17, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
- Comment After going through above comments, I think I should improve my quality of AfD nominations. I know my short-comings and I want to improve my editing. I can understand Mar4d's worry because he is regular WP:PAK editor so he cares about Pakistani articles. I had written 250+ articles on Pakistani topics so in general I'm not detrimental to the project. From today, I will try to give detailed rational so no one complains that I'm not doing 'quality WP:BEFORE'. All who complain to me talks about the time but reality is that because my rationals are short and I spend time on spotting articles with issues and doing before(i.e. searching in Google News/Books etc,) and then nominating them at once so this gives bad impression. I will not repeat that. Thanks. Störm (talk) 10:01, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
+ i am busy from july 2017 when this bad faith contributor spoil this article (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ehsan_Sehgal), you all can review, how he and Landscape repton (talk | contribs) destroy it. i am making the case against him with my friends because i am not familiar with rules and how to make link blue. anyhow, he and others working here to damage the wekipedia and its article. i try to soon submit my case for honest and neutral contributors. he should be stop for ever. sorry my english is not good. no one care to improve article, no one investigate, it is conspricy, now he is playing drama to cover his bad faith motives, i come up with details, some people promise to help me. my one lawyer friend, she told me, he does not seem he is a english speaker, he writes very poor english. contributors let not him damage wikipedia and articles. i will ask to improve article, because i must not touch article (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ehsan_Sehgal). Moona Sehgal (talk) 19:45, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
- @Störm: I'm glad to see you are apparently open to some feedback. The problem is that AfD can be an exceptionally labor intensive process. Probably a good middle ground for BEFORE is to expect to spend at least ten or fifteen minutes making sure there's nothing available. If you don't and you're wrong, then you essentially waste ten or fifteen minutes for every subsequent person who !votes, plus potentially a DRV and even a subsequent time consuming nomination. When you multiply that across sometimes ten or twenty nominations a day, you can fairly easily and singlehandedly waste dozens of man-hours across dozens of editors, and all because you couldn't be bothered to spend 15 minutes of your own time on the front end.
- I think it'd be a good idea to probably limit yourself to like five nominations a day at least for the foreseeable future. If you can be more careful going forward, and limit yourself as far as overwhelming volume goes, then we can probably get along just fine. If not, you're probably going to end up back here in a few months over the same issues, and given that it has now come up seriously twice, and you agreed to fix it, and then couldn't, there's probably not going to be very many people running to your defense, and not very many people who will be receptive to it if they do. We need more editors on southeast Asian subjects, but we still have to work within reasonable expectations regardless of our expertise. GMGtalk 20:08, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
- @GreenMeansGo: I second your thoughts. There are more issues like this, which makes it extremely hard to arrive at a simple conclusion. When there are multiple people complaining about the same thing, then there is definitely something wrong, and acknowledging the problem is a good start. The issue is that despite Störm's repeated assurances in the past, it's always back to square one with the way he recklessly handles AfDs. The Model UN articles aren't a great example to form a judgement, because they are probably actually non-notable. My concern stems more from the way certain notable BLPs and other Pakistan-focused articles have been handled (and continue to be handled). And unfortunately, there is no one around to check or oversee. As it is already, there's a serious lack of coverage and editors in WikiProject Pakistan, a predominately non-English country, so when you have poorly-executed mass nominations coming in everyday without WP:BEFORE, we have a serious problem on our hands including wastage of time, content, and productivity.
- Trust me, there is no shortage of good faith on my side as E.M.Gregory, Icewhiz and Pharaoh of the Wizards imply. Raising the issue here was a final resort; it's me who's been letting this go on for months, trying to engage on talk and discussions, and even taking comments like this. Even if we for a second assume that all those AfDs (including improper nominations) were "well-intentioned", the fact remains that there are several bad nominations, and they're occurring regularly by the dozens. Even a single bad nomination is one too many. And it is causing more disruption to the project than good. Now multiply this over the course of several months, and see how it ends. I have so many more examples, but I will recommend to all above to actually go through the user's AfD contributions, and they are bound to find some issues. It did not take GreenMeansGo long enough to figure out what is actually the problem. There are a lot of rash AfDs that have been created and handled recklessly, unproductively, and for a lack of better word, unprofessionally. The result is several legit articles turning collateral.
- I agree partly with power~enwiki that a limit is warranted. That limit in my opinion should be a restriction on AfD nominations. I think this boils down to lack of experience also; as an editor, Störm is less than two years old. A substantial time of his current daily editing is spent on deletions. I cannot ever recall any substantial contributions from him towards writing a decent WP:FA, WP:GA, WP:DYK or WP:ITN. I think if he focuses on the content creation instead, that will accrue long-term benefits. Let the experienced users who are well-versed with deletion policies handle AfDs for now. As I said, AfD is a self-corrective process. If there is a non-notable article, it will be found, nominated and deleted one day regardless. I just don't think Störm's repeated approach is the correct way to deal with it, because it is causing irreversible damage. Mar4d (talk) 16:04, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
- We all here volunteer or donate our precious time for Wikipedia and we do whatever we like to do, not what other people demand us to do. I'm asking tell me how I can improve my editing in the area which interests me. Don't ask me for WP:FA or WP:GA quality articles when I'm two years old as you said above. I had written over 300 articles for Wikipedia, all with proper sourcing. Whenever I found that my article has issues then 'I myself' nominated it for deletion, check Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/KIPS Schools and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/News Room. Thanks. Störm (talk) 14:17, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
- I agree partly with power~enwiki that a limit is warranted. That limit in my opinion should be a restriction on AfD nominations. I think this boils down to lack of experience also; as an editor, Störm is less than two years old. A substantial time of his current daily editing is spent on deletions. I cannot ever recall any substantial contributions from him towards writing a decent WP:FA, WP:GA, WP:DYK or WP:ITN. I think if he focuses on the content creation instead, that will accrue long-term benefits. Let the experienced users who are well-versed with deletion policies handle AfDs for now. As I said, AfD is a self-corrective process. If there is a non-notable article, it will be found, nominated and deleted one day regardless. I just don't think Störm's repeated approach is the correct way to deal with it, because it is causing irreversible damage. Mar4d (talk) 16:04, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
- Comment Mar4d should not be talking about competence since Mar4d himself has gross WP:CIR issues. Experienced editors like Störm takes lessons from every AFD and no one is perfect with AFDs. If someone has made many AFD nomination it is inevitable that some of them are going to fail but we have to see the factors here and there is nothing wrong with the nominations made by Störm. I am seeing that I have participated on 5 or 6 AFDs that he had nominated. I can recall one[255] where Mar4d had no concerns about the notability instead he was shielding creation of a disruptive sock, and this thread shows that Mar4d is disappointed that he has failed to change the result of the AFDs as much as he wished. The AFD data shows that most of Störm's nominations were positive. Strongly oppose topic ban or any other sanction. D4iNa4 (talk) 16:55, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
- First off User:D4iNa4, accusing someone of having gross CIR issues should probably come with a diff or two, and is a pretty serious accusation. I'm not sure I'm in favor of a sanction at this time either, so long as User:Störm recognizes there are some concerns and is making a good faith effort at improvement. But poking through their history, finding something like this is a problem when it concerns a high volume nominator. That's not a nuanced debate about policy, or someone sweeping in with a shovel and a library card to rescue an article. That's just a google search, and is kindof just a nomination that shouldn't happen from an experienced user. That looks a bit like a preference for nominating bad articles instead of bad subjects, which I'd say could fairly conceivably be compatible with ~70% accuracy, especially if, for example, one was fairly systematically nominating articles where sources can be expected to be mostly in non-English languages, and non-Latin alphabets.
- Something like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Memon Abdul Majeed Sindh seems to square with that assessment pretty well. About half the original rationale is apparently a mild ad hominem, and the reply there is essientially 100% out of line with BEFORE, which explicitly expects nominators to consider non-English articles, and searches for non-English sources where the foreign language name is given, which in this case, it is. Those kinds of mistakes are perfectly acceptable for someone learning the process, but are not acceptable for someone nominating ten or twenty articles within the span of a day. GMGtalk 17:34, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks. I still have no idea what "gross CIR issues" D4iNa4 is referring to. It seems like a poor attempt to derail the discussion. I have no intention to entertain WP:BATTLE and WP:NOTHERE. Regards, Mar4d (talk) 08:54, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
- Only from reading this frivolous report and demands for topic ban from AFD, one can tell about your disruption. The AFD[256] that I had cited is evidence of your "gross WP:CIR issues", I don't have to list every incident now since they are too prevalent when it comes to you. D4iNa4 (talk) 06:10, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
- Then you might want to see how that AfD was also mishandled. The user simply copied a chunk of the deleted article and pasted it into List of Internet phenomena in Pakistan without attribution. As it stands, the list currently holds no other content. At least do your research if you're going to vomit big words that are difficult to handle for you. Mar4d (talk) 16:36, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
- Only from reading this frivolous report and demands for topic ban from AFD, one can tell about your disruption. The AFD[256] that I had cited is evidence of your "gross WP:CIR issues", I don't have to list every incident now since they are too prevalent when it comes to you. D4iNa4 (talk) 06:10, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks. I still have no idea what "gross CIR issues" D4iNa4 is referring to. It seems like a poor attempt to derail the discussion. I have no intention to entertain WP:BATTLE and WP:NOTHERE. Regards, Mar4d (talk) 08:54, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
- Revisiting this because as I sourced an article on a church, (In case I was unclear: not by Storm, by a different editor,) which was brought to AfD in a row of 3 articles on individual churches I found on the Christianity AfD list. Nomination statement: "Appears to be just an ordinary church ... highly unlikely to have a history with significant coverage." made it clear that Nom hadn't looked very hard, if at all. It made me return here because among the things that make Wikipedia such a nasty place is the ease with which editors can be dragged here for commonplace editing. I do not know Störm's editing well; I recounted what I do know above. But I do think that we should be as cautious about sanctioning editors as I wish all editors would be about copy-pasted and scantily researched nominations and iVotes at AfD.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:53, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
- @E.M.Gregory: Name those three nominations soon where I wrote "Appears to be just an ordinary church ... highly unlikely to have a history with significant coverage." It looks odd when someone don't gives evidence and starts claiming. I tried to find out those but failed. Maybe you know those. Störm (talk) 11:35, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
- I didn't mean that at all. You had nothing to do with those church discussions. What I meant to say is that nominating a lot of articles, quickly, is an extremely widespread practice. Lots of editors do this. One editor with whom I regularly interact routinely takes new articles on political candidates to AfD. A small percentage of them are about people of significant accomplishment who do merit articles. Other editors have to check very carefully to sift these form the many nominations. The same thing happens with authors and other WP:CREATIVE professionals. Not to mention bands and albums. That does not mean that editors who rapidly nominate articles should be sanctioned. What particularly worries me here is that editors who are deeply investigated a topic sometimes use a widespread practice like this as a pretext to sanction or block an editor with whom they disagree on content or political perspective. I see that as deeply problematic, although I cannot be certain that it is what is happening here.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:55, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
- @E.M.Gregory: Name those three nominations soon where I wrote "Appears to be just an ordinary church ... highly unlikely to have a history with significant coverage." It looks odd when someone don't gives evidence and starts claiming. I tried to find out those but failed. Maybe you know those. Störm (talk) 11:35, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
Five minutes spent reading this editor's talk page history is illuminating. Numerous warnings and exhortations about AfD and speedy nominations, declined speedy nominations, or their June 2016 spree of removing the religion of Muslim personalities, their creation of Category:Pakistani sex gangs, their permanent war footing against articles "within the Pakistan topic area" (as outlined by the OP) and their previously self-declared ethnicity of "Anglo-Indian" (but now described as Australian, Swedish, German and English, with the dog-whistle user name "Störm") all leave me feeling very unnerved and unsettled about this editor's neutrality and POV. I can't realistically list a hundred diffs here and expect you to check them all out. If you're interested you'll look at the contributions, across several different user names (is that deliberate? Is it ABF to wonder that?) and you may come away from it questioning this editor's long term pattern of edits. Or you may - as clearly many editors over the years have - not connect the dots and dismiss complaints as paranoia or mud slinging. But either way, I would urge you to look... Neil S. Walker (talk) 00:24, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
- I always try to remain neutral. I reject the hint given by above user by calling to join the dots that I'm doing any systematic harm to Wikipedia or to Pakistani articles. Wikipedia is about WP:CHOICE so what I do is my choice but by following WP policies. In fact, I should ask you about your contributions when you are 6 months old? Störm (talk) 11:10, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
- Neil, Good point. I have now taken a closer look st Strom's editing, and now see that while I have seen him make iVotes and nominations at AfD that while cursory and not well-researched, do not seem overtly problematic, he also makes a great many that are disruptive to the work of careful editors working in good faith to build reliable articles, and to editors working carefully to decide whether to keep or delete. I support the suggestion made above that Störm voluntarily undertake to concentrate his efforts for a while on building articles to gain a better understanding of content and sourcing.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:29, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
- I instead urge you to voluntarily undertake that what you suggested above, because you are known for making AfD useless by bombarding it with comments, making it difficult to decide whether to keep or delete which in result ends as No consensus. You wrote this because of my neutral vote at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Killing of Abdisamad Sheikh-Hussein. Your neutrality and continuous change of mind here and there is seriously questioned. Pinging @TheGracefulSlick: for her neutral remarks. Thanks. Störm (talk) 07:52, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
- I can't really say much because this looks a bit like canvassing but Störm I don't think you are in a whole lot of trouble so I would just listen to others' suggestions and the ANI will probably close without any actual sanctions. No point in getting in an argument with someone who may have it out for you but in a way that is somewhat difficult to prove. After all, Gregory does regularly, for better or worse, roam terror and crime-based AFD discussions. FWIW, I wouldn't recommend sanctions because I think you can voluntarily limit yourself to a lower amount.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 16:38, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
- I instead urge you to voluntarily undertake that what you suggested above, because you are known for making AfD useless by bombarding it with comments, making it difficult to decide whether to keep or delete which in result ends as No consensus. You wrote this because of my neutral vote at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Killing of Abdisamad Sheikh-Hussein. Your neutrality and continuous change of mind here and there is seriously questioned. Pinging @TheGracefulSlick: for her neutral remarks. Thanks. Störm (talk) 07:52, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
- Störm, since you recognize that you are new and have much to learn, could you agree to go more slowly as you learn? Could you for example, agree to limit yourself to some small number of deletion nominations per a given period of time (say 5 per week) so that you ensure that you take the time to do your diligence properly and don't cause others to expend lots of unnecessary effort because of a mistake on your part? It seems to me that would result in a huge improvement to your editing skills, your esteem within the community, and would ensure your continued participation in building the encyclopedia. I think everyone else would be willing to drop this ANI process if you made that pledge. Do you agree? Jacona (talk) 12:28, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
- @JaconaFrere: I agree that I should slow down. I can accept what you proposed, and will try to follow in next four weeks. Because working with Categories, Templates and AfDs interest me so I have to increase that number. Maybe 4 or 5 AfDs a day but with in-depth rational. Any other suggestion you want to make, if you disagree? Störm (talk) 12:40, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
- If it were up to me, I would choose a smaller number, perhaps 2 a day for a month, and if things are going well, most of the articles proposed for deletion are being deleted, I would increase it to 5 or 6 a day (perhaps after seeking feedback from some of the commenters here). But I am not in charge of anything, it's just a suggestion, what seems reasonable and wise to me! Jacona (talk) 12:45, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
- @JaconaFrere: I agree that I should slow down. I can accept what you proposed, and will try to follow in next four weeks. Because working with Categories, Templates and AfDs interest me so I have to increase that number. Maybe 4 or 5 AfDs a day but with in-depth rational. Any other suggestion you want to make, if you disagree? Störm (talk) 12:40, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
- Comment. It's all well and good that AfDs are an area which the user finds of interest, but given that the concern raised here is that a large number of the AfDs being started aren't being done with due care and attention, 4-5 per day (which would equate to 28-35 per week, as against the suggestion of 5 per week) seems like an alarmingly high number, interest or no interest. AfD - and the deletion process more broadly - is one of those areas where enthusiasm and interest is great, but can easily cause problems. I note, too, that the user was previously brought here for precisely the same thing and the outcome of the discussion was that he would limit himself and read up on policies. Perhaps some time under the wing of a more experienced user, coupled with a voluntary restriction on AfDs, would be worthwhile here? Not putting my hand up, as I'll be very sporadically here from now until the end of the year. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 23:06, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
- Comment. No comments on the subjects, but other recent evidence of faulty reasoning: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Quaid School; Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Laureate Group of Schools and Colleges (2nd nomination). Mar4d (talk) 10:39, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
- I have left a note for the user to stop nominating anymore articles until all of the current nominations have been closed, and to voluntarily limit themselves to 5 nominations a day after that, or else it will be implemented as formal editing restriction. Alex Shih (talk) 06:20, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
Article For Deletion Abuse by Ussr Störm[edit]
A user known as Störm seems to be submitting Articles for Deletion at a rapid rate. These submissions are 1. All related to Pakistan, 2. Follow a pattern of being in the same topic per delete spree (around 6 or 7 each time), with a copied reason for submission. This is abusing the AFD process, as it is clear that the user is not following WP:BEFORE as evidenced here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Nazia_Hassan_Foundation.
If you google the Nadia Hassan Foundation there are many articles on it on the first few pages, yet Storm submits the article with "Nothing in my searches" as a reason. This not only calls into question this submission but all the other ones too. AFD voters often side with the submitter and my fear is that many worthy articles that simply need some work will be deleted thanks to this targeted deletion spree. Given the sheer amount that has been submitted by this author it is unreasonable for me or other editors to check all of his submissions and I would like to reccomend a procedural keep on all this editors recent AFD submissions.Egaoblai (talk) 04:06, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
- Please see above: #User consistently disrupting AfD process - The Bushranger One ping only 04:31, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
- How much rapid? I took my time to make sure that there is nothing. You can see that I never nominated in a spree. For every AfD I took greater than 5 min for proper WP:BEFORE. You seems to be inexperienced user in this regard (created account in 2016). Störm (talk) 06:20, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) Since the user Störm agreed to slow done with AfD's, I don't see xe has created "AfD's at a rapid rate recently as Egaoblai claiming here. As far I can see most of the nom Störm has made in last one week seems valid to me and are possible candidates of deletion except one or two. I believe Störm is acting in good faith here and not here to damage the project therefore I oppose any block against him as proposed by Egaoblai, however I agree that Störm needs to take some time off from AfD process. --Saqib (talk) 06:21, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
- How much rapid? I took my time to make sure that there is nothing. You can see that I never nominated in a spree. For every AfD I took greater than 5 min for proper WP:BEFORE. You seems to be inexperienced user in this regard (created account in 2016). Störm (talk) 06:20, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
Didi Temelkova[edit]
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.
Newly registered User:Didi Temelkova beginning with personal attacks against me. Sock of User:PavelStaykov. Jingiby (talk) 12:50, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
- The SPI case was closed 13 minutes after filing. He's blocked.
— Berean Hunter (talk) 13:14, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
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.
Ahem. What does a guy have to do to get a little celebration around here? :P Yoshi24517Chat Very Busy 18:12, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
- (Non-administrator comment) @Yoshi24517: For he/she/it's a jolly good fellow, for he/she/it's a jolly good fellow, for he/she/it's a is a jolly good feheloooooow, which nobody can deny. Hip, hip, hurray! Many happy returns. Kleuske (talk) 19:41, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
- She's a jolly good fellow? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:07, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
Waite ... how dose Wikipedia know when it's your birthday? I have benn on hear more then 10 years and I never saw were I add My Birthday in my Options. Jena (talk) 22:17, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
- You say so on your userpage or elsewhere on Wikipedia. Now go talk about this elsewhere. SkyWarrior 23:24, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
User:Colonies Chris[edit]
- Colonies Chris (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
There has been a long-running tendency of this editor making a number of edits using a script, some of which are disputed. Specifically, the practice of removing State/province after city even in cases where City, State is used for consistency (like tables and infoboxes in basketball and other sport-related articles see example here). He cites WP:USPLACE as the basis for these edits, but that section does not address dropping “State” except in the case of naming articles. For sport articles, keeping State intact does serve a purposes for the reader. In addition to adopting a consistent format that makes infoboxes scannable, use of State in college recruiting tables allows a reader to discern how national or regional a school’s recruiting base. A basketball fan could easily see how widely a team travels for games by scanning states in the schedule table. My issue with this user is that he applies these changes with minimal policy backing, against existing consensus, and as yet to isten to the several editors who ave objected. I have been involved in discussions at least back to July 2016, then again in October of that year. The editor stopped this behavior, but then started up again recently. The editor never listens to objections, despite multiple editors expressing similar concerns, so I feel like ANI is the last resort. I was warned that this editor does listen or change behavior, but I have tried to discuss directly at each instance. I would like this editor to stop removing State after city in sport infoboxes and tables. One of the issues is this editor edits via script, so he may make multiple changes with one click. It is undue burden for editors like me to sort through all of these changes to revert the one area in question - he can remove it from his script. Worth noting that other editors have a similar concern about this editor converting State/province abbreviations to full names in tables, but I do not have a strong opinion on this. At issue, though, is the same type of response - not listening and “enforcing” non-existing (or open to interpretation) policy. Rikster2 (talk) 00:13, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
- Actually, for US places article titling conventions generally control how cities are referred to in articles -- see MOS:PN#Place_names. Naturally common sense should be applied, and consistency in a table or infobox certainly might be a reason to deviate. I'll also say, however (stimulated by one of the diffs you supplied) I'm pretty sure we almost never use the two-digit postal abbreviations for states (e.g. CA)
but rather the older-style abbreviations instead (e.g. Calif.), where abbreviation is warranted; but I don't recall if that's said anywhere or just implicit in MOS:PN combined with WP:USPLACE.[Later: Well, see MOS:POSTABBR ]. EEng 05:38, 29 November 2017 (UTC)- ...my observation has been that the abbreviations are the opposite. I've seen , FL; , GA; etc. used reguarly but never the "long-form abbreviations" to my recollection. - The Bushranger One ping only 05:46, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
- Well, this is exactly the sort of topic on which lots and lots of articles might be doing the wrong thing, but like I said I can't recall a MOS provision on point; I could be wrong. What I'm vaguely thinking is that, while we expect most readers to recognize states of the US, provinces of Canada, and counties of the UK, we don't expect them to know all the postal abbreviations. Hell, even I get MI and MO and AL and AK mixed up. EEng 05:52, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
- USPLACE most certainly does not mandate ALWAYS dropping State after major cities. The right move would be to try and change/clarify the guideline if one is passionate that this SHOULD be the case. What would not be the right move is to bludgeon 100s of articles with your interpretation of how the guidance should be applied in the face of multiple editors disagreeing with your interpretation of the guidance over the course of years. Sports projects have the leeway to include State for major city in tables/infoboxes for consistency and scannability (I leave it alone in prose). Let’s focus on the editor behavior here. Rikster2 (talk) 11:14, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
- Also, upon review, MOS:PN#Place_names specifically talks about alternate place names due to language and historical naming, not the use of modifiers. “New York” vs. “Nueva York” is addressed, but “Cincinnati” vs. “Cincinnati, Ohio” is not and both Cincinnati variants are correct via language or history. It also doesn’t address tables or infoboxes where internal consistency may be desired. I don’t see the value to the reader to drop the State from 3 out of 35 entries in a college sports schedule, just because an article is named “Minneapolis” instead of “Minneapolis, Minnesota.” Rikster2 (talk) 12:45, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
- Nobody said anything about "mandating", so calm down.
- As for "MOS:PN#Place_names specifically talks about alternate place names due to language and historical naming, not the use of modifiers": No, what MOS:PN#Place_names says is
In general, other articles should refer to places by the names which are used in the articles on those places, according to the rules described at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names)
, which in turn gives detailed guidelines on when to use modifiers, and which. As for tables and infoboxes, I already said, "Naturally common sense should be applied, and consistency in a table or infobox certainly might be a reason to deviate", so again – calm down. Given that someone's now pointed us to MOS:POSTABBR, that leaves the question, when abbreviation is warranted as in an infobox, of whether the two-letter modern postal abbreviations should be used e.g. CA versus the older Calif. and so on; for non-US readers the latter gives them at least a fighting chance of figuring out what's what. But that's just off the top of my head.
