Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive950

The Wiki Ed welcome mat

Last month I posed a question on Adam (Wiki Ed)'s talk page and got no response. Nor have any of the students & instructors who have left queries since 29 December. Nonetheless his account is still churning out welcome messages (around 8500 in the last 15 months) which don't vary, and haven't been interrupted by any signs of human activity in some time.

I also see no other interpretation than that Adam is running an unauthorised, unattended bot.

He's not responding on his personal page either.

If Adam's no longer responding perhaps another account should be doing the welcoming? The present situation does no favours to WikiEd, Wikipedia, the students, or the instructors. Cabayi (talk) 08:29, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Entirely agreed - @Adam (Wiki Ed): please respond here at your earliest convenience, as I can't help to agree that it appears you're running an unauthorised bot. Although we don't really have much say as to the services Wiki Ed supplies I do think perhaps the welcoming aspect of it could be improved somewhat -- There'sNoTime ^{(to explain)} 08:44, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Pinging Protonk, the personal account, since I mentioned it. Cabayi (talk) 08:57, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Note, this task would generally not be approved even for a bot, see Wikipedia:Bots/Frequently_denied_bots#Welcome_bot. — xaosflux ^Talk 15:20, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

At 19:14, 3 March 2017 (within that one minute timestamp), the account welcomed 40 different editors. Many of the timestamps seem to occur at roughly the same times, suggesting an automated program running on a set schedule. There's been no activity outside user talk from this account for a while and no response to inquiries about these welcome messages. It seems extremely likely that this account is being run as an unauthorized bot, so I'm blocking it until the human editor returns and explains what's going on. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 16:39, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Technicalz isn't my dept., clearly; but isn't there a way of finding out what's actually being run on 'our own' site? Wouldn't it have to run from a subpage? or because it's open source, can it just run from a home PC and not be embedded? But that 19:14 timestamp seems to clinch it- one every 1.5 seconds?! — O Fortuna! ^{Imperatrix mundi.} 16:45, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

@Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi: No bots run on our site. They run off some other site, server, or computer and interface with Wikipedia. There's no way to tell whether something is automated or not except via behavior, at least not in a way that has no false positives and can't be gotten around. The closest we get to running something on our own site is Tool Labs, but even that's really another site that the WMF just provides. Most bots don't use that. For example, my own bot uses AWB and runs entirely off my personal computer. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 21:19, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

@BU Rob13: Thanks very much for the information. Interesting stuff. I understand now, cheers. — O Fortuna! ^{Imperatrix mundi.} 21:33, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

• note, Adam's account has been blocked which at least stops the ongoing botting Jytdog (talk) 18:57, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Ian (Wiki Ed) has taken up Adam's welcoming workload using the same bot. He has at least been interacting with students on his talk page. (Ping Guettarda, his alternate account) Cabayi (talk) 09:02, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

• I have pinged User:Ragesoss / User:Sage (Wiki Ed), long time Wikipedian, Wiki Edu employee and product manager there. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 15:14, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi! Part of the Wiki Ed support system for classes is that User:Ian (Wiki Ed) and User:Adam (Wiki Ed) provide support for student editors. The welcome messages get posted (automatically) to the talk pages of users soon after they enroll in the class, by whichever Wiki Ed staff member is supporting that class. Adam has been intermittently sick for the last couple of weeks. We generally have someone else help out when someone is out sick, but these talk page messages slipped through the cracks.

The welcoming of users is something we previously did manually, but switched it to be automatically done by the dashboard at some point. I didn't think of this welcoming feature as a 'bot', separately from the general OAuth approval system, which is why I did not go through the bot approval process at the time that feature was added. I can do so if folks think that's necessary.

I will follow up in more detail later today. In the short term, I've removed the 'greeter' flag from Adam's account (but not Ian's), so the dashboard won't make any further welcome edits on his behalf.--Sage (Wiki Ed) (talk) 16:29, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

@Sage (Wiki Ed): I think it would be useful if you could clarify whether the dashboard makes these welcoming edits automatically, or if the user (i.e. Ian or Adam) have to manually approve each welcome. If it's the former, then that would fall under using a non-bot account as an unapproved bot. Bot Policy requires that a separate account be used, and that it be approved before running. If each welcome is being sent manually, and simply being sent from the interface, there shouldn't be a problem. Sam Walton (talk) 18:37, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

User:Samwalton9: at the level of individual user welcomes, it's automatic. The manually approval happens at the level of a course, but once the course itself is approved, the welcome messages are automatic for each new user that joins the course.--Sage (Wiki Ed) (talk) 18:56, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Welcome messages disabled

I've disabled the automatic welcome messages from Ian as well now. It would be pretty simple to convert it to a dashboard-assisted manual welcome, but that seems pretty pointless since we want to make sure every Wiki Ed student editor gets a welcome ping from the person supporting their class, and the sooner after joining the class they get it, the better. I'll put up a BAG submission soon.--Sage (Wiki Ed) (talk) 20:42, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

BRFA is up: Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Wiki Ed Dashboard student greetings.

User:Cabayi: Thank you for opening this discussion. It pointed out a hole in Wiki Ed's support procedures that we'll figure out how to patch, for when staff have unexpected time AFK.--Sage (Wiki Ed) (talk) 00:00, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

For clarity: the BRFA has been withdrawn (with automatic welcome messages still disabled). --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:14, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Dashboard

(may be related to the above?)

Question: is the WikiEdu Dashboard ( https://dashboard.wikiedu.org/ ) considered a bot? And if so, has it been approved by en.wikipedia bot-related approval processes?

I bring this up while there has been a problem that from that dashboard en.wikipedia pages can be updated (overriding any content that is on the page) without the dashboard editor being responsive to in-Wikipedia user talk page or project talk page comments by concerned in-Wikipedia editors. Example:

• affected project page: Wikipedia:Wiki Ed/University of North Carolina School of the Arts/History of Musical Styles I and II (Fall 2015, Spring 2016)
• unresponsiveness of dashboard operators demonstrated at (among other pages) User talk:Dr.renMueller and Wikipedia talk:Wiki Ed/University of North Carolina School of the Arts/History of Musical Styles I and II (Fall 2015, Spring 2016) (and related Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical music/Archive 64#Student articles)
• follow-up discussion at User talk:Ian (Wiki Ed)/Archive 5#Re. "Removing"

Although nothing much happened any more since last year in this example it got stuck in my head as an unresolved issue. Possibly I lost my cool somewhere along the line, but what I remember is that there was a pile of cleanup after the project had passed through Wikipedia – and, frustratingly, no way to contact the people messing up. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:57, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

I would call it an alternate editing interface. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 15:00, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

BTW. I think that it is rather strange that WikiEdu asks people to edit something in the dashboard, and then doesn't even allow sysops to actually do so on their pages... That's definitely something that should be rectified. It's not the wikiway. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 15:09, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Re. "I would call it an alternate editing interface" – yeah, so is AWB I suppose... the question is not whether it is an alternative interface (it is, no doubt about that), but whether it is a bot, and if so, whether it went through due process.

The worrying aspect (as I saw it in the experience described above) is that you can ping a dashboard editor, or write on their Wikipedia user talk page or on the talk page of the project as much as you like, none of these messages go through to the "alternative interface" (so the editor there ignores it all, not even knowing a concern has been raised). Thus these dashboard editors continue editing Wikipedia via that interface without being aware about any concern voiced through Wikipedia's usual channels. In that sense it is bot-like: it steam-rolls whatever concern and overwrites Wikipedia content automatically with whatever the Dashboard sends out. --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:09, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

In as much as it allows Wikipedia to be edited via WikiEdu's tools, and cuts WikiEdu users off from the concerns of Wikipedia's wider community (in effect censoring what messages get through to the WikiEdu users), it's a type of WP:OWN. Cabayi (talk) 16:17, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Really the dashboard needs to go both ways, in that anything on the wikipedia end is copied to the off-site project and vice versa. Its not really acceptable for an offsite dashboard to be in control of a wikipedia page and overwrite it regardless of what wikipedia editors have done in the meantime. Its a core tenet of wikipedia that communication is required *here* between editors. Not referring them to external websites. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:23, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Re. "... it's a type of WP:OWN" – that is indeed how I experienced it. So the question can be rephrased thus: do we allow https://dashboard.wikiedu.org/ to WP:OWN pages such as Wikipedia:Wiki Ed/University of North Carolina School of the Arts/History of Musical Styles I and II (Fall 2015, Spring 2016)? I, for one, can not remember ever having agreed to that, and suppose for instance Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval would be a place where such agreement can be negotiated. And indeed "two-way communication", as mentioned by Oiddde, would seem a minimal requirement for such approval to be possible. --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:42, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

The idea with the dashboard on-wiki course pages, like Wikipedia:Wiki Ed/University of North Carolina School of the Arts/History of Musical Styles I and II (Fall 2015, Spring 2016), is that they provide an on-wiki mirror of the dashboard.wikiedu.org content, so that things like 'what links here' can be used to easily find out which editors are connected with which other editors through these courses. Two-way editing of those is not practical, because the content isn't structured the same way. Those are the only pages that the dashboard quote-unquote 'owns'.

In terms of approval process, the system itself went through the OAuth application approval process for the technical side of things, and there was a lot of (well-advertised) on-wiki discussion about the basic concept and using subpages of Wikipedia:Wiki Ed as, essentially, a replacement for EducationProgram extension that was the previous basis for course pages.

The dashboard does not allow arbitrary editing of other pages, and all the actual article editing, discussion, etc, still happens the usual way. --Sage (Wiki Ed) (talk) 17:16, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I had already understood that much. Your last words ("... discussion ... still happens the usual way") gloss over the fact that project to project (i.e. between "Wiki Ed" and "en.Wikipedia") communication is structurally near impossible, leading to frustration on both sides (frustration from Wiki Ed project participant's side is for instance documented here). So take the interface to Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval, which is about more than the mere technical approval, and for instance also about how the interface blends in with the English-language Wikipedia. I suppose it should be possible to send notifications about a relevant on-wiki discussion to the relevant page in the dashboard interface when a Wiki Ed project setup causes problems in the encyclopedia (like in the Wikipedia interface we get a notification with a clickable link when someone pings us or writes something on our talk page).

Several Wikipedia editors, including myself, posted suggestions for a smoother interaction (which ultimately should result in better mainspace content, and better learning curves for Wiki Ed project participants) for future Wiki Ed project setups. I wonder what has been done with those suggestions? (if your reply would be that you didn't see such suggestions, that is kind of a confirmation of my earlier point that the project-to-project communication has in practice proven near impossible). --Francis Schonken (talk) 18:15, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Francis Schonken: In general, adding more and better support for communication — such as notifying users on the dashboard about on-wiki communication they should know about — is definitely something I want to do at some point. I've thought a lot about this myself, and I've followed plenty of on-wiki discussion related to it. That said, I'm not sure what specific 'suggestions for smoother interaction' you're referring to here. I'm also not clear what you mean by "communication is structurally near impossible". The Wiki Ed system guides student editors to draft their work on-wiki, communicate about each others' work on-wiki, and interact with other editors on-wiki.--Sage (Wiki Ed) (talk) 19:14, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Re. "... at some point" – how about now? Re. "... on-wiki discussion related to it" – linking to some of these (if there are that provide insight) might be helpful.

Suggestions for smoother interaction / structural problems with project-to-project communication – apart from "see above" and "click on some of the links I gave above", here are some points I remember: there were some flaws in the setup of the North Carolina project mentioned above (leading to WP:CONTENT FORK problems etc.). Despite several efforts (by myself and others before me) we could not set up communication with the persons responsible for the project setup, in order to correct these flaws (the North Carolina professor...); Then there was the problem that almost all of the issues caused by the project showed up in a period of one or two days (on a few dozen pages), just before all of the South Carolina project editors disappeared from Wikipedia (a few remedies to avoid that in the future were proposed, e.g. timely publication of the due delivery date of the students' work on the project page; work from draft namespace instead of from user talk space; point students to guidelines that are specifically applicable for the topic area where they are going to edit; contact WikiProjects in the area where the editing is going to take place when setting up the project – instead of leaving the cleanup to Wiki editors when communication is no longer possible while everyone who was connected to the Wiki Ed project has left the building, etc...). --Francis Schonken (talk) 20:42, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Re. "The Wiki Ed system guides student editors to draft their work on-wiki, communicate about each others' work on-wiki, and interact with other editors on-wiki." Again, you're missing the (direct) project-to-project communication for addressing Wiki Ed project setup issues. Also, for the over two dozen pages I reviewed when cleaning up it was clear that either there had been no communication between the student and regular wikipedia editors (where such communication seemed indispensable), or, in the very few cases when there had been such communication, that communication was highly problematical (see student frustration link I gave above). So, whatever the interface was supposed to do in that respect, it wasn't working. --Francis Schonken (talk) 20:56, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Francis Schonken: Thanks. That cleared things up for me somewhat. The core issues, I think, are the same ones that have been the hardest ones for the education program all along: getting newcomers to engage in communication in the ways the Wikipedia community expects is hard. I think there are some ways that improvements to the dashboard can help — especially around facilitating on-wiki communication — but it will take a lot of design and development work to do that right. When you said "project-to-project communication", I at first was thinking in terms of communication between wikipedia.org and dashboard.wikiedu.org. But I think the problems you are pointing to are more fundamentally about how to get editors whose entry point to Wikipedia is the education program — instructors and students — to think and act like experienced editors. My view is that we've gotten a lot better at this over time, and the structure provided by the dashboard is a big part of that. Over the last year, we worked with significantly more classes and students than in previous years, with fewer of these kinds of communication problems. When such things do come up, and people post about them to Wikipedia:Education noticeboard/Incidents, we often find ways of improving the process — occasionally technical ways, but usually more along the lines of changes to our training content, our help materials, and our processes for vetting courses and monitoring courses.--Sage (Wiki Ed) (talk) 22:00, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Some points:

1. The "automatic welcome messages" BRFA was withdrawn after a comment that ended with "... Wiki Ed [...] looks like a separate organization and it wouldn't supersede anything on Wikipedia" – if the same is applied to the Wiki Ed project page updates that overwrite all the content on such Wikipedia project pages, this would become impossible by the same reasoning... So that functionality should be disabled immediately, then kept disabled until it passes a BRFA. I'd think (after an initial setup of the project page with the basic content of who is responsible, what the project is about, what the delivery dates are etc), that the talk page of such project page should be used to post incremental messages saying something like "the dashboard page of this edu project has been updated on <date>" (of course with a link to the related dashboard page).
2. The BRFA for the Dashboard should explicitly include all aspects of (semi-)automatic updating of pages in Wikipedia originating from the Dashboard system. Thus far we've had two: automatic welcome messages (disabled, BRFA withdrawn), and automatic updating of project pages (should immediately be disabled per WP:OWN, see above) – are there any other (semi-)automatic updating functionalities generated by WikiEdu programs we don't know about yet? If so, ask permission for them via BRFA.
3. Re. "getting newcomers to engage in communication..." – a quick fix that should at least alleviate some of the problems was proposed above: instruct the students that new articles are better started in Draft: namespace (and not in their user talk namespace where they are usually under the radar of Wikipedia communication until the content is transported to mainspace). Draft: namespace is monitored and students will get feedback, will often be pointed to WikiProjects that have experience in the topic area (leading to more communication), all of that long before the "due date" (which is typically the date when students move their new content to mainspace, after which they typically immediately stop editing Wikipedia). Rewrites/updates of articles that already exist in mainspace should likewise better be kept out of user talk namespace, and should take place directly in mainspace (or via update proposals on the article talk page), where of course there will be, in most cases, immediate feedback, and thus communication, too.
4. Re. "... — instructors and students — to think and act like experienced editors" – err? I think they should think & act like newbies (which gives extra protection per WP:BITE). A part of the problem now seems to be that instructors and students, after following the WikiEdu introduction course, think they behave like experienced editors (with the tinge of arrogance that comes with it – excuse my French), but act in ways that upset regular processes and procedures, and write questionable mainspace content (e.g. in a page on a Vivaldi composition they think it is necessary to write a full Vivaldi bio, instead of just linking Antonio Vivaldi, give an overview of the composer's work, his style and whatnot, writing maybe ten percent of the new article about the composition at hand – without a single reference) – all of which isn't helped when editing from a "I'm an experienced editor" attitude, instead of from "I'm new at this, could I get some assistance?" approach. At the end of the introduction program they should know they are still newbies, so need to keep in touch with more experienced editors to address all sorts of practical issues (e.g. how to add proper references).
5. Re. Wikipedia:Education noticeboard/Incidents – didn't know about that. How about providing a link to that page in the {{dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment}} box? That box would be the first place a regular editor learns about a student's involvement, so they should know where to go when issues need to be sorted. Also, this helps for early "regulars"–"students" communication (assuming the /Incidents page is not for internal Wiki Ed communication exclusively).

All of this said, I will repeat what I said before: Wiki Ed is imho a great thing, that's why I think it is useful to take some time to hash out its issues. The program should give new editors some gusto for editing Wikipedia beyond their class assignment, which it currently only very rarely does: too often, currently, it ends in frustration, so let's do something about it. --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:14, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Still another thought:

6. In the introduction for Wiki Ed instructors it should maybe made clear that the professors/teachers should not primarily expect to test a student's ability to write an essay via Wikipedia (there are more appropriate venues for that, within their institution): what they are really testing in a Wiki Ed setup is the student's ability to work together with people they don't know, within their field of interest. Are they able to learn from that interaction? This is future-minded: the idea of a single scholar working in his study surrounded by books, undisturbed by the outside world, is overhauled in a wiki setting where there is immediate feedback: how do students cope with such feedback without getting sidetracked? ...seems more like the thing that is tested in a Wikipedia setup (hence my suggestion above to keep prospective mainspace content out of user talk namespace staying under the communication radar). Which entails instructors being instructed how to read edit histories and talk pages (how did the student react to input by others? what did they learn from it in their topic area? did they manage to stay on topic? did they learn something about assessing on-line and paper reference works in a WP:RS approach?). Seems like a setting that will gain momentum in future approaches to research, so today's students would do well to prepare for it (e.g. distinguishing fake news from solid information based on source assessment & input from others is a hot topic nowadays: better learn students cutting edge approaches on how to do that than learn them to write essays old style, which their schools and universities are surely better equipped for).

--Francis Schonken (talk) 07:58, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

@Francis Schonken: If a single edit in the WikiEd interface leads to a single edit on Wikipedia, then that sounds like an alternative editing interface, not automatic editing. That's perfectly acceptable under the bot policy. It's when the WikiEd interface is set up to automatically edit with no oversight from the editor in question that we have issues. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 14:12, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Tx, the problem is, however, with the alternative interface not accepting feedback: i.e. it doesn't pass feedback on to the editor who accesses & edits Wikipedia through the alternative interface, that is, without logging in into Wikipedia. In that sense the Dashboard operates as a bot, churning out dozens (hundreds? thousands?) of Wikipedia edits blindfoldedly. We wouldn't accept any bot to do that: the bot would be blocked immediately, until it accepts feedback from human Wikipedia editors. Imagine being able to edit Wikipedia with AWB, without being notified of pings, user talk page messages, or whatever initiates normal in-wikipedia communication... That wouldn't last long I suppose, even if you would only make an edit in this way every few days.

For me it makes no difference whether this is approached as a "go through BRFA to get approval for this functionality", or whether, alternatively, we block all external-Dashboard-generated edits to pages for which the Dashboard claims ownership, because it goes against WP:OWN to let it continue this behaviour. The first approach does however seem to have the advantage to offer a way out. The second approach is fairly simple and straightforward: Dashboard can't own a page in Wikipedia, thus exclude it from operations on Wikipedia. --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:42, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

The dashboard only makes edits on behalf of logged-in users. You must log in to Wikipedia in order to log in to dashboard.wikiedu.org, and we expect instructors to be responsive to problems that come up related to their courses. If you run into trouble with an unresponsive instructor, you can ping a Wiki Ed staff member and/or post to WP:ENI. The 'owned' dashboard pages on Wikipedia are a convenience for other editors to easily connect the dots with active courses. It would be easy to change the system such that it only posted essentially an initial version, and then made no further edits (so that it would never overwrite changes in the meantime), but that would defeat much of the purpose; it would just mean that the on-wiki page would not include up-to-date information about which users are doing what, and what the instructor's latest assignment plan is. I think I'll make some updates to the edit notice (Template:Editnotices/Group/Wikipedia:Wiki Ed) to make it more clear how to address problems (ie, contact the people involved rather than edit the automatically-updated course page). I'm not aware of any problems with these course pages for quite a while, though. The case you noted was more than a year ago.--Sage (Wiki Ed) (talk) 16:07, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

If you think the lack of talk page messages getting through/pings is an issue, you're welcome to start an RfC on it, Francis Schonken. I'm undecided (or possibly just apathetic) on that issue. It doesn't violate our bot policy, certainly, and I'm unaware of any other policy or guideline related to the issue you've identified. The editors making edits without access to feedback are responsible for their edits (including responding to feedback, as necessary), and they could be blocked if a lack of response to feedback becomes disruptive. There's nothing about the interface itself that crosses some bright-line in policy, though. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 22:10, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

The editors (who are brand new editors relying on experienced WikieEd instructors) should not be blocked for not giving response to feedback. The people responsible for encouraging new editors to edit through an interface which effectively disables the feedback from reaching these editors are the ones that should be blocked for it in such a case. Fram (talk) 08:01, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes and no: it is not my aim to get anyone blocked. Editors monitoring WikiEd processes, i.e. the ones with "(Wiki Ed)" in their username, are doing a great job. But, (1) they should seek permission if they want to override WP:OWN for specific pages, and (2) true, when they strive to get students and their educational instructors to get more engaged in wiki-interaction they might reflect that the way the Dashboard application is set up it rather works against such interaction, than that it supports such interaction. For these reasons I think it best that, unless the permission is obtained (which is in no way a case decided in advance), the Dashboard interface should be prevented to operate any edits to en.Wikipedia. --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:43, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

@Francis Schonken: This only addresses one of your points above, but regarding the course pages/WP:OWN issues, the on-wiki course pages (the ones starting with Wikipedia:Wiki Ed/) are on-wiki copies of Dashboard-based course pages. Neither Wiki Ed staff nor students nor instructors have cause to use the on-wiki copies. They exist because we heard from members of the community that it might be useful to have an on-wiki record, even if they would only be that -- a record. The way we can keep those on-wiki copies up-to-date is by having the Dashboard automatically update it. That means any manual changes would be overridden, yes, but there's not actually any reason to edit it because, again, it's only a record -- changing it would create a discrepancy between the on-wiki and Dashboard (primary) version and the people who you would want to leave a message for there would not receive the message there anyway (again, instructors/students/staff don't typically use the on-wiki course page). Personally, I like having the on-wiki record, if for no other reason than to have an internal link to include in the article talk page template, but it's ultimately up to the community and if it could feasibly be discontinued if there's consensus to do so.

Segueing to another point (though my response on this is somewhat redundant), although instructors/students aren't going to receive messages left on the on-wiki course pages, the Dashboard is only used for course organization/planning/management purposes, and all editing is done through traditional editing interfaces. So a student shouldn't be any less likely to see a message/notification than any other new user (more likely, in fact, because we regularly remind them to engage with the community on talk pages, check for messages, etc.). I'd be happy to talk more about these issues on my talk page (or elsewhere). --Ryan (Wiki Ed) (talk) 17:26, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Let's keep the discussion here, please, I see no need to cut it up on several talk pages.

All of your explanations only confirm, in my eyes at least, that we should never have allowed edits to Wikipedia via the Dashboard interface. Why not use the Wikipedia WikiEd project page for updating the project status, and instead of copying that page from the Dashboard interface, copy the Wikipedia project page (semi-)automatically to the Dashboard website? --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:24, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

I don't understand this question. Have you used the Dashboard? If not, I'd recommend setting up your own test class/program on the Programs and Events Dashboard (outreachdashboard.wmflabs.org). It's a fork of the Wiki Ed Dashboard for programs beyond classes, so it won't create those Wiki Ed course pages, but it will give you a feel for why this suggestion doesn't make sense to me. The Dashboard is a piece of software for classes editing Wikipedia. No editing is done through the Dashboard -- it's where students go through training, add their assigned articles, where instructors can see an overview of student work, etc. The on-wiki course page is a brief, static information page. There is no static page to edit in the Dashboard, and its pages are automatically updated based on student/instructor activity. In short, it would be impossible to work the other way, and that's part of the reason why the Dashboard exists in the first place. Again, if you find there is consensus for your view that the Dashboard should not create these static information pages, we can certainly stop the practice, but while I know of others who like having them there, I've not seen others object. --Ryan (Wiki Ed) (talk) 10:20, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

I take the perspective of a Wikipedia editor. Which is by definition not knowing how Dashboard works. And not wanting that that external entity overwrites whatever suggestion I write on a Wiki Ed project page for a better interaction and less frustration. --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:50, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Also, this line of defence makes the prospect for ever obtaining a permission to overwrite Wikipedia project pages even bleaker: above a Wikipedia admin defended Dashboard-to-Wikipedia edits while "a single edit in the WikiEd interface leads to a single edit on Wikipedia". Seems from the last explanation given by a Wiki Ed editor that that is not the case, while in the Dashboard "pages are automatically updated based on student/instructor activity", and then the overwrite is generated, blindfoldedly as I suggested above, without seeing what one is overwriting on a Wikipedia page. Not an acceptable process. AFAICS there's only one possible course of action: disable that Dashboard functionality immediately until a permission is granted to override Wikipedia policies for the particular case (BTW: a Wikipedia page that gets regularly updated is not a "static" page). Yes, the Wikipedia project needs to be informed about goings-on in Wiki Ed course projects that are affecting or going to affect Wikipedia content, so that information will need to be given by manual edits, and not by automatic overwrites, until if and when the automatic procedure may be accepted by Wikipedia(ns). What is even more needed than periodic one-way information about the goings-on of particular Wiki Ed courses, is the possibility to have, per Wiki Ed course, a forum where the course setup can be discussed to avoid annoyance (both from the course to Wikipedia as from Wikipedia to the course). Such page should probably best be organised Wikipedia-side, but with more responsibility from Wiki Ed side (including its initiators, instructors and students) to interact on that Wikipedia page to address unresolved issues. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:36, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Proposal regarding overwriting of Wikipedia project pages

The "replacement" of content of Wikipedia project pages as mentioned in the first paragraph of the Wiki Ed "editnotices" template is disallowed. This does not diminish the need for two-way communication between people operating individual Wiki Ed courses and Wikipedia editors interested in particular courses of this kind. Wikipedia project pages about such courses will become platforms for such communications: basic information about the course will continue to be posted on the Wikipedia course page, and course participants are by this platform notified of possible suggestions, questions and remarks by Wikipedia editors.

• Support as proposer. --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:44, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Wiki Ed's preference for students to work in their user (talk) space

As already discussed in my suggestion No. 3 in the previous section, a quick fix for sound student-regular WP editor interaction would be to keep students out of their user space for drafting mainspace content. A violent (as opposed to sound) interaction is documented in progress here: a student's draft has been deleted from their user space, with admins quibbling (surely way over the newbie's head) whether the delete was opportune. That's not the welcome we want to give to newbie students, nor is this something where established Wikipedia editors (including admins) should devote that amount of time to. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:11, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Is this a suggestion that new student editors not work in their sandboxes before editing articles? Part of the point of doing that (not just for students) is that content is less likely to be deleted from userspace while new users get a handle on editing... --Ryan (Wiki Ed) (talk) 10:22, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

The main point is not the likeliness something can be deleted (this is a Wiki environment), but the soundness of the interaction. The in-progress example I linked to above illustrates a deletion under the cloud of a frustrating interaction. So snap out of the reasoning where "avoid deletion of whatever a student writes" is a goal in itself. If the student knows what they have to do better to make an edit stick, with admins addressing the needs of the student (instead of having a discussion over the student's head), then there is a useful interaction from which the student, Wikipedia and the Wiki Ed project benefit. --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:50, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Proposal regarding preferred workspaces for Wiki Ed students

Both Wikipedia-side as Wiki Ed side interaction between Wiki Ed students and Wikipedia editors is promoted: that interaction is not helped by students working isolated from the wider Wikipedia editing community on prospected Wikipedia mainspace content in their user talk space ("sandbox" testing of the wiki editing mode is not affected by this). For this reason:

1. Students will create new proposed articles in Draft namespace;
2. If the work of the student is intended for an existing mainspace page, the student will work in mainspace and/or the talk page of the affected article.

• Support as proposer. --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:44, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Other comments (Wiki Ed)

I'm uninvolved in the above incident(s), but I believe some of the discussions above would be better discussed in the wp:village pump rather than here. Gamebuster19901 (Talk║Contributions) 16:30, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Then we'd need to weigh the downside of not being in exactly the right spot (but which is the right spot?... WP:VPP? WP:VPT? WP:VPR? WP:VPM? Alternatively, User talk:Jimbo Wales?) against the downside of starting a WP:FORUMSHOP mid-discussion. I'd suggest to wait until the current thread is closed and/or archived before starting another discussion on the same topic in another place. --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:55, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

False birth/death dates/places

Over the last few months I've repeatedly seen different IPs adding what turn out to be false birth and death dates and places, examples including this or this. They do occasionally add correct ones, but most of the cases I've seen are wrong. They almost always use the article title as their edit summary. Unfortunately there are probably dozens of articles where they've done this (I spot them when they do it to Israeli politicians on my watchlist). Because it's from a different IP every time, blocking is pointless, but I was wondering whether some kind of edit filter could be put in place to identify them by their edit summary? Number 57 19:35, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Clarification Possibly I need to clarify – I think this is one particular editor using different IPs, not a complaint about IPs in general – the reason being the same edit summary being used every time. Number 57 22:34, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Number 57 - I think it stems farther than just birthdates. I see many changes made to death dates, ages, weights, heights, and other numbers like this. Edit summary wouldn't be too bad, but I believe that we have an edit filter that tags changes to birthdate, weight, and height already. It would be interesting to see one implemented that could detect edits made by non-comfirmed users that change only the numbers in a birthdate, date, age, weight, height, etc and add/remove nothing else (so... an editor that changes 2015-05-10 to 1990-05-10 only), and then warns/rejects knowing that no reference was provided. Problem is... I know it would probably cause a lot of false positives and trip-ups... :-/ ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 19:56, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

The issue is that most of the edits are not changing a birth or death date, but rather adding something that isn't true (a lot of the one's I've seen had only the year listed, to which they have added made up day and month details. For birth/death places they will add a town if only the country is listed, or add both town and country if the parameter is empty... Number 57 20:15, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

I've asked for this edit filter before, for the "cause of death" vandal. I don't think it was ever implemented. Black Kite (talk) 20:33, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

The IP is still at it... Number 57 21:11, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

• Non-admin comment - Is this happening on a specific set of articles? Is there anything connecting these edits or IP users to one another? DarkKnight2149 19:54, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
  • On the Israeli articles, it seems to be largely those born in Eastern Europe. Following their edits to other articles, Romanian people seem to be a focus too. Number 57 20:13, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
• PCR comment This is kinda normal latest is Mark Hamill. IPs are greater harm than good on BLPs and I would kinda like to put all hi-profile BLPs under indeff SEMI. Pending Changes doesn't solve the problem, as PCRs have to spend their time undoing unsourced additions/changes/deletions by hand. L3X1 (distant write) 22:04, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

It's sad to say, but I honestly wouldn't object to that. I think the same is usually true for IPs editing Featured Articles, and even many Good Articles. DarkKnight2149 15:43, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

I dunno, I sense it happens everywhere and all the time—I just reverted one 45 seconds ago at Carrie Underwood. El_C 22:55, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

That's what I was thinking when I asked my above question. I think more evidence is needed to suggest that these are connected incidents. DarkKnight2149 01:45, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

• IPs often change numbers in infoboxes, including heights/weights. I monitor some error tracking categories and need to deal with IP edits that break templates in infoboxes–not many in recent days, but usually there are a few each week, although I only see the changes that break certain templates. I don't worry about them anymore—if the WMF wants the encyclopedia to deteriorate who am I to object? After all, there are thousands of good editors who carefully monitor all edits to the over 5 million articles. It appears that some IPs have a hobby of changing numbers, perhaps to prove how unreliable Wikipedia is. Here is an extreme example. Johnuniq (talk) 04:10, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

I call it in my ES "#integermonkeying". It is a hard type of vandalism to detect, if its not blatant (Joe McNotable weighs 5000000 pounds, and Dallas yesterday had 2.3 million pop. but now has 93billion). Monkeying with revenues, sports scores, its a real pain to determine between updating and hooliganism. L3X1 (distant write) 01:59, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

• The IP is at it again today. Is there a way to identify this IP based on their edit summary (always the name of the article) and get a bot to do rollback on them? Number 57 16:31, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

You could ask the folks at Special Abuse Filter counter if its possible. L3X1 (distant write) 14:45, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Unwarranted personal attacks, veiled threat, claims of vandalism and calling contributions "junk"

Resolved

 – Illuminaati warned, then blocked.