- EEng 20:35, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
- I am calm, and you should be too. I am not even contesting the use of abbreviations, as I said in the first statement. I merely said that others have contested this and have experienced the same editor behavior in response. the ANI is about how a user responds/behaves to content and guideline differences of opinion. It’s doubtful we are going to set/clarify guidelines in this discussion. The point is that there is not clear line that this user is correct, so it’s inappropriate to cast it that way. How we come to agreements about gray areas in guidance is a central part of how Wikipedia operates. If I just wanted to debate and clarify policy this isn’t where I would have taken it. Rikster2 (talk) 21:07, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
- Well, this is exactly the sort of topic on which lots and lots of articles might be doing the wrong thing, but like I said I can't recall a MOS provision on point; I could be wrong. What I'm vaguely thinking is that, while we expect most readers to recognize states of the US, provinces of Canada, and counties of the UK, we don't expect them to know all the postal abbreviations. Hell, even I get MI and MO and AL and AK mixed up. EEng 05:52, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
- ...my observation has been that the abbreviations are the opposite. I've seen , FL; , GA; etc. used reguarly but never the "long-form abbreviations" to my recollection. - The Bushranger One ping only 05:46, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
- You said he is doing this via script? WP:BOTPOL should apply. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:35, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
- First, to clarify what I'm actually doing. I make a lot of minor gnoming edits, and among those - not on their own but as part of a larger package of changes - I also expand US state abbreviations (in line with the MOS at MOS:POSTABBR) and remove the state where the city is well-known, according to the AP convention described at WP:USPLACE, which is used widely within WP. A reader gains nothing from the non-news that New York City is in New York State, or that Los Angeles is in California. I find the argument about visual inconsistency in a table pretty unconvincing - is a reader really going to find their understanding disrupted by the omission of the state from cities known worldwide like Houston, New Orleans, Miami, Chicago? Nor am I convinced by the argument that 'a basketball fan could easily see how widely a team travels for games by scanning states in the schedule table' - how many readers can locate relevant cities without reference to a map? And a trip from one side of a state to another can be far longer than to a neighbouring city in another state. In summary, Rikster2 may say I don't listen to objections - what that really means is that he and I have different opinions and I don't choose to stop making improvements simply because he doesn't like them. That said, I do generally try to avoid basketball-related articles, simply to avoid this sort of hassle. (In contrast, I've made a large number of similar changes to football-related articles - a question about whether this was acceptable was raised; only one editor seriously objected but gained no support from other editors). Colonies Chris (talk) 15:11, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
- well, not really an “I don’t like it” case. More of a “I expect if someone is mass-implementing changes that they will stop doing so once a difference of opinion is raised about a non-consensus set of edits” thing. I am not the only editor who has talked to you about this issue over time and, as I pointed out to you in October, you never stopped making the edits in question long enough to have a discussion before continuing to move forward. Per WP:CYCLE, my typical experience has been that an editor would pause in the disputed editing to have the discussion and Drive to some sort of agreement. You never have done this. Also, while I question if ANI is the place to talk policy, there is no question that your propensity to remove State is not clearly in WP:USPLACE today. There is a reasonable discussion to be had as to if State should always be removed, but pushing through edits is not furthering it. I never said a reader can’t figure out Cleveland is in Ohio, but removing it from a list slows down the scannability of those tables. And, yes, states are important to college athletics - coaches are evaluated by how well they recruit their home state (which is harder to scan for the reader if removed from some). Just because YOU don’t think they are needed doesn’t mean there isn’t value for including State in some cases (like tables and infoboxes). Also, in my opinion, consistency of like pages matters for aetsthetics and general reading of like pages. Regardless, you act like there is a bright line guideline that you are enforcing where this is not the case and I am not the only editor to call you on it. Also, I hadn’t thought about it but User:Only in death is right about WP:BOTPOL. At that guideline it clearly states that part of the criteria in using scripts/bots is that edits being driven should only be performing tasks for which there is consensus. There is no consensus to remove State in every instance. Rikster2 (talk) 19:33, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
- If the state has that much importance, I suggest your priority should be to put it in a separate column in the relevant tables, and make it a sortable parameter. That would be easier to use for the purposes you describe, and the question of removal would not arise. Colonies Chris (talk) 21:47, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
- That is worth discussing for schedule tables. Now I have a suggestion for you - just take the removal of State out of your script. It’s not a change for which there is clear consensus, has been disputed, and if you remove it you are making edits for which it seems like you have better backing from a policy perspective (like full State name vs. abbreviation). Would solve 90% of the issue. Rikster2 (talk) 14:05, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
- If the state has that much importance, I suggest your priority should be to put it in a separate column in the relevant tables, and make it a sortable parameter. That would be easier to use for the purposes you describe, and the question of removal would not arise. Colonies Chris (talk) 21:47, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
The same behavior can be seen at American football and ice hockey pages. Nobody is against removing the state in the text ("New York City" instead of "New York City, New York"), but tables and infoboxes are a completely different story. This has been objected not once and not twice, but Colonies Chris just ignores it. We list "City, State" for consistency reasons, and it should stay that way. It is very strange and not consistent when you see "Toronto" in one column, while other columns list "Toronto, Ontario", and people that are not editing Wikipedia might get confused and either remove the state from every instance containing it or re-add it. Furthermore, sometimes the bot he is using makes wrong edits. Such as, "GA" stands for "Goals against" on ice hockey's pages, but his bot corrects it to "Georgia", which is nowhere near the intended meaning. As for "If the state has that much importance, I suggest your priority should be to put it in a separate column in the relevant tables
" – some tables are already huge so we do not need another column to make it even more problematic, and that is why some tables contain abbreviations. However, I do not really care about the removal of states' abbreviations, but common sense should be there when removing them. – Sabbatino (talk) 10:41, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
- RE; inappropriate conversion of GA; when this happened, did you notify me about it? (No, you didn't.) If you had done so, three things would have happened (a) I would have fixed it (b) I would have apologised (c) I would have fixed my script. But since you didn't bother to notify me (just stored it up for later use against me, it seems) none of those things happened. Colonies Chris (talk) 14:38, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
- I have had a quickish look at their contribution history and it appears it does fall under BOTPOL due to the automated nature of the edits. Which requires consensus *before* making these edits by automation. Since I havnt seen any such consensus anywhere, I am going to page an experienced BAG member to take a look. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:02, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
Refusal to communicate or clearly source article creations[edit]
On 1st November I initiated an ANI about Dimitrije jankovski's editing, as they are producing lots of unreferenced articles. I have sent about 20 messages between April and November, but the editor has not responded to a single one, despite it being pointed out that WP:Communication is required. Unfortunately, the editor has continued since the ANI was closed with exactly the same behaviour (no discussion actually got started, and Dj did not comment or edit for a few days after the ANI was initiated).
I have been sending the messages asking about the sourcing for this editor's many creations; none of them seem to have clear sources. I asked if by 'external links' DJ meant the usual 'friendly suggestions for further reading' or if these were actually the sources, and was happy to help make the sources clear, but DJ refused to answer and continued creating articles like Silvia Veleva, which has an empty references section and not even any external links. This is an issue because he/she is creating articles very regularly, all of which have significant issues with verifiability. I moved some to draftspace asking that they be moved back when it was clear they were not WP:OR, unfortunately Dj just reverted this but didn't add clear sources or communicate on the issue. I would like the editor to stop creating articles unless they have clear sources, and to please communicate with other editors on this issue. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 19:24, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
- I'm also calling WP:DUCK on this IP [257], who mainly edits articles dj has created, including when they are in draftspace, and edits in a very similar way. The IP has been editing since this ANI opened to revert my edits on dj's articles, see [258]. Boleyn (talk) 16:46, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
I'd really appreciate some comments here, as I'd hate it to just be closed again without any discussion. Dj seems to be using the IP but not logging into the main account, which may be to avoid this discussion. As there has been no communication, despite a previous ANI, and continued unsourced creations, I think he/she needs to be indefinitely blocked until he/she communicates. Then, if he/she is willing to discuss the issue and agree to only create referenced articles in the future, it can of course be lifted. Boleyn (talk) 13:37, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
- The IP 212.62.42.197 is continuing to edit only articles dj has created/been involved with. Boleyn (talk) 16:22, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
- I have blocked the IP for 31 hours for misusing logged-out editing, as it's apparent they logged out to make it look like they had stopped editing after Boleyn's first talk page note. I am leaving Dimitrije jankovski unblocked so that they can reply here. However I am not hopeful: the user has never edited a Talk: or User talk: page. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:25, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks, Ivanvector, I hope too that this will get dj's attention and get them to start communicating. They must be reading the messages, to know to log out for a bit to avoid this discussion. However, after 3 years of editing and having ignored more than 20 messages, I'm not hopeful wither. Dimitrije jankovski, 212.62.42.197, if you don't communicate in the next day or so, you run serious risk of an indefinite block. Please just talk to us so we can sort this out. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 20:53, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
- Admins - this user is most active at shwiki (Serbo-Croatian?) and srwiki (Serbian). If one of you watching this page can communicate in those languages, could you please try to reach out to them here? They seem to use talk pages at least sporadically on shwiki. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:58, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
Since dj stopped editing while logged out, they have returned to edit the same unref articles added more unverified information, e.g. [259] and [260]. I feel they have had enough time to respond and are clearly not intending to. The editing while logged out etc. shows dj has clearly seen the messages about this thread. I think Ivan's idea about trying to reach out in the native language is a good idea, as we want to give dj a serious opportunity to engage, but it has been around a month since the initial ANI and they have continued to add unverified information and refuse to communicate persistently during this time. I think we should give them a couple more days, but then Dimitrije jankovski, I think you should be blocked indefinitely until you do communicate. Boleyn (talk) 14:19, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks for trying to leave a note on their talk page. They haven't edited since yesterday so I'm going to assume they haven't seen it yet, but if they don't respond as their next edit then we'll have to block. New users building articles without references is one thing, but experienced users making unreferenced walled gardens after several editors have asked them to stop crosses the line into disruptive editing, and not communicating at all is a WP:CIR issue. They're also still editing logged out. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:21, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks Ivanvector, I had noticed the editing while logged out had continued too. I agree to give it one more edit before a block. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 19:04, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
- The user began editing again today from the IP, has continued adding information without references, and still has not responded. The user is blocked indefinitely, and their static IP is blocked for one month. I've left another note explaining the block, which I tried to translate to Serbian with Google Translate; this is a regrettable outcome but it is the best I can do. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:15, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for your hard work here, Ivan vector. Dj, if you are reading this, it would be good if you reflect on this and then communicate on your talk page - as long as you agree to reference and to communicate, an indefinite block need only be temporary. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 16:27, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
User:James_J._Lambden[edit]
I am bringing an incident to you, so that you can clarify both to me and @James J. Lambden: whether this behavior is acceptable. I have for a long time considered James guilty of WP:HARASS and James has repeatedly asked me to substantiate my claim (if this is the wrong avenue for this, let me know). This is my complaint: James has since Feb 2017 been obsessed with me, stalked me to articles that he’s never edited before, only to mass-revert me for spurious reasons. James’ reverts have in the overwelming majority of cases been entirely without cause, and my edits have in most cases been restored in full by other editors.
By my calculation, one sixth (17%) of the articles that James has edited since 25 Feb 2017 have been articles that he stalked me to and reverted me on. He has edited on 66 articles (I’m not counting user talk pages or noticeboards) and of those 66 articles, 11 (!) are articles that he only edited immediately after I did.
Like all other editors, I’m not perfect and I make mistakes. I frequently get into tussles with other editors, both because I am a prolific editor and because I frequently edit on controversial topics. I have never experienced anything quite like this though. I’m being followed around for months on end by an editor who in most cases reverts me for completely baseless reasons.
Below, I have listed all eleven articles that James followed me to (he had never edited them before), only to mass-revert me. Some reverts are reasonable, others are completely egregious. I have listed them all to give a full and fair picture. Note though that James also frequently reverts me for baseless reasons on pages that he did not necessarily follow me to, but I’m not going to list those. I’m more concerned with the stalking WP:HARASS-type behavior. I’m not asking for a sanction of him, but merely that you clarify to him and me whether this is acceptable, and what my options are.
- Immigration and Crime (25 February 2017): (1) I added text sourced to 12 high-quality sources[261], (2) James reverted me a few hours later[262], (3) We edit-war over this, (4) I start a RfC where there is consensus against including my content in full, but that a sentence or two is appropriate[263]. End result: RfC leads to a trimmed down version of my content.
- Peter Navarro (7 March 2017): (1) I spent months adding text (nearly all of it sourced to a large number of academic economists and/or a multitude of high-quality RS)[264], (2) James does several reverts of me a few hours after my last revert[265] – these reverts are reasonable and legitimate, (3) James then does additional reverts which are completely bonkers and out of sync with existing reliable sources (NYT, WSJ, CNBC, WaPo, New Yorker, among others) [266] – James claims that the existing RS do not support text that ascribes Navarro’s trade views as being considered “fringe” by economists, (4) I then add more than a dozen reliable sources to the article and even add quotes within each reference to support the notion that economists consider Navarro’s views on trade “fringe” (this is how far I went in meeting James’ concerns)[267], (5) James then mass-reverted all of my edits without any explanation[268], (6) We then fight on the talk page where I repeatedly ask him to just read the quotes within each reference[269][270], (7) James then edit-wars with three other editors over this content, claiming that the sources do not support the text (even though I added quotes for nearly every source within each reference). (8) James leaves and never comes back. End result: My edits were fully kept intact. I recommend that you read the disputed parts of the Navarro article[271], as it’s probably the most comprehensive and thoroughly sourced text on an economics-related individual on Wikipedia. This is what James was mass-reverting.
- Sanctuary city (21 April 2017): (1) I edit, adding text derived from an op-ed by two scholars summarizing their research for the Washington Post’s political science blog[272], (2) James reverts me a few minutes later[273], claiming that the text should be removed because the research hasn’t been published in a peer-reviewed journal, (3) I revert, noting that not everything has to be peer-reviewed to count as RS[274], (4) James reverts me back, (5) I then go to the talk page where James insists “This is a weak study covered by one blog months ago which no one has mentioned since then, in academia or media,”[275] (6) I showed that the study had been covered by the WaPo fact-checker, FactCheck.org and PolitiFact[276], (7) James stops responding and I restore the text two days later.[277]. End result: My edit is kept fully intact.
- Immigration and crime in Germany (3 August 2017) : (1) I removed misleading and undue crime statistics[278], (2) James reverts me within the hour[279], (3) I restore my edit and other editors do the same. End result: My edit is kept fully intact.
- Daily Caller (16 August 2017): (1) I edit[280], (2) James reverts me a few hours later (citing WP:UNDUE) because only one source is cited (CNN) [281], (3) I add another source (Associated Press)[282], (4) James reverts again (citing WP:UNDUE)[283], (5) I add more source (NY Times, Snopes)[284], (6) James reverts with the rationale “non-notable”[285]. James spends a week reverting this content six times before stopping. End result: My edits were kept fully intact.
- Fox News (16 August 2017): (1) I edit[286], (2) James reverts me a few hours later, claiming “non-notable, UNDUE”[287], (3) I add an Associated Press source, in addition to the CNN source (to demonstrate that it’s due weight)[288], (4) Believing that this has settled the dispute, I added more reliably sourced text on a different topic[289], (5) James then reverted both of my edits in full, citing both WP:UNDUE and WP:RECENT[290], (6) James edit wars with someone else and leaves, (7) James comes back a week later to revert the same content that he originally reverted[291], but was reverted back by other editors. End results: My edits were kept fully intact.
- Sean Hannity (12 October 2017) : (1) I add a bunch of reliably sourced content[292], (2) James reverts text attributed to the Washington Post and distorts the content of various sources[293], (3) James then edit wars with another editor over this before stopping, (4) a few days later, I add more reliably sourced content on all kinds of topics [294], (5) James reverts a lot of the text a few hours later but also adds a POV tag to the text from the older dispute[295], (6) When asked on the talk page why James removed text sourced to three RS, including a book published by an academic press, James responded, “A book published by an assistant professor (not even an associate) is not RS”[296]. (7) Numerous other editors respond that James’ edits are spurious and he gets reverted. End result: My edits are kept fully intact.
- Uranium One (31 October 2017) : (1) I add a fact-check by the Washington Post[297], (2) James reverts me 90 min later, claims that he knows better than the WaPo[298]. Both me and James left the article, leaving it up to other editors to resolve it.
- Clinton Foundation–State Department controversy (31 October 2017): Basically the same thing happened in this article: I edited and then Lambden showed up immediately after to revert me, and we both left the article.
- Tucker Carlson (31 October 2017) : (1) I made the least controversial edit in the world to this article[299], but (2) of course, James went to this page five minutes later (which he had never edited before) and reverted me.[300] (3) The revert was so ludicrious that James reverted himself a minute later[301]. End result: My edits were kept fully intact.
- One America News Network (30 November 2017): (1) I edited on the page[302], (2) James participates in a discussion on the talk page[303] and (3) then three days later starts to mass-remove recently added content by me (unrelated to the text under dispute on the talk page), saying that the text was WP:UNDUE and that the notable and award-winning magazine the Washingtonian did not count as a RS[304] (4) I restored the text and added Newsweek, an additional source (the Daily Beast was already cited, along with the Washingtonian)[305]. (5) James reverted me and we’re now disputing over this on the talk page.[306]
The modus operandi seems to be to (1) mass-remove text and sources and defend the removal by (2) saying that one or two high-quality RS are not sufficient to demonstrate due weight and/or (3) saying that as many sources as possible are not RS. To elaborate on #3, James likes to insist that sources for mundane and easily verifiable information are not RS, and that other editors need to go to the RSN noticeboard to confirm that blatant RS do count as RS for easily verifiable claims. These seem like basic stalling tactics. James has also on at least two occasions argued that books published by academic presses are not RS if they are authored by assistant professors (!).
When I revert these spurious edits, Lambden usually reverts me back again. The user then cites WP:BRD and wants to waste everyone’s time on the talk page. The tactic seems to be to stall and anger. Other editors then show up and revert Lambden’s spurious edits and tell him to stop on the article’s talk page. Lambden then goes away, only to follow me to some other article two-three weeks later. Rinse and repeat.
This kind of editing is highly detrimental to the Wikipedia project, as its sole purpose is to keep content that James disagrees with (in terms of politics) out of Wikipedia for spurious reasons and to deter and harass editors who add content that James disagrees with. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 02:16, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
- Sorry, TL;DR but I'll add that while laboriously scrolling down to find the end of this novel, a mouse-over your sig gave me pause when I read the pop-up. From what I can tell, you're here to right great wrongs which tends to make one oblivious to their own POV pushing. I don't think this is going to fair well for you as it exaggerates what already appears to be a case of paranoia. Tsk, tsk. Shouldn't have...Atsme📞📧 02:44, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
- Comment: Snoog's assessment in this filing has merits. I’ve participated in an RSN discussion where J.P.L. has engaged in similar behaviour. His comment to me was: “I understand you may feel Snoogans is helpful to your cause but encouraging his behaviour is detrimental to the encyclopedia”: [307] I found the comment misplaced and inappropriate and inquired with the OP what
[my] cause
was: [308]. I did not get an answer, even though I encouraged J.P.L. to elaborare on my Talk page. In another example, here's a sample 3RRN report filed by J.P.L. against the OP even though J.P.L. was not a party to the dispute. The report, which I would consider punitive and frivolous, closed as "No violation". K.e.coffman (talk) 03:30, 1 December 2017 (UTC) - The editor interaction tool is a thing, and quite useful here. Sure does look like James has been following and reverting the OP across multiple articles. Wasn't someone else complaining that the same editor was following them recently? Fyddlestix (talk) 03:46, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
- There's at least one example of a similar complaint but I don't think that's what I was thinking of. Still looking. Fyddlestix (talk) 03:50, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
- More: [309]. Fyddlestix (talk) 03:59, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
- There's at least one example of a similar complaint but I don't think that's what I was thinking of. Still looking. Fyddlestix (talk) 03:50, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
It would be difficult to go through all of these cases without losing the attention of most readers. If there are particular incidents you would like me to address please specify them. Instead I would look at some of Snoogans' recent edits:
- 30 November 2017 - with edit summary "lies about tax plan"
- 27 November 2017 - with edit summary "WaPo for the win"
- In the latter he refers to the woman as a Project Veritas employee five times. The claim that she is an employee is not supported by the source or any other sources available at the time yet he stresses this because the claim reflects poorly on a conservative organization.
- This is editing for political points-scoring.
Despite claims that his edits are reasonable and stable compare his version of the lede in Fox News:
- Fox News Channel has been accused of biased reporting, perpetuating conspiracy theories,[7][8][9] and promoting the Republican Party.[10][11][12] Critics have cited the channel as detrimental to the integrity of news overall.[13][14] Fox News employees have responded that news reporting operates independently of its opinion and commentary programming, and have denied bias in news reporting.[15] The network has also been accused of permitting sexual harassment and racial discrimination by on-air hosts, executives, and employees, paying out millions of dollars in legal settlements.[16][17][18][19][20] The company is currently under federal investigation for its harassment settlements and other alleged misconduct.[21][22]
with the current version.
Look at the edit he linked above to Tucker Carlson [310]. His aim was apparently to feature a disparagement of Carlson's dancing abilities more prominently under "Career."
Snoogans is under a current discretionary sanction to limit the volume of his edits simply because they were too numerous for responsible editors to correct. The articles he points to as stable are largely stable through attrition. The editor is intent on adding every tidbit that reflects poorly on conservatives or Republicans as prominently as possible, regardless of weight. Even if he were banned from political articles it would take weeks undue the existing clutter and restore neutrality. Recently I raised the issue of Snoogans' edits with the administrator who imposed the restriction [311] citing several problematic examples but the administrator did not have time to review them.
K.e.Coffman: In the complaint you link (which you call "frivolous") Snoogans' defense of 6 reverts within 24 hours was that the word "bipartisan" in this edit was a BLP violation. I don't think I was alone in my surprise that defense was accepted.
Fyddlestix: Your editor interaction link excludes talk pages many of which show my edits preceded Snoogans. I hope this complaint will be something other than an assembly of the usual AP2 editors into camps.