"REPLY" I am stunned by the behavior Illuminaati (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). I almost just deleted my account and walked away from WP. It is unacceptable to me that he asks me to share my address "so that we can come and personally verify the legitimacy of your credentials!" Talk:Shakya (edit | article | history | links | watch | logs) That should be beyond acceptable limits for this community. I also do not like him characterizing me as "hell bent" on proving I am "an acclaimed scholar" or of "following a personal agenda" or "vendetta". He makes these repeated statements in the edit history and the Talk page. None of these assertions are supported by fact, and they are confounding in that they seem to characterize his actions, not mine. Moreover, he makes unwarranted claims that I have engaged in vandalism in the article Shakya (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). He continually reverts my edits and calls them "junk", despite the fact that I am making legitimate attempts to improve the article with citations to some of the most well-known scholars on the subject. I am pleased that when it comes to content, additional editors have reverted his deletions of most of my contributions. Will he attack them next? Scottahunt (talk) 18:53, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

NA com The "share address" comment possibly might be sarcasm, but this behavior is unacceptable. Illuminati appears to be an SPA or someone's sleeper. L3X1 (distant write)

Yeah, I think someone needs to take Illuminaati (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) aside and let them know this is not okay. --Tarage (talk) 20:00, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

I've warned them. Bishonen | talk 20:04, 24 March 2017 (UTC).

I will agree with whatever all contributors seem fair, but I am not going to back down to whatever Scottahunt's one sided intentions are. There has to be proper discussion on what he wants to add, what language to use and where it has to be added. I am okay with current version except the religion part where I believe a good discussion is worth. If I don't see a discussion happening on that topic in next few days, I am going to revert it back. So please don't come blaming me then.

Also I have never seen Scottahunt in past 10 years or so, his sudden and extreme interest in this article seems like he is an avatar of someone else.

@Greg Pandatshang, Joshua Jonathan, and Ogress: You can also join, and share your views Illuminaati (talk) 02:58, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Scott A. Hunt's REPLY: I just don't understand this incredibly emotional reaction to my involvement in this article. I am quite sad. I get along with everyone and enjoy collaboration. What began as a legitimate attempt by me to participate in a community of knowledge deteriorated into Illuminaati's harsh, unfounded accusations, and emotional reactivity. Not satisfied with undoing my contributions, he bullied by labelling them junk, said they didn't have citations, said I was a vandal, said I had one-sided intentions, said I have a personal vendetta, and did all this without ever engaging me in a genuine and civil discussion. Why not just discuss the merits? Why the labels and wild accusations? It doesn't even make sense. Nothing I have done warrants such treatment. And here's his latest message he just sent for me: "Well, Scottahunt you can go fish yourself ! Illuminaati (talk) 01:17, 25 March 2017 (UTC)" https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Illuminaati&action=edit&section=8 Apart from the amusement factor of his strategic use of the word fish, this too is unacceptable behavior. And for what? If his actions do not violate Wikipedia's rules, then this is not the community for me. But first, Illuminaati (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) please state your evidence that I have done anything malicious. Please state your evidence that I have "one sided intentions" and a "personal vendetta," and please explain why I would have a personal vendetta when I don't even know you. Please state your evidence that I committed vandalism. Please state your evidence that I said I was "an acclaimed Buddhist scholar." Please state your evidence that my contributions were "junk" and rather than properly cited content. Please state your evidence that I failed to provide citations. Please state your evidence substantiating that I'm an "avatar of someone else," and explain what you mean by that accusation (especially since you already have my REAL name and I have a User page). Please state your evidence that I have a "sudden and extreme interest" and state what you are alluding to with that statement. And please above all explain exactly what you meant by sharing my address to come in person to check my credentials, because while some may excuse it as mere "sarcasm" it is wholly unwarranted at best, and possibly worse. And when taken in context with all the other things you have done, it amounts to bullying and harassing. I don't understand why any of this happened, but it does not foster openness and inclusiveness. And by all means, whoever those people are that Illuminaati is rallying, I'm happy to have your opinions too. But as I understand Wikipedia, articles are not owned by one or a few people, but the entire community. So I invited comments and received supportive feedback that my contributions were not improper, irrelevant, or junk. I think more comments, even dozens or hundreds, would be great. If, however, you decide the article is not open to revisions, then it should be locked. Scottahunt (talk) 04:09, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

• In addition to his newest, unsubstantiated and unwarranted accusations and rude comments, Illuminaati says this: "And Scottahunt ! regarding threat, I guess you haven't heard the word Sarcasm. If I would want something like that then I would just track your IP address and its router hops (and don't worry proxies are not so trace-less as their sellers make you believe) that's more than enough the info anyone would need. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Illuminaati (talk • contribs) 01:12, 25 March 2017 (UTC) Illuminaati (talk) 01:15, 25 March 2017 (UTC)" This is not a place for sarcasm. It is not useful or helpful. And taken in context with his harsh words, it is plain to see it was malicious. When he first said he wants my address to come personally to see about my credentials, that was bullying not sarcasm. His insults continue. And then he adds specifically HOW he could find me. This is classic bullying behavior. And for what? To protect his vision of correctness? To stifle discussion? Or simply to be dominant? Administrator, are you following this? In any event, this is not a collaborative, open place to exchange knowledge so long as people like Illuminaati rule the day. Scottahunt (talk) 19:43, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Scottahunt I know you did not have any personal vendetta against me. I am after all faceless and name-less (technically!). I can be one person or many. I can even be you, who knows ! I personally think that you might have got snubbed by your Buddhist circle and you want to vent your frustration on this article. You say "Until 8 days ago, I was in holy Buddhist robes as a bhikkhu.... I had to give up holy robes to tend to family". It more sound like you got Fired and with nothing else to do, you turned to wikipedia to take your vengeance. Illuminaati (talk) 21:23, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Blocked for 1 week for personal attacks. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:12, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Continued abuse.

I really have tried to avoid making this an issue, as I would rather just move on and not cause waves, but I fear this is just the beginning of these issues with this user, and he will continue to abuse other users who don't agree with him. Redhat101 uses very aggressive tactics to try to dictate the content in articles. This user even went and got an article edit protected for edit warring, where reverts were being made to removing content that explicitly violated WP:BLPCRIME. How the admin that protected the article didn't see this, I don't know. The user repeatedly kept adding the information after it was made very clear that it was a BLP issue. You can see one of the more blatant violations in the first line of the lead:

On February 22, 2017, an Indian engineer was shot dead and another was injured when Adam W. Purinton, a white American who mistook them for people from the Middle East, yelled "get out of my country" and "terrorist" before shooting them at the Austins Bar & Grill in Olathe, Kansas

There was an ongoing effort to clean the article up by myself and a few other editors, and before the edit protection was made, I created the first section on the talk page to encourage Redhat101 to engage in discussion and understand why he was being reverted. At first, I assumed good faith and thought it may just be a competence issue, and I tried my best to explain that to him. He then began a tirade of accusing me of bad faith over and over and over and over, and suggesting that I have not attempted any discussion over and over. He reported me to SPI for sockpuppetry accusing me of logging out and editing as an IP who was trying to explain the same BLP violations. This is about when I no longer assumed good faith, as any reasonable editor would clearly see that the IP and myself are not the same person, and I believe this SPI was made in bad faith. He then went to ANI, claiming I was reverting without reasonable explanation, despite a massive talk page discussion that was going on, that he was pinged in repeatedly yet engaged in no discussion before adding back the information that was being discussed by myself and a couple other editors. Some of that information, the reaction to the reaction stuff by the press secretary, was agreed upon by all of those in the discussion to be WP:UNDUE. So it's pretty obvious why it was reverted. There was also the question of WP:BLP violations that there is a current RfC ongoing about to clear up. My real concern his is the continuation of these aggressive tactics on other editors. I have removed myself from editing that article, aside from blatant BLP violations, because I am tired of being harassed by this user. I should also add that I will not respond to this ANI unless pinged by a user other than Redhat101. I will not allow myself to be abused anymore. I am also sure I am not completely innocent in this claim, because I lost my patients more than once. I tried my best to assume good faith for as long as I could, but this harassment is unlike any I've been exposed to here on Wikipedia before. I have removed myself from the abusive interaction, but I feel this needs to be addressed for the sake of future interaction with other editors. Thanks.  {MordeKyle}  ☢ 20:29, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Wasn't this issue closed in the ANI thread above because both of you were told to follow WP:Dispute?TheGracefulSlick (talk) 22:36, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

@TheGracefulSlick:This has nothing to do with the dispute over content in the article. This is about this user's tactics of harassment and unfounded accusations of bad faith. I have no concern over the content in the article anymore, as I've left that up to other editors and an RfC and have discontinued activity in that article due to the harassment.  {MordeKyle}  ☢ 22:49, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

If you have excused yourself from activities with this editor, then what would you like done? Blocks are not a punitive measure and it appears the RfC you voluntarily left is continuing without any disturbances.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 00:01, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

PS - My apologies for confusing this with a content dispute. The part where you described BLP issues and quoted the article threw me off.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 00:03, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

@TheGracefulSlick: No apology is necessary. I'm not interested in punitive measures. As I said, I have removed myself from the abusive situation. This does not resolve the underlying issue though. This needs to be addressed with this user so this behavior does not continue in the future. I fear it will fall upon deaf ears however, and continue to be a problem. This, and possibly a discussion with the user or some sort of warning would lay the groundwork for addressing future issues, if they were to arise. I'm not sure how exactly this entire process works, as I do my best to stay away from this area of Wikipedia. Thanks.  {MordeKyle}  ☢ 00:08, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

You have distorted things way beyond proportion, other than some disturbingly inappropriate accusatory tone, I see no susceptible claim made by you, so rather than commenting on it again for like nth time, its best for me to conserve my energy for some constructive work and let the admins decide. For edit dispute which you painted as some WP:BLP issue, was started off by your constant reverts of comments related to trump administration, as for dictating terms everybody can see who is dictating that article, yesterday you even moved the page without the proper consensus was reached, for which another editor, User:Kamalthebest, had to undo it.

And I again advise you to refrain from taking everything personally, as I already explained that WP:SPI was unrelated to any edit conflict.Redhat101 Talk 00:22, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Leggings

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.

---

Due to several recent news articles in the media about some girls being removed from a United Airlines flight for wearing leggings, several editors have started edit-warring over material being added to the article. I have tagged the article with the WP:UNDUE tag indicating that more sources are needed for a proper treatment of the subject, and elevated a citation needed tag that was there to the top of the article -- although an editor removed my tags citing that I was being "disruptive". It might be a good idea for an administrator to keep an eye on the article for the next few days -- at least until the media about the United airlines flight dies down,. . . WTF? (talk) 23:18, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

And here I thought the worst that article would have to deal with was Fangusu... --Tarage (talk) 23:26, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Fully protected for two days. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:49, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Here's the full story that WTF conveniently left out:

I added to the lede a paragraph about the United Airlines incident. Other editors commented that it was too much for the lede. At first I disagreed, but came to see that they were right, a brief mention in the lede and moving the paragraph to the body was the best solution. There is now a clear consensus on the talk page that this is the best course of action for the time being, as we work on a section about societal views on leggings.

One editor, WTF, disagreed with the consensus, but was unable to sway the opinions of the other editors. So, instead, he added an "UNDUE WEIGHT" clean=up tag to the article, I removed it on several grounds:

(1) Putting on UNDUE WEIGHT tag on an article where the talk page consensus is clearly that it is not undue weight, is a way of editing against consensus and getting WTF's personal opinion inserted in the article, in the form of a tag. This seems to be a way of subverting a clear WP:consensus and gaming the system.

(2) Putting a clean-up tag on an article -- especially one which is essentially based on an opinion, such as UNDUE WEIGHT -- is no different from any other edit on Wikipedia. If it is disputed and reverted, the editor who want to re-insert it is obligated to get a consensus on the talk page to do so.

{Damn, just burnt dinner because I was writing this instead of paying attention.)

(3) Even if WTF was right about the paragraph being undue, the correct thing to do was to put an in-line tag on the paragraph, not to slap a huge UNDUE tag on the article, as if it was full of undue weight information.

I have explained this to WTF in edit summaries, on his talk page, and on the article talk page. but WTF continues to subvert consensus by restoring the tag. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:05, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Not sure what the purpose of full protection is, since there is already a talk page consensus, and protection is generally considered a "time out" for the editors to reach a consensus. There is no such need here - but, of course, other editors might chime in. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:07, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

I've started an RfC, we'll see what happens. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:21, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

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

Despite this discussion being closed, and resolved in approximately an hour - I think it's worthwhile pointing out that WTF failed to inform any of the other involved editors that he had started an ANI discussion. Chaheel Riens (talk) 11:08, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Darkknight2148

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.

---

Darkknight2150, an impersonator of User:Darkknight2149 was blocked yesterday. And this one come as no surprise. Nickag989^talk 05:46, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Darkknight2149 asked to be informed when there was another impersonator, so I have done so. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:59, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

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

User:Beyond My Ken

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.

---

Beyond My Ken (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) has had an animosity toward me for years. I have been on a 6-month editing hiatus, and immediately upon my return, I edit one of my regular articles about a location in my home state, Taos Pueblo, New Mexico, which I live just a few miles from when I am living at home. It is an article which BMK has not before edited, and BMK stalks me to it and imposes his self-proclaimed "superior formatting" on it, trying to start an edit war. I detest his idiosyncratic, "ignore all rules" formatting style, which usually violates a number of guidelines, such as not "dropping" an image from the end of a section into the following section. He is intentionally doing this to annoy and harass me and I request that he stop immediately. Thank you for any who respond to this. And no, I am not going to go looking for diffs of everytime BMK has edit warred with me over following image sizing and placement rules and his ridiculous insertion of "<- spacing ->" comments simply b/c he does not like Wikpedia standard formatting. BMK should have been banned years ago for his stalking and edit warring behavior over layout. Skyerise (talk) 04:23, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Skyrise ought to bone up on the concept of WP:OWNERSHIP: just because he's edited an article before, and lives in the same state as the subject of the article doesn't give him any more rights to the article than any other WIkipedia editor, especially when the layout he's pushing is so vastly inferior, in that 1 1/2 images stick out beyond the "External links" section, while in my layout they're in a gallery and integarted into the body of the article. In any case, as a content dispute, there was no reason for Skyerise to bring this to AN/I without even opening a discussion on the article talk page. As for the ludicrous idea that I'm "harrassing" him in some way, well that's simply unruee. Editing this article was part of my attempt to fix the problems created by elisa.rolle's haphazard additions of images to articles, [1] and has nothing whatsoever to do with Skyerise, whom I don't know from a hole in the ground. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:33, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

BTW, Skyrise's editing of the article amounts to 10 edits over the course of 6 years. [2]. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:44, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

BTW, since Skeyrise has presented no evidence of "stalking", but has merely cast aspersions, I'd appreciate it if someone would re-title this section. Thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:52, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

This is not the place for content disputes. Please avoid calling users' edits expletives. I'm afraid if you want to prove animosity of years, you'll have to do better. El_C 04:53, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

• No evidence of stalking has been presented so this discussion should be closed IMO. For the record I think the gallery layout looks cleaner. As for the dispute over the image sizes neither editor is doing the readership any favors by hardcoding the images sizes; please read WP:IMAGESIZE. Betty Logan (talk) 05:05, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

• I have no objection to using a "upright=" form. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:20, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

• I don't see any issues with BMK's initial edit to the page, nor why it was reverted, nor why you would start a section on ANI over it. Of course, BMK's revert summaries were unnecessary "festore superior layout, this one sucks" and a blatant personal attack in "I can understand your not having any visual sense, but not lying to yourself"[3]. It's a shame that the "content creators" can never be sanctioned for their dickish behaviour, but I think both parties behaved quite poorly here. Who even cares, it's image formatting on a random page. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 05:14, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

• Yes, I tend to be frank when editors make damaging edits for no discernible reason. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:32, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

• I think rude is a better word for how you interacted with the user there. You could have said "this layout is better because it is more reader-friendly" or "I think this looks better instead, but we could discuss on the talk page if you disagree" instead of the quotes above, accomplished the same thing, and perhaps avoided escalation. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 06:36, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

• Haven't looked into this but I have BMK's talkpage on my watchlist for whatever reason, and Skyerise's posts there of late make it seem like they are the one harassing: [4]. -- Softlavender (talk) 05:15, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Looking at the harassing posts on BMK's talk page here and here as well as the display of WP:OWN and WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality here IMO Skeyrise is WP:NOTHERE. MarnetteD|Talk 05:19, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

If you'd like a confirmation for my claims, admin SarekOfVulcan was involved in multiple blocks of Beyond My Ken for edit warring with me over layout. Is Sarek still around? I believe this goes back to the days when BMK was also [redacted] and was sock-puppeting as BMK. I was very involved in SPI in those days and might even have been the one who reported the socking. That was a long time ago. Skyerise (talk) 05:20, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

So your idea is to come to AN/I, bypassing the article talk page, publicly accuse me of stalking and harrassing you, and then when you're called on having no evidence, advertising for it, WP:OUTing my identity in the process? Amazing. Anyway, you would do yourself a favor by reading this, the link to which has been on my user page forever. You have also not answered my question to you on the article talk page, where you claim that galleries are no longer allowed, but have not cited where that is written. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:26, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

I didn't "out" anything. You previous identity is clearly stated in the oldest block in your block log. Skyerise (talk) 05:50, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Block logs cannot be changed - but did you follow up and see if that ID lead anywhere? When it did not, you might have considered that there was a reason for the dead end. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:02, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

I did NOT claim they are no longer allowed. I said they cause problems for screen-readers for the visually impaired. Which has ALWAYS been the issue I have with your edits, they cause problems for screen-readers. Do you have compassion for the visually-impaired, or is having your own way the only thing you care about? Skyerise (talk) 05:29, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Oh, so galleries are allowed, and it's merely your personal opinion that articles shouldn't have them. Isn't that exactly what you just accused me of doing above? But it's OK when you do it, I guess. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:37, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Someone making false accusations of socking and who is now WP:FORUMSHOPPING should not be using the word compassion. MarnetteD|Talk 05:34, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Not a false accusation, here's the record. Skyerise (talk) 05:39, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

And here's the WP:AN discussion. Skyerise (talk) 05:44, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

I have never dodged the fact that I dropped one ID, because of harrassement that Wikipedia policy was not to deal with at the time, and started editing with a new identity. When a socking puppetmaster starting attacking me and filed an SPI in retaliation for an SPI I filed on them (they're all blocked now), the connection between my identities was found (because I stupidly made some housekeeping edits to some of the accounts at the same time), and I was blocked for sockpuppetry. After a discussion on AN/I, I was allowed to pick one identity and keep editing. All of this is public knowledge, as I said just above, because the link to "My backstory" is available on my user page, and has been for years and years and years. Nothing has been hidden, and I have not used my old identities since that changeover, nor any other identity or IP. Anyone can read this at this subpage Since I have taken pains to avoid publicizing my original ID, which is my real name, taking advantage of everything Wikipedia has to offer, I congratulate you on WP:OUTING me for absolutely no reason at all, as all the information could have been found by simply reading my user page. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:53, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

And after reviewing both, it appears that I was not involved in either the report or the discussion, but was aware of it, as was Sarek. I am not forum shopping, but simply asked an admin who was involved at the time to contribute to this discussion. What other forum have I involved? Skyerise (talk) 05:44, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Socking from over seven years ago is not relevant to the content dispute that is going on now. As anyone with an ounce of understanding would know. The only reason to mention it is to cast aspersions which is a waste of everyone's time. MarnetteD|Talk 05:46, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

The only reason to use the phrase "false accusations of socking" is to cast aspersions which is a waste of everyone's time. Did we delete WP:POT? Skyerise (talk) 05:53, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Clearly WP:BOOMERANG time for Skyerise; they could have bowed out gracefully by now. But they have persisted in compounding the original flawed accusation with more aspersions. — O Fortuna! ^{Imperatrix mundi.} 05:51, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Bowing out now, ciao! Skyerise (talk) 05:53, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

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

Wikilaj on Vladimir Plahotniuc

• Vladimir Plahotniuc (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Wikilaj (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user constantly adds PR-like statements to the article of Vladimir Plahotniuc. It looks like his activity on Wikipedia is targeted solely on this kind of contributions. He acts in the same manner as a number of other users: Wikjanna, Jedisvrais, Wecontrib (sockpuppet accounts), Wilkeborch Jonas, Dumitru123, Maxim.ascanio, Piticu21, Angeloftruth, Angeloftruth777, who as well focus on the article. It looks like an organized effort to polish the politician's image, as he is not much likened in Moldova (86.8% disapproval in March 2016). Plahotniuc is also known for promoting his agenda through his own mass-media (General Media Group) and for having his actions praised in comments on online news stories by a number of internet trolls ([5]). What the article history shows aligns very well with an organized PR effort. Please review the article talk page, especially Talk:Vladimir Plahotniuc#Preventing an edit war (2) where I proved that the information added by Wikilaj and his friends is biased. I request the blocking of Wikilaj and full protection of the page. --Gikü (talk) 08:19, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

See also: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Vladimir Plahotniuc. --Gikü (talk) 08:20, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

@Gikü: Have you opened a WP:SPI case here? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 12:52, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

@NeilN: We already know Wikjanna, Wecontrib and Jedisvrais are the same problem, but Wikilaj is most probably a separate person (per this check). The rest of the accounts are probably too old to investigate. --Gikü (talk) 12:56, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

I've blocked the three socks identified at Commons Meta and semi-protected the page to prevent other socks from showing up. Wikilaj needs to read WP:EW and WP:MEAT. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:58, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you! --Gikü (talk) 19:30, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Quick block...

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 somehow block Jeetu7877's at least for the time being.His incompetency seems way too much and the effects are terrible-creating dup. pages, redirecting his own user-page, bad loops in WP-space etc.Winged Blades ^Godric 12:27, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Blocks are preventative, not intended to be used as punishment. He has stopped after the speedy warning. There is no indication that a simple talk page message explaining why he should not create such pages won't work (something you have not even tried!). Regards SoWhy 12:37, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

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

Cultural history of the buttocks

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 or experienced user keep an eye on that article. I repeatedly removing a section that is called "buttocks in popular culture", which is a list of names in which their buttocks was discussed in media, many without sources and many of the remaining sources are tabloids. I'm certain that falls under WP:BLP but I keep getting reverted by SergeWoodzing (talk · contribs) saying that the article isn't a BLP so it doesn't qualify. Prevan (talk) 00:30, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) This looks like a content dispute to me. Take it to the talk-page. If you have BLP concerns (poorly sourced material) you might want to try WP:BLP/N. Editwarring or section blanking is not the proper way to handle things. On a personal note, a 'Buttocks in popular culture' doesn't seem out of place in Cultural history of the buttocks. Kleuske (talk) 00:57, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Lest I forget. You are required to notify users if you start a discussion about them. I have done so for you. Kleuske (talk) 01:36, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for notifying me. I have asked the complaining user to remove anything that is poorly sourced. Several items are not. Hope h/s will consider that rather than continuing to rm the whole thing - it's been there for quite some time. I agree that this should be continued on the talk page. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 10:05, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

The page is on my watchlist, so Prevan's wish is granted. Kleuske (talk) 15:21, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

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

I won't re-open because I'm not sure anything else needs to be done right now - I've fully protected the page for a week and commented on the talk page - but it's probably worthwhile to say here, where people who like to close threads might see it, that BLP enforcement is not just a "content dispute". Prevan, I think Kleuske is right that WP:BLP/N is probably a better place to raise this if you want more BLP-informed editors chiming in on this. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:02, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

@Floquenbeam: Apologies. I was trying to be helpful. I agree I should have taken the WP:BLP issue more seriously and not close so hastily. Kleuske (talk) 16:15, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Abusive/threatening IP

See [6] and related edits at Talk:Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer. Looks like time for a block, and RevDel of the edit summaries. Page may need brief semiprotection. I don't think the threats are credible enough to require notifying the WMF, but I might be wrong. This has been going on for a while, several IP addresses seem to be involved and the abuse is escalating. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 23:50, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Administrators should block this IP at once. Such a threat and loss of self-control is clearly unacceptable, and potentially revdel worthy.DarkKnight2149 23:59, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

I've issued a block for the personal attacks and I've rev-deleted the edit summaries. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 00:03, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

• I've put a short semi-protection on this page - perhaps someone who does such things can impose a range block (see recent history). Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 00:19, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

• @Boing! said Zebedee: Good call on the longer semi. I looked at a rangeblock the last time this happened but the IPs are all over the place. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:56, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Users forcing edits through

Wren_Jago (talk · contribs) is forcing edits through on the article Infinite Flight after the article started receiving attention from some members of the game's community due to a forum post directing members to its Wiki article. Their edits have been largely non-constructive in the sense that they violate various parts of WP:VG/GL, and they are now forcing the edits through with some minor changes even though I've explained this in edit summaries and in great detail on the article talk page. Eik Corell (talk) 14:08, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

I have changed the article to suit your requests and was trying to reach a a civilised discussion. The edits I have made now suit all of your requests and the remodelling of the page was requested by the developers of the app - I don't see a problem now. - Wren — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wren Jago (talk • contribs) 14:11, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

@Wren Jago: If you have a conflict of interest, you shouldn't be editing the page at all. - Mlpearc (open channel) 14:39, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Read the post - I addressed all complaints from Eik. As for the conflict of interest I wrote impartially and all opinions are cited from other sources — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wren Jago (talk • contribs) 14:41, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

You have addressed the guidelines I cited by dismissing them. For example, you responded to me mentioning #7 of WP:GAMECRUFT with special pleading. Eik Corell (talk) 15:08, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

How else would I have addressed them other than getting rid of any anti-guideline text? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wren Jago (talk • contribs) 15:48, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Also can you stop deleting it all before we reach an agreement here - maybe you are the one forcing edits through? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wren Jago (talk • contribs) 16:06, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm responding on the article talk page. Eik Corell (talk) 16:34, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

I mean the IF page - if you can give an exsact improvement to my draft (I can send it to you) I would be happy to accommodate — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wren Jago (talk • contribs) 18:09, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Unsourced claims on Sofia airport

Sofia airport article had this version where you can clearly see them claiming having almost 5m passangers and then down at the table a number for 2016 saying 4,980,387[41]. The source says nothing of the kind.

I removed the unsourced info, asked for a source at article talk-page, and no answer was given rather than being reverted with the accusation of me (!!!) doing vandalism. Can someone please help so the unsourced information doesnt get in again and warn User talk:Mashine1984 not to iinsert unsourced information back to the article? FkpCascais (talk) 16:56, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

You were bold, someone reverted you, now discuss. I see you posted at the talk page, why not go to WP:RFC or get a third opinion. --Darth Mike^(talk) 17:45, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

I think you've got it wrong. The info in the article did not match the source. It's not that it's unsourced. However, why not just change the values to match the source rather than removing it altogether? Blackmane (talk) 01:19, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

SoyElCapricornio and Wrestling: A Poorly Sourced, and Poorly Written Love Story

SoyElCapricornio (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) SoyElCapricornio keeps writing poorly written articles that are all stubs, and have no reliable sources, most of his articles have been nominated for a deletion process of some kind, see User talk:SoyElCapricornio that is only filled with just deletion nominations. All of his articles look like the beginning of the drafting process and they stay like that and other editors have to do all of the work to make sure the articles are up to par. This issue needs to be addressed, it is annoying and irritating. ThatGirlTayler (talk) 04:16, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

The articles mostly seem to be unsourced biographies of professional wrestlers. It doesn't look like anyone left a non-templated message on his talk page yet. I'll try to briefly explain how BLPs, sourcing, and notability work. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:53, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Magioladitis deletes thousands of user talk page edits and doesn't get the problem

Resolved

 – fixedper the user's request. Graham87 13:14, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

User:Magioladitis has reshuffled his talk page archives, and in the process has deleted literally thousands of edits to his user talk page. This is a serious misuse of the admin tools. Multiple editors have tried to discuss this with them on their talk page, but we are not able to get them to realise or correct the problem. I think this is extremely worrying in a long-term admin, and shows that they can't be trusted with the tools (either they don't know what they did wrong and are unable to understand even such a basic concept, or they do know what they did wrong but can't give an honest answer and are unwilling to correct it).