I am grateful for this complaint in one sense - the more editors who examine Snoogans' contributions the better. The pattern of problems in his edits is self-evident and substantively unchanged from May when TParis filed the enforcement request that resulted in Snoogans' AP2 restriction. James J. Lambden (talk) 05:11, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
- Oh boy. A politics ANI thread. AFAICT, both James J. Lambden (talk · contribs) and Snooganssnoogans (talk · contribs) approach being American Politics WP:SPAs, and I'm not sure how either can possibly be
stalkinghounding the other given the time-specific nature of most AP2 disputes. For example, at [312] it's hard to claim either editor is individually at fault. power~enwiki (π, ν) 05:39, 1 December 2017 (UTC)- With the exception of Uranium One, none of the edits that I cite as examples of hounding coincide with time-specific events. Note that I opted not to add any dubious instances of hounding (of which there are more), only the ones where James blatantly followed me. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 12:52, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
- This is a little off topic, but I can't be the only one who has taken a look at Lambden's past editing history, which suggests nefarious intentions from the very beginning. See one of his first posts, compare it to this troll. Sro23 (talk) 05:48, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
- Yes, almost 2 years ago I repeated a comment from a troll which I shouldn't have. I do not believe that is sanctionable or consistent with my pattern of edits since then. James J. Lambden (talk)
- Because I don't see it noted here (although I may have missed it), an AE request has been filed against JJL, here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:08, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
- @Beyond My Ken: That request is thankfully unrelated to the topic here: It's a clear topic ban violation rather than a long term behavioural thing which I don't think often get acted on. PeterTheFourth (talk) 06:29, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
- Unrelated in terms of content, but related in terms of JJL's approach to editing. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:42, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
- @Beyond My Ken: That request is thankfully unrelated to the topic here: It's a clear topic ban violation rather than a long term behavioural thing which I don't think often get acted on. PeterTheFourth (talk) 06:29, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
- Note that I have blocked James J. Lambden for 48 hours in response to topic ban violations reported at AE. I did so before seeing this discussion here. @James J. Lambden: if you wish to comment here, please put the comment on your talk page and ping someone who looks active to come and transcribe it here. GoldenRing (talk) 11:28, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
- I stand by my edits and edit summaries to the Mnuchin and O'Keefe articles (there's no problem with them beyond the usual tweaking of language for flow and precision). Regarding the Fox News thing that you mention, I was merely reverting someone who removed the text with the stated reason "CNN has more controversies"[313]. I'm pretty sure that I did not write that particular lede from scratch (it does not look like text written by me). I did however write the first two sentences in the current lede from scratch (the one that you like so much). Regarding the Tucker Carlson thing, James is demonstrating the kind of mindset that informs his stalking of me: I had never even read the Dancing with the Stars text before you told me right now that it disparaged his dancing abilities, because who cares? I moved existing text written by someone else into the Career section because it is part of his career and I don't like having superfluous sections in articles. At the time, you did not say that you were reverting the text because it was allegedly disparaging. You even self-reverted yourself, saying that my edit was appropriate[314]. You're now here with a ludicrous conspiracy theory, claiming that it want to disparage Carlson's dancing abilities? Your complaint to the administrator Dennis Brown was frivolous, just as your attempt to have me banned for a 3RR violation in early November[315]. I also consider your frequent frivolous attempts to have me sanctioned an example of WP:HARASS: they are, coupled with the baseless reverts, intended to deter, stall and annoy. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 12:52, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
- Both of these editors have a pattern of contentious behavior that has resulted in a culture of REVERT REVERT REVERT on american politics articles that I admit I have started to fall into after dealing with for so long. Particularly Snoogans, who reverts any edit he dislikes, regardless of whether the whole edit is objectionable, or just a part. Reverting as a first instinct is not conducive to building an encyclopedia. Natureium (talk) 14:48, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
- For some context behind Natureium's accusations, I think a good example of my editing vs. Natureium's editing can be seen here[316]: (1) Natureium added lots of text and sources to "Illegal immigration to the United States", (2) I reverted him and explained point-by-point why his edit was inconsistent with Wikipedia policy, (3) Natureium then admitted that he never read the sources that he cited and that he just copy-pasted text found elsewhere. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:08, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
- I tried to check this, but quickly get lost. Snooganssnoogans, if you really believe this is a serious problem, you should probably report it to WP:AE as a violation in the area of American politics, starting from the most recent violations (only recent things can be brought to WP:AE, although older diffs can be used as a supplement). However, I am not giving you an advise to report this to WP:AE because chances are you might receive sanctions together with James_J._Lambden. My very best wishes (talk) 18:37, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
194.17.34.42[edit]
Hi, I would appreciate it if an admin could take a look at the talk pages created in quite rapid succession by Special:Contributions/194.17.34.42. Not sure what's going on here, but none of the pages have corresponding main space pages and therefore would appear to qualify for WP:CSD G8. The pages are being created in large numbers so it would seem a little unreasonable to go through and tag them all whilst new ones were being created every minute. Thanks. –72 (talk) 13:08, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)This does not excuse the behaviour, but all the non-existing articles are movies that are probably notable (most of them certainly are), so it's not random vandalism but rather disruptive behaviour. I have asked them to stop and explain what they are doing. Their talk page indicates that they have had some trouble understanding policy in the past... --bonadea contributions talk 13:18, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
- I hadn't accused them of vandalism, which is why I reported here, and not at AIV. The large number meant CSD tagging was a little silly so I felt ANI was a useful venue to bring the pages to admin attention. Thanks for adding the ANI notice, I was having difficulty trying to find the template. –72 (talk) 13:28, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
- I'm sorry - I didn't mean to misrepresent what you said. I just wanted to give some context for other readers who had not looked closely at the list of articles, because as a Swedish speaker it's easier for me to see that these are in fact plausible articles. There are sometimes IPs creating nonsense/patently non-notable articles in Talk space, and sometimes that amounts to vandalism (in my opinion, anyway). In any case, it doesn't look like the IP has taken any notice. They stopped creating new talk pages but hasn't explained their actions, just edited one of the pages they'd already created. A mass removal per G8 does seem to be called for. --bonadea contributions talk 14:12, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
- All these talk pages have links back to Swedish Wikipedia articles. Any enthusiasm for holding off deleting for a couple days and asking Wikiproject Sweden if they can help out creating articles if notability is met? --NeilN talk to me 14:27, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
- I hate making an exception; every time opens the door further for others to do similar with links to additional language projects. Just managing the exceptions to track which talk pages are awaiting articles is an extra step that allows talk pages to be forgotten and to float out there without articles indefinitely. Better to encourage the IP to work on the articles first (or ask them to work with members of other wikiprojects for help), and clean-up now per G8. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 14:57, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
- I agree with Barek on this. --bonadea contributions talk 16:26, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
- G8'd --NeilN talk to me 20:23, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
- I agree with Barek on this. --bonadea contributions talk 16:26, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
- I hate making an exception; every time opens the door further for others to do similar with links to additional language projects. Just managing the exceptions to track which talk pages are awaiting articles is an extra step that allows talk pages to be forgotten and to float out there without articles indefinitely. Better to encourage the IP to work on the articles first (or ask them to work with members of other wikiprojects for help), and clean-up now per G8. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 14:57, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
- All these talk pages have links back to Swedish Wikipedia articles. Any enthusiasm for holding off deleting for a couple days and asking Wikiproject Sweden if they can help out creating articles if notability is met? --NeilN talk to me 14:27, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
- I'm sorry - I didn't mean to misrepresent what you said. I just wanted to give some context for other readers who had not looked closely at the list of articles, because as a Swedish speaker it's easier for me to see that these are in fact plausible articles. There are sometimes IPs creating nonsense/patently non-notable articles in Talk space, and sometimes that amounts to vandalism (in my opinion, anyway). In any case, it doesn't look like the IP has taken any notice. They stopped creating new talk pages but hasn't explained their actions, just edited one of the pages they'd already created. A mass removal per G8 does seem to be called for. --bonadea contributions talk 14:12, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
Donations?[edit]
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.
Not sure where to post this so doing it here. You guys should take bitcoin for donations, you would probably get more donations this way instead of forcing us to use payment services through the corporations that you say you need donations to keep from selling out to. I would happily donate if this option was available, instead of donating money for now you can have this suggestion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1013:B010:413C:D9C5:E57:C3BF:A4CB (talk) 02:15, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
- @2600:1013:B010:413C:D9C5:E57:C3BF:A4CB:, yes we do take Bitcoin donations. Max Semenik (talk) 05:33, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
- I propose that the WMF immediately convert all Bitcoin donations to Dutch tulip bulb futures contracts. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:17, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
- We should take chocolate coin donations. In the upcoming dreidel season, we could make a fortune! --Nat Gertler (talk) 06:24, 2 December 2017 (UTC
- You should change your username to Nat Gelt-ler. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:49, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
- Don't you feel the least bit gelt-y about that joke? <g> Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:27, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
- Q: Where do kids keep their Hannukah gelt? A: In the ge-vault. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:18, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
- Don't you feel the least bit gelt-y about that joke? <g> Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:27, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
- You should change your username to Nat Gelt-ler. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:49, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
- We should take chocolate coin donations. In the upcoming dreidel season, we could make a fortune! --Nat Gertler (talk) 06:24, 2 December 2017 (UTC
- I propose that the WMF immediately convert all Bitcoin donations to Dutch tulip bulb futures contracts. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:17, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
- The link says the WMF does not keep Bitcoin and implies they convert bitcoin donations to USD. I'm assuming they use a corporation to do so. I'm fairly sure they also use corporations for lots of other things like their servers and probably even some software. In other words whether or not you avoid corporations, you can assume the WMF isn't. Nil Einne (talk) 10:55, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
- For that matter, unless I'm mistaken, I believe that the WMF is a non-profit corporation under Florida law. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:22, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
- Evil, evil since the dawn of time! - The Bushranger One ping only 21:30, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
- For that matter, unless I'm mistaken, I believe that the WMF is a non-profit corporation under Florida law. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:22, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
- The link says the WMF does not keep Bitcoin and implies they convert bitcoin donations to USD. I'm assuming they use a corporation to do so. I'm fairly sure they also use corporations for lots of other things like their servers and probably even some software. In other words whether or not you avoid corporations, you can assume the WMF isn't. Nil Einne (talk) 10:55, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
- @MaxSem: all the joking aside, and technically this isn't the right place nor is it really something anyone here deals with but well since it was raised here. I know thw WMF does a lot of A/B testing etc for the fundraising drives. Did these really find that it was best to only offer PP and credit card as options with the "Other ways to give" so hard to see (and I think doesn't even show on mobile?) such that I suspect most people like the OP think that PP and credit card are the only ways to donate. (Well I don't know of other options are shown in other places e.g. Russia, Japan.) Nil Einne (talk) 14:30, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
- How about converting bitcoins to razzbuckniks? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:16, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
Cross-wiki vandalism of 202.62.17.51[edit]
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.
Hello,
Administrator of the french Wikipedia, I would like the same block of 202.62.17.51 on the english Wikipedia, because this IP (probably an open proxy) write wrong informations on several articles (SNCF Class BB 75000, Rail transport in Paraguay...). You can see, on the french Wikipedia, Wikipédia:Faux-nez/Chardegaullix and these contributions for more details.
--NB80 (talk) 16:23 and 16:35, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
- IP has a henious habit of neither using ES nor sourcing their edits. It will take a bit to check all their current edits. L3X1 (distænt write) 17:00, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
- On SNCF Class BB 75000, all edits of 202.62.17.51 are disruptive: 0 source; Suriname then Paraguay, change cities... these edits are personnal inventions. --NB80 (talk) 17:21, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
- @Ajraddatz: You globally locked User:Chardegaullix. I have no experience with the master. Do you want to globally block the IP (plural if you take a look at 202.62.17.51/24).--Bbb23 (talk) 17:33, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
- I've globally blocked the specific IP. The range, even if it is an open proxy (or parts of it are), has too much collateral to globally block. I don't remember much about the master, just that there was a history of some problematic and some good edits across multiple wikis. I think I initially locked some of the accounts that were doing the most damage. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 21:02, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
- @Ajraddatz: You globally locked User:Chardegaullix. I have no experience with the master. Do you want to globally block the IP (plural if you take a look at 202.62.17.51/24).--Bbb23 (talk) 17:33, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
- On SNCF Class BB 75000, all edits of 202.62.17.51 are disruptive: 0 source; Suriname then Paraguay, change cities... these edits are personnal inventions. --NB80 (talk) 17:21, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
User:KolbertBot is malfunctioning[edit]
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.
- KolbertBot (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
I had looked up the word Blog on wiki and it defined it really really weird. Like in the beginning, it talks about a woman crossing websites with a man and then it literally states “bahhsjndsnhsj”. Complete jibberish. I then noticed that you cannot make a report on a certain article under Wikipedia if you notice something that is off, but I did find that the last user to make a change was this particular bot so I thought I would report this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FCC8:9BC8:3900:7D49:937E:B31A:82BE (talk) 16:57, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
- On it. Not kolbert's fault though. L3X1 (distænt write) 17:01, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
- @L3X1: What article is this? Jon Kolbert (talk) 17:06, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
- Jon Kolbert Blog. The lede vandalism is not in the source code.L3X1 (distænt write) 17:08, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
- @L3X1: Found the culprit. I've purged the page and now it is gone. Jon Kolbert (talk) 17:10, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks. L3X1 (distænt write) 17:11, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
- @L3X1: Found the culprit. I've purged the page and now it is gone. Jon Kolbert (talk) 17:10, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
- Jon Kolbert Blog. The lede vandalism is not in the source code.L3X1 (distænt write) 17:08, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
- @L3X1: What article is this? Jon Kolbert (talk) 17:06, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
Multiple questionable draft creation[edit]
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.
- 71.7.39.119 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Drafts (that I know of):
- Draft:Blood Script (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (CSDd)
- Draft:Count Wizardry (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (CSD G1 declined, now at MfD)
- Draft:Love Potion Number 9 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Draft:Couch Potato (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Draft:Crazy Lady Killer (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Draft:Pony Lizard Man (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Draft:Tiny Town (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Inappropriate edits at various magic related articles were also done (and reverted). I would like an admin to look at those drafts; it seems to me that a race of creation and MfD is a waste of time. Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 19:38, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
- G3 hoax, NOTWEBHOST, IAR - pick one. No need to waste editors' time at MFD. All deleted except the one already at MFD. IP is quickly headed for a block for article edits. --NeilN talk to me 19:49, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 00:25, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
- Wait, I thought IPs couldn't create pages? - The Bushranger One ping only 03:58, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
- @The Bushranger: "Anyone, including users who are not logged in, may create and edit drafts" per WP:DRAFTS --NeilN talk to me 04:03, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
- Huh. Well, that's a loophole big enough to drive Optimus Prime through. - The Bushranger One ping only 04:04, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
- How so? They can create a draft, but they have to request a review, which will be done by an established editor, and only if it is acceptable, can it then be moved (not by the IP) but by someone with page mover rights. I think it is a great compromise.--S Philbrick(Talk) 03:00, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
- Mm, that's true, but I see it as a potential situation where "they can go ahead and create their WP:Vanispamcruftisements just by adding 'Draft:' to the start of the title". But that might just be me... - The Bushranger One ping only 03:16, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
- , True, but drafts, unlike articles, are not indexed. If someone spams in a forest and nobody reads it, is it spam?--S Philbrick(Talk) 17:23, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
- Mm, that's true, but I see it as a potential situation where "they can go ahead and create their WP:Vanispamcruftisements just by adding 'Draft:' to the start of the title". But that might just be me... - The Bushranger One ping only 03:16, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
- How so? They can create a draft, but they have to request a review, which will be done by an established editor, and only if it is acceptable, can it then be moved (not by the IP) but by someone with page mover rights. I think it is a great compromise.--S Philbrick(Talk) 03:00, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
- Huh. Well, that's a loophole big enough to drive Optimus Prime through. - The Bushranger One ping only 04:04, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
- @The Bushranger: "Anyone, including users who are not logged in, may create and edit drafts" per WP:DRAFTS --NeilN talk to me 04:03, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
- Wait, I thought IPs couldn't create pages? - The Bushranger One ping only 03:58, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 00:25, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
This IP is back at it - see here. Several draft space pages created that have zero prospect of becoming encyclopedic. Delete, ban, please. - EronTalk 05:44, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
- re:S Philbrick - It is spam if we have to waste time dealing with it. G3'd and blocked the IP (for two weeks, as they've been stable for at least that long). - The Bushranger One ping only 06:52, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
Site-banned User:PavelStaykov editing from 213.226.0.0/18[edit]
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.
- PavelStaykov (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- 213.226.0.0/18 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · block user · block log)
As of recently, banned user User:PavelStaykov has been active once again, but this time I noticed something that may be helpful... User:Cyp blocked the most recent IP for 31 hours.
I've come across the IP range that they are apparently using, which happens to be 213.226.0.0/18 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) (which I found out per this). Taking a look at all of the IP range's edits, it looks like it's been nothing but PavelStaykov for the past two months (since the beginning of October). With that in mind, I would say that blocking this range wouldn't cause too much collateral damage.
I only see a couple of edits within the past two months that may be unrelated to PavelStaykov ([317] and [318] - the first edit appears to be constructive; the second edit was clearly not productive at all, and actually led to the semi-protection of the article that they edited.)
Anyhow, could an admin investigate this and if possible, perform this rangeblock for two months (give or take...)? Thanks! 110.171.127.135 (talk) 08:32, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
Done as an anon block with talk page access revoked. He is 95% of all the edits in that range and he likes to file many frivolous unblock requests which is the reason for revoking tpa. There are only a couple of editors who have made a handful of edits in the last 90 days logged in so if he begins to use accounts on that range, we can hardblock it.
— Berean Hunter (talk) 10:44, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
- Note to self {{IPlinks}} works with ranges. - The Bushranger One ping only 07:44, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
User:SCUMgang[edit]
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.
Talkpage access needs to be revoked. Thanks. 222.144.230.82 (talk) 00:15, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
User:CEngelbrecht2 Violating topic ban... again...[edit]
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.
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Aquatic_ape_hypothesis&diff=prev&oldid=813071800 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Aquatic_ape_hypothesis&diff=prev&oldid=813677180
Topic Ban applied here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:CEngelbrecht2&oldid=767609399
User has been banned for two weeks and then three months for previous violations. User clearly does not respect the ban. I suspect indef banning is going to be the only solution here... --Tarage (talk) 22:22, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
- (You mean they were blocked for two weeks and then three months.) No longer topic banned, Tarage. The user was topic banned (by myself) for six months in February 2017. Their topic ban has expired. Maybe I should have extended it when they were blocked for violating it, but I didn't, AFAICS. Bishonen | talk 22:34, 4 December 2017 (UTC).
Possible Copyright issue[edit]
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.
I am not an expert on the Copyright front. I know the basics and k}}now when to tag an image for deletion on Copyright grounds. The question here is more about Fair Use. I found this page with lots of company logos: List of companies of the Philippines. I understand the logos can be used in the page for the company, but is the usage here permitted in a list? Besides I consider this part of the list an unnecessary eyesore, I would like some comment from knowledgeable people on the subject. (note I read Wikipedia:Fair_use_overuse and am still unsure if this is permitted).-- Alexf(talk) 11:37, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
- (Non-administrator comment)You might find WP:MCQ or WT:NFC to be better places to ask such a question, but there's an important distinction to make here in that the concept of fair use and Wikipedia non-free content are not one and the same. Under concept of fair use, using logos in such a manner would be most likely be allowed, but Wikipedia's non-free content use policy is much more restrictive than fair use and this type of usage is almost never allowed. Non-free content ued to illustrate individual entries in list articles is almost never allowed per WP:NFLISTS. This is because each use of a non-free file is required to satisfy the ten non-free content listed in WP:NFCCP. One of these criteria is WP:NFCC#3 and another is WP:NFCC#8. NFCC#3 requires us to try to keep non-free use a minimal as possible; this does not mean we can only use a non-free file in just one article, but it does mean we need to be selective and avoid anything which might be considered decorative use. NFCC#8 is related to this because it requires that the use of non-free content be contextually significant and improve the reader's uderstanding to the degree that not seeing in the image would be detrimental to that understanding. In a list article such as the one about the Philippine companies, the logos are not really necessary for the reader to see and are only used for illustrative purposes (i.e., to show the logo). Each of the companies has a stand-alone article where their choice of branding/logo can be seen and there are wikilinks in the list article to these articles, so it's hard to justify their respective use in the list article. Even freely licensed logos are not encouraged to be used in such a way per MOS:LOGO.
- So, what can you do when you come across such a list article filled with logos. If the files do not have the seperate, specific non-free use rationale use rationale required by WP:NFCC#10c for the article, you can be bold and simply remove them per WP:NFCCE. If you do, make sure you leave an edit sum and in some cases a talk page post explaining you removed the files. Not having the required non-free use rationale clearly fails NFCC#10c, so the removal will be seen as appropriate almost all cases. If, however, someone did add rationales for the list article use, then you have to be a little more cautious since removing the file might not be so clear cut. Just adding rationales does not mean the non-free use is valid per WP:JUSTONE, so you can still be bold and remove the files making sure to leave an edit sum/talk page post explaining why. If someone re-adds the files, then probably the next thing to do would be to start a discussion about their non-free use at WP:FFD. The community will then decide whether the non-free use actually complies with relevant policy. Regardless, you should not get drawn into editing warring over the files because removal of non-free content is not always considered an exception to 3RR. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:14, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
Corruption in Lithuania and Liberalas[edit]
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.
- Liberalas (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Liberalas shows clear signs of trying to push a point of view at Corruption in Lithuania. Seems to be WP:NOTHERE, with this tu quoque argument. !dave 13:12, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
- (Non-administrator comment) User blocked – looks like Alex Shih agrees with your WP:NOTHERE assessment. –FlyingAce✈hello 20:23, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
WP:REVDEL?[edit]
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.
This edit. (Not sure where to post this so I'm posting it here. Feel free to move or delete this post.) Bus stop (talk) 06:55, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
- @Bus stop: there's a boldface message in a red background that tells you exactly what to do every time you post to this noticeboard. Posting privacy-sensitive matters here publicizes them. But, yes, it's been revision deleted. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:26, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
Continued recreation of deleted article[edit]
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.
Brendar 1214 once again has recreated an article (LaReece) that has been twice deleted via consensus, this time as LaReece (rapper), and only two days after the end of a weeklong ban for sock puppetry. This marks her sixteenth attempt at publishing this article despite countless warnings that she has chosen to ignore. She is only on Wikipedia to promote this artist and other non-notable musicians, and therefore a permanent ban is perhaps in order because her actions show that the block has had no impact and she is not willing to comply with Wikipedia's editing guidelines. Pinging @David.moreno72:, @NinjaRobotPirate:, @Bri:, and @PlyrStar93: for their input on this topic. sixtynine • whaddya want? • 06:47, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
- Indefinitely blocked. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:09, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
- I've salted the salt-evasion title. I assume something should probably be done about Draft:LaReece? - The Bushranger One ping only 09:07, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
- I've deleted the draft (which had been rejected eleven times!) under G6 ("enough is enough"). Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:23, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
- I found a couple more drafts lying around, and I've deleted those too (especially important, I thought, as this editor also appears to be a serial copyvio offender - I've rev-deleted some edits). Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:36, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
- I've salted the salt-evasion title. I assume something should probably be done about Draft:LaReece? - The Bushranger One ping only 09:07, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
User:Frequency.rate[edit]
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.
- Frequency.rate (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Hello. This user has had multiple talkpage warnings to stop adding unsourced content to articles. They were blocked only a couple of weeks ago for continuing to add unsourced content to articles and failing to discuss these changes. Straight off that block, they continued to add unsourced content, which I asked them to supply a source for the change they made. In the past 24 hours they've continued, adding unsourced content to this article (reverted by myself) and this article (reverted by Spike 'em). Please could someone take a look at this? Thanks. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 08:27, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
- This edit tells the story of WP:TRUTH. Blocked indefinitely until the user starts to communicate and understand. Alex Shih (talk) 18:11, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
- Thank you Alex. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 18:31, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
User:Kgyshsirga - competence problems?[edit]
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.
Kgyshsirga (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Could anybody please look at the contributions of this user (including deleted ones, and including the talk page notices they removed)? It seems to me that we either deal with vandalism-only account which was allowed to walk around way too long, or with a severe WP:COMPETENCE problem. Either way, I am leaning towards an indefinite block, but a second opinion is welcome.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:53, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
- (Non-administrator comment) Judging from his contributions, I'd say he's a hoaxter pushing "King Fondren Bai ll", an LA denizen posing as African royalty. WP:NOTHERE. Kleuske (talk) 10:06, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
Interaction ban violations, again II[edit]
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.
Having reported an editor for a 1RR violation at Talk:Patriot Prayer, up pops Gilmore to comment, he is just not getting it, he has also commented on a draft in my userspace, here Darkness Shines (talk) 16:20, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
And according to this I can also report violations of other sanctions, Gilmore commenting there violates his TBAN Darkness Shines (talk) 16:35, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
- Comment "...the parties are generally allowed to edit the same pages or discussions so long as they avoid each other..." [319] I did not and will not violate the IBAN, and I only spoke to MASEM. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 16:25, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
- Also note: I was following User:PeterTheFourth and for some reason James J. Lambden which I can't figure out, but not anyone else. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 16:28, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
- Also note: My comment to Drmies was in regards to what Drmies and Icewhiz were doing to the Antisemitism in the United Kingdom article. It was in the context of [320] where Slatersteven and Drmies were discussing the naming/renaming of the article in the section that I started and was watching. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 16:48, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
- Don't forget this from IBAN: "make reference to or comment on each other anywhere on Wikipedia, directly or indirectly". Your comment on the edit warring complaint is an indirect statement that Darkness Shines is wrong. --Kyohyi (talk) 16:58, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
- Yes, I know and I did not. Just look at my comments [321] or here [322] and judge for yourself. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 17:07, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
- I've always taken interaction bans meaning that one should not be commenting at all on others' AN/AE-type complaints about those editors one is banned from interacting without, unless one seeks a temporary exception from the IBAN-placing admin in exceptional cases. It's not who you are responding to, it is the fact you're commenting towards their behavior that's the problem since that's usually why IBANs are put in place to start with. It doesn't matter your comment there was directed to me, it was still in an AN-type action against someone you are IBANed with. --MASEM (t) 17:14, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
- Then please note that I only pointed you to the interaction between User:PeterTheFourth and for some reason James J. Lambden and not on anything beyond their interaction. Also, I thought this was regarding the actions of User:PeterTheFourth and only him. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 17:18, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
- Your argument ignores the context of where you posted. Complaints aren't just about the alleged perpetrator. They are also inherently about the complainant. --Kyohyi (talk) 17:32, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
- I made my comment to MASEM about the interaction between User:PeterTheFourth and James J. Lambden; that is all I mention. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 17:51, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
- Your argument ignores the context of where you posted. Complaints aren't just about the alleged perpetrator. They are also inherently about the complainant. --Kyohyi (talk) 17:32, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
- Then please note that I only pointed you to the interaction between User:PeterTheFourth and for some reason James J. Lambden and not on anything beyond their interaction. Also, I thought this was regarding the actions of User:PeterTheFourth and only him. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 17:18, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
Just look at my comments
- yes, let's look at your comment here, which is a violation of your iban and a personal attack in the same snide comment. --bonadea contributions talk 17:39, 1 December 2017 (UTC)- I would not even edit Antisemitism in the United Kingdom as Slatersteven asked me to as I was reported for even mentioning a reference on that page. [323] I would nae risk another block, just to mention those involved in an IBAN. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 18:20, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
- I've always taken interaction bans meaning that one should not be commenting at all on others' AN/AE-type complaints about those editors one is banned from interacting without, unless one seeks a temporary exception from the IBAN-placing admin in exceptional cases. It's not who you are responding to, it is the fact you're commenting towards their behavior that's the problem since that's usually why IBANs are put in place to start with. It doesn't matter your comment there was directed to me, it was still in an AN-type action against someone you are IBANed with. --MASEM (t) 17:14, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
- Yes, I know and I did not. Just look at my comments [321] or here [322] and judge for yourself. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 17:07, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
- Don't forget this from IBAN: "make reference to or comment on each other anywhere on Wikipedia, directly or indirectly". Your comment on the edit warring complaint is an indirect statement that Darkness Shines is wrong. --Kyohyi (talk) 16:58, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
- Comment--Something needs to be done with either of the parties, if not both. ANI seems to have become some sort of a pilgrimage for the couple in the recent past! And if there is no basis of any sanctions for either parties, I would recommend a temp. ban from AN for the OP and a total end to this repetitive timesink discussions.Winged Blades Godric 17:23, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
- I have never brought a complaint to AN/I, in truth, I'm not sure how to do it. It's like anything I do in regards to User:PeterTheFourth or say to Slatersteven and Drmies gets twisted. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 17:29, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
- Interaction bans don't work unless both parties embrace the ban. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:31, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
- Did I do something to violate the ban? If so please explain so I do not do it again. I thought I was following the WP:IBAN, but if not then what did I do wrong and what should I have done? C. W. Gilmore (talk) 17:39, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
- You have to behave as if the other user does not exist - that any apparent evidence of his existence is a hallucination, and is to be ignored. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:28, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
- Did I do something to violate the ban? If so please explain so I do not do it again. I thought I was following the WP:IBAN, but if not then what did I do wrong and what should I have done? C. W. Gilmore (talk) 17:39, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
- I made my comment to MASEM about the interaction between User:PeterTheFourth and James J. Lambden; that is all I mention on the edit warring page[324]. And I made a comment about the interaction Slatersteven and Drmies[325]. I in no way mentioned anyone else or wanted to do so. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 18:42, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
- You responded in a section created by DS. To you, DS does not exist, therefore that section does not exist either. Ya follow? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:19, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
- -Then MASEM just commented into thin air and I responded? C. W. Gilmore (talk) 19:24, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
- -Then this section of WP:IBAN is wrong? "Although the parties are generally allowed to edit the same pages or discussions so long as they avoid each other, they are not allowed to interact with each other." [326] C. W. Gilmore (talk) 19:26, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
- I'm telling you to avoid any hint of an interaction ban. Are you taking the ban seriously, or are you trying to nibble around the edges of it? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:17, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
- You responded in a section created by DS. To you, DS does not exist, therefore that section does not exist either. Ya follow? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:19, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
- I made my comment to MASEM about the interaction between User:PeterTheFourth and James J. Lambden; that is all I mention on the edit warring page[324]. And I made a comment about the interaction Slatersteven and Drmies[325]. I in no way mentioned anyone else or wanted to do so. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 18:42, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
- @C. W. Gilmore: I'm not going to comment on whether you violated or did not violate the ban - the fine point of wikilawyering on this subject is beyond me. I want to note it was/is not helpful for us to have 2 parallel (or actually possibly more than 2 on this one) on Talk:Antisemitism in the United Kingdom on more or less the same issues with different participants per IBANs - this makes reaching any sort of consensus difficult. e.g. Talk:Antisemitism in the United Kingdom#The BNP leads the way in section that you opened - is basically a rehash on the amount of emphasis on various political parties (not just BNP) - from a different angle - that is going on in a number of sections above. DS opened Talk:Antisemitism in the United Kingdom#Another Labour Party member and you opened the following section Talk:Antisemitism in the United Kingdom#Anti-Zionism is NOT Anti-Semitic in and of it's self that seemed to touch off on the same subject. It's hard enough to reach a consensus in a single talk section(s) - let alone when we have multiple talk sections per IBANs - which is something other editors really shouldn't be in the mix of - the business between you two - should stay between you two - not muddle the discussion with other editors.Icewhiz (talk) 20:30, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, I thought that by only commenting in the TP and not editing the article, I could keep the issues I have out of the article. I will remove myself from the subject completely if that makes things easier for everyone. I will stay away from Antisemitism in the United Kingdom and it's TP, if that helps. Good Luck C. W. Gilmore (talk) 20:38, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
- To Admins - This is a cut and dry violation of the IBAN imposed by Cyberpower678 after the original AN/I discussion here per;
Both parties are also restricted from responding to discussions started by the other unless it is a complaint about them
. This was not a complaint about C. W. Gilmore. The terms, that I am referring to, are available here. In fact, Cyberpower678 made a comment about it on the AN/EW thread when he was pinged to it, also available here. What is happening here is wikilawyering, and needs to be nipped in the bud. Mr rnddude (talk) 23:03, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
- If by 'discussion' it is meant even complaints to 'Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring' and my response [328] then, it is so. I did in fact violate the new terms of the IBAN and accept responsibility in full. I now know my actions to be incorrect and will not make this mistake in the future, I have noted the change to the IBAN and will fully comply. I will not respond to any article/complaint, as well as, 'discussion' started by parties to the IBAN, if that is the correct reading of the IBAN. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 23:18, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
- I seek clarification, please. Thanks C. W. Gilmore (talk) 23:18, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
trolling/blp vandalism on Jonathan Banks[edit]
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.
I've removed/blocked/protected/revdeled some nasty trolling and BLP vandalism on Jonathan Banks (admins can see the charming stuff in the logs). I think a range block is in order - but I'm just about to go out. Can someone do the appropriate, please. -- Finlay McWalter··–·Talk 19:19, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
- Done, but lengthy range blocks are problematic because of potential collateral damage. It doesn't seem like there're many constructive edits coming from here, though. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:38, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
- @NinjaRobotPirate: - thanks, much appreciated. -- Finlay McWalter··–·Talk 19:16, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
Deftest bird 69 and The Lorax (film)[edit]
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.
- Deftest bird 69 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- The Lorax (film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- 05:44, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
- 00:42, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
- 22:16, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
- 22:14, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
- 21:37, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
- 21:36, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
- 01:00, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
Over the past days, a new user Deftest bird 69 has repeatedly inserted the "Cy The O'Hare Delivery Guy" into the article despite being reverted by other users multiple times, possibly because the voice actor is uncredited, and the character is not the main character. I have opened up a section on the article's talk page ([329]) and warned the user for WP:3RR ([330]), but no one seems to respond and Deftest, rather than responding, has vandalized my user page ([331]) before being blocked by Widr for 32 hours and again after the block ([332]), also vandalized December ([333]) before self-reverting ([334]) pleading that he/she doesn't want to get banned. I gave up on reverting this user again to see if another user reverts it, and may become clear that he doesn't want to discuss this on talk. theinstantmatrix (talk) 07:10, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
- I indeffed him. There's no indication he's here to contribute - the bizarre December vandalism, the abusive edit summary to your user page, the refusal to communicate and finally the repeated re-insertion of the removed content. Combine that with zero constructive edits and I think we have someone we can do without. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 09:06, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
Replacement of article by an attack page in Spanish[edit]
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.
Will someone please prevent User:EdyGleen from doing this any more at David Matamoros Batson, and protect the article as IPs have been involved as well: Noyster (talk), 10:27, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
- WP:NOTHERE block, semi-protection, and BLP revdel applied. - The Bushranger One ping only 10:42, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
User:Galatz[edit]
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.
Hi, User:Galatz is archiving removing random editors talkpages without any consensus[335][336][337], The editors haven't been on in years granted but as they've not been on in years it's very unlikely that anyone will ever edit these talkpages (unless it's to add AFD/MFD notifications),
Anyway there's been a lot of debates on this and as far as I'm aware consensus as a whole is to leave editors talkpages B regardless of size (I recall their being issues with editors archiving Hullaballoo Wolfowitzs page and someone elses but have no idea where those threads even are!),
Anyway I did ask them to self rv and atleast get consensus first [338] but they'd refused so figured I'd come here and get clarity,
So is archiving random editors talkpages fine?, should consensus be sought first ? or should it not be happening at all,
Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 16:49, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
- As a correction to your post, I gave you my policy basis and asked for yours, which you chose to ignore. Very different than refusing. Additionally they are not just random, and you did not ask me for a reason so you are ASSUMING they are random. Additionally I would like to point out that I am not archiving them, I am specifically only removing old wrestling newsletters, which have caused most of these to accumulate over 800,000 bytes, and all content is still easily accessible at Wikipedia:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Newsletter. - GalatzTalk 16:52, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
- I don't see anything wrong with removing 800K of newsletters from an inactive talkpage. As the content is all available at the project, it seems compliant with WP:ARCHIVENOTDELETE. That said, at least one page didn't appear to be inactive... --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:56, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
- If it isn't inactive, I apologize, but I know some had notices to it, but I only did it if the person had not replied to anything in 5+ years. - GalatzTalk 17:01, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
- I'm sure they can revert if they feel strongly about it. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:10, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
- If it isn't inactive, I apologize, but I know some had notices to it, but I only did it if the person had not replied to anything in 5+ years. - GalatzTalk 17:01, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
Vandal IP - baiting...again[edit]
Resolved, NAC SwisterTwister talk 15:46, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This has just been left for me on my talk page. I have had an increased problem with IP's, just recently, and I just wondered if someone could do the decent thing? CassiantoTalk 09:04, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
- Blocked. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 09:07, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks very much, PMC. CassiantoTalk 09:36, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
- No prob :) ♠PMC♠ (talk) 09:37, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
- They're wrong anyway; the literal devil is Misuzu Gundou. - The Bushranger One ping only 09:48, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
- No prob :) ♠PMC♠ (talk) 09:37, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks very much, PMC. CassiantoTalk 09:36, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
User:182.232.10.89 harassing User:Sportsfan_1234[edit]
User:182.232.10.89 appears to be harassing User:Sportsfan_1234 by constantly reverting his edits and calling them spam. Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 01:52, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
- IP blocked, edits rolled back. --NeilN talk to me 02:19, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
- I believe a sock is now doing it again [339] @User:NeilN. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 02:37, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
- I know it's a pretty wide range, but 182.232.0.0/16 seems to be a rather persistent and troublesome range. This has been going on for well over a month. Nihlus 02:44, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
- I believe a sock is now doing it again [339] @User:NeilN. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 02:37, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
- NeilN, you've seen, maybe, that I placed a bunch of range blocks; there's two different sets that keep popping up. Sportsfan etc., this goes back a while. Is there an account? an SPI? I started throwing out year-long semi-protection for those The Face articles, and it also led me to a few terrible BLPs, esp. Jill Hazelbaker. Drmies (talk) 03:10, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
- This also showed up here, where what looks like the 182.132.* IP (I assume the account Anybodyfitfit is them) wanted someone who reverts them blocked. I don't see why Golf-ben10 got blocked and Anybodyfitfit didn't, that seems a little odd to me (by my assessment, Golf-ben10 was edit warring and not communicating, while Anybodyfitfit was edit warring and communicating only by shouting about how Golf-ben10 was "spamming" (Golf-ben10's changes don't look like blatant promotion to me, at least) rather than trying to engage in a constructive conversation (granted given that Golf-ben10 was apparently not communicating in general, the outcome would probably be the same), but still). Also, if 182.132.* has been editing since the Anybodyfitfit account was created, I feel like they may be socking... Just my 2¢. (I'll notify these editors about this, I realize this isn't starting a new discussion but it still seems like I should...) —{{u|Goldenshimmer}}｜✝️｜they/their｜😹｜T/C｜☮️｜John 15:12｜🍂 04:57, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
- Another sock blocked, another rangeblock placed. Drmies (talk) 00:38, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
accusations by a user who refuses to discuss changes[edit]
On these pages Eddie Peng, Shu Qi, Joe Chen and Mark Chao, user Treysand keeps on adding "English title" to the filmography pages and accuses me of vandalism. I don't see it in any other actor's pages whereby it uses "English title". Please advise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.180.73.19 (talk) 00:12, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
- Maybe they got tired of you having made the same edits from another IP address, with the personal attack of "ownership issues"? Your argument, "unnecessary", doesn't make a lot of sense--you can't really have "title" and "original title" since "title" always suggests it is the original title. "English title" in such cases makes perfect sense. I hope [[U|TonyBallioni}} didn't semi-protect all those articles where you reverted, since he's a youngun and we can't have them have RSI early on in their admin career. Or maybe he just semi-protected Mark Chao to forestall blocking both of you edit warriors. Treysand, you want to not be blocked? Start explaining your edits. As far as I'm concerned you're both acting idiotically, and if I were Tony I'd have blocked you both: semi-protecting an article takes at least seven clicks, whereas blocking the two of you can be done in as little as six clicks. Drmies (talk) 03:01, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
- Drmies, I saw these at RFPP and full protected rather than blocked. Widr and I crossed paths so I asked him to unblock since with full protection there wasn’t much chance of disruption and they could discuss on the talk page. If this is a sock, anyone is free to block the IP and unprotect. I’m just not familiar with the case. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:39, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
- User:TonyBallioni if you don't mind, please change "Title" to "English Title" in the 4 articles you protected, if only to revert the sockpuppet. If you need me to submit an SPI, I will (and I'm confident I'm right). Thanks. Timmyshin (talk) 10:43, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
- Widr, what was with User talk:101.180.73.19 and the block/unblock? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drmies (talk • contribs) 03:04, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
- If I may comment, the IP is almost certainly Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Xdeluna, a notorious IP-hopper who probably used over 100 proxies to avoid detection. I'm not an admin so I can't say whether Treysand was in the wrong to revert so many times without explanation, but I feel "vandalism" is an apt description. I am grateful that User:TonyBallioni protected those pages, but ideally articles for all of the (active) actors in China & South Korea should be protected. Like User:Benevolens Ariadne mentioned in the SPI, "It would be advisable to establish some permanent watch over this area" because Xdeluna is capable of "huge and mostly irreversible damage". Some time ago I spent an hour or so reverting one of her rampages across 2-3 accounts, not unlike Treysand this time, and it was extremely frustrating. Timmyshin (talk) 06:52, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
- You may. But I'm interested in why one IP was blocked and then unblocked, and why the 101 IP isn't blocked. BTW that doesn't seem to be a proxy. It's fine to say "appears to be a sock of..." but for poor fools like me it may not appear like anything. If we get arguments, and then a bunch of IPs, then we can do range blocks. I also appreciate Tony's semi-protection, and as a relatively new admin I think he's being friendly; old a-holes like me just block and let the chips fall where they may. So, make the case, with a few well-chosen diffs, and report them here or in the SPI. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 00:32, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
- Drmies, like I said above, Widr and I crossed pathes on blocking/protecting, so I asked him to unblock so the content dispute could be dealt with on the talk: I was too nice it seems. The socking thing is confusing, and I have no problem if you want to go ahead and block. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:55, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
- We need someone to make the case at the SPI and list all the accounts and IPs. I understand that semi-protection is useful, but in this particular case it protects the article but not others. Blocking the IP prevents more immediate damage, though it is only temporary--so one may well choose both semi-protection and the block: they are not mutually exclusive. Thanks for semi-protecting, though--saves me a thousand clicks! Drmies (talk) 01:11, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
- Agreed, after reviewing this. Timmyshin, would you be able to file the SPI per Drmies' request? I'm not familiar enough to do it. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:22, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
- I had listed many IPs at the SPI I linked above, but nothing was ever done to them (not even a checkuser) because she uses so many and switches them so fast. Like I mentioned on User talk:Widr, I believe User:110.136.32.178, User:139.218.187.205, User:141.168.229.111, User:41.218.222.160, User:2001:8003:A9DD:8800:F8F3:599D:2477:1A25 are also her IPs from just the last 2 days. But User:GeneralizationsAreBad can attest to her MO and massive IP-hopping. Timmyshin (talk) 01:28, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
- I filed one anyway: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Xdeluna. Timmyshin (talk) 01:32, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
GeographyLEGOfan vandalisism from April[edit]
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.
- GeographyLEGOfan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
With few edits from april, user insists to add largely unverified and invented data related to Slovenia (all reverted): Starting from tallest building (Dravska Vrata -his article, deleted-, reverted here and here again), main problem is about city populations in Slovene cities: several edits reverted in Maribor (1st in july, 2nd, 3rd, 4th in august, 5th in october, this time adding a very large metro data: 320,000!). In September he completely changed the table of list of cities in Slovenia (source?) with approximative data and a very big change in Ljubljana (from 274,826 to 490,000). After, an anon restored the correct data, but he added the right population again (please note: now the "right" pop. of Ljubljana is not 490,000 but 520,000 (!!!); and Maribor passed from 119,000 to 122,000. Yesterday he inverted the position of Celje and Kranj (source?) saying These informations are provided only to the UN and the citizens of Slovenia (as he did here). Btw, this 120,000 (or 119, 122, 320...) was repeated in the article City Municipality of Maribor (I found pop. source here and fixed). Other reverted edit is this one. And, just to talk, same kind of edtis were reverted on slwiki (Ljubljana with 520,000 inhabitants and Maribor with 120,000). IMHO clear vandalism-only account: the continuous addition of approximate data, wrong and unsourced, or clearly invented, (Ljubljana's population 490k, now 520k; Celje 'n Kranj exchange their ranking position but only UN and Slovenian citizens can see the source), the distorted usage of the edit summary and... A statistic table heavily vandalized from September... Seriously, this is a way to mock the whole project and her/his contributors, and I think that now playtime is over. My thanks to Snowflake91, who reverted almost all this vandalisms. Regards. --Dэя-Бøяg 16:02, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
Note: I requested a global lock on meta for crosswiki vandalism. --Dэя-Бøяg 17:34, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
- I blocked them indefinitely citing "Persistent addition of unsourced content", but other block reasons are possible--we have a warning template for "intentionally adding incorrect information" or something like that, and usually that translates into "vandalism" in the block log. They won't get unblocked until they start explaining, which so far they haven't been doing. Drmies (talk) 18:33, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
User:Lagarto-spock and his Disruptive editing on defying MOS:flag[edit]
- Lagarto-spock (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · target logs · block log · list user · global contribs · central auth · Google)
- Spain women's national football team (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- 2017–18 Primera División (women) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- 2016–17 Primera División (women) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (cleaned up as of today)
The user was told in here: User_talk:Lagarto-spock#MOS:FLAG and Talk:2016–17 Primera División (women), but keep on add back (SPAMMING) regional flag to the article(s), such as this edit Special:Diff/811964685. What should the community do? As rest of the edit were good faith. Matthew_hk tc 12:49, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
- For more revert, such as June for 2017–18 Primera División (women) (twice). For 2016–17 Primera División (women) 1 & 2. The most recent edit in November in Spain women's national football team, indicated that he just stubborn. Matthew_hk tc 12:55, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
- God, sports fans and their stupid love for flags. Drmies (talk) 16:05, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
- Some flags are good! But this is just silly (and, given current events in Spain, could be very easily considered a very subtle form of POV-pushing). - The Bushranger One ping only 03:33, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
- Given latest removal by another user Special:Diff/812956715. If he still revert (adding) the flags back, that is an obvious long term edit war. Then how to deal with? Matthew_hk tc 13:02, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
- Here is the flash revert by Lagarto-spock. Special:Diff/813408215. Request blocking. Matthew_hk tc 15:54, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
- He does not communicate and there were discussions about that and the result was to remove them, he was pinged and made been aware of it. He still adds them back. So, a block is next step? Kante4 (talk) 16:56, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
- Given he has been - multiple times - informed of WP:MOSFLAG, asked to discuss, notified of this AN/I, and has never edited a discussion page even once, ever, this is textbook disruptive editing, and I've blocked. Set to indef, as he needs to learn that discussion is not optional and acknowledge the MOS:FLAG issues before resuming editing. - The Bushranger One ping only 03:21, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
- He does not communicate and there were discussions about that and the result was to remove them, he was pinged and made been aware of it. He still adds them back. So, a block is next step? Kante4 (talk) 16:56, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
- Here is the flash revert by Lagarto-spock. Special:Diff/813408215. Request blocking. Matthew_hk tc 15:54, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
Terence Tse[edit]
Help with this will be appreciated. The usual: my clearly explained removal of poorly sourced promotional content, added by a paid contributor, has twice been reverted as vandalism. No explanation or reply from the account restoring the content. Thanks, 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 03:41, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
- Seems to have been remedied. The article could use watchlisting, as the paid editing is a long term concern. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 03:58, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
User is NOTHERE[edit]
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.
I think they are clearly NOTHERE. Displays a lack of understanding and failure to get the point - making increasingly POINTY edits, which are pretty disruptive. Then, I got quite some stuff, here (email forward available on request). I warned them for making tripping the edit filter and for false reports, which warranted the personal attacks, I guess. Overall, I don't think they should be making edits to Wikipedia at all. With thanks. --QEDK (愛 ☃️ 海) 17:01, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
- Good catch, should have been blocked a while ago. Blocked indefinitely. Alex Shih (talk) 17:59, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
List of feminists[edit]
Users interested in gender neutrality are asked to keep an eye on this list. Users interested in deleting it can make their arguments at WP:AFD, not here. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 12:21, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This is absolutely my least favourite kind of article, combining legendary figures from the development of feminist thought with, basically, every woman who is currently politically active, because there are very few women who have ever made any statement at all on gender issues who are not identified as feminist (and rightly so). So: rampant recentism.
However, I have seen some discussion off-wiki between radical trans activists who want to pack the article with trans activists and then start knocking out the "TERFs". So I'd ask anyone, especally admins, who has an interest in gender politics, to watchlist the article. Guy (Help!) 20:31, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
- I had to look up "TERF". In case anyone else wondered. 173.228.123.121 (talk) 03:17, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
- That article needs shredding and putting back together (it's not a list of feminists, it's a list of people who have written/done something vaguely positive about/for women and as a result an editor has defined them as a feminist, usually without a source - a) not the same thing, b) original research) but I've added it to my watchlist anyway. Marianna251TALK 12:12, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
- The Wikipedia:alphabet soup you're looking for is WP:TNT. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:26, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
- Cheers. I'm seriously tempted to apply dynamite and rewrite the damned thing myself ... except that would require time I don't have. Ugh. Marianna251TALK 00:16, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
- The Wikipedia:alphabet soup you're looking for is WP:TNT. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:26, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Delphine O/Stéphanie Kerbarh dispute[edit]
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.