Solving the technical issue of the deleted edits may not be hard (although perhaps things may have been lost indefinitely due to repeated delete / move / delete cycles), but how to deal with the personal issue of an admin not knowing that they shouldn't delete their own user talk, and are unwilling or unable to correct it? Fram (talk) 11:27, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

WP:OWNTALK. Moreover, anything it in place in less than 3 hours after I was contacted. You message in my talk page was unclear and a bit offensive. After a talk page stalker contacted me I spotted the issue and fixed it. If there is anything else I would be more than happy to help. -- Magioladitis (talk) 11:28, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

WP:OWNTALK is about removing or archving edits from your userpage. It is not about deleting them. At the moment your talk-page indicates the earliest edit is 2013 - since you have been editing since 2006 this is a large gap in talk-page interactions. The fundemental problem of 'they are visible in the archives' is that if you edit the archives (which may not be watched and have a history entirely technically divorced from the original talk page posts) it can easily misrepresent past discussions on the talkpage. Given that you just had an ARBCOM case where your extensive talk-page history was used as evidence of problems with your behaviour over the years, I cant see these recent actions as anything other than a deliberate attempt to obfuscate your user-talk history. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:51, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

• Oh ffs, you didnt even remove or archive edits from your talk page, you moved/renamed the entire talk page to an archive page, have now copied and pasted those archives into a new archive, and deleted the moved/renamed archived pages with all the original revisions!. While technically page-moving was used previously to archive, the relevant help pages make it very clear the pages do not qualify for speedy deletion. Let alone under G6 - which in now way allows for the revision history of a user-talk page to be deleted. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:16, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
  • @Only in death: I responded at his talk page to similar effect. Also see this link (admin-only), that lays the problem out. Graham87 12:27, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

From WP:OWNTALK:User talk pages are almost never deleted. Are you sure you want to refer to that? --Calton | Talk 11:53, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

I can verify that there are indeed thousands of deleted revisions in the talk page and various archives. If Magioladitis does not act shortly, I will go through and undelete any that I can find. It is troubling that Magioladitis apparently does not understand that this is not allowed. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:28, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

From WP:DELTALK: "User talk pages and user talk archives created by page move are generally not deleted; they are usually needed for reference by other users ... Exceptions to this can be and are made on occasion for good reason." If no good reasons are given, they should be undeleted. --Darth Mike^(talk) 12:33, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Is it possible to history-merge the assorted deleted archives back into the main user talk-page history? Generally no one will care what Magioladitis does with his archives as long as the original revisions from his talk page are still visible in the talk-page history. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:35, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

If anyone can perform the merge in a better way so that all edits are in visible edit history place, I would be more than happy to get that help. -- Magioladitis (talk) 12:38, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

All done. Graham87 13:14, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. It turns in the early years I was performing the archiving by myself by moving the page. Later I trusted a bot to do the job for me. -- Magioladitis (talk) 13:18, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

The technical issue is resolved. The disturbing issue of an admin not understanding that they may not delete user talk page edits, and unable to see that there are thousands of deleted edits even when a) pointed to deleted archives and b) presented with individual examples of missing edits, but still repeatedly claiming that all is fixed and that they did nothing they weren't allowed to, remains though. This is the same admin who just had an ArbCom case closed which happened after for years, they didn't understand what they did wrong and why people complained, and who continued with similar problematic edits during that case. I don't know what the exact cause of the problem is, but the end result is an admin / bot operator who is way too often unable to understand problems with his edits even after multiple people have tried to explain them, and (like here) is apparently not able to undo his own mistakes (and has not acknowledged anywhere that they did anything wrong or misinterpreted policy rather badly). Closing this zas "resolved" simply because the technical problem is solved seems a bit too easy and ignores the root problem. Fram (talk) 13:35, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. I don't expect an Admin to know every policy off-hand, but when an Admin refers to a policy that is only 15 sentences long and directly contradicts their claims, there is a problem. When an Admin doesn't understand what they were doing is wrong after it being pointed out by many users (especially when they provide examples), there is a problem. How can we trust an Admin with the tools if they aren't able to responsibly use them? --Darth Mike^(talk) 14:02, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

What steps are required for a de-sysop?--WaltCip (talk) 14:52, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

The only way that actually works is for the admin to request it at WP:BN. 207.38.154.23 (talk) 01:55, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

It does not contradict my claims. All entries are visible via edit history. Moreover, "almost never" does not mean "never". For example, I have hidden some disruptive material in the past. -- Magioladitis (talk) 15:33, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Fram I replied to you in very short notice. In contrary to other messages your message was unclear. You pointed to a page that has been moved and nothing else. Even the example provided to me it showed the page to be in the edit history. Maybe if you use better text next time you get better results. PS The "thousands" is an overestimate the same way that you multiplied the size of my archives by 1,024. Discussing the problem is not unwillingness to solve it. I took action within a few hour despite the fact that I was in the middle of something else at the moment and that I was already online for a long time. -- Magioladitis (talk) 15:35, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

• What is unclear to me is, really, wtf was going on. I am glad that Graham took it on himself to fix what shouldn't have had to be fixed in the first place. For better or worse, us admins owe it to the rest of the editing corps to have our #### accessible. "Hiding disruptive material" is just not something to pull into this discussion; that's not what's going on. I tend to think of Fram as someone who may occasionally come down too hard on people, but... but... yeah, we shouldn't have to be here again. Drmies (talk) 18:23, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Drmies The problem is that judging by Fram's comments I understood they only meant that the entries have been removed/deleted by the Archives. They never mentioned the revision history. The problem was fixed in a short time. Take note that when the bot archives the pages the edit history remains for the main talk page. I have forgotten that for some years I was moving and recreating the talk page. Everything is in place. I could have done it by myself but Fram was pressing for faster response. -- Magioladitis (talk) 18:42, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
    • From the first message on your talk page about this: "Can you please either indicate where the hundreds of deleted edits in the history of e.g. User talk:Magioladitis/Archive 7 (and the other archive pages) can be accessed by non-admins, or correct your error and make sure that no talk page edits are inaccessible any longer?" I gave an example (which wasn't moved at the time, only deleted, specifically told that it was about "deleted edits in the history" and that they were inaccessible to non-admins, and that it was about hundreds of edits (later turned out to be thousands of edits). The problem was repeatedly re-explained to you, to no avail. Even in your previous response here you still didn't beieve that it was about thousands of edits. "The problem was fixed in a short time. " Yes, but not by you, only after I brought it here, and even then you still don't get it. "Everything is in place. I could have done it by myself but Fram was pressing for faster response." That's simply a lie. You were not able to do it yourself, but claimed repeatedly to have fixed it anyway. You could have said "oops, I need some time to correct this, it will be corrected by Monday" for all I care, but instead you rushed off to do some edit that you claimed fixed the problems, so you could go on with your AWB edits instead of slowing down and actually looking at the problem. I never said that you needed to immediately solve this or posed any deadlines. What I did have a major problem with was that you claimed to have fixed it when it wasn't true, and that you are still spouting nonsense about the whole issue and don't seem to understand what really happened. Fram (talk) 18:55, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Propose desysop for gross incompetence. After all this, Magioladitis' latest reply here is full of errors and untruths, either deliberately or because even after all this he still doesn't understand the actual problem. Looking at what Graham has done to resolve the problem, I see that he restored 783 revisions (archive 5), 721 (6), 596 (7), 701 (8), 910 (9), 1056 (2), 377 (3) and 696 (4). Or more than 5,000 edits. So why does he claim "PS The "thousands" is an overestimate"? "I took action within a few hour despite the fact that I was in the middle of something else at the moment and that I was already online for a long time." Yes, you claimed multiple times that you had solved the problem (which was in each case wrong, but since you still don't understand the problem and size of it this isn't a surprise), so that you could go on with your "something else", making many many AWB edits. And you think that not doing your admin duty and thoroughly checking why you are accused of policy violations and dragged to ANI is somehow commendable? "You pointed to a page that has been moved and nothing else." is just wrong on so many levels. I pointed to User talk:Magioladitis/Archive 7, which at the time of my comment had a log consisting of two deletes and a message at the top that it had 596 deleted edits. The first of that page was at 11.26, i.e. hours after I had given that example. Fram (talk) 18:45, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Fram The problem was resolved now. If your messages were clearer I would have acted more accurately and faster. You were unclear. -- Magioladitis (talk) 18:49, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Answered above. I guess everyone who reads the interactions (here and at yur atlk page) can judge for themselves where the problem lies. Fram (talk) 19:08, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

True. -- Magioladitis (talk) 19:11, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Really, there needs to be a system put into place in which users are allowed to do just this. Sadly, as I have seen numerous times, this is completely unwanted by the administrative staff. --Tarage (talk) 20:04, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

What, a system by which users can delete thousands of talk page comments made by others? Essential aspects of enwiki are collaboration and accountability. The possibility to delete unwanted comments (warnings, disputes, block discussions, ...) so that only admins can still see them is a bad idea on many levels; and an admin exercising this, when it is impossible for non-admins and not allowed for admins, is problematic on many levels. Anyway, the reason I propose desysop is not so much the deletion of these, but the complete ignorance of what they did wrong, how to correct it, how to even see how many edits were affected, coupled with the many attempts to claim it was fixed, claiming that the problem was not with them but with the report, claming that the page given as an example of hundreds of deleted edits was not obvious because it was moved (which, at the time, it wasn't, the log clearly indicated only two deletions and many deleted edits but no page move), and so on. An admin, who just came off an Arbcom case about their bot edits, their unresponsiveness, the use of the tools to unblock their own bots, and things like that, and who then within days produces this kind of ####, isn't fit to be an admin any longer. I'll probably file it at Arbcom on Monday, when I have a bit more time. Fram (talk) 08:56, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

I meant there needs to be a system in place to desysop people that doesn't involve an Arbcom case. --Tarage (talk) 11:07, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Fram I used the move button too. What do you mean by "no page move"? Moreover, you overestimated the size by a size of 10^3 haven't you? I think a part of the problem is the way you keep contacting me. Your messages in my talk page are constant. The mess you describe affected my talk page archives but it was easily handled within a few hours. -- Magioladitis (talk) 09:27, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

I overestimated the size of one of your resulting archive pages by a factor 1000, someone alerted me to the mistake, and I said "oops" and acknowledged that mistake. I did not overestimate the "size" of the actual problem by a size of 1000 though, although for some reason no amount of explanation seems to get through to you. Do you still believe that only a handful of edits were deleted? As for "Your messages in my talk page are constant.", the last time I posted to your talk page before this was in December, so hardly constant. In this episode, I posted (after my initial post) in response to posts (claims that you had fixed it, or that you hadn't had an example of the problems). Please explain how my "constant" posts actually contributed anything to the problem. Finally, "it was easily handled within a few hours.", yes, because I noticed you made the mistake, and noticed your claim that it was fixed was incorrect, and noticed that your second claim that it was fixed was incorrect, and finally another admin did the work you were unable to. I never claimed that the mess wasn't easily handled, it was, for any half-decent admin. But you were unable to recognise the problem, acknowledge the problem, or fix the problem. "What do you mean by "no page move"? " Perhaps that the page I gave as an example of your screw-up, had never been moved, only deleted, which you would have noticed if you had actually looked at the link I provided instead of simply assuming that you were infallible. You can still access the logs for that page, and look at the timestamp for the first move (and the two deleted before the move), and compare that timestamp with the timestamp of my initial post to your talk page.

But the fact that I have to explain this, after all this, is evidence enough that you are not fit to be an admin. You don't know how to read timestamps, page logs, ... you don't know how to undelete or histmerge pages, you don't even know that you aren't allowed to delete talk page edits, and are unable to actuallyunderstand that policy when yuou link to as justification. Fram (talk) 14:17, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Fram Unblocking own bot is not disallowed by any policy. Moreover, I am already restricted from doing this. So, WP:DEADHORSE. -- Magioladitis (talk) 09:31, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

WP:INVOLVED / WP:TOOLMISUSE are policies. How can you not be involved if another admin blocks your bot and you unblock it? Fram (talk) 14:17, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

This has been discussed at length at multiple venues. Consensus has consistently been that unblocking one's own bot when it has been stopped for a now-resolved technical issue is within policy.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 20:06, 26 March 2017 (UTC).

I don't think you are the best judge of this, but whatever, the main issue here is not about the old bot unblockings but about the current behaviour. Fram (talk) 06:51, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom request filed at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Magioladitis user talk page deletions. Fram (talk) 07:36, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

User:Factchecker atyourservice

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.

---

Is becoming a problem, it started here [7] with off topic discussions about other pages and wider policy [8], odd attempts at gotchas [9], refusal to understand that talk pages are just for that article [10]/.

I asked his top stop discussing off topic comments and to stop talking about editors (as well as what I felt were (and are) indicators of a soapboxing attitude) [11].

He is now at it here [12] now with him saying that talk pages are for disusing the article is silly [13], insincere threats to call an admin [14], disrespectful responses [15] (see also [16]). The user clearly has some POV pushing issues with SPLC, and CIS and has a decidedly battleground mentally. In addition I think his debating style is dishonest, as he seems to contradict himself.Slatersteven (talk) 18:21, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Uhm... OP has not exactly given a straightforward presentation of events. For example, the diff labeled "insincere threat to call an admin" was obviously not a threat, but rather it's me making fun of him for threatening me with admin action less than 24 hours earlier, based on a claim that I was making the discussion "personal", when actually I was just trying to get a clearer statement of what he was trying to say about the article content (in my frustration, I said "All right, wise guy" which, I guess, is the basis for him saying it was "getting personal"? Seems quite a stretch.)

As for the using the wrong talk page accusations, the two articles are very closely related, the two content questions and underlying policies are very closely related. A simple answer would have cut the discussion short, and the question was reasonable.

Finally, I'm not sure how it is POV pushing to insist on tracking secondary sources when dealing with accusations of racism about living people, and I don't see a whiff of dishonest discussion on my part, nor has Slater offered any diffs of my supposed dishonesty. Factchecker_atyourservice 19:39, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Factchecker, re: As for the using the wrong talk page accusations, the two articles are very closely related, the two content questions and underlying policies are very closely related. A simple answer would have cut the discussion short. .... 1) No they are not (closely related), for many reasons, but mostly because 'that is not how it works', one article is discussed in one place. 'We say this about x, so why don't we say it about y', is simply a time-waster most of the time and usually involves OR about x or y, everything on WP is resolved on its own merits. ... 2) You did get a clear simple answer (not here please), you ignored it and intentionally misrepresented it as "I'll take it you don't object then" .... btw, making a rhetorical call for an admin is not threatening admin action. Pincrete (talk) 22:25, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

It seems like more of a threat than the subsequent joke by me, which was pretty obviously a joke and followed by the words "Seriously though..." He called for an admin with a clear suggestion that I was engaging in personal attacks.

I'm not sure why you don't see the articles as closely related, it's two organizations with one criticizing the other, and the question involved how to source and write prose for the criticism, and involved policy issues already being discussed at the first talk pages. I didn't say anything about having similar content on both pages. Factchecker_atyourservice 00:49, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Maybe not, but here you seem to ask how I would edit another page [17], here you seem to ask if materiel should not be allowed in another page [18]. As far as I can tell no one has accused you here of "anything about having similar content on both pages." you are being accused of wanting to talk about editing page A on page B's talk page.Slatersteven (talk) 08:44, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Actually Pincrete did accuse me of that just above and that's why I responded to it. As for the asking questions on the wrong talk page accusations:

I made precisely two comments over the span of seven minutes 12 about the "wrong" article before you complained about it, after which I stopped and all the remaining comments were simply responses to your accusations.

That was nearly three days ago.

I note also that you then followed me to the other Talk page and continued demanding that I take the discussion elsewhere 123 even though we were trying to figure out the best way to source and write that exact article. Then you asked an admin to "close" the discussion while also accusing me of ill intent.

Yet you won't answer a simple question: Shouldn't we use secondary sources for this material? Instead, you came here to try to get me sanctioned. Factchecker_atyourservice 13:26, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

A list of your comments that seem to be about using SPLC as a source in other articles.

[19]

[20]

As we do not mention CIS in the SPLC article what article are you talking about here?

[21]

[22]

[23]

Clearly about the CIS article.

[24]

[25]

Where you ask if I would use the same argument to remove material elsewhere.

[26]

Rather more then two edits over 7 minutes.

This is where I ask you to stop [27], date stamp Revision as of 17:55, 24 March 2017, you last mention of off page use is at date stamp Revision as of 18:28, 24 March 2017.Slatersteven (talk) 15:54, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Your long list of diffs simply confirms everything I said. I made two comments about the CIS article over the course of 7 minutes, you instantly complained, and all subsequent comments were simply responses to your accusations, in which you and I argued about whether my first questions had been posted in an appropriate place.

So what are you hoping to accomplish by seeking to have me blocked for a trivial Talk page disagreement that lasted less than an hour and ended three days ago? And how does it help to make false accusations of dishonesty? Factchecker_atyourservice 16:18, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Well as it appears that Factchecker_atyourservice did not breach any policy (I assume this by admin inaction) I move to close this with no action. I will apologise to Factchecker_atyourservice for having made a false accusation against him.

Factchecker_atyourservice you know policy better then me keep up the good work.Slatersteven (talk) 17:12, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

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

Nergaal and rollback

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.

---

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

This morning, Nergaal (talk · contribs) was edit-warring on 2017 Westminster attack and using rollback for edits that were not unambiguously vandalism. Coffee (talk · contribs) asked him to self-revert, which Nergaal did not do in time, so the rights were removed. The conversation broke down from there, with various mild insults flying. I've since had a word with Nergaal; it seems he was in a bit of a flap this morning, overreacted, and has now apologised. So could the community see clear to him getting his rollback returned? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:36, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

For those looking, the edits in question appear to be [28] and [29]. EvergreenFir (talk) 18:41, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Does he do enough dedicated countervandalism to warrant him having use of the perm? I'm going to try and find his RFP. L3X1 (distant write) 18:43, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Can't find the RfP, but as he is an established user I guess he can have it back. Coffee's behavior was a little weird, maybe to much caffeine yuk yuk However in light of policy, I don't see a whole bunch of CV work, so it appears to be an IAR thing. L3X1 (distant write) 18:54, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

I want to hear Coffee's side of the story first, and hopefully he will agree to restore rollback. Otherwise we're going to need community consensus. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:58, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

I can't find any anti-vandalism work by the user, but I can find prior warnings for edit warring and a short block for move warring, as well as improperly reverting other users talk page comments. PeterTheFourth (talk) 19:09, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

• This was unambiguous abuse of an advanced permission. When it was brought to their attention, Nergaal gave an argumentative response in which he implied that he didn't even understand what Rollback is for (i.e. anti-vandalism only). Nergaal is not involved in anti-vandalism work and very rarely employs Rollback, but I was able to easily find additional recent misuse of the tool: [30][31] This is further misuse of rollback, in an edit war, on a topic that is under Discretionary Sanctions. Revocation was nothing less than wholly warranted and I'm hard pressed to think of any reason that should be overturned. Swarm ♠ 19:52, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

• Rollback can be used to revert socks too. Adding this before I get nailed for rollback abuse. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:05, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

@Swarm: Undo this or you will lose your admin rights, please. Nergaal (talk) 20:02, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

@Swarm: I'm losing my patience. You have 12 minutes to undo your edit, with an explanation of how your admin privilleges in the edit summary. If it isn't done by then, I will revoke your admin rights. Nergaal (talk) 20:04, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Not. Helping. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:07, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

[H]ow your admin privilleges in the edit summary—I don't understand this sentence. El_C 20:12, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

I missed the word "abused". Nergaal (talk) 20:24, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Yeah... no... Given that response by Nergaal (specifically, an attempt to do to Swarm what Coffee did to Nergaal), I see no need or compelling reason to restore rollback rights. Rather, there's evidence that the rights are not understood and may be abused to granted again. Nergaal, you've squandered Ritchie333's good faith efforts to help you. EvergreenFir (talk) 20:20, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

So let me get this straight: me copy-pasting what I got in my talkpage from an admin IS ok, but me doing it to an admin is NOT ok? Nergaal (talk) 20:21, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Said more clearly: an admin making threats out of the blue to an editor without citing any policies is fine by the standards expected of an admin. Nergaal (talk) 20:23, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

You're trying to imply that Coffee was acting unreasonably, which is not the case. Had you been versed in Rollback policy before using the tool, you would not have been confused or taken aback by Coffee's messages. You would have understood what you did wrong, apologized, and self-reverted as was properly requested. Swarm ♠ 20:26, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Dude, when I get threats I like to inform myself of the exact policy I am accused of. If you think I should not be confused and taken back by aggressive comments from an editor that did not even introduce himself as an admin, and then bend over and try to apologize (and request him nicely to penetrate my anus so I can be as submissive as possible to somebody I don't even know /s), then for sure somebody here is abusing their position of authority. Nergaal (talk) 20:36, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Whoa, just chill. El_C 20:44, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

This wasn't some vague policy you violated. This is basic stuff. You were using an unbundled administrator user right that had been granted to you, in a way that isn't allowed. If you read the rules before using it, you would already be informed. You don't just get to use advanced permissions however you want and then "inform yourself" on policy after someone calls you out. You didn't get shafted by a bully administrator. You got caught misusing an advanced permission and you lost that permission. Simple as that. Swarm ♠ 20:53, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

@Swarm: You keep on missing the point I am making. Personally, my contributions seem to receive 0 appreciation here, which I cannot change. At this point I don't care about the rollback option myself. I am genuinely disappointed that you all seem so keen to disregard my contributions and opinions. You guys run your club and defend your peers. But I find it incredibly outrageous that none of you guys see any problem with the abusive behavior of one of your peers. Or you refuse to see it when somebody with a longer history of editing wikipedia than you is pointing it out. Nergaal (talk) 21:00, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

(←) @Nergaal: I literally don't see any "abusive behavior". You were told to self-revert, which was warranted. You had a permission revoked, which was warranted. Then, when brought up here for review, rather than acknowledge the fact that you messed up, you're attempting to victimize yourself, claiming that the admin cabal is ignoring abuse by one of its own. Ridiculous. The only abuse here is that which you've committed. Swarm ♠ 21:17, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

I was told to self-revert or else. In the 11 minutes passed between the initial threat and the removal, I have made two attempts to ask for clarifications, and only got another 2 threats and 2 more passive-aggressive comments. And you see nothing problematic with that. Oh and check out this fun fact: Coffee's thread came right as I was a typing a message referencing wp:CENSOR. Nergaal (talk) 21:28, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Acting admin note - Notice these, three, edits which occured after my warning. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 21:51, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

You mean I was in the middle of trying to resolve a dispute on the talkpage in question while you dropped in and said "remove or else"? Do you don't think it is ironic that in the 3rd one I mention WP:CENSOR? Nergaal (talk) 21:58, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

[edit conflict] Just to clarify my stance here: I don't care about my personal rollback rights, since apparently to people here, my anti-vandalism work is non-existent. However, I have a serious hard time understanding how such an aggressive, unconstructive, inflamatory behavior of an existing admin towards an established editor is completely ignored receives absolutely no reproach. Nergaal (talk) 20:32, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Nergaal was being facetious --NeilN talk to me 20:55, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Comment: Just foresaw the ranks of Nergaal, and it doesn't seem to have enough ranks to even become a bureaucrat. The comment it posted, regarding trying to revoke an admin's rights, could be a suspected and potential threat, which is usually against Wikipedia's standards. SportsLair (talk) 20:34, 28 March 2017 (UTC) Yeah, let's burn him to the stake. /s Nergaal (talk) 20:37, 28 March 2017 (UTC) @SportsLair: I have a question: "The comment posted, regarding trying to revoke a user's rights, could be a suspected and potential threat", is this "usually" against an admin's conduct standards? Nergaal (talk) 20:41, 28 March 2017 (UTC) Yeah, of course. And so is burning someone to the stake. You better watch what you're posting here. SportsLair (talk) 20:42, 28 March 2017 (UTC) So you find in normal at this point that absolutely nobody has been critical of the actions of the involved admin? Nergaal (talk) 20:47, 28 March 2017 (UTC) Only a legitimate bureaucrat can grant and/or revoke adminship. You don't have that kind of rank. SportsLair (talk) 20:48, 28 March 2017 (UTC) My, bad, I forgot to add the "/s" to those lines. Nergaal (talk) 20:51, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

• Comment I have rollback, as do scads of editors, and I have never once pushed that button. I only got it because it is required to use Huggle. It's not even required for STiKi, which is better. Coffee's action was warranted in my opinion. This is a very minor penalty, Coretheapple (talk) 21:02, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

I've checked WP:ADMINCOND, WP:ADMINACCT, and [[32]] also. Nergaal (talk) 21:09, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

I was just about to add (EC) that if Coffee changed his mind and gave you back your rollback rights it would be no big deal either. Coretheapple (talk) 21:09, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

• I am pretty sure absolutely none of this would have happened, and none of this would have had to happen if, from the beginning, Coffee would have said something along the lines: "hey dude, looks like you are not using the tool as intended; you might want to freshen up on the policies of using it" instead of "Undo your last rollback or lose your rights, please". Nergaal (talk) 21:20, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

• I tend to agree with this as that's the approach I use when I come across misuse of rollback. A little more blunt wording but basically, "Please look at Wikipedia:Rollback#When_to_use_rollback. If you use it for anything else you'll lose that right." --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:31, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

As you can see here this is what I asked right before the admin's removal. Nergaal (talk) 21:36, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

• @NeilN: Is that the approach you use when the editor's need for the tool is "non-existent" (as perceived by me, and apparently as said by the editor by themselves here)? — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 21:54, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Editor's need for the tool is "non-existent" [...] apparently as said by the editor by themselves here Nergaal (talk) 22:01, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

"my anti-vandalism work is non-existent" (your comment dated 20:32, 28 March 2017 (UTC) which all can find by simply looking up a few lines) — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 22:06, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

since apparently to people here, my anti-vandalism work is non-existent. It should be pretty obvious to anybody deserving admin privileges, and deserving to make judgements from and admin's perspective, exacty what the point of my comment was, and how is it different to what this "admin" is trying to make it sound like. Nergaal (talk) 22:09, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Your use of commas did not make that part of the sentence required at all... unless I'm somehow forgetting my knowledge of English. Further, this is another example of you misusing the tool to edit war. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 22:17, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

C'mon Coffee. You took his quote out of context. Lepricavark (talk) 04:02, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

• @Coffee: An admin gave them the tool. I don't particularly care why or how often they use it. All I care about is that they don't misuse it and I try to convey that with the least drama possible. That starts out with a pointer to the guideline and a warning that tries not to come across as a threat. A couple weeks ago it was, You might want to read WP:ROLLBACK: "Standard rollback may only be used in certain situations – editors who misuse standard rollback (for example, by using it to reverse good-faith edits in situations where an explanatory edit summary would normally be expected) may have their rollback rights removed." and that ended with the editor apologizing and giving thanks for the reminder. YMMV. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:11, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Somehow, in the middle of all this drama, that made me :) Nergaal (talk) 22:32, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

• Acting admin note - I would like to point out, for anyone interested, that the revocation was done per this specific line in WP:ROLLBACK: editors who edit war may lose the privilege regardless of the means used to edit war. As Nergaal had used rollback to edit-war (and had had warnings for edit-warring in the past) I perceived this to be a clear case for immediate removal, after being given a fair amount of time to manually undo their rollback (considering their activity level, 15 minutes seemed adequate). — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 21:18, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
  • The time was not calculated starting with my warning, but with their use of the tool (either way... 5 minutes would have been more than enough). I also find it hard to believe that they did not read the section header of the message I sent them. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 21:30, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
    • What section header? Nergaal (talk) 21:37, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
      • The one you clearly clicked on to make this edit (notice your edit summary). — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 21:43, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
        • Again, you refused to clarify what you are talking about. I asked what are you talking about in [you have until 08:40 to undo your edit, with an explanation of how you violated the policy in the edit summary. If it isn't done by then, I will revoke your rollback rights]? Nergaal (talk) 21:50, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi there. In the eleven minutes elapsed between the initial message and the removal, you have made zero effort to clarify that this is what you are talking about, and instead, you made three threatening edits to my talkpage, and another three passive-aggressive ones. Meanwhile, on the same talkpage, I left two edits asking for clarifications and another one a minute later. Nergaal (talk) 21:24, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

• For uninvolved parties: per WP:ADMINACCT, I thought admins are expected to NOT make personal attacks. Nergaal (talk) 22:14, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

That's not a personal attack. Now you're just reaching. 74.70.146.1 (talk) 23:56, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Obtuseness abounds in this reply. Nergaal (talk) 01:16, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

In your reply to the IP, yes. Lepricavark (talk) 04:02, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

• just an opinion (uninvolved admin). Nergaal clearly misused rollback. I note that being reverted is annoying, but being reverted by use of rollback is *very very much* annoying because it implies the reverted editor was somehow way out of line (vandalism, or whatever else clearly non-constructive). I know that because such misuse is not as rare as it should be, so I have been so reverted on occasion. Two conclusions out of this: if Nergaal does not have a history of repeated abuses, I think a warning would be enough for now; to Nergaal, if you do get rollback back, please use it only for vandalism, it is not a tool for quick editing, it is very unpolite to use it (not to mention it is also against policy :-). Also to Nergaal, I think I understand your frustration, but very rude language helps little, and may, rightfully so, get you in more trouble. Finaly Coffee was also rude. Their initial message was exceedingly blunt. There is no link, or at least an explanation, of what is expected to undo - "last use of rollback" is vague. Such blunt intervention, leaves the editor with less chance to a timely reply; also, it makes the actions, the administrator's included, to be checked and thus accountable. Then, successive messages, within *one minute* and then six minutes, with escalating warnings are not helpful. Losing patience if one does not get a reply within seven *minutes* should not be normal behaviour. An abuse of rollback is not a pressing matter. A ultimatum with *six minutes* to comply is completely out of line, the undue rollback action could have been undone by the admin - or anyone - and then the abuse could have been discussed without the drama. So, I think Coffee should be asked to be more polite, more patient, and explain their reasons when contacting editors. - Nabla (talk) 22:27, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
  • There is clearly a pattern of misuse (to edit-war, no less). — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 22:47, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Also, how is "your last use of rollback" "vague"? Seems incredibly specific to me. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 23:05, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
    • I almost forgot that I made this very specific clarification as well, directly after my first edit (and before the editor's response to my warning). So now, I'm really confused. "There is no link"? There is very clearly a link supplied. "the undue rollback action could have been undone by the admin" - Yes, but that entirely misses the point of me giving them a chance to keep their rollback, which is in no way required by the rollback policy if an editor edit-wars by any means. They were editing very aggressively so I gave them an equivalent warning. I don't have patience for edit-warriors (especially on high-visibility articles that are on our main page). — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 00:15, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
• I think this case really highlights how the rollback rules are out of touch with current editing trends. In this case, the whole big dispute occurred because the rollback tool was used, instead of hitting undo, which would have been nearly as fast, and if no edit summary was included, would have the same result. To the extent the use of rollback gave Nergaal and advantage in this edit war, it was trivial. The rule is a legacy of a time when Twinkle wasn't used by many editors, and that one click revert was a bigger difference from how a non-rollbacker could edit. Now, the only two uses of rollback being a user right are to gate access to huggle, and to prevent vandals from using it to roll back edits over a large number of articles at once. This would have been better dealt with as routine edit warring, but policy is what it is, and it clearly did justify removal here. This isn't the place to change the policy, but as a result, I would support restoring the right in light of the promise to comply with policy, and the very small risk the user right presents in this case. Monty₈₄₅ 00:27, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Ah, all things make sense now. I vaguely remember getting the rollback when the system was enabled, before the time edit summaries didn't have auto-completes. No wonder I don't remember reading the rollback rules that are currently in use, since I assume they were crafted at some point later. Again, I don't particularly care about the rollback itself, since a few people give it a "grandiose crusader-like power, where you have to be of the right faith to be allowed to use it". What I am genuinely worried in all of this, is a random admin coming and harassing me in the middle of a dispute. As much as I might have been wrong in my dispute I had earlier, I don't see how is the standard so much lower for an actual admin. I genuinely don't understand how even at this point there has been no worries about the un-administrator-like behavior Coffee has exhibited throughout this. I cannot AGF on his behalf at this point, and I genuinely believe he has a subjective stance on the article and, out of the blue, tried to force a dispute into the favor that aligned with his opinions. He has displayed highly aggressive behavior on a topic that is bound to have people already flared up. IMHO, admins ought to be impartial referees in disputes, and every-single-little-thing that he has done points towards the complete opposite. Yet, even at this point, most people here refrain to even consider pointing a finger at him. Nergaal (talk) 01:06, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

• This is a bizarre comment. Rollback is an unbundled admin permission that we grant to trustworthy editors who are literally only asked that they use it how it's intended to be used and not in disputes. If you must edit war, please don't use your special advanced permission to do it. That's literally all we ask. Failure to pay any heed to that should result in revocation of said permission. Could Coffee have approached it in a more gentle manner? Sure. Is it inappropriate that he didn't? Absolutely not. This is standard operating procedure, abusing tools is disruptive editing and we don't go groveling to users who abuse advanced permissions and ask if they could maybe stop. When you actively abuse advanced permissions, the previous trust that entitled you to them is null and void. The only reason there's a "dispute" here is because the user is screaming "admin abuse" rather than owning up to their transgressions as most established members of the community normally would. Swarm ♠ 03:58, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

• NAcom As this is borderline insanity (though humerous for a little while), I would like to give my opinion on the matter; both as an univolved vandal cop and a admin-wannabe. I am not NPAing anyone here, just being frank. I do not wish to offend or further enrage anyone. I don't think Coffee should of given a 15 minute ultimatum. I think an hour is more reasonable. 15 minute ultimatums scare me, because my schedule is so random I could easily not see the notice, or might save the "You have a new message on your talk page" for the next session, esp. if my ESP tells me its unimportant. I would be mortified to discover an admin was trying to contact me, and I had burshed it off as "probably some angry IP". Though we have all misused rollback at some point in time, I feel using rollback in an content dispute/ew is worthy of removal of the PERM. Nergaal received the rollback tool on 2/1/08, given by administrator User:John Reaves. I cannot find the RfP or dialogue regarding this, though.

• My feelings on the re-instatement of the right are mixed. As Nergaal doesn't do vandalism (which is ostensibly what the the tool's sole pupose is), the reasonable literal materialistic part of me says "no." But as Nergaal is in good standing, and has many other tools, and wants to be a sysop, the sensable sane me says "sure, he had it before, why not have it again." But this whole discussion is off the charts. Fascetious comments, seudo attacks (in my eyes), and the lack of let-it-go-ness make me think "another content editor." A whole big show over whether or not misuse of a tool a couple time should result in the tool being removed is disruption in my eyes, and as Nergaal fundementally has not demonstated a need for rollback, I !vote no. Thanks for hearing me out. L3X1 (distant write) 01:58, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
• Since people asked when rollback was granted, User:Nergaal has had rollback since this request in February, 2008. EdJohnston (talk) 04:10, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

• Strange situation. Nergaal should not have been edit-warring with rollback, but Coffee could have been more patient and certainly more diplomatic. Coffee's comments on Nergaal's userpage are aggressive and heavy-handed, and the admin could have tried harder to clear up any confusion before removing the rollback. Nergaal hasn't made a very good impression in this thread and isn't acting like someone who should have rollback, but I think many of us would be frustrated by this kind of treatment. Lepricavark (talk) 04:10, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

• TBH, I don't understand the process here. But if this kind of a harassment from an existing admin if acceptable in all your eyes, there is absolutely no surprise why the project is going downhill. Bleah. Nergaal (talk) 06:27, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
• @Swarm: Obtuseness abounds in your comments here. You continue to refuse seeing any negative behavior of an existing admin. There is a non-negligible number of admins like you that expect from regular users to bend over and present their assholes for some raping every time admins like Coffee feel like. Admins like you and Coffee are not versed in WP:ADMINCOND, WP:ADMINACCT, and [33] policies that should govern admin behavior. I have a hard time understanding how my actions deserve the punishment I get, while the actions of and admin, explicitly against such policies do not lead to any sort of admonishment to the said admin. Nergaal (talk) 08:46, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

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

Violence threat?

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=User:LandSharkRecon/sandbox&oldid=772616559

Probably a joke but can't be sure. Emergency have been notified just in case. Adam9007 (talk) 03:16, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Indeffing and deleting as WP:NOTHERE. Even if it is a joke, I think it's safe to assume they're not here to help. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:23, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

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

Not sure what to call this.

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 IP user 86.138.197.222 has been doing some odd stuff on the page NTL Incorporated, like here [34]. Vandalism? Promotion? Spam? Either way, shouldn't be there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scientific Alan 2 (talk • contribs) 08:48, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Revert, warn for copyvio, and carry on. El_C 10:55, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

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

Andy Dingley

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.

---

ANI for disruptive editing, poor faith, taking supervisory ownership of the Honda Fit page. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Lizzziemcdonald_reported_by_User:Andy_Dingley_.28Result:_.29

My initial edit; The Honda Fit does not use swage lines. There is no legitimate source content for it. I clearly stated why I removed it.

1. [35]

In poor faith Andy provides no reason to revert my edit.

1. [36]

Again I remove the false information pointing out that there is no source for it.

1. [37]

Andy states to look at an image. Creased stampings on one-piece body panels are not swage lines. And looking at an imagine does not subsitute a legitimate source

1. [38]

Yet again I removed the unsourced and false info.