- Delphine O (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Stéphanie Kerbarh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I happened to have Delphine O on my watchlist before the article was created, and today another editor created it (without references) and ToThAc (talk · contribs) tagged it with CSD A10, claiming the article was a duplicate of Stéphanie Kerbarh. I reverted (twice), noting the second time that it was obviously about a different person and also met the threshold for WP:NPOL. The article was subsequently PROD'd as an unreferenced BLP; I then expanded the article slightly and added a couple references. However, ToThAc subsequently merged it back to Stéphanie Kerbarh, saying it was a "duplicate article", when the content and references were obviously about Delphine O, and not about Stéphanie Kerbarh. They just don't seem to get it, which I find bizzare, despite the presentation of evidence that they're simply just wrong and that the content on each of the articles is about the concerned individual: from the site of the French National Assembly, see this page on Delphine O, and this page on Stéphanie Kerbarh. I'm of the view that competence is required, and the way in which ToThAc has failed to grasp the fact that the articles are correctly about their subjects indicates to me that they seem to lack it and their behavior is borderline disruptive. Mélencron (talk) 22:43, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
The articles, as they stand, are completely correct about their subjects:
Delphine O represents the department of Paris:Paris (16e circonscription)
.Stéphanie Kerbarh represents the department of Seine-Maritime:Seine-Maritime (9e circonscription)
.Delphine O was selected as the alternate to Mounir Mahjoubi:Delphine O. Cette spécialiste des relations internationales, en particulier de l'Iran et du Moyen Orient, est la suppléante du secrétaire d'Etat au Numérique, Mounir Mahjoubi, dans la 16ème circonscription de Paris
Mounir Mahjoubi was appointed to the government:secrétaire d'Etat au Numérique, Mounir Mahjoubi
Delphine O took her seat in the National Assembly on 22 July, a month after the election of Mahjoubi with Delphine O as an alternate to the National Assembly, as is customary for the alternates of elected candidates who are appointed to the government in France:Élue le 18/06/2017 (Date de début de mandat : 22/07/2017)
Mélencron (talk) 22:48, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
- Considering that both articles begin "Stéphanie Kerbarh is a French politician representing La République En Marche", I'm not surprised someone tagged it for speedy deletion as a duplicate. The two women may be completely separate, but their articles currently have more in common than not. Marianna251TALK 22:47, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
That's beside the point. It's actually imitating a copy-paste template by another user who created 500 of these articles in June without issue, but it should be clear that they're not about the same subject, and that the content I added to one of the article doesn't "belong" to the other, because they're different individuals, and I am completely confident that I did not write about the wrong person, because why would I?Mélencron (talk) 22:48, 5 December 2017 (UTC)Update: seemingly I never noticed that the original creator of the Delphine O article retained "Stéphanie Kerbarh" from a copy-paste, which was presumably the issue here. I suppose both of us are complete idiots.Mélencron (talk) 22:53, 5 December 2017 (UTC)- I'm not sure how you managed to miss that given that ToThAc pointed this out to you on your talk page very early on in the discussion (and for some reason you denied it). Anyway, I've fixed it now. In the meantime, this response to ToThAc is really quite uncalled for (as is this) and I think you owe them an apology. Number 57 22:57, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
- "Both of us are complete idiots"? No, the only person with mud on their face here is you. From what I can see, ToThAc tried to explain the problem to you, only to be rebuffed at every turn ... apparently because you hadn't actually read the article you were editing. I agree with Number 57 that you owe an apology to ToThAc. Marianna251TALK 23:04, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
User:Slayerofignorance[edit]
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.
- Slayerofignorance (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
I suggest immediate indef as white supremacist POV editor with no possibility of positive contributions. Highlights include the charming user page, edit summaries, attempts to remove scholarly consensus on such controversial questions as whether Dredd Scott was well-decided. --JBL (talk) 01:58, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
- Thank you for reporting this; indef-blocked. User can forget about an unblock request until they repudiate that user page. (Seriously, people think that kind of crap?) Drmies (talk) 02:15, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
- Alas it's often impossible to distinguish if pages like that are serious or trolling. - The Bushranger One ping only 02:42, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
Disruptive editing by Chilicheese22[edit]
In the grand scheme this boils down to a content dispute. Dispute resolution was attempted but failed preemptively, three editors have been [re-]advised that this topic is subject to WP:GS/SCW general sanctions, and a hapless administrator who's already threatened to topic ban all three of them is attempting to follow up on the article's talk page. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 21:02, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hi
Because of Chilicheese22's behaviour, the article is outdated since March 2017. He remove all mentions of Southern Transitional Council since months without argument : [340], [341], [342].
He continued his edit warring with various user. And he continued again since November. [343], [344].
Enough is enough. I demand sanctions for his actions, and particularly for his remarks. --Panam2014 (talk) 13:19, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
- I ask that you please disregard this thread, because Panam himself did not notify me that there was a discussion going on about me here, instead I had received this message from another user. Chilicheese22 (talk) 14:52, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
- No, I have noticed him. --Panam2014 (talk) 14:58, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
- @NuclearWizard: is a witness. --Panam2014 (talk) 14:56, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
- He did not create a new section on your user talk page, but posted "Enough is enough. I have made an ANI. --Panam2014 (talk) 13:21, 1 December 2017 (UTC)" on the preexisting section where I notified you that I undid your reversion of my reversion where this drama began. I don't think that Panam acted maliciously, even if he did make a mistake, and you yourself actually copy and pasted that section into the Yemeni Civil War talk page. Nuke (talk) 14:59, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
- He continues. --Panam2014 (talk) 12:28, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
- He did not create a new section on your user talk page, but posted "Enough is enough. I have made an ANI. --Panam2014 (talk) 13:21, 1 December 2017 (UTC)" on the preexisting section where I notified you that I undid your reversion of my reversion where this drama began. I don't think that Panam acted maliciously, even if he did make a mistake, and you yourself actually copy and pasted that section into the Yemeni Civil War talk page. Nuke (talk) 14:59, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
- I ask that you please disregard this thread, because Panam himself did not notify me that there was a discussion going on about me here, instead I had received this message from another user. Chilicheese22 (talk) 14:52, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
Disruptive Behavior by Panam2014 & NuclearWizard[edit]
- First and foremost, let me start off by saying I really tried to work with the both of these users, but never in my time at Wikipedia have I seen this good cop, bad cop routine be put into display. An as usual Panam2014 takes my edits/reverts out of context to push this narrative that I may have some underlying agenda, he said that I have been reverting the STC for no reason/argument for months and linked, ContraVentum edits when in reality this is not true at all, if he had done a little more research/digging he would have found out that we did have an argument/dispute in the AN/I section (which resulted in Contraventum getting banned for life from wikipedia because he let his emotion get the best of him like user Panam 2014 is doing now) and even before that we had a debate about this matter back in June in the article's talk page [345] (see the section where it says Usability of sources like criticalthreats.org). Also he links to you guys 2 users for what he calls the November Reverts that for some reason don't include him, (with one of them so happening to be his partner in crime) as if you guys can't go and look for yourselves to see that he was one of the involved people in the content dispute. [346] [347] Now I have linked the whole list of edits since the content dispute began, unlike him trying to take things out of context, but I will also list the most important ones which are this one [348] where his friend gives no explanation for him reverting me, this one [349] that proves that he was a part of the content dispute, and last, but not least this one [350] where I try to reach a compromise with the both of them and offer solutions.
- Furthermore, as you clearly begin to see that this user and his partner have no interest of reaching a logical compromise, and instead to continue to push there point of view. I would like to also direct you to the article's talk page once more [351] (Please see if you don't mind section "STC VS GCC") where you will see we were having a debate on how exactly could we place the STC and if it all, it did belong in the infobox. Now I saved the most important for last, and this is to debunk this notion that I called him a sockpuppet too NuclearWizard which is not true at all, I told him to stop acting like one because [352] I found out that NuclearWizard was nudging him on to revert my edits (on his TP), so that he would avoid the 24 hour revert rule that is in place for the article and continue to do that, while debating me to see if I can slip up and revert them twice so they could be done with me and just have it there way, but instead what is quite ironic is that somehow Panam 2014 managed to break the WP:1RR see here [353] [354]. I also have more evidence to show that these two were actually acting together to try to take me down or get me blocked. I ask that you please see to these users that they get the appropriate block or Topic Ban. Thank you for taking the time to read my concern. Chilicheese22 (talk) 14:40, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
- Because of Chilicheese22's behaviour, the article is outdated since March 2017. He remove all mentions of Southern Transitional Council since months without argument : [355], [356], [357].
He continued his edit warring with various user. And he continued again since November. [358], [359].
Enough is enough. I demand sanctions for his actions, and particularly for his remarks.
Also, I have not broken 1RR. Indeed, the dispute does not concern this point of detail. Also, @NuclearWizard: is a witness. --Panam2014 (talk) 14:55, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
- You actually did. I checked the revision history myself. You did not wait a full twenty-four hours, even if you did go to bed and wake up in that time. I should have probably checked that when I replied "Sure" to your question on my talk page at User_talk:NuclearWizard#Yemeni_Civil_War -- I did not consider that you may have made a reversion within the last 24 hours. Nuke (talk) 15:34, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
- @NuclearWizard: I have made only 1 revert in the article. Whether my revert takes place 24 hours before that of others or not, does not matter, since I have not done previously revert. It was not about the same thing. The second was a once revert, not the first. --Panam2014 (talk) 15:39, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
- Alright, I see. You might be right, and I hope the admins agree with you, but they'll have to decide whether this constitutes a violation or not. Sorry. I hope you don't get in trouble for something like this. Nuke (talk) 16:05, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
- Actually, Panam there is no need to be redundant, you don't need to copy and paste what you wrote the first time, underneath my side of the story, as this is clearly disruptive. Furthermore, you did break the 1RR rule and your own friend admitted to it, because those two people are a part of the "STC" therefore you made two reverts in less than 24 hours. As for Nuke, it's refreshing that your finally taking a neutral stance towards this matter when you were the person, that was encouraging him to be disruptive. An there is no need to continue to make excuses for him there is a clear procedure on how you should notify someone and it's in bright bold red colors, and if he can't follow the simplest of instructions, the repercussion to that should be, his thread be disregarded. @Panam2014: @NuclearWizard: Chilicheese22 (talk) 20:26, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
- Nope, he haven't admit it. I haven't restaured STC in the first time, it was only the Southern Movement's flag and the both are part of it. You have made disruptive editing. --Panam2014 (talk) 23:02, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
- Actually, Panam there is no need to be redundant, you don't need to copy and paste what you wrote the first time, underneath my side of the story, as this is clearly disruptive. Furthermore, you did break the 1RR rule and your own friend admitted to it, because those two people are a part of the "STC" therefore you made two reverts in less than 24 hours. As for Nuke, it's refreshing that your finally taking a neutral stance towards this matter when you were the person, that was encouraging him to be disruptive. An there is no need to continue to make excuses for him there is a clear procedure on how you should notify someone and it's in bright bold red colors, and if he can't follow the simplest of instructions, the repercussion to that should be, his thread be disregarded. @Panam2014: @NuclearWizard: Chilicheese22 (talk) 20:26, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
- Alright, I see. You might be right, and I hope the admins agree with you, but they'll have to decide whether this constitutes a violation or not. Sorry. I hope you don't get in trouble for something like this. Nuke (talk) 16:05, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
- @NuclearWizard: I have made only 1 revert in the article. Whether my revert takes place 24 hours before that of others or not, does not matter, since I have not done previously revert. It was not about the same thing. The second was a once revert, not the first. --Panam2014 (talk) 15:39, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
- What a mess...okay. First, the article in question, since none of you have mentioned it, is Yemeni Civil War (2015–present). Second, there's no need to use the template to notify someone, it was properly done, and even if it wasn't there's no reason for the thread to be shut down. Third, 1RR is per editor - if multiple people revert the same material within 24 hours, it isn't a violation. Last, to stop the edit warring and hopefully bring a resolution to the content dispute on the talk page, I'm going to full-protect the article for a few days. I'll leave any conduct issues for someone else to address, but I suggest that Chilicheese22 read WP:OWN and not make accusations of sockpuppetry without evidence - if you truly believe they are socks, take them to WP:SPI, but I doubt it will be fruitful. ansh666 21:01, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
- Ansh666 I think you may have misunderstood me, but to keep it short, simple, and sweet to the point is User Panam 2014 made 2 reverts in less than 24 hours, and if you don't mind removing the content that is currently disputed, since neither of them have responded to me and, hopefully by you doing so this will encourage them to come to a compromise. Chilicheese22 (talk) 21:27, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
- @Chilicheese22: stop now, I haven't made 2 revert, but one. The other edit was not a revert. Stop your fake news. You have not the right to edit my comments. --Panam2014 (talk) 22:58, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
- Panam2014 Can you please stop insulting everyone's intelligence here your friend clearly said that you made 2 reverts in less than 24 hours [360]. An then you went to his talk page and begged him to retract his statement [361]. You act like people can't see your edit history. An what do you mean by "fake news". Chilicheese22 (talk) 00:27, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
- (Non-administrator comment)@Chilicheese22:. You shouldn't really be editing the talk page comments of other editors like you did here per WP:TPO, especially without leaving a clear explanation why. If this was done by accident, please be more careful in the future; if this was done intentionally, please do not do it again. ANI is where discussions about editor behavior take place, and these discussions can get a bit heated. If Panam2014 posts something you dispute, you can respond accordingly; refactoring their comments, however, is not something you should do unless there is a very good policy- or guideline-based reason. There are plenty of admins watching this page, so one of them will most likely catch any serious problems and take care of them as needed. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:58, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
- @Chilicheese22: stop now, your claim is false. I have asked him that only because he have responded to me that I have probably right. So, your claim is based on a fake news. --Panam2014 (talk) 01:04, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
- Actually Marchjuly I did give a clear reason why, user panam literally took his comment and just repasted it. Chilicheese22 (talk) 01:06, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
- You have not the right for this. --Panam2014 (talk) 01:12, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
- @Chilicheese22: You refactored this comment made by Panam2014. Your edit sum made no mention as to why you were refactoring Panam2014's post. Once again, if the post violates some policy or guideline, then you should clearly state which one. If the post was made by someone else and Panam2014 just copied-and-pasted it from some other page, then you should explain why and provide a link. Otherwise, if Panam2014 made the original post, you should not refactor here or on that page without a really good reason (i.e., a policy or guideline reason) for doing so. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:35, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
- Actually Marchjuly I did give a clear reason why, user panam literally took his comment and just repasted it. Chilicheese22 (talk) 01:06, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
- @Chilicheese22: stop now, your claim is false. I have asked him that only because he have responded to me that I have probably right. So, your claim is based on a fake news. --Panam2014 (talk) 01:04, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
- (Non-administrator comment)@Chilicheese22:. You shouldn't really be editing the talk page comments of other editors like you did here per WP:TPO, especially without leaving a clear explanation why. If this was done by accident, please be more careful in the future; if this was done intentionally, please do not do it again. ANI is where discussions about editor behavior take place, and these discussions can get a bit heated. If Panam2014 posts something you dispute, you can respond accordingly; refactoring their comments, however, is not something you should do unless there is a very good policy- or guideline-based reason. There are plenty of admins watching this page, so one of them will most likely catch any serious problems and take care of them as needed. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:58, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
- Panam2014 Can you please stop insulting everyone's intelligence here your friend clearly said that you made 2 reverts in less than 24 hours [360]. An then you went to his talk page and begged him to retract his statement [361]. You act like people can't see your edit history. An what do you mean by "fake news". Chilicheese22 (talk) 00:27, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
Per WP:No personal attacks, I ask the admin to sanction him for his new personnal attack insulting everyone's intelligence, after the first when he accused me to acting like an immature child. It is not the forst time when Wikipedia:Single-purpose account acts as well. --Panam2014 (talk) 01:15, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
@NuclearWizard: this user have not the right to propose a sanction againt another user. --Panam2014 (talk) 13:37, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
- I have made only 1 revert in the article. Whether my revert takes place 24 hours before that of others or not, does not matter, since I have not done previously revert. It was not about the same thing. The second was a once revert, not the first. Per WP:No personal attacks, I ask the admin to sanction him for his new personnal attack insulting everyone's intelligence, after the first when he accused me to acting like an immature child. It is not the forst time when Wikipedia:Single-purpose account acts as well. --Panam2014 (talk) 13:39, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
Proposal 1 Week Block[edit]
Clearly not going to happen, and counterproductive to the goal of resolving the content dispute to the satisfaction of all involved. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 20:56, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Since Panam2014 continues to make baseless accusations, to divert people's attention from his violations of Wikipedia policy (i.e. WP:1RR) I propose that he receives a 1 week block since this is not his first time breaking a revert rule [362] and he's been a clear obstructionist to any compromise in the Yemeni Civil War page. Chilicheese22 (talk) 03:21, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
- Support, as nominator (also please note that Panam2014 continues to remove my edits and this thread in particular, furthermore justifying my reasoning for a 1 week block against the disruptive editor) Chilicheese22 (talk) 00:43, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose, as this violation was, despite his two preexisting strikes, minor (23 hours and possibly based on a misunderstanding of 1RR), and both were reverting reversions -- you might as well say cloture is obstructionist in the Senate and a filibuster isn't -- and, furthermore, I think your reasoning is personal in nature as the nominator -- in no small part due to the fact Panam called you an obstructionist, yourself. And really, he could've cited diffs. Please just focus on resolving actual content issues and finding a solution to the editing dispute on the YCW page. Nuke (talk) 02:29, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
- Strongly oppose this drama is ridiculous. Chilicheese proclaims himself judge and party, and also only an administrator has the right to propose a sanction. A contributor does not have the right to do so, especially if it is part of the conflict. Could you tell this contributor not to behave like an admin. I have made only 1 revert in the article. Whether my revert takes place 24 hours before that of others or not, does not matter, since I have not done previously revert. It was not about the same thing. The second was a once revert, not the first. Per WP:No personal attacks, I ask the admin to sanction him for his new personnal attack insulting everyone's intelligence, after the first when he accused me to acting like an immature child. It is not the forst time when Wikipedia:Single-purpose account acts as well. Best regards. --Panam2014 (talk) 12:26, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose and close as invalid per Panam2014. A lad insane talk 17:09, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose won't improve the situation power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:44, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
A different proposal[edit]
Coming here from an WP:RFPP request to protect the page again, which I declined because it feels like kicking the can down the road, and we'll just be back here again next week. I can't really tell what the dispute is, there's just a lot of sniping back and forth and these three editors revert-warring while other editors try to work on the article, and as the article is under discretionary sanctions I'd be justified in just banning the three of you from the page as arbitration enforcement. I don't want to do that. You say the dispute originates from developments that occurred in March of this year, so it seems to have been going on for nine months. Discussing on the talk page hasn't worked, why don't you try bringing this to dispute resolution? Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:39, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
- That is a fair suggestion. If that doesn't work then such a topic ban is probably the best way to go, rather than placing punitive or semi-preventative one-week blocks or something like that. Drmies (talk) 18:44, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
- Ivanvector, I'm guessing you mean WP:DRN? I agree that protecting further isn't likely to help, and honestly the initial protection probably didn't help much either - I'd hoped they'd at least talk about it but it seems like they just went elsewhere till it was over. Because of that I'm not optimistic about the chances, but I guess it's the logical next step forward. ansh666 20:52, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
- Yes, mediated dispute resolution is what I intended to suggest. I think protection was worth a try and thanks for doing it, but I agree in this case it doesn't seem to have encouraged the editors to work together to find common ground, they just waited out the protection and went back to the same argument. I'm also not terribly hopeful, but the volunteers at DRN are pretty good at mediating these sorts of disputes. @Chilicheese22, NuclearWizard, and Panam2014: if you're not willing to try, our only remaining options fall under the realm of discretionary sanctions enforcement, and those options are neither pleasant nor desirable. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 21:39, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
- @Ivanvector, Ansh666, and Drmies: I mean, Chilicheese22 is a recent contributor and has had a lot of problems with a lot of contributors. He does not accept the opinions of others on this point and he only seeks to impose his opinion. Now, since all his revocations are supported only by himself and no one supports him on the page of discussion, there would be no way to temporarily prohibit any deletion of the disputed mention (STC)? Also, I have an interesting piece. Instead of arguing, Chilicheese decided to repeat his actions, after the end of the protection, falsely claiming that there was no response in talk page, which is wrong. --Panam2014 (talk) 22:02, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
- I think that it sounds worth a try. I'd like to wait until I at least get a response from CC22 on the latest reply I left on the YCW talk page, but I believe it may not be necessary. Thankfully, CC22 seems to have deescalated the dispute by reducing its size and scope in his latest reversion. Setting aside the rest of this dispute's components, Panam and I seem to share a common stance that we want to include the STC in the infobox because it's out of date. CC22's stance seems to be that the STC should not be in the article because it is not an organized belligerent. @Panam2014 and Chilicheese22:, can you guys tell me if I am correct? Nuke (talk) 23:07, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
- @NuclearWizar: it is true. I have opened a DRN but I hope CC22 will stop reverting now. --Panam2014 (talk) 23:35, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
- Again I would have hoped that these baseless accusations would've stop from Panam2014 by now, but I found it quite ironic that of all people speaking about giving his fellow peers/editors a hard time that Panam2014 would be the one to try to pull out this card, especially since it doesn't take quite much digging to find that there is a large group of them in his Talk Page asking to stop his disruptive behavior in different articles [363]. Furthermore, I would like to say that it took NuclearWizard almost a full week before giving his reply, and at the time I made the revert that was factually correct. An I would have happily responded to NuclearWizard on the article's talk page, but if you would like us too take it to the dispute resolution that is also fine by me. Also, Ivanvector let me say that this dispute has only gone on for the past 4 weeks and that this notion started all the way back in March is not only an over-exaggeration by Panam2014, but literally impossible since the "STC" was created on May 4th of this year, and only began to get media worthy attention November of this year. Lastly, I just wanted to clarify me and NuclearWizard were actually in the midst of a hard-fought debate on the TP and not the actual article, but it was Panam2014 who didn't really contribute to the debate and let his emotions get the best of him, which caused this to spill over to WP:AN/I. @Ivanvector, Ansh666, and Drmies: Chilicheese22 (talk) 01:04, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
- @NuclearWizard: It's up to you man, would you like me to respond to you on the article's talk page, or handle this at dispute resolution Chilicheese22 (talk) 01:07, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
- @Chilicheese22: Thank you for stopping. All charges against you that I have made are justified. For the rest, I refer you to the history of your behavior, but all that is difficult, when you empty your talk page. But we can see everything, your blockages, your warnings, as well as your time-consuming behavior. For the rest, it does not change anything that is March or May, you pinch to save time. Not to mention your insults of "child" and "socketpuppet". All is true. Thank you for stopping your accusatory reversal. I debate the correct way and it is not me who breaks the rules. For the rest, for months, you delete any mention of the STC. --Panam2014 (talk) 01:16, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
- @Chilicheese22: I just want a response on the article talk page, but I'm fine with taking this to a DR, should the volunteers there determine it appropriate. Let's just keep discussing the matter on Talk:Yemeni Civil War (2015–present) until then. I suppose it'd be more appropriate to say I just want to resolve this dispute. Nuke (talk) 01:39, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
- Chilicheese, I chimed in with Ivanvector because they are looking for an amiable discussion and possible solution. Do you want this to be resolved amicably? Then stop with the namecalling. Your very first edit here was a revert with a ... what's the word ... somewhat aggressive edit summary; I'm hoping that you will tone that down, or dispute resolution might not be the right venue after all. Drmies (talk) 01:14, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
- I agree and I hope CC22 too. --Panam2014 (talk) 01:16, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
- @Drmies: I would like nothing more then this to be resolved peacefully, but Panam2014 needs to tone down his personal attacks also, because respect is a two-way street. Also, just to clear off any confusion, the reason I pinged you was because you were apart of this discussion, so I just assumed that you wanted to here what everyone had to say. Furthermore, I would like to point you towards the direction of the article's TP if you don't mind [364] if you look at the debate we were having up until the last edit by me at, "15:49, 30 November 2017 (UTC)" you can see that there was a real sense of urgency between me and NuclearWizard in order to have this matter resolved, until Panam2014 who say's and I quote "Enough is enough. I have made an ANI." which I really didn't understand what triggered him and caused him to get angry especially since he hardly participated in the debate. I also had given idea's to a compromise that actually resolved Panam2014's concern, but he completely shut the idea down and just reverted the edit [365]. Chilicheese22 (talk) 01:49, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
- It will be necessary to reverse the roles. I opened an "ANI" because of CC22's hateful remarks to me. But I am not surprised after reading the history of his interactions with others. For the rest, I have not attacked him personally, all charges are proven. Also, I have participated for two rounds of talks. --Panam2014 (talk) 01:59, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
- I agree and I hope CC22 too. --Panam2014 (talk) 01:16, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
- Again I would have hoped that these baseless accusations would've stop from Panam2014 by now, but I found it quite ironic that of all people speaking about giving his fellow peers/editors a hard time that Panam2014 would be the one to try to pull out this card, especially since it doesn't take quite much digging to find that there is a large group of them in his Talk Page asking to stop his disruptive behavior in different articles [363]. Furthermore, I would like to say that it took NuclearWizard almost a full week before giving his reply, and at the time I made the revert that was factually correct. An I would have happily responded to NuclearWizard on the article's talk page, but if you would like us too take it to the dispute resolution that is also fine by me. Also, Ivanvector let me say that this dispute has only gone on for the past 4 weeks and that this notion started all the way back in March is not only an over-exaggeration by Panam2014, but literally impossible since the "STC" was created on May 4th of this year, and only began to get media worthy attention November of this year. Lastly, I just wanted to clarify me and NuclearWizard were actually in the midst of a hard-fought debate on the TP and not the actual article, but it was Panam2014 who didn't really contribute to the debate and let his emotions get the best of him, which caused this to spill over to WP:AN/I. @Ivanvector, Ansh666, and Drmies: Chilicheese22 (talk) 01:04, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
- @NuclearWizar: it is true. I have opened a DRN but I hope CC22 will stop reverting now. --Panam2014 (talk) 23:35, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
- Yes, mediated dispute resolution is what I intended to suggest. I think protection was worth a try and thanks for doing it, but I agree in this case it doesn't seem to have encouraged the editors to work together to find common ground, they just waited out the protection and went back to the same argument. I'm also not terribly hopeful, but the volunteers at DRN are pretty good at mediating these sorts of disputes. @Chilicheese22, NuclearWizard, and Panam2014: if you're not willing to try, our only remaining options fall under the realm of discretionary sanctions enforcement, and those options are neither pleasant nor desirable. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 21:39, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
Update[edit]
Okay, Panam2014 did try to open a request at WP:DRN but it was summarily dismissed because it opened with the same complaint about Chilicheese22 which opened this thread, and didn't describe the actual content dispute. That's an entirely fair result as DRN does not mediate conduct, but it doesn't help the situation with the article. So here's where we're at: @Chilicheese22, NuclearWizard, and Panam2014:
- I'm not going to do anything now about conduct which has occurred in the past. I get that there are hurt feelings and we can all clearly see that you don't agree on what to do next, but the only way that we can help is if you agree to work together from this point on.