1. [39]

Now Andy inserts that the third-gen Honda Fit has a "pronounced side crease". He likely does this by googling Honda Fit side crease, unable to find legitimate sources and instead settles on The Car Connection. TCC is not a printed publication and little more than an advertising website that rarely meets the standard for inclusion of encyclopedic content, there are much better and more respected buyer's guides out there like Kelley Blue Book as well as numerous printed publications. By and large TCC had fallen into irrelevance in 5-10 years ago.

1. [40]

I remove the TCC and the side crease due to it's lack of notability. Virtually all modern vehicles have deep side creases, hardly unique to the Honda Fit or the third generation model. Googling 'Honda Fit side crease' returns a CNET review pointing out the side creases for the 2nd generation model. [41]

As one would expect of an edit warrior he restores his own edit. At which point I stopped bothering since as far as I was concerned he has taken ownership of the article and will continue reverting my edits over and over again.

1. [42]

Lizzziemcdonald (talk) 14:42, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

(Non-admin comment) Lizzziemcdonald, you will need to inform Andy Dingley of this, see the red text at the top of this page. Nördic Nightfury 14:50, 29 March 2017 (UTC)+

I see that it has been done by NeilN, just bear in mind in the future. Nördic Nightfury 14:53, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

@Nordic Nightfury: She did, Andy deleted it. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:06, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

@Floquenbeam: To be fair there was no report here when Andy deleted the notice (after presumably having checked here). 'Lizziemcdonald' posted the ANI-notice on Andy's talk page at 13:56 UTC, and Andy deleted the notice at 14;01 UTC, but the report against him wasn't posted here until 14:42 UTC, i.e. 41 minutes after Andy deleted the notice about a then non-existing ANI-report... - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 15:22, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Aha. True. I bow to your superior detective skills, I hadn't noticed that. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:25, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

I think I am reading this right, you have a content dispute and instead of talking about it on the article's talk page, we get people reverting back and forth. The solution is to talk to the other editor's involved on the talk page and if needed use dispute resolution. ~ GB fan 15:02, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Where's the content dispute? There was no source for swage cut however Andy kept reverting my edits, then added his own variation and used the closest thing to a legitimate source he could google. All newly introduced cars have deep side creases; Acura ILX, Lexus IS, Toyota Prius, Toyota Camry, Toyota C-HR. Should someone google "side crease" for a mediocre source then add it too all the articles they desire? The third-gen Fit is hardly unique or notable for its side crease.Lizzziemcdonald (talk) 15:38, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

The content dispute is you do not believe the content belongs and Andy believes it belongs. The two of you are in a dispute about whether the content belongs in the article. That is something that should be discussed on the article talk page. ~ GB fan 15:44, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

It's not much of a content dispute with Andy twice restoring unsourced misinformation after being informed it's unsourced misinformation. Then modifying it to "side crease" with one poor quality source (TCC) he could find via google. If someone is disputing the content addition then a single near clickbait level advertising source isn't sufficient for its addition or hardly worth edit warring to keep.Lizzziemcdonald (talk) 16:05, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

As an example googling Honda Ridgeline flying buttress or Honda Odyssey lightning bolt gets numerous legitimate results. Googling side crease and adding a poor source is being a (Redacted).Lizzziemcdonald (talk) 15:43, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

(That's a lot of 1s). Why do you deem it an incident today? What administrative help are you looking for today. El_C 15:03, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Wiki formatting isn't easy, let's not make fun of editors with 26 edits to their name. And I can see why a new editor would think this is the place to come. @Lizzziemcdonald:, User:GB fan has it exactly right. I'll go close the ANEW report if it isn't already, no one actually ever told Lizzziemcdonald about WP:EW. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:10, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Not making fun—pointing out that preview is your friend. El_C 15:26, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

My mildly righteous indignation at the treatment of a newbie is tempered by the fact that I just noticed Lizzie warned Andy about edit warring in her first revert. So yeah, maybe not quite as new as I first assumed. Anyway, ANEW report closed, Lizzie warned further edit warring will result in a block, Andy should be aware of that too, and GB fan's advice still holds. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:19, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

No help, figured I'd bring what I feel is another editor's poor faith edits and ownership of an automotive page while knowing little on the subject to the attention of the admins. I have no desire to further edit the Honda Fit page, it was hassle enough to remove false unsourced information. Lizzziemcdonald (talk) 15:54, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Neither party has posted a single time on that article's talk page, so you're equally culpable and I encourage both of you to review WP:DR. But we shouldn't open ANI complaints unless our own hands are fairly clean. Welcome to Wikipedia. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:13, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

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

Rangeblock request - Cartoon Vandal

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 been a range of IP addresses vandalizing Adventure Time and Regular Show articles. They seem to not want the shows to end, and are removing information about the series finales. See some sample edits here: [43], [44], [45], [46], [47].

The range is 179.60.90.0 through 179.60.100.255. See 179.60.9* and 179.60.100.* for range contribs. I do not see other edits of this nature outside this range (see 179.60.*).

According to this website, the CIDR ranges are:
179.60.90.0/23
179.60.92.0/22
179.60.96.0/22
179.60.100.0/24

Given the contribs from the range within the last year, there appears to be little-to-no collateral damage resulting from a range block. Thank you. EvergreenFir (talk) 20:09, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, 179.60.96.0/21 (179.60.96 through 179.60.103) will take care of the job. If it needs to be widened, you can contact me on my talk page. I'll start off with a one-week block, and we can go from there. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:05, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

@NinjaRobotPirate: Thank you! EvergreenFir (talk) 04:45, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

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

A little help please

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.

---

Trying to flag down an admin. Can we get a little help over at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:SeederOfTheDugudup_reported_by_User:EvergreenFir_.28Result:_.29. 20ish reverts and counting, tried posting at the vandalism noticeboard but it seems like no one is awake. InsertCleverPhraseHere

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

• Addendum to closed threads: This editor bears close scrutiny. Edit warring seems to be the least of their problems. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:46, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
  • @MjolnirPants: oddly, the section you highlight (hatted by Insertcleverphrasehere as containing personal attacks) doesn't seem to indicate a particularly problematic behavioural pattern. Cheers — O Fortuna! ^{Imperatrix mundi.} 09:22, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
    • @Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi: Are you sure you read the whole thing? This editor starts by insisting that RSes are wrong because they say so, attempts to argue that their own analysis overrides that of RSes, continues by dismissing reliable sources as being "horseshit", and then ends with calling another editor a "turd" and later a "dumbass". When you add in that they are apparently an SPA... ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:33, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Widespread NFCC violation needs correction

Right now, File:Noisebridge_logo.png appears on nearly 150 user talk pages, as a result of its inclusion in a mass message. It is, by a wide margin, the most frequently used nonfree image on the project, and all of the talk page uses are improper. This situation came about because someone included the image in a mass message signed by Ben Creasy and Checkingfax. I can't determine who actually sent the message. I don't see any simple way to extract the violation from the message, nor do I see any efficient way to remove the messages entirely: the mess messaging was conducted more than two days ago, and all I can suggest would be that an editor with rollback rights act, followed up by manual removal when subsequent posts were made to a userpage.

I'm hoping somebody with more technical savvy than moi can provide a better option. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 20:36, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Log says it was Checkingfax. I tried to unlink the file but apparently Twinkle does not see any backlinks. Deleting and restoring the file didn't help. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:03, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Rename it? Andy Dingley (talk) 21:06, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

File removed from user talk pages. — JJMC89 (T·C) 21:09, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi, JJMC89. Thanks! You beat me to it! Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 21:18, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) – 

@Hullaballoo Wolfowitz, Jo-Jo Eumerus, and Andy Dingley:I should be able to remove the image with AWB. Let me work on it. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 21:14, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Bagel7 is under the impression that NFCC policy does not apply to User talk:Bagel7. — JJMC89 (T·C) 04:46, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

They should get the message now. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:09, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment)@NeilN: Maybe adding links to WP:UP#Non-free images and WP:UP#OWN will help clarify things since based upon this edit sum they seem to be misunderstanding both. Some people seem to find those links easier to understand than WP:NFCC#9. Just a suggestion. -- Marchjuly (talk) 09:07, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Nobody pointed out that their sandbox is not the place for the image either. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 20:10, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

@NeilN: Doesn't seem like it. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:46, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment)@Future Perfect at Sunrise: Why I understand why you made protected Bagel7's user talk, he still does not seem to be getting the message. I suppose you can protect his user page as well; however, if that's really necessary, then maybe the disruption needs to be stopped more forcefully before it spreads to other pages outside his userspace. Both WP:UP#OWN and WP:UP#Non-free image seem quite clear about this thing, so I am totally unable to comprehend why an editor who has been around since January 2006 and who never has been blocked before seems to have decided to stand his ground over something so obviously against policy as this. --Marchjuly (talk) 00:40, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

• This caught my eye as I visited there once, and know the hackerspace culture to be very open source and generally anti-copyright in nature. (I remember they had a sign on the inside side of the front door explaining how to talk to gentleman callers from the FBI and the like about what their TOR onion router was.) Sure enough, I see that their content is licensed "Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 Unported." on the main page. But even more interestingly, a copyright clearance house asked in 2013 for the right to use this logo on T-shirts and in the Julian Assange movie. Noisebridge's very amusing response is posted on their wiki, and if I might quote a bit (emphasis mine):

"...Noisebridge as a community believes you have the free speech right to use such imagery without having to ask permission -- especially those who you might be implicitly criticising or commenting upon. Such a right is encoded in the existing nature of trademark and copyright with the idea of fair use.

Sadly, knowledge of such rights have been eroded over the years by the repeated claims of copyright maximalists, who would have you believe that you must beg to refer to us in your film -- or even that you would be beholden to us if, for instance, you parodied our disrespectful attitude to your concerns with the following image, which includes both of our identifying marks, the Noisebridge(TM) circuit, and the Unicorn Pissing A Rainbow(TM).

So we say tell your friends at DreamWorks to publish (or print, or produce) and be damned. Tell them we fully support them in their brave stand. You can say with confidence that the only conditions under which Noisebridge would sue them and their partners to the maximum damages entitled to us by law would be if it turned out that hackers like us were completely hypocritical nihilists out only for our own egotistical ends."

So, to sum up, I am pretty sure they don't care if we use their logo. 198.58.162.200 (talk) 07:46, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

• I updated the logo copyright tag to match the published policy on Noisebridge's site. Maybe someone can check to see that I did this correctly? First time. 198.58.162.200 (talk) 08:05, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

198.58.162.200, "Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 Unported" is automatically incompatible with Wikipedia; CC-BY-NC is not the same as CC-BY-SA. I've reverted your change. Whether they care if we use their logo is irrelevant here; if an image is on Wikipedia as free-use, it's giving the right to everyone to use it for any purpose, and while they may not mind Wikipedia using it they may well object to a neo-fascist group adopting it as their logo, the military using it as the logo of a fictional terrorist group in training exercises, or its appearance in hardcore pornography. (All these things have actually happened in the past with images uploaded to Wikipedia as CC-BY-SA.) ‑ Iridescent 08:08, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

OK I get it now-- it specifies no commercial use, so it is non-free. What Noisebridge say above is still hugely ironic in terms of this discussion though. I'm going to send them a link to this discussion.198.58.162.200 (talk) 08:21, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Your quote from their reply above is omitting the key line From your description, it should be clear to anyone watching your film that you're just using the image to talk about Noisebridge, not claim you are Noisebridge or that Noisebridge supports your film, which makes it clear that Noisebridge were giving DreamWorks consent to use the image under fair use, not releasing it under free use. To hammer the point home as it's such a key issue and so widely misunderstood, something uploaded on Wikipedia as free use means that Work submitted to Wikipedia can be edited, used, and redistributed—by anyone comes into play; I very much doubt Noisebridge want McDonalds or Starbucks adopting their logo for a "new and edgy chain of cyber-cafes". ‑ Iridescent 08:28, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

I never suggested it was available as a free logo for any use. It's available under hte CC license they state. I just thought it was fascinating to hear from the actual logo owner, on the one hand, and to have the actual intention contrasted with the tight rules of Wikipedia on the other. If you knew the culture you would understand the irony and the general approach to copyright. The whole hackerspace culture, and the open software movement it came from, is very much against the kind of control-driven approaches to copyright as are described above. Have a nice evening,Iridescent. 198.58.162.200 (talk) 08:42, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Astonishingly enough, as people who administer the most influential open-source project in the world everyone on this board is familiar with the culture of the movement. We're also aware that both Wikipedia and Noisebridge are obliged to follow the law, not our personal opinions of what the law should be. ‑ Iridescent 09:01, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

It's not the same culture at all- the free software/hackerpace movement is much more radical, less rule driven and very anarchistic. Wikipedia might have been similar to the FSW movement ten years ago, but now it is more like the dictionary definition of a gigantic infelexible beurocracy! Which is exactly the point here, and the source of the irony. Noisebridge is still free and flexible; Wikipeida is not. C.f. above, and any other ANI entry. Anyway, lighten up. You're making a mountain out of a molehill. I am not advocating any rule changes. Just pointing out some ironies. 198.58.162.200 (talk) 09:05, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

• Then Noisebridge need to revisit their own licensing, and maybe learn what it actually means. CC makes it easy enough, but what Noisebridge state very clearly in their overt licensing contradicts what they've just said in that communication. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:07, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

My name is Mitch Altman, and I'm a co-founder of Noisebridge hackerspace. I would like to categorically and definitively state for the public record that it is totally OK that our Noisebridge logo be shared with the CC BY-SA license. We do not want the license to include NC. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maltman23 (talk • contribs) 21:43, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

• Thanks, then can you please amend https://noisebridge.net/wiki/File:Nb_2169_sticker.png so that it over-rides the general site CC-by-nc-sa licence with a COM:L licence, such as CC-by-sa or looser. That's probably the simplest way all round. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:46, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

• a-ha! I was correct, "they don't care if we use their logo."198.58.162.200 (talk) 00:23, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
• (Non-administrator comment) I think c:COM:CC might probably be a little more helpful than c:COM:L since it lists all the CC licenses accepted by Commons in an easy to understand table. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:19, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

@Maltman23: On the internet, nobody knows you're a dog; which I suppose that you already know, but we cannot simply take "Maltman23" as a valid copyright source. Please do as Andy mentioned above, or follow Wikimedia's procedure to release copyright. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 11:58, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

• So is anyone going to say anything about the edit by Bagel of 'Fuck off faggots'? Or are we all just ignoring that? Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:15, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
  • (Non-administrator comment) I removed it earlier today (my time) and Softlavender blocked the account shortly thereafter. Not sure why it was necessary to repeat the offensive part in your post though, when it could've simply referred to in another way. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:24, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
    • Hi Marchjuly, must have been someone else that blocked them because I am not an admin (though apparently I play one on TV). Softlavender (talk) 11:35, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
      • It was FPaS, who blocked for re-posting the image. Not as far as I can see for the offensive personal attacks. Which I repeated here *precisely* because I wanted other people to see as it appears it had been overlooked. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:13, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
        • The block appears to have been for both - the summary is "edit-warring to include non-free images in userspace; personal attacks". Personally, I'd probably have gone for a week, but I think 48 hours is OK. If the user repeats either the edit warring or the personal attacks when the block expires, I'd support a very lengthy block. WJBscribe (talk) 12:33, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
          • @Softlavender: You're right. Sorry for the mix up and unnecessary ping. I was working on Myke Hurley at the time when I removed the Bagel7 post and got things the names mixed up. I actually pinged Future Perfect at Sunrise correctly above, so it was a silly miss on my part. -- Marchjuly (talk) 14:00, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Destructive editing of User:Norvikk

I want to draw your attention to User:Norvikk's destructive editing [48] (all -20 and - 40 bytes). Here I changed the article [49] in accordance to the other articles appearance (before some users explained to me that they aim to reach unification of the topic). After my change user Norvik reverted it [50] and said that it is not a standard and to fake this claim he started removing this code from all other existing articles. I reverted some of his removes and opened a discussion at his talk page, we know how good is wiki notification for a talk page but he ignored my discussion and kept removing. The discussion was opened at 16:34, 27 March 2017 after that he reverted&removed 19 more edits till 16:43, 27 March 2017 9 minutes of active reverting/removing and ignore. Now he has responded at 16:51 when I am already writing this. Note that he were editing all those articles before as well but removed this code and made such removing only after my change to the Georgian article. I see such behavior very destructive and unacceptable for wikipedia. --g. balaxaZe★ 16:56, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

• FWIW I had reported Norvikk and another editor for edit warring a few weeks ago[51], Not sure if it's the same content tho, Either way I'm not seeing any discussion from either of you and at this point I'd say you both deserve blocking,

I would strongly suggest closing this and actually start discussing the issues and if Norvikk doesn't discuss it then go to WP:AN3. –Davey2010^Talk 17:03, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

• • @Davey2010: here is my opened discussion User_talk:Norvikk#Trying_to_fake_standard.3F this issue is about a code font-size: smaller;. I have waited 17 minutes, opened even the second discussion to stop him and to talk but he ignored and removed everything. The case is not in talking but in willful changes. --g. balaxaZe★ 17:10, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

    To be honest, if I would get such notification at my talk page, I would also not know how to react. You may want to add some context while avoiding personal attacks; this might actually help.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:34, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

    I wrote everything clearly and gave him enough time, adding of code font-size: smaller; was nothing extraordinary, but what he has done is unacceptable (I could say that my change is identical to German, French and etc. articles but he removed all of them after my change in Georgian one), and as I said in the discussion I do not see any argument why is he removing the code.--g. balaxaZe★ 17:48, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

No. This is other conversation. I wrote my point of view on my page. Thanks. --Norvikk (talk) 18:20, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Retaliatory Editing

User:LeakySponge <redacted> has been acting in a harassing manner towards Trevor Eyster. When his own Wikipedia page Henry Wally Laster was deleted, he began attempting to get the Trevor Eyster page removed. His user name is an alteration of Eyster's current project #SpongeyLeaks. He has left comments comparing his page to Eyster's on his User:LeakySponge talk page, on User:C.Fred's talk page, and he left speedy deletion tags on both Trevor Eyster's main page and talk page. He is clearly using manipulating the name of Eyster's #SpongeyLeaks project, and is using his account to harass someone solely because that person has more "celebrity status" than he has. He clearly is holding a grudge, and is using Wikipedia as his new means to harass Eyster. Is there any way to a) Block his IP and b) Disassociate the LeakySponge username from his recent actions? Erinhayden (talk) 09:47, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

I don't see where User:LeakySponge has revealed their real life identity on Wikipedia, so please do not attempt to do so as that is a violation of WP:Outing. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:36, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment)@Erinhayden: Trevor Eyster has been nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trevor Eyster by another editor. If you feel that the article should be kept, then it's best ot make your arguments there. As for LeakySponge, Amortias and Bearcat have left clear explanations regarding notability and how articles are evaluated for it at User talk:LeakySponge#help. LeakySponge hasn't responded to them had has not edited since yesterday when they made this edit to an IPs user talk. Maybe it will be best to take a wait and see approach to see how this plays out. LeakySponge is a new WP:SPA and such accounts tend to make lots of mistakes simply because they know no better. A block at this time seems a bit of a WP:BITE. If the disruption continues, especially now that experienced editors have gotten involved, than the account can always be blocked. As for the username thing, you can always try at WP:UAA, but I don't think this is a violation of WP:IMPERSONATE or WP:ORGNAME. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:26, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

To be clear, I'm not arguing the validity of the Trevor Eyster page needing edits. That is understandable. Please see the comment by LeakySponge on User talk: 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 where he refers to Henry Wally Laster as "his page" and requests it be locked so that only he may edit it. On User talk:LeakySponge, he directly correlates the Trevor Eyster page with his own Henry Wally Laster page and says "I wrote a piece on Henry Wally Laster and hes alive and it got deleted. So yes Trevor Eyster is to be deleted immediately. LeakySponge (talk) 19:28, 23 March 2017 (UTC)" I apologize if correlating the user name and that real life person are considered "outing," but he seems to have done that himself. Regardless, if that user is not that individual, he's stated plainly that, basically, if he can't have a page, Eyster shouldn't either. Erinhayden (talk) 18:14, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) I'm not condoning the course of action that LeakySponge has chosen to follow, only pointing out that new SPAs often make the same mistakes. WP:OWN, WP:OR, WP:COI and WP:AUTO seem to be a few of the things many new editors have a hard time getting used to at first. LeakySponge has been advised on why his edits are problematic, so now it's probably best to see how they respond. There are enough experienced editors participating in the Eyster AfD to make sure that it's not disrupted by anyone who may have a grudge against Eyster. Moreover, anyone who tries to argue WP:OSE or WP:ALLORNOTHING in an AfD is usually informed fairly quickly that those are not valid arguments to make. Blocks are intended to prevent further disruption, not punish editors for past mistakes. LeakySponge still hasn't edited since the other day, so the disruption has stopped at least for the time being. However, if LeakySponge comes back and continues on as before, he will likely find his account being blocked. Best thing to do here is probably just to wait and see. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:53, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Rather than implying they are the subject, the phrasing implies that, being the creator of the page, they have ownership. The rest is just run of the mill WP:COI. I was going to post a comment about violating WP:OUTING but Beeblebrox beat me to it. Blackmane (talk) 09:32, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

I appreciate the feedback. As long as the disruptions stop, I'm happy. His previous account was blocked after similar activity, but hopefully this is the end of any personal grudges in this case. Thank you! Erinhayden (talk) 15:27, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Okay, and another one. 50.73.249.121 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) is now on, repeating a fake change to Salute Your Shorts (claiming Henry W. Laster was nominated for an award) and recommending on the AfD page that Trevor Eyster be deleted. There is clearly someone (or multiple someones) that are somehow connecting the two individuals in favor of Laster and in opposition to Eyster. Any guidance is appreciated. Erinhayden (talk) 18:31, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment)I saw the IPs edit to the AfD. IPs can WP:!Vote in an AfD too, so just !voting once is not being disruptive. Moreover, an AfD is not really a vote; I'm sure the admin who reviews the discussion will notice the IPs editing history and the content of the post, and take all of that into account when determining a consensus. The other experienced editors will notice all that as well, so unless the IP starts to get disruptive or other new accounts start appearing out of the blue and "voting", the AfD should be fine. You can, if you want, take a look at WP:SPI and see if you want to pursue something there, but the IP has made only two edits so far and they haven't really established a history of disruption. If, however, the IP starts WP:EW, WP:BLANK, violating WP:BLP or anything else like that, post a warning on their page to see if they will stop. If they ignore it, then asking for administrator assistance seems appropriate. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:04, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you so much for the info! That's very helpful. Clearly, I'm new to this whole reporting thing. I appreciate the help! Erinhayden (talk) 01:52, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Admin User: Majora

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 have been pursued and intentionally harassed by an administrator named Majora.

First, she has pursued file images that I have uploaded and mislabeled them to claim that I did not have valid permission to upload it. After I told her the rationale and the justification, she could not justify herself and instead basically stated that she had power and I did not, so she doesn't "have to help me." She then said the author of the picture had to email Wikimedia with the WP:Consent form, which was false, but I complied with her instructions anyway. Even after the author submitted the consent form on March 24th, the picture was still taken down without question or regard.

Secondly, this same admin user trolls the files I upload and the pages that I create, specifically the page that I created for Grace Akinlemibola. She inserted a condescending comment that I had to reverse regarding one of the countries listed as being a city that "no one will notice" since the listing accidentally included a city instead of a country.

Third, this same admin user who trolls this page Grace Akinlemibola kept deleting a comment that I included with a source and ultimately had me blocked (by another admin user Coffee) even after she had additional admins (Jim1138) join in to delete this comment.

Fourth, Majora is the same admin user who had me blocked for 48 hours when I was attempting to reverse this same comment.

Finally, this same admin user (Majora) is trolling the same page (Grace Akinlemibola) and immediately contesting my uploads while lying about a Wiki policy that is not correct. Even on the page she refers to, it states that there are reasons to do what I did. Yet she simply stated it's a policy and laughed about me getting blocked by stating, "this didn't end well for you last time."

Someone as vindictive and ill-spirited as Majora should not be an admin. I think her admin rights need to be removed from either her username or whatever other name she also goes by since I believe she also has another account. I have even stated before how Majora has biased edits and should not touch the page. She needs to be stripped of her admin rights. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheWikiKing7 (talk • contribs) 05:42, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Majora is not an administrator. Master of Time (talk) 05:47, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment)@TheWikiKing7: Just for reference. Majora is not an administrator. Also, when you start an ANI discussion about a particular editor, you are supposed to notify them by placing a message or Template:ANI-notice on their user talk page. This is give them a chance to respond to any claims you might make about them. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:05, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment, Marchjuly. Majora has rights regarding file uploads, though. I think she is an admin or at least has some type of extended privileges. Whatever privileges she has need to be removed. And I did leave a comment on her user talk page. --TheWikiKing7 (talk) 06:10, 29 March 2017 (UTC)TheWikiKing7

TheWikiKing, I think you're the one who needs to step back here. You are the creator and by-far-major contributor to an article about someone who is, at best, marginally notable; you have filled the article with poor references, self-published sources and the like. You were edit-warring to force a ginormous image to stretch across the entire page, in violation of both our manual of style and common sense. By bringing scrutiny to Majora's appropriate actions, you have just brought more attention to the issues with your own editing. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:17, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

See also Anti-Corruption Lawsuits filed by Grace Akinlemibola; there's a bunch of claims and allegations about living people sourced to nothing more than a slew of unsuccessful lawsuits. I have nominated both of the articles for deletion as unsalvageable and unsuitable for the encyclopedia. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:36, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi NorthBySouthBaranof, it seems that you are making the argument that if a person does not like the content of an article, that person can automatically delete the article. The lawsuits are also still pending. You also never mentioned the atrocities committed prior to the "edit-warring." Majora had a file I uploaded removed without cause and her only justification was that she had more power and she attempted to bring about even further hurdles. She used foul language when attempting to suppress the files and had the file removed even after the additional steps were taken. Since then, she has consistently pursued anything that I have uploaded and touched. It's nonsensical. --TheWikiKing7 (talk) 06:52, 29 March 2017 (UTC)TheWikiKing7

It's not a question of what someone doesn't like, it's a question of whether the content of the article complies with our foundational policies. The articles in question are filled with unsupported claims that named living people are "corrupt", among other issues, and basically have no independent reliable sources. I have left you a note on your talk page explaining these issues. Wikipedia is not a free speech site, it's a project to write an Internet encyclopedia, and if content submitted by an editor doesn't comply with our policies, it can and will be deleted. That's the process I've initiated. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:55, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

TheWikiKing7, I think you are editing in good faith, so you really need to spend some time going over Wikipedia policies on the type of articles that are accepted here. Any article must meet the standards at WP:GNG. This person has clearly has not "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." Legal documents and lawsuit filings do not qualify as the type of sources needed. Those are Primary Sources (see WP:PRIMARY). One of the reasons for these standards and policies is so content can be decided by policy and not by what people like or don't like. The fact is, you are the one who is trying to base inclusion based only on what you like and want, rather than on policy. First Light (talk) 07:58, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Comment TheWikiKing7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was blocked for persistent addition of unsourced content. TheWikiKing7 was warned and given advice a number of times by Majora 1, Coffee 1 2, and Jim1138 (myself) 1 2 TheWikiKing7, restored the content shortly after the block expired here with an ES of Undid revision 772332133 by Majora (talk) BLP violation; vandalism TheWikiKing7 seems unwilling to get that an image on Twitter is not an RS. Jim1138 (talk) 09:27, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
TheWikiKing7, based on your editing, I'm close to blocking you per WP:NOTHERE. Wikipedia is not the place to gain publicity for Akinlemibola and her lawsuits. Please:

• Stop using primary sources like legal filings, especially to make claims about living people. [52]
• Stop characterizing removals mandated by our WP:BLP policy ("Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion") as "BLP violation, vandalism". [53]
• Stop with the attacks on living people. BLP applies everywhere. [54]
• Stop casting aspersions on your fellow editors. [55]

Be aware that any more disruptive editing will probably result in a block. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 12:23, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Coffee, as I (unfortunately) have a job and need sleep, I am just now seeing these comments. I updated the sources or explained further in my revisions. You picked one line from the revisions. The image that was added was the last update that I had input. Prior to then, I had stated things such as "I used the word 'said' to balance the foundation," etc. Right now, you are picking and choosing and attempting to justify yourself because you didn't read through the history prior to blocking. I was giving explanations but also tagging as vandalism because I wanted these items to be noted. --TheWikiKing7 (talk) 16:25, 29 March 2017 (UTC)TheWikiKing7

I would note that I was not the commenter above you, it was in fact NeilN who provided the above evidence/warning. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 05:29, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

@TheWikiKing7:You need to step back and slow it down here. We all know Wikipedia can be confusing, especially when your re a new user. That is why so many others have tried to guide you, and to point out things you seem unaware of. When you're new at something, it behooves you to listen to people who know more about it than you do, and yet we see you arguing back with everyone right here in this thread, refusing to even acknowledge that Majora is not an administrator, let alone acknowledge the issues with your own edits. This leaves the rest of us wondering how you are ever going to be able to have a positive, mutually beneficial editing experience.

And if, at the end of the day, you seem to simply reject how Wikipedia works in favor of how you want it to work, you are just going to be blocked. We don't actually want to do that, we'd rather have you happily contributing new content and enriching and expanding the encyclopedia, but if you reject all guidance and just go it alone it's pretty much inevitable. The fact is, diving right in to creating new articles is almost always a bad idea if you haven't taken the time to understand basic policies like using reliable sources first. Wikipedia is user-created, but it does not function like other such websites, it has rules for how things are done, in particular when it comes to living people. You need to make an effort to learn how things work if you want to do good work here. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:23, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Well isn't this just fun to come home from work to. To start with, I've taken the liberty of striking out the word "admin" in the section header as I am not an admin. Don't want to mislead anyone there. For those of you that don't know me, my primary work here is patrolling the file namespace (with the occasional article expansion thrown in for kicks). While I may not know everything, my previous work with OTRS and on Commons has lent me the knowledge of copyright law to fit in quite nicely amongst the images. This started when TheWikiKing7 uploaded a file with the claim that "it is on Facebook under the public setting so it is public domain". There was some steps in the right direction and the photo on Facebook was amended to have the beginnings of a copyright license release. Unfortunately, the release was not complete and therefore unaccepted. When I explained that to them they claimed that I was essentially lying going back to their original "everything on Facebook under public is in the public domain" pointing to Facebook's Terms of Service as their proof. I again, explained to them why their interpretation was incorrect and they took that as me being racist (this was on the file talk page of the image that has since been deleted). After being accused of such a thing I decided that it was better to stop communicating with TheWikiKing7.

That does not mean that I did not continue to keep an eye on the file page as well as on the pages it was being used on. This is my standard operating procedure for every file I tag or take issue with. As copyright is a serious business I always want to make sure that potentially infringing images are taken care of promptly and in the correct way. As for this claim: She inserted a condescending comment that I had to reverse regarding one of the countries listed as being a city that "no one will notice" since the listing accidentally included a city instead of a country. That is categorically false. The only edits I performed on that page was condensing refs using refill, removing BLP violating material, and fixing images to comply with the MOS and our image use policy. As a side note (albeit unimportant one), last I checked I am male and continue to be so.

So, what we have here is a single-purpose account, whose only goal on Wikipedia is to promote Grace Akinlemibola's lawsuits against other people, and who denies basic Wikipedia policy even when it is explained to them. I am asking that this be closed before something comes back upon the OP. --Majora (talk) 21:35, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

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

Rangeblock requested

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.

---

Per Drmies' comment here, I'd like to ask an admin (whose able to do so, that is) to perform a range block on these ranges;

• 78.165.85.180 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 78.165.72.147 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 78.165.74.227 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

The sockmaster in question is EMr_KnG. Thanks in advance, - LouisAragon (talk) 01:31, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

@LouisAragon: can you give me some kind of background on this? How do I tell which of these edits are from EMr_KnG? Or are they all from him? NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:14, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

@NinjaRobotPirate:, Hi. All IP's that made edits on Turkic/Turkish-related topics, Iranian-related topics, and Kurdish-related topics, are his (that's his one and only "niche"). Per the X!'s tools link you gave, that'd be these IP's in addition to the three I already mentioned above. Had a look at their edits, and they're all pretty clear cut I might add;

• 78.165.84.131 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 78.165.84.183 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 78.165.77.156 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 78.165.64.33 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 78.165.77.89 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 78.165.67.182 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 78.165.187.199 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 78.165.69.239 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 78.165.72.147 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Hope this answers your question. - LouisAragon (talk) 03:50, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Alright. I'll have to do a wide range block to get them all. There's a little collateral damage, but it mostly seems to consist of an edit warrior who likes arguing about tanks. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:39, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

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

Raj source

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.