- In order to move forward, you all need to discuss the content without discussing past transgressions by other users.
- If the three of you will not work together to sort out your positions in the article, then the best thing for the article is for the three of you to be banned from editing it.
In the interest of moving on, my next edit will be to close this section. I will follow up on the article's talk page. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 20:52, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
AlexanderHovanec adding unsourced content to biographies[edit]
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.
AlexanderHovanec (talk · contribs) has a habit of adding middle names to biographies without explanation and without sources. These two issues have been explained on the editor's talk page. The most recent warning appears to be a level-three and I was going to add a level-four warning when I saw that the editor was already warned at that level, three times: 16 July 2015, 16 October 2017 and 21 October 2017. My hand was, unfortunately forced by a series of recent additions of middle names against WP:BLPPRIVACY and WP:BLPNAME, which were clearly part of that last warning.
I also made a request in October to use edit summaries. On 30 November 2017, the editor wrote "I promise to try my best!" Looking at the contributions, only a handful of summaries are provided since then, and only on articles where the editor knows I'm watching. To be clear, this latter behaviour is for the sake of the community, not for me.
I am reporting here for the multiple level-four warnings for ignoring WP:V, and for not being a conscientious community member. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:05, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
- Unless someone opposes, I'd support a short block, or an extremely stern final warning. Looking over their talk page and seeing all the deletion notices and warnings about policy, they've got long history of just flat out ignoring our sourcing and BLP policies. I don't see any particular malice, just a complete lack of interest in learning how to do things the right way. Sergecross73 msg me 21:13, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
- Please assume good faith; it was not my intention to only add edit summaries to articles in which Mr. Gorlitz monitored.
- I stated that I'd get better at adding edit summaries and I indeed have. Not significantly, but credit should be given where it's due. Walter has but counters it with an accusation. If it seems as if I'd ignored his advice, then my apologies, I suppose it was just a matter of forgetfulness.
- Additionally, Gorlitz seems to have a real phobia of middle names, so for his sake, I've attempted to die it down. In the long run though, the exclusion of middle names isn't really benefiting the community, nor is its inclusion doing any harm. He argues that it's a breach of privacy, which I can understand in regards to (i.e.) victims of crimes mentioned in Wikipedia articles. However, popular family members of notable figures with Wikipedia pages shouldn't be an issue. My recent name edits include Sam Farrar and Duke Alexander of Württemberg (1804–1885), which according to Wikipedia's criteria, are notable figures.
- At the end of the day, I'll have to side with User:Sergecross73 in saying that I have no malicious intent with my edits and solely wish to broaden the scope of knowledge that is Wikipedia. If it makes Walter Gorlitz feel better, perhaps I could be granted a short block. Of course I've got no say in the matter as I am not an administrator...
- I can agree with any claims stating that I am a lousy editor who needs to get his priorities straight, but the site isn't in danger when I'm around in comparison to the vandals or destructive users. I've never vandalized an article before, and though poorly sourced, despite Wikipedia's strict sourcing guidelines, none of my 1,000 edits have been false or destructive. A few have just been removed due to poor sourcing. If one was actually incorrect, then I was the user who reverted the edit.
- I wish the best for Wikipedia so if, in the end, it were voted that my account should be restricted, then that's fine by me. A happy staff is a happy Wikipedia. But I just had to contradict some of Gorlitz's claims. Happy editing! -- AlexanderHovanec (talk) 23:33, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
- @AlexanderHovanec:, I don't see where anyone has called you a "lousy editor". At the very worst, you've been characterized as an inattentive one, which is a very different thing. As has been pointed out to you previously, the way out of this situation is very simple and very clear: be prepared to cite a reliable source when you add a middle name to a biography. If you make sure you read, understand, and follow the biographies of living persons policy and the guidelines on what are reliable sources, then you should be fine. Just to throw this out there, Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, etc. are generally (with some exceptions) not considered reliable sources by other editors here. Good luck. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 00:41, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
- Thank you very much User:Eggishorn. Quite appreciative of the advice. At this point, most of my edits are now paired up with a source. Middle names on the other hand have often not been cited. For example, on the page Foxy Shazam, the band members' middle names do not seem to be cited. Therefore I added a middle name, but my specific edit was reverted by Gorlitz (despite the other uncited middle names). Other times, I can find a plethora of sources regarding middle names, however none of the sources that the Wikipedia admins are looking for. Sometimes it seems as if I need to make a stretch. I've often found social media accounts denoted to the notable figures in which I use to cite middle names, but I'm well aware it is a discouraged way of sourcing, and therefore I try to limit myself from that as well. My inattentiveness is very unintentional, but I can agree that I'm quite clumsy in that department. Thanks again. -- AlexanderHovanec (talk) 01:04, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
- @Eggishorn: P.S., another large portion of Gorlitz's stance is that middle names are unnecessary to an article. He feels as if I've ignored him (i.e., "You're still adding middle names even though they're irrelevant.") though and thus has me reported. I've taken his criticisms and have incorporated some of them into my editing philosophy in order to better myself but would still argue that middle names/full names do no harm to an article and do not breach privacy (or at least, to the figures I add middle names to). -- AlexanderHovanec (talk) 01:07, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
- @AlexanderHovanec: Perhaps if I simplify: If you don't have a reliable source, then don't add it to the article. It's a fairly easy guideline applicable to all BLP issues. The corollary is: If something you added without such a source is removed, don't take it personally or complain. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 01:56, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
- @AlexanderHovanec: "middle names/full names do no harm" might be right, but the reason why WP:NOHARM is a bad argument applies to Wikipedia content as well. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate depository of information, and middle names of family members of famous people simply aren't notable enough to include in most cases. Ytoyoda (talk) 06:32, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
- Ah, so it seems like the biggest arguments here are A) sourcing, and B) notability. I think argument B) is ever so slightly flawed. I think notability regarding names is more opinionated, and thus would have to be delved into on a deeper level. The "no harm" link exists for a reason I'm sure, and I can agree to a certain extend why "harmlessness" is a bad argument; however, the link is more in terms of "hurtfulness". What I meant above is that middle names technically aren't "un-encyclopedic" whereas Gorlitz thinks they are -- which seems like more of a preference than a criteria. In the indiscriminate link, it doesn't seem like any of the four brackets apply to this dilemma. I'm sure it can apply for much more, but specifically it does not address the scenario. I guess what I'm trying to point out is, while privacy criteria exists (and while I don't think any of this is breaching it), there's no Wikipedia policy that prevents or restricts the application of middle names. In my personal opinion, I think it can even aid in distinguishing the celebrity's siblings from extremely non-notable people. This is all just really 'crappy' logic I'm sure, but I at least want to communicate my mind-set.
- What I can take away from Ytoyoda is that a portion of Wikipedia's administration views the inclusion of family member's names as irrelevant or unnecessary in many cases. Per se, athletes or small time-actors. Where as socialites like the Kardasians or the royal family would be more acceptable. I definitely comprehend your points; I understand where you're coming from. -- AlexanderHovanec (talk) 06:58, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
- And as for Eggishorn's comment, I'd just like it to be known that I don't complain about edit reversions, or "take it personally", nor do I revert them these days. I usually comply and refrain from causing any further upsets. If an edit of mine has been reverted due to being poorly sourced, then I understand. If I continue to make edits, it's probably because I've found a source in which I believe to be more notable than the last. I can say that "If you can't find a good source, don't add it to the article" is a good philosophy though. Strongly agreed. -- AlexanderHovanec (talk) 07:01, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
- Please don't assume what I do and don't think about middle names. I never stated that they were unencylopedic, I simply stated that they are irrelevant. By that I mean that if the subject is known by their given and family name, then supplying the middle name doesn't add anything further to understand the subject. If it's sourced, however, I am not opposed to adding it. If it's added as a hidden comment, it's perfectly useless to most. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:02, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
- @Eggishorn: P.S., another large portion of Gorlitz's stance is that middle names are unnecessary to an article. He feels as if I've ignored him (i.e., "You're still adding middle names even though they're irrelevant.") though and thus has me reported. I've taken his criticisms and have incorporated some of them into my editing philosophy in order to better myself but would still argue that middle names/full names do no harm to an article and do not breach privacy (or at least, to the figures I add middle names to). -- AlexanderHovanec (talk) 01:07, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
- Thank you very much User:Eggishorn. Quite appreciative of the advice. At this point, most of my edits are now paired up with a source. Middle names on the other hand have often not been cited. For example, on the page Foxy Shazam, the band members' middle names do not seem to be cited. Therefore I added a middle name, but my specific edit was reverted by Gorlitz (despite the other uncited middle names). Other times, I can find a plethora of sources regarding middle names, however none of the sources that the Wikipedia admins are looking for. Sometimes it seems as if I need to make a stretch. I've often found social media accounts denoted to the notable figures in which I use to cite middle names, but I'm well aware it is a discouraged way of sourcing, and therefore I try to limit myself from that as well. My inattentiveness is very unintentional, but I can agree that I'm quite clumsy in that department. Thanks again. -- AlexanderHovanec (talk) 01:04, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
- @AlexanderHovanec:, I don't see where anyone has called you a "lousy editor". At the very worst, you've been characterized as an inattentive one, which is a very different thing. As has been pointed out to you previously, the way out of this situation is very simple and very clear: be prepared to cite a reliable source when you add a middle name to a biography. If you make sure you read, understand, and follow the biographies of living persons policy and the guidelines on what are reliable sources, then you should be fine. Just to throw this out there, Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, etc. are generally (with some exceptions) not considered reliable sources by other editors here. Good luck. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 00:41, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
Calum stevens[edit]
Resolved, NAC SwisterTwister talk 19:20, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The indef blocked user Calum stevens should probably have their talk page access removed. 331dot (talk) 14:03, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
Done -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:34, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
user:Yelysavet vs. Interwikilinks[edit]
- Yelysavet (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Yelysavet is on a mission deleting InterWikilinks. The majority of his edits seem to be concerned with the removal of links pointing to the equivalent articles in other language versions of Wikipedia.
Andy Dingley has questioned these actions and I have tried to explain that these links are useful and neccessary as long as Wikidata does not allow the connection of more than one article in any language to an article in another language.
Obviously the page structure of two wikis will never be the same and one language Wikipedia will always divide a certain subject into more articles and use more lemmas than another. "Forking" the Wikidata entry and the interwikilink is therefore often not avoidable if we want to make it easy for the users to refer to more than one equally relevant article existing in another language.
I consider the removal of interwikilinks obstructive behaviour and would like to hear your opinions.
thank you,
KaiKemmann (talk) 18:35, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
- Looks like they last edited in October. Max Semenik (talk) 20:39, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
- Thank you for looking into this, Max Semenik.
- I think many of the links that were removed should be recovered since they are not replaced (or replacable) by Wikidata links.
- What do we do about this?
- And what if Yelysavet decides to continue erasing interwikilinks at some point in the future?
- KaiKemmann (talk) 19:31, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
Albuquerque TV station articles[edit]
User GMC GNC keeps reverting my edits on KLUZ-TV and KTFQ-DT, adding inaccurate information. I think we may be involved in an edit war. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 03:57, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
- Have you posted at WP:ANEW? - The Bushranger One ping only 05:10, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
Los Angeles IPs promoting the band False Alarm[edit]
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.
We need a rangeblock on some L.A.-based IPs who are persistently promoting the band False Alarm (band). Two IPs were recently blocked: Special:Contributions/2600:1:B110:9B05:312D:D10E:62D0:329A and Special:Contributions/2600:1:B150:B87C:19D2:8151:C534:D13B. The range Special:Contributions/2600:1:B109:94CA:0:0:0:0/43 contains mostly this person's contributions starting from December 2, with just a few good-faith but very low quality edits made by other people who would be collaterally affected by a rangeblock. Binksternet (talk) 05:24, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
- Special:Contributions/2600:1:B103:93E0:4AE6:C7A8:756A:ADFD reported at AIV, after warning on their user talk. Was just now blocked as a single address. - DVdm (talk) 07:27, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
- And here we go with another range: . - DVdm (talk) 08:23, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
- 2600:1:B100::/41 range blocked for a week. If that doesn't resolve it, I can do a longer one. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 08:52, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
SPA IP and British and Irish/Irish and British[edit]
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.
A Single purpose IP editor, 176.61.55.135 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) is wholesale changing the words "British and Irish" to "Irish and British", on the grouds that his version is correct. In the process he has damaged one citation, and introduced a spurious "British Republican government". I have tried talking to him on his talk page, but feel that I am getting nowhere. I am also aware that there is an ArbCom ruling in place for Troubles related articles. Please could some admins with both a better grasp of the niceties of WP policies etc in this area, and more patience, than I have, take a look at this? Thank you, DuncanHill (talk) 23:11, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
I have already apologized for the erroneous edits that broke things. I am happy to fix them. I stand by my edits that Irish / Ireland as the majority is correct. 176.61.55.135 (talk) 23:14, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
- The IP has already been asked to abide by BRD and seek consensus for their disputed and contested edits all reverted by at least 3 editors so far: DuncanHill, myself and @GoodDay:. Counter argument to their flawed defense was provided and what I got in return was "NI is part of Ireland" (it is actually part of the UK), which shows they are clearly politically motivated with this swapping of terms. They were notified at their talk page that continuing on would constitute edit-warring and may result in a block. This advice they have ignored. Almost all of their edits simply involves this swapping of terms. Mabuska (talk) 23:29, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
- Hold on a second - "[NI] is actually part of the UK", WP:NPOV anyone? That's a contentious position to state, at best. The entity called "Northern Ireland" is part of Ireland. That part of the island of Ireland may presently be under the administration of the United Kingdom, but it doesn't change the fact that it is absolutely part of Ireland. khavakoz
I don't see what the problem is. If you all are so offended, revert my changes and we'll call it a day. However, "Coins of Ireland", "The Emergency" and "Parliament of Ireland" are 100% correct. 176.61.55.135 (talk) 23:33, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
- If you want to get blocked, that's your choice. Otherwise, leave'em as British and Irish. GoodDay (talk) 23:39, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
- Why? Where is the Editorial Decision pertaining to the specific matter at hand? When was this ordering decided? Where's your WP:CITE?khavakoz
- Thanks for reverting all my edits. I 100% disagree with your unilateral decision to revert edits made in good faith and request that you undo your reverts of my edits. The wiki admins have not given guidance on this request so I am aghast that you would "take the law"into your own hands whilst awaiting a decision from an admin 176.61.55.135 (talk) 00:00, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
- Just a note that admins do not make content decisions - those are made by editors via discussion. Admins can only address behavioural issues. What that means is that any editor is allowed to revert your changes, and then you need to seek a consensus through discussion to reinstate them. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:51, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
- So, where is this Editorial Decision?khavakoz
- Just a note that admins do not make content decisions - those are made by editors via discussion. Admins can only address behavioural issues. What that means is that any editor is allowed to revert your changes, and then you need to seek a consensus through discussion to reinstate them. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:51, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
Irish coins... seriously? Are you that petty? 176.61.55.135 (talk) 23:42, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
- Apparently you are. Please read the article in full, particularly this part - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coins_of_Ireland#Coins_of_the_Irish_Free_State,_then_Ireland/Éire . Note that "Irish and British coinage were mutually acceptable..." comes BEFORE your reverted edit. I repeat myself, the correct term - even shown earlier in this article - is "Irish and British". 176.61.55.135 (talk) 23:46, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
Wow. Apparently it was necessary to change "British and Irish government leaders" to "Irish and British government leaders" in the context of the Anglo-Irish Treaty negotiations (because "Irish majority"?) Er, the negotiations took place in Britain. There was no "majority." Should 'Anglo-Irish Treaty' be moved to 'Irish-British Treaty' because it mostly affected Ireland? Of all the petty nationalist/unionist edit wars I've seen over the years, this current crusade takes the biscuit... BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 10:20, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
I suspect that Niaodh, might be the IP under an account name. GoodDay (talk) 12:45, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
- I share that suspicion. I left a note. Acroterion (talk) 13:10, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
- 217.22.158.148 appears questionable as well. Article may need semi-protection. GoodDay (talk) 14:59, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
Sarah Rogers[edit]
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.
ResolvedThe 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.
Sarah Rogers (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Please revoke talk page access; it's just being used for more promotional edits. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) Chris Troutman (talk) 03:07, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
- Done TonyBallioni (talk) 03:10, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
@TonyBallioni:, you might consider a revdel of their edits on their talk page as it is basically a copy paste from the web www.jonpauldenaro.com, where it says at the bottom that "all rights reserved", etc, etc. Blackmane (talk) 12:32, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
- I've done that - let me know if I missed any. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:18, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
- Removed ability to email. And blocked one of their socks User:Jon Paul Denaro Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:26, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
Strange behaviour by Dzmzh[edit]
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.
Dzmzh is blanking their own article, Picnic_(online_supermarket), with "¯\_(ツ)_/¯" as an edit summary and moved it back to draftspace with the reason of 'no one loves me any more'. I'm not sure what's happening on their side, but it is disruptive, and it's not their property, now that it is an article. !dave 13:20, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
- It would be nice to hear their input, but from what I can see there's nothing major going on here. I'll keep an eye on the page, move-protect it if I have to, and 3RR Dzmzh if they keep up with the DE. Primefac (talk) 13:24, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
User:Goo3[edit]
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.
Goo3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Please! He came from Ukarainian Wikipedia, user Goo3 harms and conducts illegally in relation to this public person Anatoly_Shariy, and also he leads edits wars, as in the English version, and in the Ukrainian! Block him from this harasmetn! -- Westmclaren 18:00 December 2017 (UTC)
- Actually, his edits are fine. YOU, on the other hand, are edit warring. You have not discussed it with him, you refuse to back down and this ANI is a prime example of a WP:BOOMERANG. Withdraw your accusation or I guarantee this will not go well for you. :I fancy this deserves a WikiTrout. :TomBarker23 (talk) 17:25, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
- This person, Goo3, has warnings in the Ukrainian Wikipedia, he intentionally immediately deletes information, without explanation, any discussions are useless. He has a personal dislike for this public figure. -- Westmclaren 18:35 December 2017 (UTC)
- I sent this situation to PUBLIC PERSON - and here is answer... https://www.facebook.com/anatolijsharij/posts/10215290603926802
- Hope one day, they will stand in cort for their lies, wikipedia knows examples -- Westmclaren 18:40 December 2017 (UTC)
- Was that a legal threat? RickinBaltimore (talk) 17:43, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
- @Westmclaren:, there is a bright orange notice at the top of your browser window every time you edit this page that says in huge letters: "When you start a discussion about an editor, you must notify them on their user talk page." I note you have omitted this in this case and have taken the liberty of notifying them for you. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:44, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
- Was that a legal threat? RickinBaltimore (talk) 17:43, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
- This person, Goo3, has warnings in the Ukrainian Wikipedia, he intentionally immediately deletes information, without explanation, any discussions are useless. He has a personal dislike for this public figure. -- Westmclaren 18:35 December 2017 (UTC)
- Actually, his edits are fine. YOU, on the other hand, are edit warring. You have not discussed it with him, you refuse to back down and this ANI is a prime example of a WP:BOOMERANG. Withdraw your accusation or I guarantee this will not go well for you. :I fancy this deserves a WikiTrout. :TomBarker23 (talk) 17:25, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
Hi colleagues. The invitation to European Journalist Foundation, which user claims to, is not proved by any of sources. The only source is this one (in Russian) which cites the Anatoliy's facebook post. So I suggest this information shouldn't be there until it's proved by reliable sources.
The person was already blocked once in Ukrainian Wiki and currently we're discussing the possible sanctions for violating Wiki's rules. I'm here to answer your questions and thank you for your time. --Goo3 (talk) 17:57, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
- For those, who can't read Ukrainian, I would advise to use google translate, because this user is lying! He has admin instruments and illegally has blocked me in Ukrainian Wikipedia, and he has got WARNING from other admins! Here is the link, I'm not lying - he is sick! >> [1] and here, you may watch his war edits, >> [2] through which he also received warnings, all this applies to the same public person. He probably performs the paid order. -- Westmclaren 19:07 December 2017 (UTC)
- Westmclaren, you can not use his Facebook account as a source for information on the English Wikipedia. We don't care about what happens on the Ukrainian Wikipedia, not in the least. Right now, you have called him "sick" a "spammer" twice, and I'm trying to figure out why I haven't blocked you for being a disruptive editor yet. I may still. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 18:13, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
- I was just thinking exactly the same - Westmclaren, stop the personal attacks *now*. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:15, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
- I followed the ref1 link and used Google Translate, as advised. It didn't exactly help Westmclaren's position... --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:18, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
- I did the same and came to the same conclusion. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 18:20, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
- Me three. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:25, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
- I did the same and came to the same conclusion. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 18:20, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
- Hmm... it's actually slightly more interesting it seems. Looks like the user has managed to get indeffed on de.wiki in all of 36 edits, gotten three different blocks on ru.wiki in all of 86 edits, and in addition to the two blocks they've gotten on uk.wiki. All appear to be related to this Shariy fellow. So, yeah. I'm sure this will end well. GMGtalk 18:24, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
- Well, my apologies for sik, but, this information from the source, not just a link to Facebook. The information was published by a reliable, by verified site, of course, this is not CNN, but the source. For your own interest, look at the article, which user Goo3 created, exclusively according to the client's information, from the Facebook profile and YouTube channel of the client. >> [3] -- Westmclaren 19:22 December 2017 (UTC)
- You aren't providing any information, you are just making claims. I have left a final warning on your user page. You make it impossible to consider the conduct of someone else when your own conduct is so poor: calling names, forum shopping and the like. Either comform to the expectations of the English Wikipedia or expect to be blocked. We have little patience for personal attacks here. As I said on your page, this is not the Ukrainian Wikipedia, I have no idea what their rules are, don't really care. We have our own and you are clearly violating them. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 18:28, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
- Well, my apologies for sik, but, this information from the source, not just a link to Facebook. The information was published by a reliable, by verified site, of course, this is not CNN, but the source. For your own interest, look at the article, which user Goo3 created, exclusively according to the client's information, from the Facebook profile and YouTube channel of the client. >> [3] -- Westmclaren 19:22 December 2017 (UTC)
- I'll just add that this is essentially a content disagreement over whether a claim in the article is adequately sourced, and that needs to be resolved by discussion at Talk:Anatoly Shariy - where I see precisely no discussion on the subject whatsoever. That should be your first venue, Westmclaren, not posting complaints and personal attacks in multiple places - and discussion there should be civil. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:37, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
- I think time is up for this editor. Drmies (talk) 18:38, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
- There were links! Wanna know who is that user, read, how many times he was breaking WIKI law, and admins simply ignored him! >>>[4]. I'm not vandal or spammer. -- Westmclaren 19:42 December 2017 (UTC)
- Blocked indef for disruptive editing. Anybody object? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:46, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
- You beat me to it. I'm wondering if a global block might need to be in place at this point, with their disruption over 4 wikis (EN, DE, RU, UK). RickinBaltimore (talk) 18:47, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
- No objection here. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:48, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
- I'm wondering WP:CIR is a factor as well. Regardless, I had no hope the editor would gain enough clue to actually be a useful contributor. I have no objections to the block or a global block. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 18:50, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
- Good suggestion. The links they posted to uk.wiki as "proof" of Goo3's supposed bad behavior only showed that Westmclaren has a long-standing cross-wiki grudge and can't be bothered to substantiate their complaints in any language. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:53, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
- And I filed a global block request here: [366]. RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:00, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
- Good call, especially as Westmclaren has just been blocked for the third time on the Ukrainian Wikipedia. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:09, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
- Yeah, but by Goo3 every time. I'd like to see a little more variety before using that as an example. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:11, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
- Well, Goo's only a sysop on one project, and they've never so much as touched de.wiki. So, there's that. GMGtalk 19:16, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
- One look at their talk page at the Ukrainian Wikipedia makes it pretty clear there are CIR issues going on. Yes, Goo3 blocked them, but that isn't the source of their problems, their wounds are self-inflicted. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:19, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
- On top of 3 blocks at ru.wiki and indef ones at de.wiki and now here, I think what we're seeing is pretty conclusive. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:30, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
- @RickinBaltimore: The OP had been globally blocked, this ANI properly can be close. SA 13 Bro (talk) 20:17, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
- Well, Goo's only a sysop on one project, and they've never so much as touched de.wiki. So, there's that. GMGtalk 19:16, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
- Yeah, but by Goo3 every time. I'd like to see a little more variety before using that as an example. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:11, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
- Good call, especially as Westmclaren has just been blocked for the third time on the Ukrainian Wikipedia. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:09, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
- And I filed a global block request here: [366]. RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:00, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
- Good suggestion. The links they posted to uk.wiki as "proof" of Goo3's supposed bad behavior only showed that Westmclaren has a long-standing cross-wiki grudge and can't be bothered to substantiate their complaints in any language. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:53, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
References
- ^ https://uk.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%92%D1%96%D0%BA%D1%96%D0%BF%D0%B5%D0%B4%D1%96%D1%8F:%D0%9A%D0%BD%D0%B0%D0%B9%D0%BF%D0%B0_(%D0%B0%D0%B4%D0%BC%D1%96%D0%BD%D1%96%D1%81%D1%82%D1%80%D1%83%D0%B2%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%BD%D1%8F)#.D0.91.D0.BB.D0.BE.D0.BA.D1.83.D0.B2.D0.B0.D0.BD.D0.BD.D1.8F_.D0.B0.D0.B4.D0.BC.D1.96.D0.BD.D1.96.D1.81.D1.82.D1.80.D0.B0.D1.82.D0.BE.D1.80.D0.BE.D0.BC_Goo3
- ^ https://uk.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=%D0%A8%D0%B0%D1%80%D1%96%D0%B9_%D0%90%D0%BD%D0%B0%D1%82%D0%BE%D0%BB%D1%96%D0%B9_%D0%90%D0%BD%D0%B0%D1%82%D0%BE%D0%BB%D1%96%D0%B9%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B8%D1%87&action=history
- ^ https://uk.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skrypin.ua
- ^ https://uk.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%92%D1%96%D0%BA%D1%96%D0%BF%D0%B5%D0%B4%D1%96%D1%8F:%D0%97%D0%B0%D0%BF%D0%B8%D1%82%D0%B8_%D0%BD%D0%B0_%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%BC%D0%B5%D0%BD%D1%82%D0%B0%D1%80_%D1%81%D1%82%D0%BE%D1%81%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%BD%D0%BE_%D0%BF%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B5%D0%B4%D1%96%D0%BD%D0%BA%D0%B8_%D0%BA%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%B8%D1%81%D1%82%D1%83%D0%B2%D0%B0%D1%87%D1%96%D0%B2
Indef blocked, eh? I said this needed a WikiTrout! :) TomBarker23 (talk) 09:10, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
BTW, what are those hex-encoded URLs about? Is someone's browser doing some kind of character/language conversion? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:39, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
Willweinbach[edit]
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.
- Willweinbach (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
I'm really baffled here. Can anyone explain how the recent edits shown in this user's contributions were able to be done? This user doesn't even appear to be auto confirmed, much less have page mover rights. I do not understand how this was even possible. I'll leave the issue of the blatantly self promotional article and what to do about it to the community by posting it here, but the bigger question of what to do about the how it could happen remains. John from Idegon (talk) 06:21, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
- What are you asking? If you're asking how someone can create a draft article, anyone can do that. See Wikipedia:Drafts. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:44, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
- I believe the question is how they moved the draft to articlespace without the pagemover right. - The Bushranger One ping only 07:00, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
- He is autoconfirmed. If you look above the checklist on Special:UserRights, for him it says "Implicit member of: Autoconfirmed users". Pagemover isn't required for page moves to main, only autoconfirmed. PM only gives you the right to suppress redirects and move subpages as a stack. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:05, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
- If you look to the deletion log between 5:04 and 5:06 UTC 6 December (My options are set to display local times and I'm kinda sketchy on time conversation - it's 5 December 23:04-06 US MST on my view), he deleted a redirect page in mainspace and the associated talk page to make the move. Is that something any editor can do? I'm honestly confused here. I did not think it was, and if it is I sure don't think it should be.
- On the subject of the editor himself, I think it's fairly clear this is a PROMO/NOTHERE situation and that he should be blocked. John from Idegon (talk) 08:03, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
- John from Idegon If a redirect only has one edit, then it can be moved over. This makes sense, because otherwise a move by an autoconfirmed user can only be undone by someone with page mover right. Galobtter (pingó mió) 08:26, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks for the clarification. I'm hoping this has gotten the title on some more watch lists and we can lend the self promoting fella some WP:ROPE. Feel free to close this. John from Idegon (talk) 20:03, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
- John from Idegon If a redirect only has one edit, then it can be moved over. This makes sense, because otherwise a move by an autoconfirmed user can only be undone by someone with page mover right. Galobtter (pingó mió) 08:26, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
- He is autoconfirmed. If you look above the checklist on Special:UserRights, for him it says "Implicit member of: Autoconfirmed users". Pagemover isn't required for page moves to main, only autoconfirmed. PM only gives you the right to suppress redirects and move subpages as a stack. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:05, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
- I believe the question is how they moved the draft to articlespace without the pagemover right. - The Bushranger One ping only 07:00, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
Restoration of article about Vestarctic[edit]
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.
secondary sources on this topic: [367][368], [369], pages № 2008, 2009 and 2010 and pages 516-517, 6 books, page 730-731 - even Class 15: Private Mint Issues since 1960 -- American Numismatic Association (for all numismatic material issued by a private mint of any country, including philatelic-numismatic covers, except that no denominated coins may be exhibited in this class) First Place -- Oded Paz for "The Coins of the Grand Duchy of Westarctica", 9 news - example Members included HRH Grand Duke Travis McHenry, the leader of the Grand Duchy of Westarctica, who in 2001 took command of an unclaimed chunk of Antarctica, and Travis McHenry, the grand duke of Westartica, will also be in attendance at MicroCon 2015. Westarctica is a much larger nation than Molossia, with more than 620,000 square miles in Antarctica to its name. None of the nation's 300 citizens live on the frozen land. No one does. McHenry, also a recruiting coordinator in a Los Angeles media company, said he was 'really inspired' when he found out there was a piece of Antarctica that had never been claimed. But Westarctica is not just an empty country. It's also a nonprofit, advocating for the protection of native penguins and researching how climate change is impacting Antarctica's ice sheet. ... Grand Duchy of Westarctica. One of the world's largest micronations, it encompasses 620,000 square miles of the Antarctic, but nobody actually lives there. It was founded in 2001 by His Royal Highness Grand Duke Travis McHenry after he learned no other nation had laid claim to the area. McHenry says he would like to eventually make Westarctica a real country. If he does, he jokes that he'll probably promote himself from grand duke to king., Micronations: The Lonely Planet Guide to Home-Made Nations The book's profile of micronations offer information on their flags, leaders, currencies, date of foundation, maps and other facts. Micronations featured in the book include: .... Westarctica and [370]. Based on these sources, I'm asking you to restore a separate article on this topic as significant on the Wikipedia:Notability. --Vyacheslav84 (talk) 14:04, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
- Speedy close- we had an AfD with consensus to delete, and the deletion review was a unanimous endorse. Reyk YO! 14:07, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
- There was no unanimity, and the administrator's decision was wrong. --Vyacheslav84 (talk) 14:10, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
- Seeing this, this, and this, I would highly suggest that you drop the stick now. This is bordering on disruption, and might lead to a block. RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:11, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
- OP blocked. This is the third or fourth venue they've pasted this same shopping list of references into, in each one having already been told not to do it again. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:15, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
- To be fair to the OP, his post at WP:AE was directed to WP:AN or WP:ANI on closure, and his posts at those two boards were three minutes apart. A block purely on those grounds seems harsh.Gricehead (talk) 14:18, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
- Blocking isn't about punishment but to prevent ongoing disruption. OP was obviously going to continue spamming this at numerous other venues. Reyk YO! 14:20, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
- What Reyk said. Spamming multiple noticeboards with the same already-declined request is purely disruptive. (The first was at a DRV which closed with unanimous endorsement of the article's deletion.) It's clear from their actions and comments after that that they intend to continue being disruptive, and for that they can take a short break. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:27, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
- Blocking isn't about punishment but to prevent ongoing disruption. OP was obviously going to continue spamming this at numerous other venues. Reyk YO! 14:20, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
- To be fair to the OP, his post at WP:AE was directed to WP:AN or WP:ANI on closure, and his posts at those two boards were three minutes apart. A block purely on those grounds seems harsh.Gricehead (talk) 14:18, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
Ana Yancy Clavel article[edit]
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.
Ana Yancy Clavel article This article should be deleted or redirected. It simply does not make sense why this person has their own Wikipedia page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daquan7474 (talk • contribs) 02:19, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
- Daquan7474 please be aware that this the wrong place for your post. First, it is not an "incident." Next, there is no action for an administrator to take. You are free to file a WP:AFD about the article. MarnetteD|Talk 02:29, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
Report[edit]
108.45.138.63 (talk · contribs) I like to report this IP for making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, especially in the Syre (album) article [371] [372] [373] [374]. This IP also vandalized the album ratings template as well, by adding incorrect information and rearrange the reviews for no good reason [375] [376]. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 14:13, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
- Done. User:Walter Görlitz, User:Sergecross73, User:IllaZilla--you all do music: I seem to remember a case like this (ratings changes) from a few months or more ago, from a known disruptor. Ring any bells? Drmies (talk) 02:02, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
- @Drmies: If you take a look at Varun3281 (talk · contribs) and 72.83.65.116 (talk · contribs) edits, their edits look very similar to each other. I think it's the same editor using different accounts, but that's just my opinion. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 22:03, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
- First let me say it's scary seeing me summoned to an ANI discussion, but I'm glad it's just for advice. Most of the anons I encounter editing music articles focus on genres, and one from Italy that adds unsourced information about band members. The pattern of edits that this anon has made seem quite advanced, almost as if they have been blocked recently. The pattern doesn't look familiar. I see a short block has been applied. I'd be happy to comment if the anon reappears. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:15, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
- Walter Görlitz, I'm sorry if this section is a bit of an anticlimax--if I block you for a week, would that help? Drmies (talk) 04:39, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
- TheAmazingPeanuts, that 72 IP may well be the same as that account, but I don't think it's the same as the IP I blocked. Drmies (talk) 04:41, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
- @Drmies: Don't go out of your way. I'm OK. Just happy to be of some help here. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:45, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
- @Drmies: That's maybe true, but when I see Varun3281 adding incorrect information to articles like this, similar to the way the IP is making right here, I can't help myself to believe it's the same editor. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 23:12, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
- Ha! Well, none of the edits I had looked at were like that: you found the ones that clinched it, and I have some other evidence that suggests it too. I blocked the Varun account indefinitely since obviously they continue to make the same disruptive edits. In relation to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Inorap, Sro23 has a point when they say the accounts aren't used simultaneously; perhaps they simply dropped the old account. It might be possible to fill in the holes with various IPs but that doesn't matter: Varun needs to come to Jesus (by copping to disruptive editing and asking for an unblock), or all such edits by similar IPs can be summarily reverted and the IPs blocked for block evasion. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 05:32, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
- I apologize, I caught the ping days ago, but was too busy to answer at the time, and forgot to swing back around. Regardless, my input is pretty similar to Walter - there's so many disruptive IPs and newbies that make unconstructive edits to review score and music genre that it's pretty impossible to tie it to just one person, but rest assured, the block was deserved, socking or not. Sergecross73 msg me 19:33, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
- Ha! Well, none of the edits I had looked at were like that: you found the ones that clinched it, and I have some other evidence that suggests it too. I blocked the Varun account indefinitely since obviously they continue to make the same disruptive edits. In relation to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Inorap, Sro23 has a point when they say the accounts aren't used simultaneously; perhaps they simply dropped the old account. It might be possible to fill in the holes with various IPs but that doesn't matter: Varun needs to come to Jesus (by copping to disruptive editing and asking for an unblock), or all such edits by similar IPs can be summarily reverted and the IPs blocked for block evasion. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 05:32, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
- @Drmies: That's maybe true, but when I see Varun3281 adding incorrect information to articles like this, similar to the way the IP is making right here, I can't help myself to believe it's the same editor. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 23:12, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
- @Drmies: Don't go out of your way. I'm OK. Just happy to be of some help here. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:45, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
- First let me say it's scary seeing me summoned to an ANI discussion, but I'm glad it's just for advice. Most of the anons I encounter editing music articles focus on genres, and one from Italy that adds unsourced information about band members. The pattern of edits that this anon has made seem quite advanced, almost as if they have been blocked recently. The pattern doesn't look familiar. I see a short block has been applied. I'd be happy to comment if the anon reappears. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:15, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
- @Drmies: If you take a look at Varun3281 (talk · contribs) and 72.83.65.116 (talk · contribs) edits, their edits look very similar to each other. I think it's the same editor using different accounts, but that's just my opinion. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 22:03, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
Mass CSD nominations of railway talk pages[edit]
Dw122339 (talk · contribs) has nominated a whole load of railway station article talk pages for WP:CSD#G8 as self-redirects, which seems to be a by-product of "Railway Station" being renamed to "railway station" on all of them, which suggests the move somehow got messed up somewhere. These just all need renaming to the right target, not deleted. Can anyone help clean up? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:31, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
- Do we actually need these talk pages? Is there any purpose of keeping them?--Ymblanter (talk) 17:33, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
- It's possible some are linked from project pages, or user talk pages, or somewhere - I haven't checked all 120 odd. I guess it wouldn't be the end of the world if they were deleted, but equally we're not short on disk space, so they're not harming anyone. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:43, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
- I would personally prefer deleting them after checking the backlinks, but if we want to keep them probably rollbacking and fixing would be the best option.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:49, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
- And deleting wouldn't save disk space anyway, because deleted pages are never actually deleted. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:04, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
- Exactly; I distinctly recall reading at some point that deletion takes more disk space than redirecting does. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:19, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
- It's possible some are linked from project pages, or user talk pages, or somewhere - I haven't checked all 120 odd. I guess it wouldn't be the end of the world if they were deleted, but equally we're not short on disk space, so they're not harming anyone. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:43, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
- Nothing you do reduces the size of the data stored. Every operation increases it. Period. EEng 23:37, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
Block review[edit]
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.
- Jikepaddy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Ejikeme nwosu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Ejikeme Nwosu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Ejikeme Patrick Nwosu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Reformed Youth Movement of Nigeria (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I blocked this user and nuked the re-created autobiography at Ejikeme Patrick Nwosu previously deleted by Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ejikeme Nwosu. A review of contributions shows nothing other than self-promotion, including creating an article on a group he created. Guy (Help!) 09:51, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
- Good block but support unblock if the unblock request is truly promising. Excelse (talk) 09:55, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
- Good block, and I have a hard time imagining an unblock request that would convince me. See especially the deleted contributions (admins only, unfortunately). Bishonen | talk 11:36, 5 December 2017 (UTC).
- Good block. While I can't see the deleted content, what is live suggests this is someone engaged in fairly standard WP:VSCA. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 13:57, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
Possible template abuse on Portland, Oregon[edit]
Showing some unexpected images at the moment. Unable to determine source. Dawnseeker2000 19:06, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
Portland, Oregon[edit]
Not sure if it is just me, but if I go to that article (and no others), I get a pornographic image, and links send me to Gay Nigger Association of America. I can get into the page history via other means, but nothing there seems to be the issue. Not sure where to go with this. Aboutmovies (talk) 19:06, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
- Fixed [377]. Revdel / additional purging may be needed. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:09, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
- Revdel'd, and user blocked. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:11, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks. Glad it was not some random infection on my computer. Aboutmovies (talk) 19:14, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
- Guess it would be worth checking that all redirects to protected templates are also protected? –FlyingAce✈hello 19:44, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
- Yep, I'd already suggested this before, the last time it happened... ansh666 20:39, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
- Since this sort of vandalism seems to be increasing, can we go ahead and do that, like, immediately? - The Bushranger One ping only 23:59, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
- Yep, I'd already suggested this before, the last time it happened... ansh666 20:39, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
- Guess it would be worth checking that all redirects to protected templates are also protected? –FlyingAce✈hello 19:44, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks. Glad it was not some random infection on my computer. Aboutmovies (talk) 19:14, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
- Revdel'd, and user blocked. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:11, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
Is there a list or something like that of full-protected templates anywhere? ansh666 19:56, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
- Ansh666 Category:Wikipedia protected templates Would probably need a bot. Galobtter (pingó mió) 04:39, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
SPA - MakinaterJones[edit]
- MakinaterJones (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · target logs · block log · list user · global contribs · central auth · Google)
User:MakinaterJones is a WP:SPA with a grudge against editors that stand up against predatory open access publishing. All of their contributions either defend predatory publishers, demonize Jeffrey Beall in some way, or accuse our editors of either being Jeffrey Beall himself, or plaster them with inappropriate warnings and references to scholarlyoa.net, which is an attack blog against Beall, by spoofing the legitimate scholarlyoa.org formerly run by Beall. scholarlyoa.net makes quite ridiculous accusations that Randykitty is Beall as well, so this is long-term editor harassment [I also know who Randykitty is IRL, and they aren't Beall]. I don't know if MakinaterJones is affiliated with the attack site, but referencing it just show how far the deep end we're into here. This has gone lone enough, and they should be indef-blocked per WP:NOTHERE. (Edit: This may also involve this IP.)
Pinging affected editors on this, @David Eppstein, Randykitty, Jytdog, and Doug Weller:. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:57, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks Headbomb. Indef overdue indeed. --Randykitty (talk) 17:00, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
- I agree that this person is nothere. I filed a sock case a couple of days ago that is awaiting administration. Not linking here per beans.Jytdog (talk) 17:48, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
- @Jytdog: Hi, would you mind re-opening this thread? I think this report should ideally stay open for a little longer (even if the matter is potentially resolved; my guesses is probably not) as multiple editors were involved over the past two weeks, suggesting more input (without the time sink from the account) may be better. For those interested, my blocking notice for this account can be seen here. Thanks. Alex Shih (talk) 18:57, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks, I knew about MakinatorJones and the associated IP's behavior here but I hadn't paid attention to the scholarlyoa name-spoof attack site. Do we have a blacklist of attack sites that the filter prevents links to? This one seems like a candidate for addition to the list. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:42, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
- David Eppstein, see MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist. I'll leave it to you since you know what's going on better. EEng 23:09, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
- I agree with the block. I interacted with MakinatorJones quite a bit in a mediator role and came to much the same conclusion as EEng: sea-lioning or some odd variant of Wikilawyering. They made a point of creating an account, but seemed somewhat careless about editing while logged out. A stickler on certain policies, but clearly clueless about throwing around WP jargon. Too eager to accuse others of bad behavior and unresponsive when called on to change their own bad habits. It all adds up to a pretty clear case of WP:NOTHERE. — jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 22:05, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
- Endorse block. This is a very clear case of WP:NOTHERE given the obvious determination to use the encyclopedia to promote a particular cause. Johnuniq (talk) 22:19, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
- Note: I was close to blocking this account when I blocked the IP, it should be noted that the community banned OMICS group has been going on with this anti-Beall campaign on wiki for quite long, and I've blocked accounts in multiple continents from that farm. They have also been hiring PR agencies on this front and have acquisitions in multiple geographies and that's not yet reflected in our articles on the individual journals. The main account under which the SPI is filed is Scholarscentral. That SPI grouping is based in India, but I've blocked others from their acquisitions in the UK and Canada too. —SpacemanSpiff 03:53, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
Suspicious, disruptive edit of User Asdfghjklkjhgfdsasdfghjklkjhgfds[edit]
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.
- Asdfghjklkjhgfdsasdfghjklkjhgfds (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
The user made an extensive, disruptive edit to the Quicksort page (Diff 813879861) and self-reverted it next minute (Diff 813880008).
The edit looks like semi-automatic transformation of the text, and I wonder if some day such modifications may appear in other pages, and not get reverted. Please supervise the user and possibly the respective IP address... --CiaPan (talk) 20:20, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
- It looks like a cut-and-paste vandalism job with the Visual Editor: see how their vandalism spree didn't affect any text inside a piped link or reference template which wouldn't be visible on the page. And besides, they self-reverted. Will advise to do their tests in a sandbox, otherwise so long as they don't keep doing it there's not a problem. As a side note, it's extremely unlikely that this sort of thing would go unnoticed. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 20:26, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
User Jobas is requesting a Standard Offer[edit]
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.