---

Citations from the British Raj era are by User:Sitush considered non reliable, and thus every content that has "Raj sources" are being deleted. He also is currently undergoing a WP:STALK on me, and is editing on all articles I have contributed on. Muvendar (talk) 19:21, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

You probably want to read Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 172#Are British Raj ethnographers unreliable? before you go any further down this route. The circumstances in which century-old books, generally written by foreign colonialist amateur historians with little direct knowledge of the topics about which they were writing, are going to be the best available sources on any given topic are few and far between, and in those instances where antiquated sources are appropriate the burden is always going to be on the person using them to explain why their use is appropriate. ‑ Iridescent 19:38, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

• Did you actually go to WP:STALK, and see that it's inactive and retained only for historical reference? And that the use of the words stalking and wikistalking was abandoned in the policy as the result of this discussion, and that you're asked to please avoid using the shortcut WP:STALK? I guess not. The "User contributions" link in the lefthand column of every userpage exists for a reason, and there's nothing wrong with using it. Admins use it all the time, to be able to see if somebody who has made one disruptive edit has made more. I see absolutely nothing wrong with Sitush looking at your contributions to see if you have used Raj sources, which as Iridescent says are rarely appropriate, in more places. As far as I can see, Sitush does that in the interest of improving the quality of the encyclopedia. Bishonen | talk 20:36, 30 March 2017 (UTC).

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

User 24.34.58.178

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.

---

24.34.58.178 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) an experienced user given the familiarity with AIV, undo, templates, etc, is attacking editors, hounding, and edit warring. Has been attacking Dr.K. and myself (Jim1138).

• Personal attacks 1 first replacement second replacement refactoring my warning to an attack second refactoring of warning and uncivil
• Dr.K. left an EW warning on Kavas' and Poseidon35M's talk pages. The anon then appeared to hound Dr.K. with the following:
• Attacking and hounding on Poseidon35M (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)'s talk page: Addition revert 1 revert 2 revert 3

• Attacking Dr.K. and hounding on Kavas (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)'s talk page. Dr.K. removes and IP restores: Addition revert 1 revert 2 revert 3 revert 4 JJBers Public removes revert 5

• Rather misconstruing events on AIV here

Would someone please clarify with 24.34.58.178 that these actions are not productive, in with WP:CIVIL, and should be avoided? Thank you Jim1138 (talk) 01:56, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

At least two Doctors are on it (Drmies and Dr.K). I think we're in good hands. El_C 02:02, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

I appreciate the humour El_C but this IP is aggressive and has a tendency to stalk. This is not a good combination. I agree with Jim1138's assessment. I add that at some stage the IP appeared to back off at first, although with a grossly attacking edit-summary: Let's see if this works you guys. Can you keep your mitts off a completely blank, utterly obscure page? Or maybe you've still got the bloodlust of playground bullies? Let's find out. Can you let it lie?. However, immediately after that, the IP then came to my talk leaving a trolling message calling it a "quiz" and referring to Jim1138 and NewEnglandYankee as a "swarm of vandals". When I reverted the trolling, the IP came back leaving an attack in the edit summary. Since then, the IP has followed my edits to two talkpages of editors I warned and left the attacking messages as Jim1138 describes above. I would like the IP to be warned about the stalking and the PAs from the two talkpages, where the IP stalked my edits, be removed. The battleground antics of this IP don't belong in a collaborative environment. The IP also has extensive knowledge of meta wiki terms such as "sockpuppets" and "meatpuppets", very surprising for a brand-new editor:

I also got attacked by what smells suspiciously like a gang of meat puppets of DrK. Based on the timing and similar patterns of behaviors, they might even be sock puppets. Same aggressive accusations and "warnings" (threats!) about edit warring, same immediate (and snotty!) reversion of anything on their talk page that was unflattering, etc.

Quote: Based on the timing and similar patterns of behaviors, they might even be sock puppets. This supposedly brand-new editor talks like an expert SPI investigator who can accurately differentiate between meatpuppets and sockpuppets. That's really unexpected. Dr. K. 03:13, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Copy that. El_C 03:42, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

• Sure looks like a preventative block is called for. Jusdafax 03:24, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
• We're spending too much time on this. Drmies (talk) 05:21, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
• IP, stop hounding Dr.K. and Jim1138. That's it. Drmies (talk) 05:28, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Drmies - You need help with this, or are you good? Also, see response. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)}

User:Oshwah, I was going to let everything depend on the IP's response, and El_C's block is fine with me. Given that they made quality edits I figured we could give them one more chance to return to that kind of editing, but they chose to focus on trolling. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 12:30, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. El_C 06:28, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

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

Falsification of cited material, removal of mentions of genocide in relation to Srebrenica

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.

---

Ivci99 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been removing mentions of genocide and falsifying what cited sources say on articles including and related to the Srebrenica massacre. I have given them template warnings, but I wanted to mention it here in case anyone recognised the pattern of edits, as I suspect a returning vandal. DuncanHill (talk) 14:35, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

It appears that they have ceased following the second warning. We should keep an eye on these two articles in case the contentious editing resumes. I looked through the last year of the histories of both articles, but didn't see any obvious sock patterns. caknuck _° needs to be running more often 16:27, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

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

KarmaChameleon

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 someone please evaluate the contributions of User:KarmaChameleon? His edits to various pages with material about "Muslim sex abuse rings" have generated multiple warnings from various editors, all of which resulted in more battleground behavior. I don't think there is enough here for a block, but a warning might very well help the situation. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:52, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

I've closed the MFD and deleted the page,and am about an inch away from a WP:NOTHERE block as this user seems to have a very specific POV they wish to push. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:26, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

@Beeblebrox: any opinions on this remaining. Amortias (T)(C) 20:37, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

N Deleted. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:40, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

He comes and goes. 2607:FB90:2400:E371:C053:7479:A6C9:8B28 (talk) 21:08, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

♪♫♪ El_C 21:14, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

The WP:NOTHERE-hammer swings. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:51, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

he's asking for a block review. Uninvolved admins... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:14, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Declined by El C a couple of minutes after you left this note. Nyttend (talk) 22:20, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Asking again. I am involved (I commented in the MfD, edited the article and warned him). Black Kite (talk) 00:32, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

 Declined. Request number 3 is usually considered the "make it or break it" for unblock requests, we'll see if they show some self-awareness if they decide to appeal again. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:11, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

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

Editor vandalizing pages with clear bias

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.

---

OMEGAUNIT is editing multiple pages to include unsourced and non-encyclopedic attacks on the article's topics. Per his post on another user's talk page, he is operating in a purposefully confrontational manner. Please review these edits.52.119.105.14 (talk) 00:13, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi you forgot to give them a notice of this discussion. I've posted one on the editor's talk page so they know that the community is speaking about them. Sakuura Cartelet ^Talk 00:16, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

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

Seeking a one way IBAN re Andy Dingley

For a while now, Andy Dingley had determined that I am a baleful influence that he has to set right and has parachuted into disputes I am having with other editors.

Following on the Vipul paid enterprise matter, I and other editors have been starting to clean up effective altruism advocacy in articles those editors worked on per this COIN thread (I will be bringing a more pointed RfC about that matter soon). Unsurprisingly, other EA advocates have been pushing back here and there.

Andy who, for clarification, is not one of the Vipul editors nor an EA advocate as far as I know, continued his BATTLEGROUND behavior against me and just interjected himself into one of the article discussions here and here, apparently having seen the EW notice one of the participants there left on my talk page. He has never before edited the article or its talk page. (user-search at article, user-search at talk page)

Dealing with advocacy is hard and here we have unpaid advocates teaming up, and are also dealing with content generated by the network of paid advocates who had teamed up. The last thing we need in this effort is HOUNDING wiki-politics complicating things.

There has been a nice calm period since they were blocked for 31 hours, (block notice), back in November 2016 for hounding me at EWN. That was after I had warned them here in November 2016. (see diffs there)

That was after I had warned them here in April 2016 about interfering with SPIs I had filed on a serial-socking hounder. That had followed a very hot period in March per this and this.

I am now requesting an Iban. Jytdog (talk) 20:41, 18 March 2017 (UTC) (redact to clarify, for those who are not reading carefully Jytdog (talk) 22:38, 18 March 2017 (UTC))

(redact - struck badly stated case. My apologies. Jytdog (talk) 18:00, 22 March 2017 (UTC))

• I'm a vegetarian. A news story this week has been on Memphis Meats, who are vat-growing animal cells to make a "meat". So I went to see if we had an article on it, and guess what I find - Jytdog and his perennial bullying tactics and 2RR edit-warring tatics [56] [57]. I have not edited this article, I commented at Talk:Memphis Meats.

In return I get this, User talk:Andy Dingley#Hounding, again, and now here.

I am sick of Jytdog's behaviour to any number of other GF editors, particularly new editors. His history speaks for itself. He also has a very thin skin, if he calls a disagreement on an article talk page "hounding". And no Jytdog, I didn't "follow you" to that article, I'm a vegetarian (and have often mentioned this) and I'm interested in vat-grown meat news. We are both editors who have been here some years: yet it was you who opened an SPI on me, even after you'd said you wouldn't do such a ridiculous thing. Let alone awarding me a "moron diploma".

As an editor who does "good work" in rigorously enforcing MEDRS, Jytdog has some powerful friends. So a few months back I was even blocked by one of those admins for pointing out at ANEW, also Talk:, that 4RR was a brightline block, even for Jytdog. An admin who then ignored my requests to discuss this. Now you appear to be conflating me with a paid editing scheme - is there any valid reason to bring that up here, or to attempt to connect me to it, or are you just flinging mud?

Unsurprisingly I oppose IBANs. I would like Jytdog to damn well behave himself though, to me and others. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:55, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

• I don't have enough experience on WP to know the policies for this situation, but I want to provide my perspective as a new user who is very frustrated by Jytdog's behavior, which seems both like very strong advocacy against certain viewpoints (perhaps motivated by inappropriate behavior from those viewpoints, but it's still advocacy) and like very rude, unprofessional, perhaps even harassing behavior. I hope someone who knows more about WP policy is able to do something about this. Utsill (talk) 22:00, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

And Andy's post at the article has succeeded in attracting one of the AE advocates that I was trying to work with at the article where Andy inserted himself. See their contribs. Jytdog (talk) 22:03, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

• "one of the AE advocates" - or as most of us would describe them, the same editor you've been busy reverting at that article. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:51, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

• Andy as usual when we interact, you are misrepresenting the situation -- I didn't say you were connected to the Vipul thing, at all. I said you have parachuted into a complex, much bigger set of issues, complicating them with your grudge against me.

More relevant to folks reading here, here is an inappropriate use of an article Talk page by Andy to continue the dispute. Classic WP:BATTLEGROUND. I will not say more here. Jytdog (talk) 21:27, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

"as usual when we interact": every post, a sideways slight at your opponent.

Why post about a paid editing scheme in an ANI post you have raised about me? If you are alleging a connection, then say it. If you are not, then you are simply slinging mud. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:35, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

• More personalized BATTLEGROUND at the article talk page, here. The disruption is clear. Jytdog (talk) 22:08, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

• What's battleground about that? You started this by demanding an IBAN, and casting aspersions in your post by implying that there's a connection between Andy and Vipul, a paid editing enterprise, so of course he has to be allowed to defend himself. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 22:16, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

I am sorry you don't understand. Article talk pages are for discussing article content. Andy is creating drama there attacking me, instead of addressing the content issues there. Not appropriate and Wikipedia 101 level stuff per WP:TPG; he should know better. This thread is the place to "defend himself". And my OP did not connect Andy and VIpul. Please stop continuing Andy's misrepresentation. I have added a clarification above. Jytdog (talk) 22:34, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Oh, I do understand, and don't try to talk down to me, the way you always seem to do in all discussions you get into, no matter who you get into a discussion with, it only makes yourself look bad. You have IMHO no case for an IBAN, and yes, your text did try to connect Andy to Vipul, without a shred of evidence, which also makes you look bad. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 22:47, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

• So just WHY 'did you feel the urge to include a paid editing scheme in an ANI post against me? You're right, I don't understand. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:49, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Hey Jytdog since you know a lot about Wikipedia (probably more then me) can you tell us what "Boomerang" is ?? Jena (talk) 23:02, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

• ....... yah ok .. I think he has to stay away from Andy but ... I think in 6 months he is looking at a block Jena (talk) 16:25, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

• Ach, I also see that in addition to posting about this at the article talk page, Andy WP:CANVASSed Utsill to this discussion, here. And Utsill being a newbie, fell right into that. Jytdog (talk) 23:12, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

• Given that you're using ANI to slag them off as an "AE advocate", apart from them being the editor you're busy reverting at Memphis Meats, it's only fair to inform them too. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:14, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Nope, this thread is solely focused on your BATTLEGROUND behavior. The only reason I mentioned the context is because you carrying your grudge against me into this specific situation exacerbated a much larger issue that has already consumed a lot of the community's time. You are again diverting and misrepresenting the problem. If you actually read the links in the OP about the Vipul matter and the COIN thread you would understand what you interjected yourself into the middle of. Jytdog (talk) 23:23, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Seems like you're the one who is hounding Andy, and not the other way around, checking every single edit he makes, and then quickly posting here, trying to make him look as bad as possible. This thread is not focused solely on Andys alleged battleground behaviour, BTW, your behaviour is also fair game here... - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 23:27, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
• Just how am I "in the middle of" this paid editing thing? Please, humour the diploma-carrying moron here. I'm just talking about meat substitutes, I don't understand this other thing you're accusing me of. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:32, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

You are really not taking the time to understand. The article into which you interjected yourself (and Thomas I already showed that Andy never edited the article, and went to it after an EW notice was placed on my talk page - he followed me to the article, not the other way around) was created by a sockpuppet of an EA advocate as shown here. The two editors with whom I was talking, both edit EA topics as you can see from their contribs and I have already started interacting with them on other articles as part of the cleanup of Vipul's enterprise before discussions happened at this article. Vipul's entire enterprise was EA driven, if you take a few minutes and actually read the links and I anticipate there will be further issues with the already present EA advocates in WP as that cleanup continues. You are not even trying to understand what you stepped into the middle of in your hounding of me and canvassing of a newbie editor. The latter is especially bad form as you are actively trying to screw up the head of a newbie. Jytdog (talk) 00:22, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Another PA struck out.

Jytdog, as I've already told you, I'm a veggie so I'm interested in vat-grown meat and Memphis Meat (which you've been pruning as NOTNEWS) has been all over my newsfeeds this week. If you're calling me a liar, then come out and say so directly. After all, you've already called me a sockpuppeteer (or was it a puppet?) and today you're dropping me into some paid-editing fracas. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:56, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Your protestation about what led you to get involved may or may not be true. Others might believe you but give your history with me, I don't, and you came in swinging there with the same things you always say and made a mess of this just as you did the SPIs I linked to above. Your pattern of hounding me and making messes is clear. And even if what you are saying is true, given that history and your already having been blocked once for hounding me, you should have restrained yourself, but you didn't. So you walked right into this, either way. Also, I have removed the edit that you made to my comment above in this diff. You are just going for the trifecta of behavior violations aren't you? HOUNDING, canvassing, and now editing others comments. Jytdog (talk) 01:11, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

So you are outright calling another editor, me, a liar? Thanks for that. It sits nicely along the paid editing attacks. As to "making a mess of your SPIs", the only SPI I encountered you at (apart from the one you filed on me) was poor old CaptainYuge whom you hounded off the project in a month, after you'd made such a hatchet job of the RepRap project page that external press started to cover it. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:47, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Now you are explicitly lying. Your interference with the many SPIs on Biscuittin is there in the history (your contribs here) and some of your hounding comments (and my responses to them) there were reverted by an admin here. I am asking the community to keep you away from me. The block you received did not wake you up, so this needs to be imposed on you. Jytdog (talk) 15:40, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

• Question. I check Jytdog's user page and find a link to a GMO topic ban. Memphis Meats wants to grow in vitro animal products. In other words, MM wants to use the genes that produce product and skip the genes that grow other stuff. Does that hit the broadly interpreted GMO predicate? Glrx (talk) 23:43, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

I doubt it. AFAIK, the vat-meat people are avoiding GMO (either because they don't need it, or they don't need the inevitable bad press). It's a problem of getting (genetically) unmodified cells to grow in the vats.

I have no wish to catch Jytdog out on some contrived technicality - but I do wish he would back off his aggression to everyone. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:51, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

I second the motion that jytdog back off his aggression. DennisPietras (talk) 01:54, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

I note his recent reversions of you at Induced pluripotent stem cell and clearly that only slips through, "all pages relating to genetically modified organisms and agricultural chemicals, broadly interpreted" because it's an and, not an or. Now that's brinksmanship. Andy Dingley (talk) 02:11, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Without commenting on the bigger issues, IPSCs aren't GMOs, even under a broad interpretation. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 03:51, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

• Jytdog, can you explain how Memphis Meats is part of the Vipul paid-editing enterprise, which you stated in your OP? For those wondering about a topic ban violation, WP:AE is that way. I have no comment or opinion on the Jytdog/Andy feuding. Softlavender (talk) 07:06, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

It is not part of the Vipul paid enterprise. I didn't say it was. It is part of the EA advocacy that has gone in WP, which Vipul's enterprise falls within, and which we are going to run into a lot from non-Vipul affiliated editors, as we go to clean up after the Vipul enterprise. (The Memphis Meats article fits into the EA universe b/c one of the EA movement's targets is alleviating animal suffering; Memphis Meats aims to grow meat in vats, from cells, solving the problem with technology.) The MM article was created by a sockpuppet of an EA advocate as shown here. The two editors with whom I was talking, both edit EA topics as you can see from their contribs (here and here, and Utsill especially was strongly resisting removing promotionalism from this article. The killer thing is that Kbog had proposed a decent compromise when Andy stomped in, stalking me, and blew it up, attacking me and the content argument I had been making there. I hope that is more clear. I apparently explained this badly in my OP. My apologies to everybody. Jytdog (talk) 08:02, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Your OP states "I and other editors have been starting to clean up effective altruism advocacy in articles those [Vipul's] editors worked on per this COIN thread .... Andy ... just interjected himself into one of the article discussions here and here ..." (underscoring mine). Softlavender (talk) 08:49, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Argh. I first encountered Kbog when I was cleaning up Giving What We Can, which is an article that the Vipul editors worked on. Kbog at first fought the clean up. In discussions with Kbog on their Talk page, Utsill joined in. In that discussion at Kbog's Talk page, Kbog started understanding the problem Ustill did not. Then Utsill added promotional content to Memphis Meats, which I reverted, and that started a conflict at that EA advocate article. Which Kbog had just about resolved, when Andy brought his BATTLEGROUND with me there, complicating the problem. Like I said already, there is a set of EA advocates and we are going to keep running into them at other EA-related articles. The Vipul set of EA articles is a subset of the EA articles in WP. Jytdog (talk) 09:06, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Front-loading your IBan request with all that irrelevant self-congratulatory misleading material was gratuitous. That said, it's clear that Andy came to the article via the edit-warring notice on your talk-page (edit-warring notice at 12:23, 18 March [58]; Andy's first edit at 18:48, 18 March [59]), and not through a "news story this week". Andy, I'd advise taking Jytdog's talk page off your watchlist and stopping tracking his edits. Softlavender (talk) 09:32, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

dang. I was trying to explain why it was so frustrating when he did it this time; i view the cleanup work as something many people are doing, that i am part of. Andy butting in here hurts the whole effort, in my view. I wasn't aware of being self-congratulatory - thanks for saying that you heard it that way. It is clear that i communicated badly and i appreciate you taking the time to try to figure out what i was trying to say. Jytdog (talk) 10:20, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

The thing is, if you are requesting a one-way IBan with someone you need to immediately make your case, with sufficient probative diffs, that the other person is stalking, hounding, and/or harassing you. Anything else is irrelevant, particularly when it is lengthy and stated in such a way that the interpretation of it is liable to be incorrect. I'm not an admin and I'm not deciding this case, but my recommendation would be for Andy to take Jytdog's talk-page off his watchlist and to stop tracking his edits and other people's mentions of him, and if this gets brought up here at ANI again there will probably be a one-way IBan enacted (if it is not enacted now). Softlavender (talk) 00:01, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Softlavender, have you read your email? If so, you can assume what I'm asking for here. I would still like an apology from you (and Jytdog, but that's never going to happen) but I do request, as strongly as I can here, that you stop accusing me of being a liar. You know why now. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:01, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Understood Softlavender. The case stated concisely is as follows.

• Andy originally got angry with me over the RepRap project kerfluffle that was blogged about off-wiki in March 2016 (see that wonderfully titled ANI thread Rude vulgarian editor where Andy latched on) That case involved an SPI into the filer CaptainYuge (here) who was found to have an alt account, used legitimately, but was not running the disruptive account that was mentioned there.
• Around that same time, two (!) people unrelated to RepRap or Andy started a sock-driven harassment campaign against me and some other folks, which were (after a big mess of sorting) were filed under Renameduser024 and Biscuittin. Biscuittin played games with some of their many socks, and in one of them, did some things that made them look just like Andy acting disruptively toward me, which led to the SPI Andy still complains about here.
• Anyway in March 2016 Andy took to harassing me at an other article Talk page, writing (among other things) this where he led in with : How did your "disparage every editor and every source, despite knowing nothing about the subject" strategy work for you on RepRap project? Maybe you'll get three adverse media mentions for Wikipedia this time round? and went on from there with similar remarks, which I warned him about per this and this, and you can see other links there.
• In April he interfered with ongoing SPIs into the Biscuittin matter by interjecting snark and distraction as you can see here and some of his hounding comments (and my responses to them) there were finally reverted by an admin here). I warned him away from doing that here.
• In April I launched an AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barack the Magic Negro - Andy was the first to !vote (against the nomination, of course) and was out of sync with the community again. He had never edited the article before - This is really obvious and active stalking)
• In April he did this pure trolling of me, on the Talk page of a paid editor.
• He then left me alone for a while.
• In Oct 2016 after this notice was left on my talk page, Andy, who had never edited the article, interjected himself into Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alcosynth with this Keep Another behavioural car crash, and Jytdog is in the middle of it. and this comment. (article was gotten rid of via the AfD)
• In November, after an advocate who was edit warring promotional, COPYVIO content into an article about a law school left retaliatory note on my page, Andy jumped into the EWN discussion with personal attacks that had nothing to do with the matter at hand here I warned them about that here and he was blocked for 31 hours over that, (block notice).
• What prompts this filing is that i was in midst of working to remove advocacy from another article related to effective altruism, and was working with two editors with a history of EA advocacy editing (as you can see from their contribs (here for Utsill and here for Kbog) who were arguing to keep the promotional content. One of the two, Utsill, left a notice on my talk page. And Andy, who had never before edited the article or its talk page (user-search at article, user-search at talk page) jumped in and of course included commentary directed at me, like this.

Andy's action here was particularly galling, because a) Kbog, who is becoming reasonable, had proposed a decent compromise when Andy stomped in and blew it up; and b) Andy's action only inflamed Utsill, who was especially strongly resisting removing promotionalism from this article; and c) we are starting to clean up a bunch of EA advocacy articles related to another matter, and I am concerned about this pattern of behavior continuing, especially on the EA stuff.

• The pattern is clear. Andy sees a notice on my talk page, and goes to where the dispute is and jumps in, making difficult situations worse. I am now requesting an Iban. I have had enough of him interjecting his confused anger into SPIs and already-difficult discussions I often have with advocates in WP. I never have pursued him; he has a continuing pattern of pursuing me. Jytdog (talk) 18:00, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Uninvolved User Comment - Let me just pitch my two cents. I am in no way involved with this situation, but I have lurked and watched ANI for a while (From 2016 onward, mostly for my own amusement, but I do pick up on things.) I have seen User:Jytdog brought here a lot, whether it be by someone else or of his own accord, and he seems very argumentative, almost always seems like he's the one to initiate the tension in these kinds of incidents that could otherwise be solved easily. --Yukari Yakumo (talk) 18:06, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Yukari Yakumo your account is but a few days old. You have never, at least on this account, interacted extensively with Jytdog so how can you be certain he creates tension or is argumentative? It is incredibly unfair to judge him solely on his edits at ANI because generally there will be tension and disagreements by both parties.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 18:51, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

TheGracefulSlick You are right, I suppose. Seeing activity from when I was but an IP does seem very prejudiced. I was noting that he tended to be the one who sparked the tension in these ANI cases as far as I have witnessed from 2016 onward as an IP, but he may have changed since then, or maybe it's just the circumstances of the incident. --Yukari Yakumo (talk) 19:05, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

• I've been watching this discussion for a while, and it looks to me like there is no chance for any kind of consensus to emerge from it. I'll offer some advice to both parties, take it or leave it. There probably will not be an IBAN at the request of one party or the other, but if the community gets annoyed by ongoing clashes, the community is likely to enact sanctions. Both Jytdog and Andy Dingley: it would be a good idea for both of you to voluntarily act as if there were a 2-way IBAN. Just do it voluntarily. If you see the other user somewhere, go somewhere else. If the other user shows up where you already are, go somewhere else anyway. Do not interact. Do not get concerned with "but he started it first". Do not get concerned with it being unfair if you have to stop editing somewhere that you would like to edit. Life is not fair. Wikipedia is not fair. And if a third-party editor sees more clashes and opens a new thread here, there will be a much more decisive result than what is happening here, and one or both of you won't like it. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:27, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Trypto. There is no evidence, at all, of me chasing after Andy - there is plenty of him hounding me. I don't want to interact with him. I will take away from this, that if he pursues me, I will act like I have an iban with him and not respond, and I will wait a very long while to bring another case if he continues doing this and nobody else stops him. I hear you on the annoyance of my bringing this to the community and of my role in the ugliness above. Jytdog (talk) 20:50, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

• Jytdog - I express a pretty minor difference of opinion with you at Talk:Memphis Meats and what do I get? An immediate ANI post accusing me of being part of a paid editing syndicate, a post so badly skewed that you've since had to strike it through.

I have never opened an SPI on you, even though admitting it was a totally bogus thing to do.

I am not topic-banned from one of the key areas of personal interest.

I do not spend my time hunting reds under the bed, despite having an admitted COI of my own, so secret that it cannot be divulged in detail except to ArbCom

I am not the one indef blocked from the project

Yes, I have been blocked on your account - when you had a friendly admin block me for pointing out that your 4RR edit-warring was a brightline block

Anything else - I ask other editors reading this to just take a look at Jytdog's past and present editing style, the complaints about him open on his talk: and on this same ANI page right now. Andy Dingley (talk) 02:41, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

WP:LAME — Preceding unsigned comment added by JzG (talk • contribs) 13:56, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Comment: Andy is engaged in an edit war with me on the Honda Fit page. First he protected a false edit (swage cut) that had zero notable sources, then protects his own modified edit. Appears he knows very little about automobiles though is compelled to supervise and take ownership of the Honda Fit page.Lizzziemcdonald (talk) 05:18, 27 March 2017 (UTC) You have made no edits (under either of your accounts) to WP, other than to remove self-evident and sourced content that the latest model of the Honda Jazz has gained a bodywork crease the earlier versions didn't have. But for a "new editor", you sure found this ANI thread quickly enough. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:02, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

An "anarcho-capitalist" is waging an eternal edit war on the "libertarianism" article

User:IWillBuildTheRoads has been waging an edit war on the Libertarianism lead for months now.

• User was given administrator warning here.

• User was blocked here.

• User is still going.

– this is all over the exact same edit. This user has been unilaterally shoving the same thing into the lead for months now. Talking does not help. This is clearly a POV pushing issue and a tremendous waste of everyone's time. Could you please consider a topic ban? fi (talk) 22:19, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

A topic ban? He was blocked and that didn't change his behavior. Whatever good would a topic ban which cannot be mechanically enforced, do? Just block him again for longer to stop the disruption. Note I haven't looked at the issue at all, it just seems the proposed solution is a bit of nonsense. John from Idegon (talk) 22:57, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

A point of information, please: where does IWillBuildTheRoads call him- or herself an "anarcho-capitalist"? Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:59, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

In the comment section. The username is a right wing political "meme"; this wouldn't matter at all if the edits weren't clear POV-pushing and article archives weren't packed with similar Rothbard-themed usernames involved in similar incidents which eventually ended in lengthy bans. fi (talk) 23:03, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Could you explain how "IWillBuildTheRoads" is a Rothbard-themed username? IWillBuildTheRoads (talk) 01:12, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

He knows he doesn't have consensus for the lede change and his recent block [60] clearly didn't get the message across. Start with a 1-month topic ban. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 23:40, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

I suggest that we at least wait 24 hours to allow them to explain themselves before we break out the blocks. If they don't respond or continue to make the edit, then we can talk about sanctions. I don't see that a topic ban is going to do any good when the much stronger option of a short block has failed to have the desired effect. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 00:13, 28 March 2017 (UTC).

Finx, I have made this edit once since the time we were blocked. The reason is because you stopped responding to the talk page discussion. I pinged you and waited five days, but there was no response. If you want to remove or change reliably sourced material, you need to be able to explain it or at least cite a reliable source for the removal. So, Finx, why don't you head on over to the discussion and respond to my comments? That would be the productive thing to do. This also isn't POV pushing for two reasons. First, this is actually just "reliable source pushing"; every change has been supported by multiple reliable sources (some even peer reviewed). And second, this change is actually a compromise between our preferred leads as I explained a while back on my talk page (this was a response to someone asking where consensus was reached):

Sure. Just for some background info, Finx began removing reliably sourced material from the lead with a justification I didn't believe to be accurate or sufficient for the removal of the info. We discussed it on the talk page, making little progress. Saturnalia0 fortunately came along and made the post starting with "The SEP defines..." (SEP stands for Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.) In it, he or she said that until reliable sources that support Finx's view are presented (which could hopefully lead to a more permanent solution being agreed upon), his or her "suggestion is to leave the term [self-ownership] in the lead (i.e. modify the current revision) and add the SEP as a source (it is, after all, what a reliable source says)." He or she also said that "if 'rule of law' is to be kept it should be attributed to right-wing libertarians." I decided to implement this (possibly temporary) compromise between the original version and Finx's version. But, I decided to take it one step further and just remove rule of law entirely (remember, Finx wanted rule of law removed). Unfortunately, this wasn't enough. The edits were reverted by Finx without explanation (to his version with no compromise). It was discussed on the talk page more, and Saturnalia0 decided to change it back to the compromise version, but with an additional attribution that some left-libertarians deny self-ownership (I added a citation needed to the statement afterward). I thought this would be enough, because Finx's argument has been that some left-libertarians deny self-ownership (even though the SEP says otherwise). It still wasn't satisfactory for Finx. This time, however, the compromise was reverted with no explanation: [61] [62] (a vague, inaccurate explanation was only given on the talk page after I reverted these edits). I asked him about it on the talk page, but he said I was simply misunderstanding the reliable sources (however, his explanation for why contradicts the actual text of the sources). Then, he flat out denied any compromise had ever been made followed by more reversions with no adequate explanation: [63] [64] [65]

IWillBuildTheRoads (talk) 00:55, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

There's a lengthy discussion on the article's talk page on why this user is deliberately playing stupid and making deceitful claims by removing sources from their intended context. Not only is there no consensus for those statements, but User:IWillBuildTheRoads has managed to convince literally no one over all this time, yet keeps spamming the changes despite repeated warnings and noticeboard incidents. fi (talk) 01:28, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Finx, in the lengthy discussion on the talk page (which you've stopped responding to), you are the only person who has claimed I'm "deliberately playing stupid" and "making deceitful claims". This is a violation of WP:AGF. You're also the only one who has claimed I'm "removing sources from their intended context". You've made this baseless claim multiply times, but never given any justification for it. I've analyzed the context of the source showing why it clearly supports what is being cited. I've rebutted your claims, but you haven't responded to my comments. In the various threads (including the most recently active one), there are multiple comments of mine you haven't responded to. I pinged you and waited five days (which I thought was reasonable), but you haven't given any counterarguments. There were only ever three people active in the discussion: Saturnalia0, Finx, and myself. As the block quote above explains, Saturnalia0 proposed the compromise lead, which I attempted to implement. Since he proposed it, he was presumably OK with it. Thus, it's misleading to say I've convinced no one, since Saturnalia0 proposed and therefore agreed to the compromise I implemented. Moreover, I can't find any users on the talk page you have convinced either. Since a majority of the discussion took place between you and me, it's not very meaningful to talk about how many people we've "convinced". I don't intend to make a tu quoque argument, but you have also been banned and have multiple warnings for the same article. Seems a bit like the pot calling the kettle black to me. IWillBuildTheRoads (talk) 02:29, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

AGF applies before two months of WP:ICANTHEARYOU. You have no consensus for your ancap narrative, for reasons that were explained to you very plainly. You have been asked for months, by multiple users, to stop your abusive editing. You were offered an RfC and dispute resolution for your unique creative interpretation of the sources' context, which nobody shares. The discussion is over. fi (talk) 02:37, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

WP:ICANTHEARYOU would only relevant if the rest of the community had reached a consensus that agreed with you, which is not the case (if anything, it's the opposite). After all, I'm not the one refusing to accept the compromise after it has been agreed upon by others. (I'm not saying you have to accept it of course; I'm just saying it's somewhat ironic that you're accusing me of WP:ICANTHEARYOU.) We've both been asked to stop our disruptive editing (in fact, both of us were blocked), so your statement applies equally to both of us. After I was banned, I made no changes to the lead until all communication from you on the talk page stopped with no explanation. You're the only one who's claimed I have a "unique creative interpretation of the sources' context" as far as I know. The discussion is not over, because when I questioned how I am misinterpreting the context of the sources, I received no reply from you. When I asked you explain why you were removing reliably sourced content from the lead, I received no answer. And when I asked what objections you have to the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy source, I received no response. If you can provide an answer to these important questions, I urge you to continue the discussion on the talk page. IWillBuildTheRoads (talk) 04:38, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

I have spent literally weeks assuming good faith and attempting to give a point-by-point breakdown of why your edits are inappropriate. In response, you plug your ears and hum and say everyone is "absolutely full of garbage"; I did not open this issue to debate the article or to do this back-and-forth. I am asking for administrative action because you will not stop vandalizing the article and wasting other peoples' time. fi (talk) 05:41, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

OK, that's taking what I said out of context both textually and temporally. Notice how the next edit, which was mere minutes later, has the edit summary "Change statement to be more professional". If you look at the diff, you can see that I removed my innapropriate comment right after I added the post (before you would have seen it). I would argue that on the whole I have handled myself professionally (but I encourage everyone to look for themselves and form their own judgments). Accusing me of vandalizing the article is a perfect example of assuming bad faith. While we both may disagree with each other, we know very well that neither of us are adding vandalism to the article (see WP:VANDNOT). IWillBuildTheRoads (talk) 06:04, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Proposal

This has gone on far too long, I suggest that the two warring parties either agree to mediation or be topic banned form that article. Guy (Help!) 13:44, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

There is not "two warring parties." There is one single party that wants to shove specific USLP talking points into the lead with no regard for verifiability or consensus. fi (talk) 15:59, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

You just made my case for me, well done. Guy (Help!) 22:41, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Your unsolicited snark notwithstanding, it's still just one repeatedly warned and sanctioned POV warrior vs every other editor involved. Mediation was offered and then rejected, as this user unilaterally decided he doesn't need consensus. fi (talk) 22:44, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

This is inaccurate. Insisting that we not remove content supported by multiple reliable sources isn't POV pushing. Mediation was offered by Saturnalia0, who proposed a compromise. I accepted it and began to advocate that version of the lead instead of the original. Nonetheless, Finx continued to change the lead to his or her preferred version, with no rationale given for ignoring the mediation. IWillBuildTheRoads (talk) 23:59, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

So, basically every word of that is a fabrication, which anyone can confirm by looking at the article talk page and noticeboard history. fi (talk) 00:09, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

As for my claim that I agreed to the compromise, we can verify that on the article talk page, Saturnalia0 suggested the compromise. I responded with "This is a good NPOV compromise that I agree with. I have made the changes to the article." As for my claim that you changed the lead to your preferred version multiple times with no rationale given, see [66], [67], [68], and [69]. I'm not sure what you are trying to say about the noticeboards. When you reported me, we were both blocked for 24 hours. IWillBuildTheRoads (talk) 01:33, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

In a sense, Saturnalia0 was a mediator who proposed a compromise for the lead, which I agreed to. I fully welcome any further mediation. IWillBuildTheRoads (talk) 16:04, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Steve Bannos COI

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 editor known as SteveBannos Has made three edits to the articel sharing his name. including a bad image addition, and EW over redlinks with me and [[User:|Serols]]. NOTHERE L3X1 (distant write) 23:10, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Notified, fixing ping Serols L3X1 (distant write) 23:11, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Soft blocked due to the username issue (famous name). ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 23:25, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Thankee. I'm going to watch his page for a few days, per DOLT. L3X1 (distant write) 23:52, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

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

Unilateral discussion closure by involved editors

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 discussion[70] became counterproductive and contentious. User:Walter Görlitz suggested a closure [71]. I agreed to it in good faith[72], expecting good faith and unaware of the particulars @ Wikipedia:Closing discussions. WGorlitz closed the discussion—AND included a statement declaring a consensus for his side of the argument[73]. I assume that the purpose of having uninvolved Admins/editors close discussions is to insure NPOV. WGorlitz violated the guideline to impose his (and others) POV as a consensus interpretation for WP:NMUSIC. I never agreed to any sort of consensus closure.

I undid the closure[74] in the belief that it wasn't/isn't a legitimate closure—also the reason I'm not requesting an ordinary Closure review. User:Francis Schonken undid my reversion. On WGorlitz's Talk page, I invited him to undo the closure to avoid an administrative procedure, including an explanation of how his closure violated guidelines. (Note: WGorlitz also removed my request from his Talk page.)

I left a message[75] @ FSchonken's Talk page requesting that he undo his action. His reply at the end of that discussion shows him to be involved, with a POV on the subject, and not qualified to close the discussion.

I request that WGorlitz's closure be undone. I intend to initiate an RfC, to determine if there is a wider range of opinion outside of the confines of WP:NMUSIC's talk page. Tapered (talk) 06:42, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

I see one editor suggesting we change policy in some unspecified way so as to permit articles about successful youtubers that do not have any significant coverage in secondary sources. I see three editors disagreeing with them, while explaining exactly why. There's a word for that sort of occurence: "consensus". ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 06:51, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for contribution to the RfC. This is about an involved editor using subterfuge and violating guidelines to close a discussion. Tapered (talk) 06:54, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

I suppose this closure review discussion should've been opened at WP:AN (i.e. not here at WP:ANI), at least that's what I recommended per Wikipedia:Closing discussions#Challenging other closures. That may be a minor technical issue, nonetheless I suppose the behaviour exhibited by Tapered is primarily "not taking no for an answer". That may be commendable (tenacity is a good thing to a certain degree), until it devolves into WP:IDHT, which started to happen, afaics, long before Walter Görlitz closed the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Notability (music)#YouTube & notability. My involvement is primarily to make Walter Görlitz's closure stick, and only employ procedures as outlined at WP:Closure review for those not agreeing with that closure.

So I'd recommend to close this ANI thread ASAP, that is, before it backfires to Tapered. --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:09, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

I am completely uninvolved until now, Tapered. Consensus in that discussion was clearly against your position, and the closure accurately reflects the consensus. Please accept the consensus and move on. Thank you. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:16, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Fair enough. !@#$ it and... Tapered (talk) 07:38, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Tapered asked me on my talk page to close this thread, but given that there seems to be no outstanding disagreement, I don't think anything needs to be done.  Sandstein  08:41, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

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

Immediate desysop for turrible turrible admin

Another April 1 Thread Monty845 23:04, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The community must act now! Cyberpower678 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) has clearly defied all administrative standards by closing an RFA as IAR. This RFA had a real chance of succeeding, but now that an admin has done such a turrible thing, we may never have a chance of a crat seeing this and giving WP:Wikipe-tan the rights they deserve! — Tea // have a ☕️ // leaves // 22:43, 1 April 2017 (UTC) Which time zone are they in?--Ymblanter (talk) 22:48, 1 April 2017 (UTC) Currently UTC+2.→ Call me CP678 22:52, 1 April 2017 (UTC) This is the same as mine, and we already have 2 April, but those North Americal folks still have some time to celebrate.--Ymblanter (talk) 22:57, 1 April 2017 (UTC) I try to go by UTC, and I really wanted to close an RfA for something ridiculous. Now I have fulfilled my greatest desire.--Cyberpower | My Talk 23:01, 1 April 2017 (UTC) Frantic ANI troll comment See!!! He goes by UTC to flaunt the clear community consensus!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?! — Tea // have a ☕️ // leaves // 23:03, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

User:Albignoni making legal and personal threats

Albignoni (talk · contribs · logs), a single purpose account with 8 edits since: 2015-01-02, edit warring to exclude information about a source which proves that his prior edits (performed as dynamic IPs) were made up. He's throwing legal and personal threats in two languages at me. Quote (from summary of a dynamic IP): you will get problems with my lawyer, and in Polish (as Albignoni): Wydawnictwo Znak i moj adwokat znajda cie, which translates roughly as: Sign Publishing and my lawyer with hunt you down boy".[76] Editing history:

1. Logged out as 93.230.43.90 (talk · contribs · logs) from Baden-Württemberg, 23 March 2017, removing the same book reference.[77]
2. Logged out as 149.172.46.139 (talk · contribs · logs) from Baden-Württemberg, 25 March 2017, removing the same book reference.[78]
3. Logged out as 134.3.199.60 (talk · contribs · logs) from Baden-Württemberg, 7 October 2016, removing book reference and adding the false quote in question but without the actual source-link.[79]
4. Logged out as‎ 109.192.182.68 (talk · contribs · logs) from Baden-Württemberg, 3 August 2016, the same false quote inserted for the first time with link to Google Books which proves that it does not exist.[80]

Poeticbent talk 03:33, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Blocked the account. Which, BTW, means that any further edits from the user under IPs fall under WP:3RRNO. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:43, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello. A bit of WP:DOLT maybe. The diffs above show the IP removing links to a PDF file which appears to be a copy of a book which is protected by copyright laws - the author died in 2000. In all likelihood, this PDF is hosted in violation of the creator's copyright. WP:COPYLINK clearly says that this link MUST be removed. Thanks and regards, Biwom (talk) 04:15, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi Poeticbent and Ian.thomson, as Biwom says, it looks as though Albignoni was removing a link to an unauthorized copy of the book. I've removed the link, which is dead now anyway. I've also left the quote from the first Picador edition on the talk page (which was apparently in doubt), in case it's helpful. SarahSV ^(talk) 05:28, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Please be advised that this affair is not about the Wikipedia article's sourcing per se. The real (!) conflict is all about money and privilege in the real world. The family of Władysław Szpilman received oodles (no doubt) from the producers of the The Pianist (2002 film) for the rights to the story. Ever since, dynamic IPs such as user: 94.254.197.112 (talk · contribs · logs) (not mentioned above) scream bloody murder at the sound of the name Jerzy Waldorff, a renown Polish writer who wrote the book for Szpilman after the war ended. – Here are the samples of relevant edit summaries dating back to 2013 by IP 94.254.197.112 (whom I believe to be the same person): → Gestapo Collaborator and Gangster -antisemitic lies, slander and libel ... Stop devastating of this bio by polish antisemits ... stop vandalism look out - you may get some problems with the justice for lies and wrong information about authorship. – I did not list this incident in my original report only because it was four years old already. Poeticbent talk 15:04, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello. Whatever the wrongs of other users, it would be great if you could show some contrition for repeatedly ([81] [82] [83] [84] [85]) restoring in an article about a copyrighted book a link to a copy of that very book. "Respect copyright laws" is actually something you can read at WP:5P. Thanks and regards, Biwom (talk) 02:53, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello. The internal link to essay Wikipedia:Don't overlook legal threats (posted above) would imply that the Wikipedia article The Pianist (memoir) might be "a ghastly article – either full of lies or a one-sided hatchet job spinning its sources" (end of quote) as our WP:DOLT explains. I'm sure you didn't mean that. Reverting unsupported changes which include faked citations,[86] by single purpose dynamic IPs (with apparent conflict of interest) is part of Wikipedia process. – This however, does not mean that the articles cannot be improved. The link to a PDF copy of the book has been subsequently removed by SarahSV, good enough. I also responded to her note in talk. Wikipedia:Wikipedia is a work in progress. Poeticbent talk 18:55, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

I've rewritten that lead to make the authorship issue clearer. I think all the copyvio links have been removed; Biwom, thanks for removing the last of them. SarahSV ^(talk) 02:15, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

• Ian.thomson, the same person is back as 149.172.46.139 (talk · contribs · logs), removing sourced content from The Pianist (memoir). [87] SarahSV ^(talk) 16:15, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Protected the page for a month. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:18, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Doc James, thanks. SarahSV ^(talk) 16:21, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Meanwhile, I have received two threatening and abusive emails already from the same individual, one through the Wikipedia email system from user Albignoni and one via facebook, both in Polish and signed by the full name of the person in question. I would not be posting his name here, for some might consider it outing, but I'd be happy to forward the threats delivered to me via Wikipedia email to whomever it might concern, including User:Doc James, SarahSV, and User:Ian.thomson. Thank you, Poeticbent talk 17:40, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes feel free to share with me. I have removed their ability to send email. Not sure what mechanisms FB has for these sort of issues. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:42, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Poeticbent, I would like to see those messages if you can email them to me. SarahSV ^(talk) 18:09, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Done. Thanks, Poeticbent talk 18:25, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

User:TheBlackKnightConfirmes

Yet another WP:NOTHERE conspiracy theorist. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:11, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

With the past only two edits, it seems that something is suspicious, and there seems to be nothing new, depending if a previous account is overlapped. SportsLair (talk) 23:24, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

When a conspiracy theorist posts things that are remarkably similar to things posted by a previous conspiracy theorist, there is a tendency to assume sockpuppetry. In reality, conspiracy theories tend to have lots of true believers who read the same webpages, so I choose to WP:AGF. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:51, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

So the belief that this conspiracy theorist is the same conspiracy theorist as the last conspiracy theorist is a conspiracy, then? — Preceding unsigned comment added by HalfShadow (talk • contribs) 00:30, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

User:Certified Gangsta's userspace

Certified Gangsta (talk · contribs) has had a long and chequered career on Wikipedia since at least 2006, with many different usernames — YOLO Swag, Bonafide.hustla, and Freestyle.king come to mind — and a long block log. Certified Gangsta was one of his earliest accounts, and he has now returned to that name after being gone for four years. AFAIK, he used to mostly change his name per the proper procedures, which means the block log has come with him. Bonafide.hustla and Freestyle.king are, however, exceptions: those blocks (quite numerous) are here and here. Please note that there are links to those logs in Certified Gangsta's log: look for User:East718's dummy entry on 21 November 2008.

All clear so far? My problem is this: in 2013, Od Mishehu created a page in Certified Gangsta's own userspace, containing a list of six other blocks, all of them from 2006. These old blocks seem to be all now under the name Certified Gangsta, so I don't understand why they don't appear in Certified Gangsta's regular block log. The technicalities of this are beyond me, and I appeal to people to please not explain it here, unless against all the odds it has some interest.

Certified Gangsta doesn't like having this page in his userspace, and has blanked it and asked me to delete it. User request to delete subpages in their own space falls under the WP:U1 speedy criterion, but the case was unusual, and Od Mishehu had specifically written on the page "Note: Please note that this page should not be deleted even if the user requests for it. This is the user's record under old user names."[88] Therefore, I asked Od Mishehu privately if he was all right with me deleting the page, but he's not, and refers to the specifics of WP:U1: "In some rare cases there may be administrative need to retain the page."

I would still like to delete the page, and would like to know what the community thinks. My reason is twofold:

1. I don't see that we need such a scrupulous record at all of blocks that are so old, 2006. Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy.

2. If we really do need that ancient record, then I don't understand the need to keep the list in CG's own space, which is humiliating and chafing for him. I'll acknowledge that he has always been a problematic user, but he's nevertheless a person, and deserves personal consideration just like everybody else. I see where Od Mishehu was coming from when he created the page in 2013, but why not move it somewhere less hurtful, now that the user has returned? Od Mishehu has put a note in CG's block log, at the top, linking to the page. Now obviously that note in the log could just as well link to the same information somewhere else — say in Od Mishehu's own space. I'd appreciate knowing what people think.

Bishonen | talk 17:20, 23 March 2017 (UTC).

• Oh lord. Delete the thing. Six eleven-year-old blocks aren't going to matter when there are numerous more recent blocks to consider if sanctions are needed again. If there is an administrative need then an administrator can follow the link from the dummy edit in the block log and view the deleted page anyway. TimothyJosephWood 17:29, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
• I say keep until there's some better way to knit together the user's disparate block logs, though courtesy blanking should be fine. No other user gets to blank their own block logs. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:39, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Users don't get to blank their block logs, but whether this subdocument is a block log is less clear; I've never heard of such documentation being kept in a user's space against their will. Drmies (talk) 17:44, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Well, the alternative to knitting together the various block logs of a user who's been blocked with multiple accounts is probably SPI. Some idle entry in their user space is probably preferable from a dignity perspective. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:15, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

• This could have been an interesting debate, but there's a shortcut that takes all the complications out of it: I believe I've confirmed that all blocks and unblocks listed on Od Mishehu's page are already also listed in the actual block logs of Freestyle.king and Bonafide.husla, as already noted by East718 in the current block log. So the subpage can be deleted, it has no additional info that isn't already documented. The deletion rationale should be "Page no longer needed, blocks of previous usernames already documented in current block log by East718" or something similar, so people following OM's link won't be puzzled. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:03, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Hmm, well yes, then that seems fine. Delete the page, whatever administrative need it was fulfilling is fulfilled by East718's entry. Unless OD has some other reason for keeping it. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:12, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

• Keep the page but hide the content (revdel?) so that only administrators can see it. That way everyone would be happy, no public humiliation for the Gangsta' but easily readable for the only ones who could possibly be interested in it, i.e. admins. 18:10, 23 March 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thomas.W (talk • contribs)

We're talking here about a user who has repeatedly changed usernames, and who I suspect (although this is only an opinion) does this to try and prevent users from "remembering" him. He ran for MEDCOM under one username, 2 RFAs undr 2 other names (the second one being Certified.Gangsta, in June 2008), and was back in the December 2008 ArbCom elections under yet a different name. He subsequently ran for ArbCom twice more, the second time under yet a different name. A user like this needs to keep his record with him for everyone to see. Unlike most of us, though, there is a good reason to hide part of it: he got renamed twice before the block logs were transfered for renamed users, and those old names were taken by known troll. This pagfeis a way to keep his blocks, under those names, with him - without making him look like this specific troll at a glance. Admins can confirm that when I created this page, I also hid a dummy line in his block log linking to these 2 accounts. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 18:43, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

But, as I commented above, the other usernames' block logs are *already* listed in his block log, linked to by East718's note. If you're saying your way would have been better, that might be true, but the toothpaste is out of the tube, the usernames and block logs are all linked. This subpage is just a duplicate. If CG prefers it not be in his userspace anymore, it should be fine to delete the page. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:52, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

• Delete, as Floquenbeam has found where the original blocks are documented in actual block logs. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:54, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Only if we unhide East718's log entry, which I think is worse for CG. This was the reason that I did it - I thought that this would be a better way that next time CG runs for additional rights, he can be judged by the community on all and only his own record. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 18:56, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Oh, I see now. I didn't know that East718's entry was only visible to admins; I could see it, I assumed everyone could. If there's consensus here that the entries aren't needed at all, then delete the page and keep East's entry hidden. If there's consensus here to keep one or the other (instead of just ignoring those old blocks) then I think the choice should be left up to CG: keep the page, or unhide East718's entry. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:03, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

I find it hard to imagine a scenario where some decision has been made on sanctions or rights and somehow this information from 2006 pushes things over the edge. The information is sufficiently stale so as to make the whole think look a bit pointy. TimothyJosephWood 19:46, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Is this really going to make any practical difference, ever? Are we looking at a potential Arbcom candidate whose application would be stymied only by those small few blocks out of a lifetime of them? How about we get real, delete this stuff to help a real human person in their wish to come back, and go worry about more important things? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:55, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

The point is that each voter has the right to decide for himself/herself how relevant these blocks are; we shouldn't make the decision for him/her. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 04:12, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Then point voters at the actual block logs, and don't force a user to keep links to them in their own user space like a badge of shame. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:20, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

A userspace page is generally not seen by visitors to the user's userspace unless (s)he actually includes links to them or transclusions of them. The only link I provided to this page is from the user's block log. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 11:33, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

That's an irrelevant diversion - now that the block logs have been found, there is no policy-based justification for forcing a user to keep their own additional copy in their own userspace. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:21, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

I've refrained from commenting so far since I simply want to let this process take its course and minimize any potential drama. However, I do think I deserve credit for always applying username change through the proper channel when I easily could have opted for clean start or exercised my right to vanish like many others do, especially in light of my sporadic editing history over the past 6-7 years (unfortunately, that's just the way my real life has been going). All my contributions over the past 11 years are on this account and I have made no attempt whatsoever to conceal my history, so I think it's unfair for User:Od Mishehu to assume bad faith by opining that I change username as a way to "try and prevent users from "remembering" me". As far as I know, no other users have ever been subjected to one-second blocks and user space "badge of shame" like I have been. And the lack of precedents is quite disconcerting. For example, when User:Sumple was blocked for disruption [89], he immediately abandoned his account in favor of a brand new account User:PalaceGuard008 without going through Wikipedia:Changing username/Simple in a clear-cut attempt to wipe clean his block log. When he was exposed, admins on AN/I concluded that it was deception at best [90] [91] and abusive sockpuppetry at worst [92]. Yet there has been no effort whatsoever to fully document the block log of User:PalaceGuard008 despite the fact that his old Sumple account was once blocked indefinitely for sockpuppetry (later overturned just like many of my old blocks). And frankly, this is just one out of the many examples that I have personally witnessed where problematic users are allowed to bypass Wikipedia:Changing username/Simple and wipe clean their block log, which is something I would never do as a matter of principle. However, I think it would only be fair if User:Od Mishehu takes the initiative to fully chronicle User:PalaceGuard008 block log, including those from his old User:Sumple account, through the administrative use of 1-second block. Last but not least, I would like to thank everyone, in particular User:Boing! said Zebedee for taking the time to participate in this discussion and User:Bishonen for bringing this issue to AN/I. Happy editing!--Certified Gangsta (talk) 03:31, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

The Wikipedia machine has notified me that I have been implicated in this discussion. I am posting here only to say that I object to being brought into this discussion by User:Certified Gangsta, whom I regard as a wholly disruptive, net-destructive user, in this way. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 09:25, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

• Uninvolved administrative suggestion: What about just making several 1 second blocks making a note of the old blocks, documenting the time and reason they were done.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 22:08, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
• I'd be okay with deleting the page as a duplicate of their block log, if we can unhide that block log entry from East718 which adds the necessary context. User:Od Mishehu, is there any reason in your view to keep that log entry hidden? Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:13, 24 March 2017 (UTC).
  • The reason I hid this log entry is that there is no reason to connect CG with the new accounts under the names Freestyle.king and Bonafide.hustla (these accounts are Grawp's); I made thwe duplicate so that all community members would be aable to see these block log entries. Should CG ever run for any permissions again (quite likely he will), the community should judge him according to his record, his whole record, and nothing but his record. Giving them easy access to these first usernames violates the "nothing but his record" bit; keeping them away from these log entries violates the "his whole record" bit. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 18:33, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Proposed resolution

While I recognize the argument that a Wikipedia editor's history should be visible (while noting the apparent contradiction conveyed by cleanstart policy), I note that:

• The actual block log entries in question do still exist and have been found.
• The user in question has followed policy regarding the renaming of accounts and does not appear to have attempted to disguise their past through cleanstarting or through other means.
• There is a policy basis for retaining user space pages if there is an administrative need, but the spirit of that policy appears to be aimed at user pages created by users themselves and not pages created by other editors/admins in their user space.
• There is no precedent I can find for forcing a user to retain a page in their user space created by another editor/admin without clear consensus.
• There is only one admin here (the admin who created the page in question) arguing for the retention of the page in question.
• When a consensus is not established in favour of overturning the status quo, that status prevails.
• There is no consensus for overturning the status quo with respect to WP:U1.

I therefore inform that community that, in the absence of any clear policy reason for forcing a user to retain in their own user space a page created by someone else, or a clear consensus in opposition to that default policy position, in 48 hours from now I will delete the user page in question in accordance with the provisions of WP:U1. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:04, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

• Support - As should be obvious. But I will say that I would much prefer it if OM made the point moot, recognized that the consensus is against them on this one, and did it themselves, even if they disagree with it. TimothyJosephWood 13:46, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
• Support Forcing a user to keep a page in their userspace for this reason sets a bad precedent. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:41, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
• Deleted. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:03, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you User:Boing! said Zebedee!--Certified Gangsta (talk) 00:32, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Apparently compromised editor

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:Oshwah has been making very odd edits for about 30 minutes. The account might be compromised. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:B300:C700:28AE:A45B:786B:818A (talk) 11:37, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Don't worry, I got him. Psst. It's the 1st of April. Sam Walton (talk) 11:42, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

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

Dan56

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 wish to report User:Dan56 for acting as though he owned Too Much Too Soon (album). I'd like to change the caption for a picture of the band from "The New York Dolls in 1973" to "The band in 1973", and he simply will not accept it. He reverts it twice and gives me two clearly irrelevant reasons for doing so (see the page history), he then reverts it again without giving a reason at all and tells me to stop on my talk page, I accuse him of attempting to exercise ownership over the article and he doesn't respond (despite making numerous contributions in the meantime), I ping him and he still doesn't respond, so I revert it again and he re-reverts it once more and simply accuses me of edit warring, once again without a reason for reverting it in the first place. This specific issue probably could be resolved on the article's talk page, but I don't want to let him simply get away with attempting to exercise ownership over Wikipedia content. Esszet (talk) 23:08, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

You both are edit warring... RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 23:11, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Well, now I'm here, and he may be sanctioned anyway by User:El_C; no further action may be necessary. Esszet (talk) 23:12, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Personally, I think that it would be best for both you and Dan56 to stop editing the article, or at the very least to use the talk page. Also, aren't you also exercising ownership of the article by trying to keep it a specific way? Really, both of you need to use the talk page, or, preferably, stop editing the article altogether. RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 23:16, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Please note that neither editor has posted anything on the article's talk page. Also, that Dan56 is frequently brought here because of article ownership behavior. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 23:19, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

*sigh* @MShabazz: Dan56 (talk) 23:28, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

I don't think what I'm doing is unreasonable or capricious; it sounds silly to say "The New York Dolls" when "The band" would be just fine. I did attempt to talk to him about it – on my talk page, and if he won't say anything there, I don't see why he'd say anything on the article's talk page. Esszet (talk) 23:23, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

But you have to at least make an attempt to discuss it on the article talk page, so that others can participate and help. However, only Dan56 breached 3RR. El_C 23:26, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, I misread the dates. I'm just going to protect the page and direct both participants to the talk page. El_C 23:30, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

It doesn't exactly matter what you are edit-warring over, it really just matters that you are edit-warring and that all the potential avenues of dispute resolution have not been taken. It is better to try and fail then to not try when one would have succeeded. RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 23:27, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Why should the burden fall on me to open a discussion when I've made a reasonable argument and cited relevant caption guidelines disputing the other editor's position and bold edit? Dan56 (talk) 23:29, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Uh, what? And sure, I could, but I almost certainly would have come here even if I won the dispute there – what he's doing is in clear violation of Wikipedia policy either way. Esszet (talk) 23:30, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

It should fall on both of the editors. RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 23:32, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

As I've said, I could take it to the talk page, but I almost certainly would have come here anyway. Esszet (talk) 23:33, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Ok, since this seems to be going nowhere, it seems best that we all stop editing for a bit (here) and discuss this issue on the talk page. RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 23:36, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea. El_C 23:39, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

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

Halon8

An account User:Halon8, inactive since 2012 shows up and reverts two of my edits, which are reverts of a sock of the blocked user User:Жовтневе багаття, calling my edits "vandalism" and asking me to go to the talk page (which obviously contradicts WP:BRD). I would normally decide that they are a sock of the same user and block them indefinitely, but they have a non-zero contribution from before 2012 which does not look as a contribution of User:Жовтневе багаття. Could someone please have a look at this user and decide what to do with them? Thanks.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:43, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

There seems to be a concerted effort by several users to remove all references to autonomous movements in Russia. These sections should be strengthened with sources e.g. http://www.justicefornorthcaucasus.com/jfnc_message_boards/imperialism.php?title=window-on-eurasia%3A-separatism-remains-strong-in-tuva&entry_id=1214897100 , https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=JKuCE2crlhgC&lpg=PA57&ots=DgPz8NyGpt&dq=tuva%20separatists&pg=PP1#v=onepage&q=tuva%20separatists&f=false rather than simply deleted (or deleted if they are genuinely non-existent/no longer active movements- but this need to be evaluated individually not en masse). It is difficult to see how removing large sections of content (where there is clearly evidence for this content) is not vandalism, but I do apologise if I was too quick to use this term. I don't appreciate being called a sock puppet for reverting what were likely politically motivated edits violating NPOV. Since these are contraversial issues they should be discussed on Talk and a consensus reached. Halon8 (talk) 12:32, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

It is great that you "seem" to see a "concerted effort" of several (which?) users but I am sure I did not coordinate anything, just reverted a blocked sock edits. Could you please explain how did it happen that your first edits since 2012 are two reverts?--Ymblanter (talk) 12:37, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

I find wikipedia to be a fairly hostile place which is why I don't edit frequently. The editors who removed content can be seen on the history page - basically you and User: My very best wishes (I thought there were some un-named users as well but I may be mistaken). I was looking for content about Russia's autonomous movements and I found that it had largely been deleted so I reverted it. I apologise that I'm not an expert in wiki-lawyering. I am going to wait for others to weigh in on this. I really don't understand why this can't simply be discussed on the talk pages of the two articles. Many of the 'movements' listed are made up of only a few people (e.g. Yorkshire or Wessex) but without some sourceable definition of what is 'active' and what is a 'valid' autonomous movement then Russian movements should not be treated differently to the others Halon8 (talk) 13:06, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Accusing other editors of vandalism isn't going to do anything to alleviate the perceived hostility. That's assuming bad faith. Kleuske (talk) 13:36, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

I have apologised for using the term vandalism. I still find it hard to understand how any editors would remove such a large amount of content in good faith including for example the well known Chechnyan independence movement. https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/18/world/europe/russia-chechen-ramzan-a-kadyrov.html?rref=collection%2Ftimestopic%2FChechnya&action=click&contentCollection=world&region=stream&module=stream_unit&version=latest&contentPlacement=1&pgtype=collection&_r=0 Halon8 (talk) 15:20, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Irondome tells me that the sockpuppetry accusation has been withdrawn. If so, this should be stated on the ANI and on my Talk page. Reverting someone's edit is not a reason to call them a sockpuppet and open a dispute about them, and a long standing Administrator should know this. They should be leading by example not letting their emotions get the better of them and terrifying editors with threats of blocking. Imagine if I had been a new user who had made the revert - Ymblanter has admitted that they would just have blocked me immediately which is in violation of policy. He/she could have just posted on my Talk page or the article's Talk page to start with. I have incidentally found the section of the Talk page where he had earlier discussed making the edit with My very best wishes, but it is misleadingly not in the existing Russia section, doesn't mention Russia and doesn't really explain anything which has added to the confusion. I admit I was wrong to call him a vandal or assume anything about his motivations for removing the content and I apologise for this, but I would like to receive an apology from Ymblanter for his overreaction. Halon8 (talk) 15:24, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Halon8, as you have mentioned me I must clarify here. I said that "that suspicion appears to have been withdrawn". However Ymblanter in his subsequent comment still has suspicions that you are a block evader. Can you please clarify, are you in any way connected to User:Жовтневе багаття? Ymb above states "I would normally decide that they are a sock of the same user and block them indefinitely, but they have a non-zero contribution from before 2012 which does not look as a contribution of User:Жовтневе багаття". I took that to be a sign that you were not. However Ym still harbours doubts from his comment on my T/P. I think you should explicitly clarify your identity, and we can move forward. Irondome (talk) 15:35, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

To be honest, my suspicions became even worse. Users with the total contribution of 212 edits (an zero between 2012 and 2017) usually do not start by reverts in articles which are under WP:ARBEE, they do not exactly repeat edits of a recently blocked user, they do not wikilawyer, and they do not demand an apology. We have unfortunately seen a huge amount of users with several dozens edits in ARBEE topics who suddenly start adding POV (both sides) and wikilawyer, raising suspicions they are WP:NOTTHERE. Many of them have been taken to CU and found to be socks of blocked users. The standard practice was to block those on the spot, not letting them to waste time of users in good standing.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:43, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Obviously I am not User:Жовтневе багаття. I don't know how I'm supposed to clarify my identity, but I am happy to do what is asked (short of revealing personal information online). I don't think your 'standard practice' is consistent with Wikipedia policy or with the spirit of Wikipedia, but maybe this place is very different these days. Please remember that I am a real person and real people behave in a variety of different ways - we don't usually spend our whole lives editing Wikipedia non-stop. I reverted one set of edits (reverting the removal of long-standing content) - that is not reason to block someone or threaten to do so. You have been aggressive thoughout. You should only be blocking people for disruptive editing not because you suspect (based on very little) that someone is a 'bad' user. NB just because whatever-his-name was a sockpuppet doesn't automatically mean that restoring the material deleted by My very best wishes was a disruptive edit. I didn't look in depth at who had made the edit before I reverted them, and honestly, I would be worried if that was the approach that everyone was taking now (although I likely wouldnt have said it was vandalism if I had checked the user histories more closely). Edits should be judged on their merits not by checking whether someone is in the gang of respected people. Halon8 (talk) 16:56, 24 March 2017 (UTC) And just to clarify, I am in no way connected with User:Жовтневе багаття, I had no knowledge of this person until Ymblanter brought me here and I looked at their user page. Halon8 (talk) 17:01, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

• Competence required on the part of Halon8. They tell that Yakutia and Tuva are "separatist movements" [93]. They are not separatist movements, but autonomous republics. My very best wishes (talk) 02:04, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Let's try to assume some good faith and competence all around—I think there are just language issues here. Some googling indicates that there might be separatist movements within those "autonomous republics,"[94][95][96] just as there is long-term separatist movement within that other "autonomous" (cough, cough) republic of Chechnya. Based on my reading of the dif you just shared, I think that's what the editor meant. First Light (talk) 15:04, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Here is the problem. One must at least provide name of the corresponding separatist movement (per sources) to include a separatism movement in the list. Something like Tuva, Chechens, or even "Chechen separatists" is not a separatist movement. Let's keep apples and oranges separately. My very best wishes (talk) 22:14, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes I was using shorthand to refer to the Tuvan nationalist and Yakutian nationalist (aka Sakha nationalist) movements. I'm sorry if this was not clear (I thought we were having a productive discussion about definitions and sources). I have also learnt that I should have said WP:DUE not Notability so sorry for that too.