Jobas (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
There is a request for a Standard offer by user:Jobas. The original blocking admin has expressed (via email) their agreement with a conditional unblock. However there is an objection and so I am requesting additional input. In order to allow Jobas to respond I am going to ask that comments and questions be made on his talk page. Unless there is a very quick and clear consensus I will not take any action regarding the unblock request for at least two days in order to allow for interested parties to join the discussion. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:19, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
- Support Standard Offer User:Jobas has done some fantastic work on religion-related articles, such as creating the Christian culture and Christian attitudes towards science articles, in addition to expanding existing articles, such as the one about Religion in Asia. Moreover, User:Jobas is from the minority Palestinian Christian community and I feel that this unique and underrepresented background is a valuable addition to the various backgrounds of other Wikipedia editors. He already effectively endured a topic ban with his six-month block from editing Wikipedia completely and the nature of the block was to address his first and only issue of sockpuppetry, rather than the content of his edits. I would suggest that any further violations of Wikipedia's policy with respect to sockpuppetry should result in another block of a longer duration. Keeping in mind these facts, as well as User:Jobas' ten year investment in the project and relatively clean block log during this time, a six-month to one year 1RR restriction is the solution at this time, in my humble opinion. I hope this helps. With regards, AnupamTalk 20:48, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
Support: I'm sympathetic to the concerns stemming from the conduct that led up to the block, but I don't see it as being sufficiently severe to merit rejecting what's otherwise a reasonable SO request. He's agreed to some pretty significant editing restrictions as part of lifting the block. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 21:22, 7 December 2017 (UTC)(see below)- Oppose for now, per my reasoning over at Jobas' user talk page. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 00:35, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
- Support with their proposed restrictions, but conditional on Jobas adequately explaining their "technical problem". Blackmane (talk) 22:43, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
- Support: Per my comments on Jobas's talk page. --1990'sguy (talk) 03:21, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
- Folks, please make your comments over at User talk:Jobas as requested above - we really don't want to have this split over two pages. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:33, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
- Pinging Doug Weller, who did the CU work previously, and requesting CU be done now since this was a CU block. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:45, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
- Support The perspective of a Palestinian in the matters he touches on is important, and he seems to have a lot of high-quality edits. desmay (talk) 16:35, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose due to lying about the "technical issue & other claims Although I was at first willing to unblock with conditions, I now see that although a few hours ago he was still claiming that many of his problematic edits were due to a technical problem, he now admits "the technical problem was simply me attempting to boost my edit count so that I could one day display a Service Badge on my userpage." Even though these occurred well before the block, at that time and until today he maintained it was purely a technical fault and nothing to do with his editing. He also now admits that he hadn't actually done any checking before rapidly removing categories and that his statement about taking notes in a notebook was also false. He has wasted a lot of time and energy by lying about his past activities. He also tries to excuse himself because he is a young user, but he's got 10 years of experience here. I can't see why he should be unblocked yet, this was not a good faith request and his finally admitting that he lied doesn't change that. @Dennis Brown: someone did a CU yesterday, I've asked them about the results. Doug Weller talk 17:19, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
Talk:Constructal law[edit]
Are all the recent comments here posted by the same person? I don't know if this "coincidence" is enough to open a sock investigation, but it seems pretty suspicious to me. Natureium (talk) 18:07, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
- Have you checked to see if those folks have edited the article, or other (related) articles? Perhaps it's a school project. Drmies (talk) 18:21, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
- The article creator claims to be a professor in Brazil. That is not where those talk page and AfD commenters seem to be editing from (far from it), though I haven't checked all of them. I checked a few and found only one account that had also created another, but that one hasn't edited. It is possible that there is an orchestrated effort, of course, but I think it's safe to just let the AfD ride: the discerning admin who closes it will know what to do. Drmies (talk) 18:27, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
TishoYanchev topic ban proposal[edit]
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.
- TishoYanchev (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
On November 17th TishoYanchev added controversial content that did not contain reliable sources for the change on the Bulgarians article. It was reverted by Jingiby, with a long talk page discussion, still continuing now on Talk:Bulgarians, with one major theme -- Mr. Yanchev can't drop the stick, especially considering that his changes are opposed by six editors (including me and Jingiby), and you'll find walls of text from TishoYanchev that nobody particularly wants to read.
In this discussion TishoYanchev has also made some pretty horrible comments to Jingiby,this one stands out, stating that Jingiby had been reported to the Bulgarian police.
It should be noted that TishoYanchev doesn't even want to perform the changes initially made anymore. Instead he wants to do this. Asking him for some RS to go with it, he just continues on the same theme, and doesn't give my any. To conclude, I propose an indefinite topic ban from all Bulgaria-related articles, broadly construed, to stop himself wasting time and of other editors. !dave 08:57, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
- Why are you doing this? What wrong have i done? I explained to you that THIS IS NOT THE CHANGES I AM PROPOSING!! Please listen to me! They are lying about my proposed change! I just wnat to remove the word Slavic from Ethnic Group, and then add information ALREADY ADDED BELOW!!! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bulgarians#Ethnogenesis This! Is this controversial? What is controversial?????? It is already stated and nobody has denied that Bulgarians descent from multiple ethnic group! If that's the case, then why is the lede saying that we are just Slavic? Please explain to me this! What is controversial?? I am not proposing any that has not already been added!! --TishoYanchev (talk) 13:55, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
- As was explained to you, we have a thing that allows for due weight in articles. The lede summarises the content inside the article, and it doesn't appear that what is being described below is the same as 'ethnic group', rather how different elements of made Bulgarians 'Bulgarians'. Unfortunately, you managed to let yourself go, and if this were an debate at some venue in real life, the way you have acted would have meant that the venue's security would have probably removed you by now. Consider that. This has converted into a matter concerning your behaviour. Strange, it's easier to look at some cute kittens on the internet when you're angry than in real life, but people opt not too, and behaviour is probably even worse on the net... !dave 14:10, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
- I am angry because everyone is accusing me of something i am not! Jingiby and his friends keep making false claims about me, and say i am proposing things that i am not, and you are taking their side. You are right, the lede has to summarize what is described below, but below it says that Bulgarians descent from multiple ethnic groups, and have diverse ancestral heritage, does it not? It doesn't say that Bulgarians descent from Slavs, and nobody else. It doesn't say that Bulgarian culture is just Slavic culture. It doesn't say that Bulgarian traditions are limited to Slavic traditions. It says that many ancestral groups make up Bulgarians, and one of them is Slavs. Yet the lede text says the opposite, that Bulgarians are just Slavic ethnic Group without even mentioning the rest of the many ethnic groups that make up Bulgarians along with Slavs! This gives completely false impression of who Bulgarians are. It's like saying Americans are Germanic ethnic group. How ridiculously inaccurate that would be! --TishoYanchev (talk) 14:20, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
- As was explained to you, we have a thing that allows for due weight in articles. The lede summarises the content inside the article, and it doesn't appear that what is being described below is the same as 'ethnic group', rather how different elements of made Bulgarians 'Bulgarians'. Unfortunately, you managed to let yourself go, and if this were an debate at some venue in real life, the way you have acted would have meant that the venue's security would have probably removed you by now. Consider that. This has converted into a matter concerning your behaviour. Strange, it's easier to look at some cute kittens on the internet when you're angry than in real life, but people opt not too, and behaviour is probably even worse on the net... !dave 14:10, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
- Why are you doing this? What wrong have i done? I explained to you that THIS IS NOT THE CHANGES I AM PROPOSING!! Please listen to me! They are lying about my proposed change! I just wnat to remove the word Slavic from Ethnic Group, and then add information ALREADY ADDED BELOW!!! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bulgarians#Ethnogenesis This! Is this controversial? What is controversial?????? It is already stated and nobody has denied that Bulgarians descent from multiple ethnic group! If that's the case, then why is the lede saying that we are just Slavic? Please explain to me this! What is controversial?? I am not proposing any that has not already been added!! --TishoYanchev (talk) 13:55, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
- Also, a heads up concerning socks of PavelStaykov, who might say hi here. !dave 09:06, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
- Hi everybody. The story is very strange. I have reported Yanchev as suspected puppet (meta or sock) here. He has openly contacted with Pavel Staykov's Facebook group. Several days ago he has joined a Facebook group organized especially against me! He has also claimed: "JINGIBY AND HIS SAVVY FRIENDS ARE NOT BULGARIANS, AND THEY DON'T LIVE IN BULGARIA!!; YOU WERE reported to the Police, because you are not Bulgarian nor from Bulgaria!", "This is my last attempt to resolve the issue peacefuly"; "We are 500 people against one paid individual and his friends with political motivation"; "I will report you to admin and i will not give up until we stop your corruption scheme!!!"; "The admin above: Алиса Селезньова is his friend, she bans anyone who tires to stand up against Jingiby". However Алиса Селезньова is admin on Bulgarian Wikipedia. Yanchev is not registered there and is very strange how he knows that Алиса Селезньова is an admin on Bulgarian Wikipedia, etc. And how he knows I am not a Bulgarian and admins on Bulgarian Wikipedia were not Bulgarians? This is a nonsense. His claim I was reported to the Bulgarian police and the prosecutors for engaging deceptive campaign is very specific. He even provided a link to that story which occurred several years ago and because of which Staykov was blocked for legal treats on Bulgarian Wikipedia. It refers to an article on a Bulgarian news site that mentions a complaint from Pavel Staykov against Bulgarian Wikipedia to the Bulgarian Prosecutor's Office. Yanchev's claims there were evidences that I was paid to write on Wikipedia my anti-Bulgarian agenda is absurd. He also have discussed with the sock of Staykov's Facebook group plans how to “ban” me on Wikipedia. Yanchev also has written in a style, full of threats and with capital letters that is also unusual. He has attacked me stating I was falsifying Bulgarian history. He also has made verbal attacks as: YOU ARE THE MOST LYING AND DECEPTIVE PERSON I HAVE EVER SEEN!. He obviously does not respect other editors opinion, disregards opinions of editors that differ from his POV, and insults them not seeking consensus, but wishing to impose his opinion at all costs. I support the proposal of !dave for an indefinite topic ban from all Bulgaria-related articles. Jingiby (talk) 10:08, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
- I think this is pretty open and shut WP:NLT. Lankiveil (speak to me) 11:47, 8 December 2017 (UTC).
- Comment. I'm not sure topic bans are the best way of dealing with disruptive single purpose accounts, being much more labor-intensive for everybody involved than blocks. Considering the bludgeoning of the talkpage and the intemperate personal accusations, I'm somewhat inclined to block TishoYanchev indefinitely. Pinging @Drmies: who has commented on talk: what do you think of a block? But in any case, first, could somebody please explain in layman's terms what the content dispute is about? Is there a nationalist agenda on any side of the argument? TY's comment on talk that "User:Jingiby is not even Bulgarian, it is absurd that a foreigner is trying to re-write the Bulgarian history" seems quite suggestive. Why is the word Slavic in the first sentence a big deal? Bishonen | talk 11:59, 8 December 2017 (UTC).
- From my view I certainly think there's some sort of nationalistic intentions involved here. To quote from that diff above:
YOU [Jingiby] WERE reported to the Police, because you are not Bulgarian nor from Bulgaria! Your friends are also NOT Bulgarians!!
. There's a sense of "I'm Bulgarian, therefore it is true." Although I'm happy with an indef block, I didn't propose this because Yanchev's contributions were constructive before this, he is not exclusively an SPA. But indef if you want, Bishonen. !dave 12:18, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
- From my view I certainly think there's some sort of nationalistic intentions involved here. To quote from that diff above:
- Why do you want to block me??? I can't believe this!!! I said that the user:Jingiby has been repoted to the police, and i gave you the news article to prove it! Here: https://www.actualno.com/signal-sreshtu-uikipedija-v-bylgarskata-prokuratura-news_482493.html Because Jingiby and his non-Bulgarians friends have completely destroyed the Bulgarian page in Bulgarian and are now doing the same for English page! The word Slavic Ethnic Group gives the impression that Bulgarians are nothing else but just Slavic! Which is not true! It is misleading and inaccurate! Are you OK if Americans are described as just Germanic? It would be ridicoulously inaccurate! Same with Bulgarians! We are Slavic, but not ONLY Slavic, and that is already stated in the same page!! I am not proposing anything new or controversial! --TishoYanchev (talk) 14:00, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
- The short story and its nationalist roots are explained here: Bulgarians ethnogenetic conception. Jingiby (talk) 12:26, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
- What NATIONALISTS Roots?? This text CONFIRMS what i am proposing!!!! You keep lying about what i want to change! I can't take it anymore! --TishoYanchev (talk) 14:00, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
- The short story and its nationalist roots are explained here: Bulgarians ethnogenetic conception. Jingiby (talk) 12:26, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
- I have NOT added nor proposed any controversial statement! I REJECT AND DENY the accusations of User:Jingiby! I have made a proposed change that NOBODY has expressed any arguments against, or disagreement with me! Nobody has argued or discussed the proposed change with me, they only lie about what i am proposing! I am proposing to remove the word Slavic from Slavic Ethnic Group which is the lead sentence, so it can become only Ethnic Group, and then add next to it information that is already included in the very same page below, here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bulgarians#Ethnogenesis ! The user:Jingiby has NOT discussed or explained why does he object to the removal of the word Slavic. I have repeatedly asked him to discuss his disagreements with me, he only accuses me of wanting to make changes which I DON'T. I have asked for mediation, and i will keep asking for admin intervention, user:Jingiby and his friends are not cooperating, and they are viciously attacking anyone who supports my proposed change. They already removed the comments of several people, and then restored them again when i exposed them! User:jingiby and his friends lie and misrepresent my actions and my arguments and my proposed changes. I believe they are politically motivated. I ask for admin intervention! --TishoYanchev (talk) 13:51, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
- Shouting and screaming in allcaps is not helping your case any.--WaltCip (talk) 15:03, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
- I am not shouting. You have to understand how unnerving and agitating it is to be falsely accused for something i am not proposing. I have been making my claim clear for almost a week now, and yet here it is Jingiby again lying about what i am proposing. Is there anybody here who will actually listen to what i am proposing, and then listen to my side, and then make an objective decision? Neither Jingiby nor anybody here has expressed a single objection or argument with my proposed changes. Nobody. Not a single argument against it. They only misrepresent my proposed change, and then attack my character, and anyone who supports me. I have nothing to hide, i have done nothing wrong, my hands are 100% clean, and i can prove it anytime anywhere, i can show you all my messages, all my emails, everything you want to prove that i have done nothing wrong, and the proposed change is neither controversial, nor disputed. They are not disputing my change on merits, they just reject it for unknown reason. Ask them why. I don't know why! I have been begging @My name is not dave: to mediate between us, and ask User:Jingiby and his friends what is it that they disagree with. Every time i am a here ready to talk, Jingiby and his friends are silent, when i go to sleep, the next day i see Jingiby and his friends have again accused me of proposing controversial changes. I have been asking them for a week now, what change am i proposing that is contrversial? The information i am proposing is already included and sourced, i am merely proposing moving it up to the lede so it gives a more objective impression of Bulgarians, and removing the word Slavic from the lede because it gives misleading and wrong impression. They have said not a single word against my proposed change, they remove the comments of anyone who says they agree with me, already 2 people were removed. Please tell me, what do i have to do? Is this fair? --TishoYanchev (talk) 15:21, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
- Shouting and screaming in allcaps is not helping your case any.--WaltCip (talk) 15:03, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
- Thank you for the pointer, User:Jingiby. I did think the well-sourced "Bulgarian ethnogenetic conception" section might be significant, as TishoYankev twice removed it from the article.[378][379] TishoYanchev, you don't need to ask for admin intervention; this is one of the admin noticeboards, so the conflict has already been brought to admin attention, and admins and experienced users will look at the conduct of everybody involved. Using all caps — capital letters — is often read as "shouting" on the Internet. Dave, since you think TishoYankev is capable of editing other subjects constructively, I won't block. Instead I support an indefinite topic ban from Bulgaria-related pages, broadly construed. (Note, the ban should read pages, not articles, so as to include talkpages and all other Wikipedia pages.) Bishonen | talk 15:28, 8 December 2017 (UTC).
- Why is nobody addressing what i am saying? Please explain to me, why does User:jingiby keep lying about my proposed change? They are not disputing what i am proposing, the information i want to add is already included and sourced, i am merely taking it and putting it above, so it can provide a more objective introduction of Bulgarians. I want to remove the word Slavic from the lede. Nobody is arguing or discussing against this! Why? Why is nobody discussing this? Jingiby keep saying that i want to make controversial change, but that's not true! Please ask him, why does he not agree with removing Slavic from the lede? What change of mine is controversial? Since he agrees that Bulgarians descent from many ethnic groups and have diverse ancestry, then why does the lede says that Bulgarians are just Slavic? Can't you see how deceptive and misleading this is? It's like saying Americans are Germanic ethnic group! Are you ok with that? --TishoYanchev (talk) 15:56, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
- Also, i want to say that, User:Jingiby never discussed with anyone the changes he made here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bulgarians#Bulgarian_ethnogenetic_conception. There was no consensus, and the sources he had provided is a single book. Yet when i tried to add a text already included and sourced, User:Jingiby keep saying there is no consensus, and that my peer-review scientific journal source is not reliable. But this is not about the source, because the information i want to add is already included and sourced. Please ask him why doesn't want to remove the word Slavic from the lede? Why is he allowed not to discuss anything with me? I cannot accept this. This is deeply insulting for Bulgarians people to be described as merely Slavic and completely ignore all the other ancestral groups. This is like saying Americans are just Germanic. It's ridiculous! Why is nobody addressing this? --TishoYanchev (talk) 16:02, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
- Also, why is nobody addressing the fact that, the moment someone supports my changes, instantly their comment is deleted by Jingiby. He did that twice already, and then because i pointed it out, he reverted the comment! Isn't that suspicious enough? Isn't it suspicious that Jingiby keeps lying about the changes i want to make? --TishoYanchev (talk) 16:04, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
- Sorry for repeating myself, but it is absolutely unacceptable what is happening. I am not savvy on Wikipedia so i can't defend myself well enough like Jingiby can. But i will not stop here, i will keep asking for intervention no matter how much it takes me. The current Bulgarian page is absolutely ridiculous. One sentence on the lede saying Bulgarians are just Slavs, that is not acceptable. Bulgarians have a rich and diverse ancestry with diverse culture and traditions. One sentence describing us as just Slavic is a slap on the face for all Bulgarians, and nobody is OK with this. I don't want to attack other users again, but how can anybody possibly not see how ridiculous it is that a foreigner is rejecting an edit that over 500 Bulgarians want, and is not even discussing it? I am asking him for discussion, he rejects any discussion, and misrepresent my argument, and accuse me of something i am not! Wikipedia is supposed to me a place for facts. I will not allow the entire world to get this wrong impression and misleading information about Bulgarians --TishoYanchev (talk) 16:13, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
- Considering the comments above, and past ones bordering on harrassment, would you like a one-way interaction ban, Jingiby (so that TishoYanchev cannot make any communication or mention of you)? I'd support that if you would find that helpful for you. !dave 16:12, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
- Why is everybody ganging up on me?? Can't you see what i am saying to you? Why are you not addressing my arguments? Why are you taking his side? what is happening here??? I cannot believe this!! --TishoYanchev (talk) 16:15, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
- What harassment are you talking about?? I am not harassing anybody!! I am asking for discussion, and if he doesn't wnat to discuss, then why does he keep reverting my changes?? The rules state he to discuss the objections, is he discussing? NO. Why am i harassing him? I don't care about him, all i want is to make this change, and if someone is against it, tell me WHY? Why are you ignoring my argument and my question? --TishoYanchev (talk) 16:16, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
- What is stated above by User:Jingiby is false and incorrect. I am not proposing what they described. I am not proposing anything controversial. I am proposing we take information that is already included here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bulgarians#Ethnogenesis and sourced, restructure it the following way:
- Historically Bulgarian people's heritage is diverse, including populations of South Slavs, Thracian, Proto-Bulgarian, Celts, Goths, Romans, Ancient Greeks, Sarmatians, Paeonians and Illyrians. Just under 85% of Bulgaria's population identified as Bulgarian in 2011 Bulgarian census.
And then add it above next to the first lede sentence. This information is already included and well sourced. I also propose we remove the word Slavic from the lede text stating 'Bulgarians are Slavic Ethnic Group' because it is misleading to describe Bulgarians are just Slavic, when the next text below states that Bulgarians are more than just Slavic, we have diverse ethnic and cultural ancestry, Slavic people are just one of the many ancestrial groups.
User:Jingiby has not discussed this change with me. He keeps revering it without discussing it. And now he is accusing me of proposing a change that i did not propose. Every time someone supports me, their comment gets deleted by User:jingiby.
User:my name is not dave agreed to mediate between us, but now he has taken User:jingiby's side. Dave not thinks that what i am proposing is controversial, i explained to him that this is not what i am proposing, and that this is not about sources, because the information is already included and sourced. Dave refuses to listen to me anymore, and now everyone is against me, and nobody is either commenting nor addressing what i am saying and what my arguments are.
I am asking you, if User:jingiby does not want to discuss my change, why does he keep reverting it? IF he thinks my change is controversial, then why is the information already included? if he thinks my sources are not reliable, then why are the same sources already included? I am not taking anything new, i am taking existing information. Please ask him, if he does not agree with removing the word Slavic, then why? He never discussed why. Ask him why. He refuses to discuss with me. It is misleading to describe Bulgarians are just Slavic, Slavic is just one of the many ethnic groups that make up Bulgarians, just like it is misleading to describe Americans are just Italian or Germanic --TishoYanchev (talk) 16:31, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
Arbitrary break 2[edit]
- Sorry about the arbitrary break. Arguments by TishoYanchev in this thread are starting to become recycled from previous discussions. I have left a comment for the editor, and I am hoping to continue to engage with the editor personally. In the meanwhile, I think this topic ban proposal should be closed soon, once we have a few more input from disinterested editors uninvolved in the discussions. Alex Shih (talk) 16:57, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
- Why? Please explain to me why? You say my arguments are repetitive, but nobody is addressing them! What is said above is false, i am not proposing what they said above! Neither User:Jingiby nor anybody else is discussing what i am proposing! I am proposing something that nobody has disagreed with, the information is already included and sourced! Then why are you banning the topic? Why is nobody listening to me? What wrong am i doing? Somebody explain to me why? I am following the rules of Wikipedia, i proposed change, and i want to discuss it! Nobody is discussing it with me, what we discussed on Talk Page of Bulgaria is only with user:steven and he agrees with what i am saying. Other people also agreed with me. Why are all ignoring what i am saying to you? --TishoYanchev (talk) 17:04, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
- Bishonen, I'm sorry, but I see nothing here but NOTHERE. I see threats, personal attacks, all kinds of outlandish claims, and a barrage of repetitive claims. I do not know what positive contributions this user has made, and I just skimmed through all their contributions here. Drmies (talk) 17:09, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
- Who am i attacking? Please tell me who!? I am trying to explain that what is said above is not true, and i am trying to explain my case again! Who am i attacking?? --TishoYanchev (talk) 17:12, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
- @Drmies: At this stage I don't mind really what happens to Mr. Yanchev, indefinitely block per NOTHERE or a topic ban. The Jingiby thing is getting a bit silly. !dave 17:25, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Bulgarians#Bulgarian_ethnogenetics_misconception here i discussed with User:Stevan22 about removing the word Slavic from the lede. He agreed with the premise of what i am saying, but his only argument is that because other Slavic-speaking nations have not removed it, therefore we should not either. Then User:My_name_is_not_Dave intervened and said he wants to mediate, User:Jingiby and his friend User:StanProg told him that my proposed changed are controversial and that my sources are not reliable. But that is a lie. And i explained to user:My_name_is_not_Dave that that is not what i am proposing. I told him that what i propose is to take information already included and sourced, and move it up, and remove Slavic. User:Jingiby and others have not discussed or argued for this. They have not said a single argument about it! They only reject it and revert my changes saying my sources are not realiable, but how can they be not reliable, when the information i am taking is alraedy included and sourced!? I have asked them to give me one argument why we should not remove Slavic, and they have no given me even one! And now they want to ban the topic!! this is insanity!! --TishoYanchev (talk) 17:10, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
- Nobody here is addressing my arguments! Nobody here is addressing my position and my explanation. I have kindly and politely explained that what is said above is not true, and i am trying to explain what am i proposing. I am explaining to you that nobody has discussed with me what i am proposing, and nobody is disputing it. I am trying to explain to you that this is not about sources! Why is nobody listening to me? I am following all the rules! --TishoYanchev (talk) 17:14, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
- Blocked indefinitely. Situations like this are always saddening personally, but I think this was the only remaining option. My blocking rationale can be found here. Alex Shih (talk) 17:36, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
- To be fair, he did ask for admin intervention to solve the problem. But seriously, you cannot conduct yourself like that on a collaborative project, and despite the Checkuser result, the similarities to a blocked editor are very persuasive. Black Kite (talk) 17:39, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
- TPA is maybe next, though I'm fine with leaving them that one forum. Tisho, they were listening to you, but didn't agree. Drmies (talk) 17:53, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
- As he has continued with the personal attacks on his talk page, and has even doubled down on them in response to my trying to explain the problem, I have revoked TPA. I suggest we're done here. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:46, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
- @Black Kite and Boing! said Zebedee: In their last response, a link with reference to PavelStaykov was provided. Would this be sufficient to re-block the account under the blocked editor despite of the inconclusive CU result? Alex Shih (talk) 19:11, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
- I don't think so. He linked to an article that says Pavel Staykov made a report to the police, but he doesn't say that he (TishoYanchev) made any report to the police, so as far as I can see he's not indicating that they're one and the same. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:18, 8 December 2017 (UTC)