I'm sorry I asked for an apology - I did not realise that was not allowed. I'm sorry that my first apology continued to doubt the motivations of the editors - it was clearly not just the use of the term 'vandalism' but my doubting of their good faith that was a problem. I'm sorry I misunderstood Irondome's statement about the accusation being withdrawn. I do not understand the reference to NotHere. I do not understand the reference to ARBEE. If the two pages I edited are under some kind of arbitration, shouldn't there be a giant warning sign at the top of the Talk pages? I do not agree that the articles or material are 'trash' or 'nonsense', I just think they need improving. I do not understand how you can threaten to block someone on the basis of one set of two edits, but I'm probably wrong about this. Please could someone explain in plain English exactly what it is I am supposed to do? I have tried to find someone who can verify my identity but have not succeeded. This is all very upsetting. Halon8 (talk) 18:44, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

I assumed as much (that you were referring to separatist movements within those countries). So, if there are reliable sources showing nationalist/separatist movements within those countries, then they could be added to the list, assuming they are notable enough and current. Seems pretty simple and straightforward to me. Until there is proof that this user is a sockpuppet, can we assume good faith here, or is that asking too much? First Light (talk) 12:41, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

These lists have criteria for inclusion at the top. See, for example, List of active separatist movements in Asia. It tells: " Entries on this list must meet three criteria: 1. They are active movements with current, active members." and so on. OK. One needs an RS telling there is certain separatism movement, rather than a single activist or simply citizens who are not involved in any movements, but have a personal opinion on the subject of autonomy. I would also assume that the movement must have a name, just like any object to be included in any list (e.g. any protein in a list of proteins must have a name, etc.). My very best wishes (talk) 16:04, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

I think this really is a conversation about semantic difference (that should be on the Talk pages not here). In my view, these movements were easily verifiable i.e. the sources I've provided do show evidence of separatist or autonomous movements, e.g. the Moscow Times article says "Chechnya and Dagestan are seen as the main centers of separatism in Russia, but there are also separatist movements in regions including Tatarstan, Tuva, Bashkortostan, Sakha, and even regions where the majority of the population is Russian, such as exclave Kaliningrad and the Primorsky region in the Far East". There is a whole book and many articles about the autonomy movement in Tatarstan https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=7ydo7Idyqj0C&dq=Council+of+Aksakals+of+Bashkortostan&source=gbs_navlinks_s, plus two politial parties advocating for autonomy. There is an article on circassian nationalism. These are well known movements. Social movements can have different names and are not the same as advocacy groups. Books such as https://books.google.co.uk/books/about/Encyclopedia_of_the_Stateless_Nations_A.html?id=OLKKVXgEpkoC&redir_esc=y list movements by the name of the area or ethnic group. The criteria for the lists does not actually ask for a name for the movement - virtually every other entry on the list just says the name of the area. I didn't really intend to get engaged in these articles to such an extent, and if nobody minds, I would really like to just step out those discussions. Halon8 (talk) 11:37, 29 March 2017 (UTC) NB I meant that the Circassian and Tatarstan movements are well known - I'm not sure about about many of the others. However, deleting minority Russian movements while leaving minority movements in other countries creates undue weight. Halon8 (talk) 11:43, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Halon8, I agree with you — it is an artificial and made-up requirement that a separatist group needs to have a name. As long as Reliable Sources cover a separatist social movement or named group, whether given a name or not, it would meet Wikipedia's requirements. As far as notability of these things, that should be determined on the article's talk page or one of the other Noticeboards, not here. Stepping out of discussions that attract nationalistic editors is probably wise. It's hard to find neutral editors who are willing to get into these disputes. It's why I won't touch these articles more than to offer neutral opinion here and at WP:RSN. First Light (talk) 13:16, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

User: 172.58.225.248

The ip-adress 172.58.225.248 needs to be blocked. He/she has reverted good edits made by a user only because this user has a name associated with homosexual orientation, and referred to his/hers own homophobia as the reason for the reversion: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/172.58.225.248--Aciram (talk) 14:44, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

I gave the user a Level-4 warning for the comments in the edit summary, since they were not warned (also, you might want to notify them of the ANI discussion as it says above). My sock-sense however is tingling with this IP...RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:50, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Fair enough, I should have warned them. Thank you! --Aciram (talk) 16:45, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Hard to detect mobile vandalism

Thanks to the outsourcing of content to sister projects, some prominent vandalism is much harder to detect and gets reverted slower. For example, earlier today the mobile viewers (nearly 50% of all views) of Pablo Picasso saw the following (yellow emphasis mine):

.

The problem is that this vandalism can not be easily detected enwiki, as it is not to be found in the page history of Picasso, nor in "related changes". Which meant that this vandalism on a not-really osbcure page was only reverted after 20 minutes.

Mind you, the same happens on even more popular pages (all examples at the same yellow spot beneath the page title), e.g. Superman had in January the description "UGLY" for 74 minutes, and "Patataman" for 24 minutes in February. Also in February, Iran had the label "العراق" which apparently means Iraq... This lasted for more than 10 hours! Benito Mussolini has had the label "Sir Beg Nose ito" for 11 days in February, "Benito musul8" for nearly an hour in March, "Benito Camela" for nearly seven hours in March, and "Benito desgraciao" for 12 hours in March as well. Elizabeth II was turned into "Elizabeth IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII" for five hours in February.

This kind of vandalism seems to be fairly common and relatively long-lasting (considering that the pages it occurs on are not that obscure). It is hard to detect on enwiki, and most people who do notice will not be able to correct it as they won't know where it originates.

What would be the best method to solve this fundamentally? Fram (talk) 14:38, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

@Fram: It would help to know which sister project experienced the vandalism. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:42, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

If you see this kind of vandalism, you can click 'Wikidata item' on the left hand side, under Tools, to be taken to the page that was vandalised. Sam Walton (talk) 14:47, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

(ec) Wikidata (but the effects are on enwiki, hence the report here). Note that it isn't just vandalism: Brexit, a page with some 200,000 pageviews per month, says as it first line "The United Kingdom's prospective withdrawal from the European Union is widely known as Brexit". But when you see that page through the mobile view, like about 100,000 people do per month, it starts suddenly with "political aim of some advocacy groups, individuals and political parties in the United Kingdom" which is a bit ridiculous for something decided by referendum and voted in parliament. It is not the aim of some advocacy groups, it is reality, whether we like it or not. There is no reason I can see that the mobile version starts with an extra line of off-wiki content that the "standard" view of the article omits. Fram (talk) 14:48, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Wikidata stores a description for each article, and that is displayed atop every mobile article. I've removed Brexit's. — Train2104 (t • c) 14:53, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

The reason why I asked is order to solve the problem, we need to know where the problem is coming from. And you're right, regarding the mobile version. Getting rid of that "functionality" should probably be proposed at the Village Pump. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:54, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

I remember bringing up this exact concern on Mediawikiwiki and Phabricator, about the way the Wikidata description sounds like it is part of enwiki when it isn't. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 14:57, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

• So let me get this straight - the mobile view of wikipedia is displaying content not on the the wikipedia article - pulled straight from wikidata? Is this an article-level thing from the mobile view? Or is it a function of the mobile-viewer itself? Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:59, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

It's probably a function of the mobile viewer itself. If I look at this page, I see "community discussion page for asking for administrators' intervention on user problems that may result in blocks" atop it. — Train2104 (t • c) 15:01, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Mobileviewer is effectively a mediawiki extension installed at en.wp is it not? Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:03, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Dealing with vandalism is usually (at least in part) an admin problem, and this kind of vandalism may well end up at AIV. But it's a kind of vandalism we (as admins) can't really deal with, because we can't reverse it onwiki, and we can't block the vandals either. I first wanted to hear other editors (admins and non-admins) views on this before seeing where this should be raised (if it should be raised at all, perhaps there is an onwiki solution or I was overreacting). Fram (talk) 15:06, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

(non-admin view) I fail to see why a mobile user needs to see content that I can't, and as you say it creates an increased exposure to vandalism. So it seems to me there should be a VP discussion about removing that, per NeilN. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:16, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Is it a local setting though in the mobile viewer (something someone with the appropriate permissions can alter on EN-WP for all incoming traffic), or is it hard-coded into the mobile viewer extension? Because no matter how much the community complains, there is no way mobile viewer will be disabled in any fashion. If its something that can be easily altered on-wiki however, even if its a scripting hack.... Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:26, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

The mobile viewer doesn't have to be disabled. Just tweaked. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:42, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Which is what I was trying to get at - a local setting like below would only need an onwiki change, if its something that cannot be altered without altering the mobile extension via the WMF, ultimately short of threatening to disable it, the WMF has historically been resistant to changes. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:54, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

This did it for me, I would assume if placed in common.js (or mobile.js?) it would do it for everyone. — Train2104 (t • c) 15:43, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

• So mobile reading is at Mobile. Poking around, it appears (!) that the decision to use the Wikidata descriptor (the field that was vandalized, I believe) was noted at this phab thread (although that is a beta version....)

Loads of people view en-WP via mobile (data is here) and in my view this issue is important; I am unaware if there was ever a discussion about replacing content generated by the en-WP comunity with Wikidata content in mobile (not via the app, just mobile viewing through a browser) views of en-WP. I am unhappy about that. But hopefully it was discussed? If so would love to read that discussion.

Pinging User:OVasileva (WMF), who runs the WMF reading team. Jytdog (talk) 17:19, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

This is a good example; apparently- on the mobile viewer- he has a boyfriend, which (equally apparently) the subject denies. An unsourced BLPVIO like that would usually be sandblasted out of existence by now- especially after multiple TP requests. WTF is happening. Is it that ****ing Wikidata forcing this crap on us? I don't know why we have to put up with that- we could end up hosting libel and be unable to remedy it. — O Fortuna! ^{Imperatrix mundi.} 18:24, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

@Fram and Sam Walton: I edited it out via the thing on the left, so that's that article resolved- although, of course, the broader issues still stand. Thanks very much for the information and advice here. — O Fortuna! ^{Imperatrix mundi.} —Preceding undated comment added 18:27, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes you did! diff at Wikidata Jytdog (talk) 22:58, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Hey Jytdog, reckon this could be the beginning of a long editing career on wikidata for me ;) — O Fortuna! ^{Imperatrix mundi.} 06:21, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

"Wikidata forcing this crap on us". You mean like Commons forces their image crap on us? That seems like a rather insular view of our communities, where your own prejudices are the problem instead of Wikidata. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 11:09, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Ah, so external crap being shown on enwiki is "your own prejudices are the problem". That's helpful, thanks! Foot has since 7 January had the label "anatomical structure fertebrates" (sic), apart from twelve hours (!) in February when it had the label "bullshit". And this is caused by our prejudices. When an image gets changed, it is usually bloody obvious where the problem originates. And we can upload a local copy and protect that one (like is or was being done for mainspace images). But if Commons vandalism would cause problems here, feel free to start a separate section. However, apparently we may not raise an issue with Wikidata simply because Commons exists as well? Even though Commons is identical information across all languages, while the English language label is language-specific information which thus has no reason to be hosted on Wikidata and could just as well have been hosted here, with less potential for these problems and friction. Fram (talk) 11:34, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Nope that's not at all what that was about. I simply vehemently oppose a view of 'either you listen to the English Wikipedia right-now, or F-off'. I object to hostile intonations like "[our sisters] are forcing this crap on us", the usage of ultimatums and a general expression of elitism amongst the larger and older projects. I prefer more constructive contributions, but it seems that wherever contributions are different from the contributions people make themselves, there is a very low tolerance towards imperfections and a high level of destructive criticism. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 14:02, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Search sample

I should note that my little hack does not hide the descriptions from the mobile search results, where it provides a pretty helpful service to the reader. One possible workaround would be to have descriptions be defined via a metatemplate on enwiki, and then have a bot enforce that Wikidata matches it. — Train2104 (t • c) 18:42, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

The problem isn't with the individual reader, the problem is that Wikidata appears to be forcing information into en.wiki via the mobile app, over which en.wiki has no formal control. I agree with Fram and Jytdog's concern about this, and second the suggestion that a VP discussion seems to be in order. (And I do remember that this issue was brought up at the time, and ignored.) It's one thing to play whack-a-mole against socks, but another thing completely to do it because of a systemic dysfunctionality in the software. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:20, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

User:Beyond My Ken it is not just the app - WP appears differently on a browser on a mobile, than it does on a desktop. If you are at a desktop here is picasso: Picasso and here it is, on a mobile: Mobile view Picasso (there is a link at the bottom of every page to the mobile view) Jytdog (talk) 22:52, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

No, I know that, I've accessed the encyclopedia on my phone. I don't think that the difference is a significant issue, as long as the content is the same. It's the insertion of content not vetted by en.wiki editors which concerns me. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:56, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

This is particularly problematic on BLP's (as they can sue) but the potential for abuse elsewhere is huge. We cant have information from a project which has none of the safeguards Wikipedia's policies protect against - being presented as if it was 'Wikipedia'. I mean, imagine if someone added an item to Vaccines at wikidata saying 'Known to cause autism'... Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:59, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps the inclusion of an "edit" link on enwiki which takes one straight to the correct section on Wikidata to update the description? Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 00:10, 28 March 2017 (UTC).

That is only a fix after the fact. Jytdog (talk) 04:51, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

I have no problem with the descriptions, but I agree that if I could see them at the top of their Wikipedia article with a little button to go and edit, that would be much more preferable to simply not knowing what's being displayed without manually checking for each article. Sam Walton (talk) 09:48, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

• I just posted notice of this at VPT: Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)#Discussion_at_ANI_about_Wikidata_use_in_mobile_view Jytdog (talk) 04:53, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T161596

• I created T161596 which I hope would go some way to fixing this problem. Sam Walton (talk) 10:13, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Good idea. Personally, I don't think those short descriptions are a bad thing, I quite like them when using the WP app, but they should show up on the desktop view as well Regards SoWhy 10:25, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

And they should be stored and edited on enwiki, not on wikidata, to make it much easier to control them. They are language-specific anyway, so no reason to host them elsewhere. A specific template could be introduced, and initially a bot could even copy the existing ones from Wikidata if people judge this useful. But this would mean that a change to the label would be immediately traceable and correctable here, and the vandal blocked or the page locked or whatever would be necessary. Fram (talk) 11:34, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Consider unintended consequences. Like we don't already spend way too much time agonizing over first sentences? We shouldn't add this largely redundant blurb simply because it would be "nice to have". ―Mandruss ☎ 12:05, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Oh, as an extra "first line" of the article, I totally agree. But as a subtext in searches (search box), it may be a useful feature (I wouldn't shed a tear if we don't have this at all, but I can see an argument for it in search. Not in article display mode though, no matter if it is mobile or not). Fram (talk) 12:26, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Side query - does this appear in the google snippets stuff at the side of google searches? Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:32, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes (well, I'm 99% certain, confirmation would be nice). Fram (talk) 12:46, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Oh well, at least we don't use Wikidata data for most of our articles. Wikipedia versions which were faster and less critical in embracing this progress have just for half an hour proclaimed that Muhammad (a rather essential and often viewed article) was born in 296 in Constantinople, and died in the 2000s (so hardly subtle vandalism). And Tower Bridge (also not a really obscure article) is still being claimed to be a 5 metre long French bridge in wood, opened in 2017! So far, this vandalism has remained in place for 40 minutes. Vandalism on enwiki also can remain for too long, but rarely will vandalism this blatant on articles with this profile remain for so long. On Wikidata, this seems to be the standard. And that's what we send to Google, mobile users, and in many languages many or most infoboxes. Great... Fram (talk) 12:59, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Look, this will require an RfC on Wikidata, or maybe as a cross-wiki issue on Meta. I highly doubt we'll be able to solve it here by ourselves. StevenJ81 (talk) 20:30, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Pinging @Lydia Pintscher (WMDE): Possibly there are technological fixes that we can put in place, but there's still an issue around vandalism protection in Wikidata that needs to be addressed here. StevenJ81 (talk) 20:34, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

I see zero improvement after OP by Fram. First of all, of course, why is this not huge at WP:VPT, d:Wikidata chat, wiki-mobile or whichever WMF/MW level? Addressing anonymous editors at ANI won't help. Now, people can edit enwiki page without a Reader being able to correct (edit) that. That is not wiki. So why is this not an site issue? -DePiep (talk) 21:03, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Hey :) Thanks for pinging, User:StevenJ81. Data quality is a big topic for me And Wikidata as whole. It is ongoing work. We've been working on tools to improve it over the past year or two. The biggest thing we've done is probably ORES support for Wikidata. I wrote this in 2015 to explain my general thinking about data quality. What we are working on right now to further improve data quality is improving our constraints checks. When this is done you will see little notifications next to problematic statements so editors can look into them quickly. This will have an API so I am sure we can build additional tools on top of it. As for Wikidata descriptions being shown on Wikipedia: I have and continue to advocate for making sure you can edit them when they are shown. That is however not part of my team's work. I hope that helps. Happy to answer further questions. --Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) (talk) 10:31, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

@Lydia Pintscher (WMDE): No amount of data quality tools or constraints or little notifications will make any difference to the item description on Wikidata, because the design leaves no means to apply constraints or any means of verification to that text. Until descriptions are natively editable on Wikipedia, or can be replaced by locally-supplied text, they should not be forced into English Wikipedia articles. Do you agree? --RexxS (talk) 15:13, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

As I said I believe it is very important and have advocated for it but at the end of the day it is not my call to make. I don't have all the information leading to the current decision. --Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) (talk) 07:57, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi all, thank you for tagging these issues - these levels of vandalism are concerning - we’re interested in providing some background on the feature to help the brainstorming process on solutions.

A bit of background for context:

• The wikidata descriptions feature displays the wikidata description of an article (if available) under the article title.  The feature was introduced to the mobile website as a way to provide an at-a-glance descriptor of the subject of the article, which may often be obscured due to the location of the infobox. The in-article descriptions were developed as a follow-up to the in-search descriptions that have been available on the mobile website since Oct 2015.  For more information about the background and motivations for the feature, check out the wikidata descriptions page  The feature was initially tested on Catalan and Polish wikipedias and rolled out in stages to ensure sufficient time for gathering community consensus through each rollout.  For enwiki, the feature has been available since January 2017, following a short conversation on the enwiki village pump. 

In terms of tracking the changes to these descriptions, the Wikidata team has been focusing on creating easier ties between Wikidata and Wikipedia. Currently:

1. Edits do show up in recent changes and watchlist if the user has enabled it and is using the non-enhanced recent changes setting (Phabricator: https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T108688, https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T90436)
2. Edits do not show up in recent changes and watchlist if the user is using the recent changes setting (Phabricator: https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T46874) 
3. Edits do not show up in the article history (Phabricator: https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T42358)

(in addition to the above) In terms of allowing edits on Wikipedia:

• Currently the android team has built a way of editing wikidata descriptions from within the app - more information on the short descriptions page as well as the project page in phabricator We’re currently rolling it out as a pilot on three languages and our plan is to measure and evaluate the interest for this feature on the apps before approaching the solution for mobile web - we’re curious to know if there is any interest in pursuing a similar solution for the mobile website? Some of our initial mockups and ideas for the mobile website can be found in this phabricator task

@Samwalton9 and SoWhy: - thank you for your ideas on incorporating these features into desktop - this isn’t something we’ve considered so far, but we’re open to suggestions. Are there any more thoughts/ideas around how incorporating the feature into desktop could help editors identify potential vandalism?  Any other thoughts in general? OVasileva (WMF) (talk) 22:07, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

I don't think it matters which particular database this information is stored in, but I do endorse the idea that it needs to be easy to see it and change it from this particular site. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 23:50, 28 March 2017 (UTC).

(non-admin view) Could there just be a template at the top of every article that stores the one line description? For example, the article for Donald Trump would have, say, {{description|text=45th President of the United States of America}} at the top of the article. IWillBuildTheRoads (talk) 04:48, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

That would have been the much better solution. There is no reason at all why anything language-specific should be at Wikidata. Wikidata is for common elements, not for text snippets in language X or Y.

@OVasileva (WMF): "this isn’t something we’ve considered so far" That's not entirely true, however such a consideration might predate your product ownership. Part of the problem here is that WMF has a history of testing out something for an audience, without considering or being willing to put the work in to include other audiences. This also shows in the strange separation of products in reading and editing teams, which creates a separation of audiences within products that simply doesn't exist. What readers do, what mobile users do, affects other editors. Dumping a feature in the mobile app, should come with the immediate signal and warning that at some point in the not too distant future you will have to consider how that effects desktop, vandal fighters etc. See also: User:Risker/Risker's checklist for content-creation extensions. Releasing something on mobile, should mean the immediate prioritisation of follow up tasks for desktop (if only to by way of research conclude that no action is required). —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 14:21, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

@OVasileva (WMF) and Melamrawy (WMF):, the main thrust of the discussion is not to roll this problem out to desktop as well, but to remove it from mobile view. "Edits do show up in recent changes and watchlist if the user has enabled it and is using the non-enhanced recent changes setting" is all very well when you a) have the article on your watchlist and b) have enabled this (I had, and have disabled it again as being 99% useless clutter for me, with missing descriptions or not even showing the last change at Wikidata). But when you come to an article and see that it has been vandalized, you should then be able to find in the article history who did this, and revert (and block) them. Or if it happens often, protect the page. None of this is possible or helpful at the moment on enwiki. This is splitting the administration and editing over two sites with no benefits, and thus is a very bad idea. Please turn off the "show labels from Wikidata", and then start a thorough discussion about this to see whether it is wanted, useful, logical, an improvement, or not. Fram (talk) 07:27, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

I note from the linked pages above that at this most recent Mediawiki discussion User:RexxS, who can not be suspected of being anti-Wikidata, made basically the same suggestions and arguments. This was seven months ago, and in typical WMF fashion they agreed with him and then went on with the poor implementation regardless. Luckily, I see that "If there are any problems with the feature, we have a configuration switch built as part of the feature so that we can turn it off very quickly if there are any problems, at any phase."[97] so turning this off very quickly now that "any problems" have been shown should happen. Thanks! Fram (talk) 07:33, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Indeed. I'm 100% with Fram on this one. I admit to having spent a lot of effort in recent times in trying to find ways that we can make use of Wikidata in Wikipedia, but one fundamental design principle for me has always been that local editors must be able to override a Wikidata value with a local value. It is disappointing that the very people at WMF who ought to be promoting the sensible use of Wikidata can make such an obvious blunder as to use the Wikidata description as a sub-heading in mobile view for the English Wikipedia. By pushing ahead against the advice even of sympathetic editors and causing unfixable problems, they put at risk all the other good work that is going on to make use of Wikidata in a consensus manner. The problem is far wider-reaching than mere vandalism: you can see at User talk:RexxS/Archive 32 #Wikidata... that the addition of a description like "American-born Greek operatic soprano" can easily breach our BLP policies by ascribing ethnicities, or religious affiliations, etc. to living subjects who have not self-identified as such, and for which no reliable sources are available. The description on Wikidata is wholly unsourced – and not capable of being associated with a source – and has no place in an English Wikipedia article unless it can be replaced by text from within Wikipedia. --RexxS (talk) 15:06, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

My believe is that while I do appreciate the fight against vandalism, by adding short description it wont minimize its existence or make it more apparent. The best way, would be to make Wikidata responsible for their errors. Can't we introduce recent changes function at Wikidata? My other suggestion would be to just simply sent Wikidata into a free form and disconnect it as a sister project. Sounds logical?--Biografer (talk) 05:32, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Focus

We can handwring over the many bigger issues later -- There is one key question for this incident board, and that is: How do we get the WMF Reading team to close this vulnerability to BLP violations by removing this from mobile views, now? I don't know what we can do but folks over there appear to have persistently disregarded clueful advice. We indef people here in en-WP who persistently violate policy. This may be kind of radical but maybe we need to indef the WMF Reading team from en-WP or something. That would not really fix it, but maybe it would get their attention. If not, then what? Jytdog (talk) 22:55, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

I just opened an RfC: Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#Rfc:_Remove_description_taken_from_Wikidata_from_mobile_view_of_en-WP -- Jytdog (talk) 00:08, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

• Update: User:OVasileva (WMF) posted at the RfC and said that they are turning this off and asked for feedback about "blockers". I have withdrawn the RfC, which was focused simply on supporting or opposing a request to turn this off, and I suggested that they open a new RfC targeted at obtaining information they want from the en-WP community. Jytdog (talk) 17:48, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

More ARBPIA shenanigans

Everyone gets a WP:TROUT. Remember AGF. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 20:31, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Need an admin to keep an eye on Talk:List of violent incidents in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, 2017. Some shenanigans, with the RfC and Survey having been modified long after people had responded to them([98][99])—making it seem as if people had been responding to this new text. And generally, questionable WP:TPG behaviour. Thanks. El_C 07:40, 30 March 2017 (UTC) All I did was to neutralize the RfC header. Since my alternate phrasing was objected to, I am trying to discuss on the talkpage to get a consensus wording. But El_C is getting hung up on procedural matters without addressing my point about the neutrality of the RfC header. Anyway, I have no intention to modify the RfC text as I said there already. But sure, whatever. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 08:01, 30 March 2017 (UTC) It's far from procedural, people have already responded to the RfC, have already !voted on the Survery—you are adding text to the RfC and Survery after the fact, making it seem as if they responded to your points. That's so basic, I'm surprised you still think it's okay or merely procedural. El_C 08:08, 30 March 2017 (UTC) I suggest the shenanigans are not wholly on one side, as you appear to be suggesting. You stood by quietly while this odd behavior took place, by the editor your own edits consistently support in this area. This is one sequence on that utterly irrational page, where all sources for definitions are ignored and editors just opinionize. (1)SJ 20:18, 29 March 2017 reverted an edit I'd just made. His revert was curious because the protocols governing this page for 3 years allow 'home demolitions' as (in a Palestinian POV) a form of violence. These pages have hundreds of entries on them, never questioned or reverted. SJ's revert went against the accepted page practice, and against the specific header protocol which specifies home demolitions are included as per one POV definition of them. (2)Simultaneously 20:18, 29 March 2017 he dropped a note registering his view that home demolitions are not an example of violence‎ (3) Then two minutes later 20:20, 29 March 2017 he opened an RfC. I.e. first he reverted then (presumably to block any other editor from restoring the elidesd information), immediately opened an RfC. (4) While discussion had barely begun, he then went back to the article and removed 20 minutes later further material in the edit, content that is reported in all the sources. here, namely ’Her son Mustafa Nimr had been shot dead when a vehicle he was in, driven by a drunken driver on drugs, rammed past a checkpoint in Eastern Jerusalem during a night raid, by border guards who mistook them for terrorists in September 2016. Palestinian sources say she was shot in the chest and left to bleed to death after a altercation with police at the site. She was with her daughter at the time.’ Again, please note that for 3 years, these lists have always had such circumstantial details of any incident when a separate article on the incident does not exist. No one has ever objected to that. (5) I reframed the RfC, while leaving 21:43, 29 March 2017‎ the other intact. Since the RfC by Sir Joseph was in my view badly formulated, which I thought correctly framed the issue. (6)User:El_C 21:46, 29 March 2017 reverts my RfC format with the ES ‘One RfC at a time, please’ (7) SJ then incredibly comments You don't open an RFC before even discussing the issue on the talk page 21:47, 29 March 2017 But that is exactly what he did! (8)In other words, SJ made a revert, and simultaneously, registers his point on view. Before anyone has the time to discuss it, he then opens an RfC which automatically blocks the editing process. Then he goes ahead and re-edits the page. When I open an RfC reformulating the badly worded (in my view) RfC SJ introduced, he replies that I should do what he himself just did a few minutes earlier. That looks like precisely the gaming of the strict rules which has been mentioned on the AE page. El_C seems to me to have dropped any administrative care in neutrally evaluating the behavior of both sides..Nishidani (talk) 08:39, 30 March 2017 (UTC) Nishidani, as always, seems to forget conversations. There has been talk page discussions about property damage and the need for an RFC. All one has to do is look at the talk page and read. Sir Joseph (talk) 13:54, 30 March 2017 (UTC) Anyone who thinks I forget, can examine quickly the 5 articles from 2015, 2 years, confirm that over this period (a) house demolition entries are extremely commonplace, and that (b) on the talk pages no significant challenge was made to this practice. (1)List of violent incidents in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, January–June 2015. The talk page has no objections registered and the page protocol stipulates house demolitions as an element of the series. (2) List of violent incidents in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, July–December 2015. No talk page discussion of the issue. (3) List of violent incidents in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, January–June 2016 One user questioned demolitions. My judgement as to their inclusion was confirmed by a third editor.(b) A drive by reverter elided one example. The subsequent talk page discussion backed my judgement, with 2 editors supporting it. (4) List of violent incidents in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, July–December 2016 . No talk page challenge. So one had (a) a protocol on the first page defining the content to be included in this series, i.e., house demolitions. For 2 years of daily editing over 4 articles, there were 2 editors who reverted on the grounds that house demolitions were not ‘violence’. 3 editors supported my judgement, and the protocol. That was the editing norm. In other words, you ignored the protocols governing these pages in making 3 reverts of material long included, March 13, March 20, March 29, as supported by 2 prior discussions. I was referring to these. The breaking of the convention was thrice made without addressing the consensus in the archives.Nishidani (talk) 15:26, 30 March 2017 (UTC) I am just trying to keep a semblance of order, while each side accuses me of being for the other—I can only imagine the multiple-RfC chaos if I wasn't there. El_C 09:01, 30 March 2017 (UTC) For the record, Nishidani is being disingenuous—I supported his suggestion to rename the article. But now there are battle lines? One RfC at a time, please. El_C 09:04, 30 March 2017 (UTC) No. For the record, I am sticking to the known facts, which you do not address on the talk page. I have the distinct impression that, while exercising an administrative role, your approach has recently been consistently partisan. I may be wrong, but documenting a perceived problem and arguing one's point of view is not battling. It is what editors do. To say so is to accuse me of bad faith (disingenuous means 'failure to be candid or sincere', a wiki euphemism that is a violation of WP:AGF.Nishidani (talk) 09:15, 30 March 2017 (UTC) I agree with El_C in that changing the header, proposal, request, etc isn't proper after the RfC has gone live, and users have given input on the request with the wording as it was when submitted -- shouldn't be done, generally. Usually, if wording in that area needs to be changed, it should be discussed in that discussion. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 09:08, 30 March 2017 (UTC) Nishidani takes my comment, then he bulltetpoints it and makes me !vote by copying it with my username attached. I'm telling you all, questionable WP:TPG behaviour. El_C 09:14, 30 March 2017 (UTC) This is piddling, for want of WP:AGF, E_C. Earlier I wrote in response to you that the removal of demolitions you backed would means months of work because they have always been uncontroversially included. I asked you for a creative solution, along the lines of 'changing the title'. You responded Yes, changing the title also works. I'm game with that. El_C 21:44, 29 March 2017 (UTC). I didn't think there was a copyright problem, requiring consent for requoting a remark made by someone else earlier. You took umbrage. Okay. A note saying you thought this improper was all that was required, not (and it looks odd) going to AN/I and raising a complaint about putative 'shenanigans' regarding myself and another editor. That only looks unneutral, going ballistic over commas etc.Nishidani (talk) 09:41, 30 March 2017 (UTC) Just leave me in peace. El_C 09:55, 30 March 2017 (UTC) I mean no offence, but if you report me or anyone else, automatically those whose editing behavior you describe negatively as 'shenanigans' naturally set forth their views. That offends my sense of being a conscientious contributor, whose problems lie in trying scrupulously to reason here, rather than play games that smack of ruses and insincerity ('disingenuous') You can't report something to elicit another administrator's action against them and complain then that the inevitable responses are disturbing your equanimity, surely? So, fine, let's drop it. Nishidani (talk) 10:04, 30 March 2017 (UTC) Here's the basic point: The current RfC wording is bad - nobody seems to agree on what "actual violence" means. And the wording was not discussed before the RfC was opened, so it had no consensus in the first place. What I did was to remove the RfC header, so that one can finalize the wording before others waste their time responding to an ill-formed question. It was reverted, and since then, discussion on the talkpage is going on. I have no interest in procedural games, and there's nothing to see here anyway. As I said, I have no idea why this was brought to ANI. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 09:18, 30 March 2017 (UTC) You already asked that and I already answered: because I need someone else to keep an eye while I'm away. El_C 09:26, 30 March 2017 (UTC) I am happy with more eyes on the talkpage, admin or otherwise. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 09:39, 30 March 2017 (UTC) Kingsindian now replaced the RfC long after it went live and was responded to, despite objections from the RfC author. Just for the record. El_C Once again, I'm on my own trying to keep a semblance of order—when did ARBPIA talk pages become such a free-for-all? El_C 18:43, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

SportsLair

This user is just not getting it. also. - Mlpearc (open channel) 19:07, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

@Mlpearc: I think it's going to take a bit more detail than that mate? — O Fortuna! ^{Imperatrix mundi.} 19:10, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

@Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi: Well, I was just going through the contribs, seemed clear to me. - Mlpearc (open channel) 19:12, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Look at the edit-summary, and the previous ANI. I am going to final-warn SportsLair. Black Kite (talk) 19:15, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

@Black Kite: Thank you. - Mlpearc (open channel) 19:17, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Right... I assumed they were merely quoting from Goodfellas: [100].It would certainly need a fair bit of contextualizing to justify it, I have to say. — O Fortuna! ^{Imperatrix mundi.} 19:24, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

It seems that MLpearc is still losing it. I'm usually a fan of various film franchises, and I've been posting notices about the 400-700 word rule on various film articles, but the rollbacker is on the mend for mass-reverting on that topic also. Per WP:FILMPLOT, plot summaries for most film articles should be within 400-700 words, but he saying that I have to discuss mass additions beforehand. SportsLair (talk) 13:32, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

@SportsLair: To add this to an article with this type of issues is fine, to add this to all like pages requires consensus. - Mlpearc (open channel) 13:41, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

There doesn't seem to be anymore of this cat and mouse game. After three days, it looks like the everything is coming clean here. But if anything else happens, we would be glad to keep you guys posted. Until then. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SportsLair (talk • contribs) 21:38, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

User:Champion nominated Barack Obama for deletion

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.

---

Champion (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Siuenti (talk) 00:35, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Funny thing is, this and this got deleted minutes after creation. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 00:40, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

and I had to take the Afd banner from Obama's article? Siuenti (talk) 00:44, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

That discussion needs to go on, the nomination should not have been deleted. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 00:46, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

It was there for two minutes. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Barack_Obama&type=revision&diff=773209427&oldid=773209333 Siuenti (talk) 00:50, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes I see now. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 00:54, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Champion, you've just gone ahead and re-created the Barack Obama AfD after I deleted it; this is inappropriate. These AfDs aren't funny - they're trolling and disruptive, even more so since you're nominating BLP pages for deletion with silly rationales (your rationale for deleting Hillary Clinton was almost an attack page). Please stop. Acalamari 00:58, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Why wasn't Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Donald_Trump dealt with the same way then? I did this on the grounds that that particular one did go through. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 01:06, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

That would be because neither I nor any other admin willing to enforce the BLP policy saw it at the time (I suspect him still being seen as a joke back then might also have played into it but I wouldn't keep that one around, either, and I'm no Trump fan). Acalamari 01:12, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:Rules_for_Fools#Accidents_will_happen how about staying clear of FAs and BLPs? Siuenti (talk) 01:14, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

NONE OF THIS IS FUNNY. BE SERIOUS ON XFD, EVEN DURING APRIL 1ST. KATMAKROFAN (talk) 01:18, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

So what about This Afd on Wikipedia? Lord High Permanent Senior Undersecretary to L3X1 ( How'd' you like me now?) 01:41, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

And can we please please please semi-protect everything for 24 hours?? L3X1 (distant write) 01:50, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

KA'BOOM! El_C 04:16, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

April 1 is serious business. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 07:15, 1 April 2017 (UTC).

There's quite a few of these "joke" AfD pages - might be a good idea to keep an eye on this and make sure that the articles themselves are not tagged with an AfD notice (I've removed them from Apple Inc. and Stingy), and that the discussion page does not have the {{REMOVE THIS TEMPLATE}} template, since that's what makes the bot add the notice to articles (if I understand it correctly). --bonadea contributions talk 07:32, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Btw, I think this one is well beyond what should be acceptable even as a joke. --bonadea contributions talk 07:38, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

I removed the nomination text, but someone could delete the page if they wanted to. The nominator was globally locked shortly after creating the AfD, which leads me to believe this probably wasn't meant as anything more than trolling. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 08:10, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Fun-wikipedians and Serious-wikipedians. always a controversy. this battle will determine the future of wikifools. by the way, I'm on the fun side. DiamondMiner7^On_WHEELz!^{april fools!}_ProDuct0339 08:20, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

A good April Fool's would be content creation, actually; way to take everyone by surprise :D — O Fortuna! ^{Imperatrix mundi.} 08:32, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Sorry to disappoint you, ProDuct0339, but there is no "battle" and it's got nothing to do with whether editors are "fun" or "serious". Most of us are hopefully a bit of both. --bonadea contributions talk 09:19, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

"Fun-wikipedians and Serious-wikipedians. always a controversy". My oddball sense of humour was mentioned in my RFA. Probably my best content contribution could be summarised as "they did it for great justice and epic lulz". I don't find these joke AFDs funny. See:WP:BLP. Pete "the guy who brought you such ludicrous but notable articles as Ego Leonard, Undie Run and Bal du Rat mort" AU aka--Shirt58 (talk) 11:10, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Maybe turn off the bot for 24 hours? I'd suggest it to the owner but I don't understand his/her talk page. Siuenti (talk) 11:00, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

• All admin should be blocked for 24 hours — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lord High Permanent Senior Undersectretary to L3X1 (talk • contribs) 16:06, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

I don't see anything wrong with everyone above, but I can't agree with anyone on this.--ZiaLater (talk) 19:24, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

• Really? Blocking the admins for 24 hours was the bit I liked. More Charivari on April 1! Bishonen | talk 01:08, 2 April 2017 (UTC).
• Also this happened [101] Siuenti (talk) 01:14, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Aren't scripts the best? ansh666 02:26, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

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

Access page on Google search

Please admin i am unable to access my page when I search for it on google https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olila-Ebhugh_Abureni [[[User:Emmanuelebidan|Emmanuelebidan]] (talk) 14:57, 30 March 2017 (UTC)]— Preceding unsigned comment added by Emmanuelebidan (talk • contribs) 14:54, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

There is a certain amount of time before a new page is indexed by search engines. I'll be honest, I do not know what that time is. --Darth Mike^(talk) 15:03, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Darth Mike, I got the impression the new user was simply looking for his article. Emmanuelebidan, I'm not sure what's the status of the page you got from Google, but your article is here: Olila-Ebhugh Abureni. Oh.. it was just there a minute ago, but I see it has just been deleted per WP:A7: "Article about an eligible subject, which does not credibly indicate the importance or significance of the subject". Sorry about that. For another time, the simplest way to find your own contributions is to go to "contributions" in the row of personal links that you can see top right on all pages. Welcome to Wikipedia and happy editing! Bishonen | talk 15:11, 30 March 2017 (UTC).

It's also been deleted per CSD A7 RickinBaltimore (talk) 15:08, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks [[[User:Emmanuelebidan|Emmanuelebidan]] (talk) 15:13, 30 March 2017 (UTC)] I don't understand really because I was writing about the Olila-Ebhugh stool., a stool like similar to other Traditional stools [[[User:Emmanuelebidan|Emmanuelebidan]] (talk) 15:33, 30 March 2017 (UTC)]

Hi Emmanuelebidan! I'll be more than happy to assist you with your questions and explain how the process works. Can we take this to my user talk page and go from there? This will allow this discussion here to be closed, since there are no incidents that require administrator action here. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 18:53, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

I have a sugesstion. Start writing your article here: User:Emmanuelebidan/sandbox. This is your own sandbox that you can take some time with creating your article. Please note: all articles have to have in-depth coverage from reliable sources to show Notability. It isn't enough just to exist, articles must pass our General Notability Guidelines. Feel free to ask me any questions on my talk page and I'll do my best to find you an answer. --Darth Mike^(talk) 18:54, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

		The Helping Hand Barnstar
		I'm just going to give this to everyone in this thread for making altogether more of an effort than I expected from ANI at actually helping OP, instead of closing it with a vengeance and moving on. Good on you guys. TimothyJosephWood 21:08, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Also, @Emmanuelebidan: you need to remove one of the brackets [ from the left side of your signature, otherwise your signature doesn't show up properly. Preferably, please sign with four tildes, ~~~~ or by clicking the link next to the text "Sign your posts". Blackmane (talk) 00:36, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Oh my God, yes. Agreed with Blackmane -- Please do this... lol :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 08:45, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

User:Yh00157 - inability to read talk page, constant unsourced and undiscussed moves/edits

I have some concerns re the above user re apparent disregard to talk page notices regarding marking edits as minor, the first dating back to 2014, and the most recent being a bit more than a fortnight ago. The user is also now moving pages without consensus and no visible proof regarding the moves - I have (un)moved Stadler Eurolight to its original name of Vossloh Eurolight as no proof was offered for the name, other than the summary "factory ownership change"; the main Vossloh article citing that ownership was changed but nothing saying branding would be too. I have a feeling that the user may be a sock of blocked user D47817 but cannot find too many similarities other than inability to read their talk page and topic similarities. Would an uninvolved admin/experienced editor care to investigate and evaluate what action should be brought forward? Thanks all. Nördic Nightfury 13:33, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

I think this is either incompetence or just blatant vandalism. Either way I think that the user should be prompted to respond, lest they banned from Wikipedia entirely should they continue to ignore warnings. I don't like to suggest banning right off the bat, but this seems like long-term nonsense going on and sanctioning should occur. UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 15:04, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

I've had concerns with this editor going back six years (earliest at User talk:Yh00157#Update tag). They have never replied to one of my messages on their user talk page; in fact, their only edit to that page was 09:49, 12 February 2011. So there is a definite communications problem here. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 17:10, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

A block is needed here; from their contributions log, they know that their user talk exists since they removed a less than polite note from an editor asking what on earth Yh00157 was doing, and only a block will force this user to confront and discuss their problems which date back a number of years. Listing every single edit they make as minor when some are very much major changes is not helpful, but doing it for several years is a problem that requires a block. jcc (tea and biscuits) 17:48, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

I definitely see a lot of page moves and edits without consensus, and many warnings on the user's talk page that have gone ignored. Since this ANI thread was started and the user notified after their latest edit, I say we wait and give the user an opportunity to respond here. If the user proceeds with making edits or page moves like this and without discussion or consensus, I support blocking. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 06:59, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

For info - he has started editing again today. I see Redrose has fixed a DAB link put in by the subject. Nördic Nightfury 12:49, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

• I have blocked the user for 31 hours for continuing to mark non-minor edits as minor, and ignoring warnings on their talk page and the discussion here. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:59, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

  With this edit, I guess that Yh00157 has seen the message. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 10:23, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Redrose64, jcc, Oshwah, Ivanvector:- I've de-archived this as the user appears to be at it again - marking edits as minor when they are not. Nördic Nightfury 06:46, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

---

Next time, a link to the archived thread plus a brief summary is better. No need to copy the whole thing. I dropped them a note.El_C 06:55, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Despite your note, he's still continuing with exactly the same behaviour, adding unsourced material and marking everything as minor edits. Here is just one example among many. He's obviously learned nothing from his recent block, so apparently needs a longer block, or probably indef until there is reason to believe that he has understood the problem. --David Biddulph (talk) 11:50, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

• I have now blocked the user indefinitely, as it's clear they intend to continue persistently marking all of their edits minor after having been told repeatedly to stop. This is a WP:CIR block. I'll have no problem with any other admin unblocking if the user makes any reasonable good-faith effort to address their block, but as they've yet to respond to any talk page warning in any way other than blanking the page, I find it unlikely. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 12:41, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Having done some digging, the user appears to be of Korean decent, from this edit; with the emphasis thereon in with British Rail - related articles, with a few what appear to be Asian gaming companies long the way. I do still think there is some substantial socking occurring here, as Ivan says WP:CIR is an issue with this user. Either he knows what he is writing but doesn't understand it, or he knows he is breaking the rules. I'm tempted to ask for a checkuser to come along to do a quick check. Prior to them creating an account, they were editing from the IP 125.137.16.146. Nördic Nightfury 14:07, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Ivanvector - I need your expertise here, I found a weird edit by an IP (here) on the last page Yh00157 edited before they were blocked, could the IP be linked? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nordic Nightfury (talk • contribs) 15:09, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

@Nordic Nightfury: Your post will not have notified Ivanvector because you didn't sign it. But I agree; and see also 211.223.237.185. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 10:24, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Jytdog abusing WP:THREATEN

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:Jytdog has made the following number of threats toward me based on one edit by me. He has not WP:Assume good faith, as is my intention, and has peppered my user talk page in an attempt to label me as a trouble-maker. My innocent edit was basically returned by User:JzG so I feel quite vindicated. I sense this over-zealous user Jytdog has now targeted me in a vendetta and wants me gone. I would prefer that Jytdog stops abusing WP:THREATEN. But I suspect he is on a mission of some sort and thus I succeed to his WP:INTIMIDATION - and I resign. LanceUnderpants (talk) 01:54, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

You are not being "threatened". You are being cautioned by an experienced colleague to word your edits carefully and cluefully in the highly sensitive area that is BLP. I note that JzG made a change to your original wording, making it less agressive. Try to WP:AGF. I would suggest this be ended here. Irondome (talk) 02:04, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Sorry you don't understand, I am not taking it anywhere, my talkpage has now been 'graffiti'ed' and I have nothing else to contribute to wikipedia. I'm leaving, as is required under such unethical actions by the jytdog. I should not have bothered to introduce the subject that was embraced by the JzG editor. You are being extremely unforgiving of one innocent error, and your judgemental attitude is questionable. - and I resign. LanceUnderpants (talk) 02:19, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

You have also failed to notify Jytdog of this ANI which is required. I see no threats on your talk page either. You were warned not threatened​. Chris "WarMachineWildThing" ^{Talk to me} 02:25, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

I think WP:CIR clearly by the OP here. Irondome (talk) 02:35, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

(edit-conflict)LanceUnderpants, you were not threatened. Really. I do hate those semi-automated messages you got, they feel cold and un-personal, and thus I understand they may feel like threats, but they are not. Actually they are the opposite of threats, by using more or less carefully pre-designed warnings, editors try to keep a neutral tone. Note the "It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date." But hey, I still would not like it if, or when, I got one. Don't worry too much, learn (having no qualifications AT ALL, is not the same as no qualifications IN SOME SPECIFIC FIELD, right? Even I had to read it twice to get it, and hey, I am around for a while :) and carry on, give it a second try. Jytdog acted fine, as far as I can see on your talk page, at most he could have avoided to mention the editor JzG as "Guy", we are not all here long enough to know they are the same :-) and it could be confusing - Nabla (talk) 03:23, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

You made this edit[102] Based on this source[103] Jytdog informed you that that edit was not okay. Looks like good advice. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:15, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

• if you check the OP's contribs, pretty much all they have done is add heavy-handed content critical of anti-vaxxers or content about the skeptic community, with a concentration on Australia. The only other editor I have seen like that in WP is Gongwool who drew similar warnings, and was blocked for socking last June. Jytdog (talk) 03:54, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Hum yes and they become very technically proficient in their first few edits with this account. An SPI might be warranted. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:21, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

• A pound says this is Gongwool. I'm almost inclined to propose a WP:DUCK block, what do others think? Guy (Help!) 12:22, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Pound to dollar is ok. CU 4ever. L3X1 (distant write) 14:26, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

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

Soapboxing

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 following user 137.150.101.158 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is repeatedly posting soapboxing related content in the WP:Sandbox despite being asked to stop it. Not sure anything needs to be done. Sakuura Cartelet ^Talk 21:30, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Blocked. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:37, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

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

User:Bloomdoom2

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.

---

Bloomdoom2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) This editor contributes almost exclusively to rap music articles. Makes poorly sourced edits, and then edit wars with others who revert their edits.

• Diffs: [104][105][106].
• Inquiries on Bloomdoom2's talk page about unsourced edits at Painting Pictures were not answered.
• This editor is very likely a sock of User:Xboxmanwar, who was indefinitely blocked. I started an SPI over a month ago at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Xboxmanwar, but there seems to be a backlog. At that SPI, administrator User:Laser brain commented here: "In my opinion this is obvious and Bloomdoom2 should be blocked per WP:DUCK and the below CU result." I am reporting this here because the editing behavior has not changed, and the editor is starting to create new, poorly sourced articles . Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 20:58, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

@Magnolia677: You should disregard the fact that I'm Xboxmanwar, because I'm not, and I added a source to the Tunnel Vision article, since when I added "poorly sourced" edits, all these claims but you don't back them up. I also haven't consistently done "edit wars" on anything really. I also didn't respond to your questions because I don't have time to respond, I have other things to do continuously, which is why I was absent on Wikipedia for a week and a half and today, I have since then responded. Bloomdoom2 (talk) 21:03, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

• If this is all the evidence there is of edit warring, I wouldn't expect a block to be forthcoming. No comment on the socking. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:45, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps someone could look into the socking. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 01:03, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Block: This user has been indeed posting unsourced material for quite a while, and it seems that there just might be something suspicious in the force about this bloom doomer. A short-term block would be recommended if any unsourced additions or any edit warring goes any farther. SportsLair (talk) 22:42, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

As a added bonus, it looks to me that an investigation is taking place, so there is a possible chance that the defendant might be doomed for good here. SportsLair (talk) 22:46, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

@SportsLair: Want to back up your claims of me adding unsourced content? Bloomdoom2 (talk) 22:47, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

My duty would be inappropriate. To tell you the truth, if you're tagged as a WP:SOCK, no one is going to help you. You're all alone. SportsLair (talk) 22:49, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

@SportsLair: Nice of you telling me that (sarcasm, sad and inappropriate), and Magnolia677 only thought I was Xboxmanwar because of my supposed "editing style", heck I even accused of being other editors if you read everything on the SPI. Unlike the other "unsourced" editors, I do add my sources, and if my edit was reversed, I would add one, I've done it here, here, and here and added sources for multiple things, shown here, here, here, here, and more edits. Bloomdoom2 (talk) 23:06, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

I have transmitted telepathy to User:Ponyo to see if he can help investigate this case. SportsLair (talk) 23:08, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Furthermore, the doomer just expressed some retaliation in retribution that I'm trying to help out with this case here. SportsLair (talk) 23:25, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

@SportsLair: My intent wasn't retaliation, I literally found it funny about it, sorry if I offended you seriously, but I would appreciate it if you didn't refer to me as "bloom doomer" or "the doomer", thanks again. I would also appreciate if you answer my question please. Bloomdoom2 (talk) 23:30, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Note This user has been posting in rap articles for a while, but it seems most of the posts has been correct, a block isnt necessary. Kakashi123456789 (talk) 15:41, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

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

User:Domdeparis

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.

---

@Domdeparis: has lost a deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Myton Warriors and instead of taking the defeat with grace, s/he has resorted to leaving a bogus personal attack template on my talk page. I did not "attack" Domdeparis, I simply asked questions about their motive and potential COI in the deletion nomination. They failed to provide a reasonable response but I gave them the BOTD anyway. Now, even if I had launched a personal attack, they would still have no authority at all to leave such a template as only warning. The correct thing to do if they believe I've breached Wikipedia policy would be to bring me here to ANI, as I am now doing with them. What I'd like as an outcome here is an administrator officially scrubbing the bogus warning from my talk page and Domdeparis officially warned about their counter productive behavior on this matter. Thanks Skemcraig (talk) 18:47, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

My initial thoughts are that Domdeparis should come up with a better AfD nomination statement next time (such as why attempts to follow WP:BEFORE failed, for instance). Anyway, the AfD closed as "no consensus", which is a de facto keep, so you should take solace that the article was not deleted and move on from there. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:52, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

reply @Ritchie333: point taken, it probably would have avoided a lot of grief, I will endeavour to do so next time, thanks for the advice. Domdeparis (talk) 07:58, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm delighted with SoWhy's closure and his closing comments, for sure. I just don't expect nonsense templates on my talk page by users who didn't get their way at an AfD discussion, which is why I'd like it officially scrubbed off as I don't deserve my reputation (well, very small reputation) here besmirched by a bogus warning from a biased editor with no right to make it. In fact, as a touch of irony, this could be viewed as a personal attack on me by Domdeparis. Also, I did mention a few days ago at the AfD that I no longer wished to communicate with Domdeparis as nothing more constructive could come from it. Skemcraig (talk) 19:03, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

There is no "officially scrubbed off", and there's no consequence to getting a warning other than the fact you've been notified of the policy. If you're not doing anything wrong, no admin will take any action just because someone placed a warning notice. You're allowed to remove warnings (or almost anything else) from your talk page if you wish to. That's a confirmation that you read it, but not that you agree with it or consider it valid. Domdeparis, for your part, try bringing up issues in your own words rather than using a template. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 19:12, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi @Seraphimblade: in the Afd discussion I explained multiple times that I did not appreciate the accusations without proof that I was acting in bad faith and I asked Skemcraig to stay on the discussion and to avoid personalising the discussion and to AGF which he seemed incapable of doing making statements such as "I call it as I see it" "You're not doing much to dampen my worries that you're operating with some kind of COI here" "it's possible the nominator may have a preference for nominating club articles of one sport for deletion, whilst willingly ignoring the identical club articles of thier favorite sport", "I look forward to ScrapIron / Domdeparis nominating all the amateur rugby union club articles for deletion in the near future... (I won't hold my breath!)". Maybe a level 4 warning was too mush but making multiple insinuations and accusations directly aimed at me just based on his personal questioning is very unpleasant and detracts from the discussion. Domdeparis (talk) 08:11, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Skemcraig, there is no winning or losing of deletion discussions, it is not a contest or a game. There are nominators and there are participants and then a decision is made if an article should be kept or deleted based on the discussion. As Seraphimblade said, if you don't want the warning on the talk page, remove it. ~ GB fan 19:34, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

You know what I mean by "lost a deletion discussion", s/he nominated the article for deletion and failed to argue the case, resulting ultimately in a no consensus closure. As for the advice by you and Seraphimblade regarding self removing the comment, I'd prefer an administrator to delete/hide Domdeparis's revision. Failing that, Domdeparis actually self-reverting would also be nice (I won't hold my breath on that one), but if I have too, I'll revert it myself at a later date. Thanks to everyone who's commented so far for the advice though, it's appreciated. Skemcraig (talk) 19:41, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

GB fan, every debate of any type has a winning side and a losing side, and is in fact a contest to see which side can present the strongest arguments while debating fairly. That doesn't automatically imply battleground behavior. I have to smile whenever someone objects to common usage of "win", "lose", or "opponents" with reference to debates. Most English words have multiple senses and we shouldn't assume one sense or the other when the intended sense is ambiguous. To outlaw the word "lose" is not unlike political correctness. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:55, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

An AfD is not a debate.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:59, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

WP:AFDFORMAT: "AfDs are a place for rational discussion of whether an article is able to meet Wikipedia's article guidelines and policies. Reasonable editors will often disagree, but valid arguments will be given more weight than unsupported statements." Emphasis mine. Sorry, but that sounds very much like the general definition of debate. Later at AFDFORMAT: "The debate is not a vote; please do not make recommendations on the course of action to be taken that are not sustained by arguments." Emphasis mine. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:39, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

I don't much care what that says. I agree that AfD is a discussion, though; after all, that's it's title. The rest is silly. What about AfDs where everyone agrees on a particular result? I don't recall debates like that. In any event, the saddest thing is that you treat an AfD like a debate. Worse, I imagine you're not alone.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:48, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I thought the policy was that AfD's are discussions where the deletion of an article is debated rather than voted on, hence the use of "!vote" rather than "vote". Skemcraig (talk) 21:56, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

I will never apologize for, let alone allow any editor to make me feel guilty for, presenting the strongest case I can, in any important discussion. I would expect no less from my opponents, and may the strongest arguments win. And the possibility of a unanimous AfD hardly justifies the statement, "An AfD is not a debate." ―Mandruss ☎ 22:00, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi just to point out that Skemcraig accused me 9 times during the Afd of being biased of having a vendetta and of being of bad faith because I refused to go looking for similar pages in rugby union, I asked him multiple times to stop and to concentrate on the discussion which he refused to do. I then posted the warning on his page because he clearly wasn't going to and it was only after this warning that the Afd was closed as no concensus. He didn't take the time to verify the time line as my warning was at 8:30 and the discussion was closed at 13:10 so this ANI is pretty pointless. Multiple accusations of bad faith without proof can be considered a personal attack. The page did not meet NORG as there were no references and I did carry out a search for sources but all I could find were routine ones. During the discussion 1 single source was added and as NORG states a single independent source is rarely enough to prove notability. As I stated in the Afd I have no agenda I came across this page whilst following the trail of a vandal and as it stood it did not meet the criteria. I am not going to apologise for nominating the page and annoying this editor. He claims that I have some kind of vendetta against rugby league. As far as I can remember the only rugby league page I have edited was Hull F.C. to undo the work of a vandal and his sock puppets who insisted in adding fictitious players to the squad. If I had something against the 13 a side game I would have left it I think rather than researching the team composition and undoing the vandalism. Having done this I opened a sock puppet investigation which blocked the puppets and as part of due diligence I verified that the various users had not vandalised other pages and that's how I ended up here. I do not deny that I prefer the 15 a side game because I used to play but I do deny having the slightest vendetta. My grandfather played both games. Domdeparis (talk) 05:41, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

I've decided to revert the bogus warning by Domdeparis on my talk page as per administrator advice here. I've also left a note in the edit summary explaining why and I've also advised Domdeparis against repeating their actions. As for their reply here, the continued assertion that the article in question fails WP:NORG despite myself and several other editors now explaining that it doesn't (or that at best NORG is unclear on the matter), just shows the mentality of the person behind the account. An unwillingness to accept that they were/are wrong and shouting "AGF!"/"NPA!" when questioned about their AfD nominations are very worrying behaviors from somebody who is actually quite the veteran here. Anyway, with any luck, Mine and Domdeparis paths will not cross again on Wikipedia and their past and future behavior here will no longer be any of my concern. Since no administrator was willing to do the revert on my talk page (I understand why), the AfD that started all this is over and I have no wish to further communicate with Domdeparis, I'll consider this matter to be over. I'll leave it up to an uninvolved user to close this thread (or not if that's the preferred position). Thanks again to everyone here for their comments and advice on this matter. Skemcraig (talk) 22:36, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi @Skemscraig: I think that if you look carefully nobody advised you to revert anything but reminded you that you are not obliged to leave (almost) anything on your talk page and if you want to remove the warning you can. The most important thing IMHO is that you read it and even if you don't agree with the warning you now know that repeatedly accusing others of bad faith without proof is often upsetting to those that you accuse, and as you have been advised you should move on. I have taken on board the advice and from now on will try and be clearer in my nominations to avoid this kind of situation in the future. Happy editing! Domdeparis (talk) 07:34, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

"You're allowed to remove warnings (or almost anything else) from your talk page if you wish to." – Seraphimblade / "As Seraphimblade said, if you don't want the warning on the talk page, remove it." – GB fan / followed up by "but if I have too, I'll revert it myself at a later date. Thanks to everyone who's commented so far for the advice though, it's appreciated." – Me!

It is quite clear that to remove the warning is to revert/undo your edit to my talk page which is what I was advised to do and what I did. Skemcraig (talk) 09:12, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

• @Skemcraig: FYI, but whether you remove the warning or not is somewhat of a distraction really. Whether it stays or it goes, you are deemed to have read it with either action. So, unfortunately, the warning itself still stands in the history, and by extension, in the collective memory. Hope this clarifies it for you! Cheers, — O Fortuna! ^{Imperatrix mundi.} 09:27, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for the heads up Fortuna. On the back of that, I'd like to formally request again that an administrator delete/hide the Domdeparis edit from my talk page history. Cheers Skemcraig (talk) 12:03, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

@Skemcraig: Sorry, no. Possibly incorrect or incorrect warnings do not merit revision deletion. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 12:20, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I doubt there is any policy-based reason to do so per WP:DELTALK. You are free to revert it if you disagree but none of the reasons for deletion apply. My advice: Just walk away. This discussion has run its course, it's clear that you and Domdeparis will not agree and there is nothing you or he did that warrants further discussion. It would be in all our interest if all involved parties spend their time here more productively. May I suggest trying to establish a notability guideline for rugby teams? Regards SoWhy 12:26, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Consider me walked away SoWhy. I'll leave it to the more experienced editors here to come up with a notability guideline for amateur sports clubs, which I agree is badly needed. IMHO, WP:RL, WP:RU, WP:WPF and many many more sports related WikiProjects are going to need to collaborate very closely on this. Skemcraig (talk) 12:32, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

A final thought: There is no monopoly on who can suggest new guidelines and sometimes things will not happen if everyone considers it to be somebody else's problem. Be bold, make the first step and propose something; the talk pages of the WPs you mentioned or Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) is a good place to do so. All "more experienced editors" started out small. Regards SoWhy 13:03, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

it's a good remark I have already tried to change the WP:NRU criteria by opening a discussion to try and get the Georgian players the same status of notability as other teams because Georgia is now considered as a high performance union but it's almost impossible to get some kind of concensus. It would be so much easier to have notability criteria for teams rather than just NORG but it would have long reaching consequences for all sports I think. Domdeparis (talk) 13:31, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Maybe it would behoove both Domdeparis and myself to one day set aside this spat and work together on a policy proposal for sports club notability on Wikipedia. If I start a discussion at VP or elsewhere regarding the matter, I'll be sure to drop a note at User talk:Domdeparis and a note on my talk page is welcome should anyone wish to start the discussion process before I get around to it. For now though, I'm off on a short Wikibreak. Skemcraig (talk) 22:33, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm happy to work with anyone whose aim is to improve Wikipedia regardless of any past differences of opinion we may have had. cheers Domdeparis (talk) 01:01, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

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

User:TheOldJacobite

WP:HARASS by IP
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
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. You wonder why you don't get new editors? Well it's because of people like this user. They disappeared in early 2014, then came back in mid 2016 (I find it hard to believe they were not editing here under another pseudonym, although this edit suggests something more sinister!!). But now they're back and up to their usual pedantic martinet ways. I would not be bringing this to your attention if it were not for the fact that what they delete - sometimes an IP editors' obvious hardwork - contains details that are often correct. They even delete stuff that is referenced because they don't like that either (under the auspices that it is "unnecessary"). The fact of the matter is this: they are deleting things without even bothering to prove their veracity. In fact they never do that. On a number of occasions prior to their 2014 departure, I reinstated one or two of their revert/deletion with a reference. But on several occasions this person then deleted the referenced edit but with a new excuse. Too often they also take an officious unpleasant high-handed tone with any editor who dares to challenge their behavior. If you're going to let people like this flourish (and there are plenty more like this one) - you're pretty much heading or an ever decreasing circle of pleasant editors. Why are you not censuring people like this when they delete things without first sourcing them? If it can be proved that they deleted what was factually correct ie they didn't even make a cursory search to see if it might be right before they hit revert (again this all comes down to WP:GF something they never display), you are giving too much power to martinets like this! Why do people who delete/revert things never have to justify themselves to the same level that a contributor has to do? This "TheOldJacobite" character is allowed to act with impunity - and does - while people who are positively trying to contribute have all the onus on them. Put another way, the fly has to dodge the web while all a spider has to do is wait. In other words, this site could theoretically end up with only deleters who stop anyone from adding information. If you want this site to carry on for another 15 years, the likes of this TheOldJacobite should be told that if they are caught deleting contributions that turn out to be factually correct, they get treated in just the same way as the vandals they claim to be fighting! But that's not up to me, it's up to you. 109.153.148.141 (talk) 21:08, 2 April 2017 (UTC) Given the first diff provided (now revdelled), I'm tempted to block this IP for avoiding scrutiny. --NeilN talk to me 21:17, 2 April 2017 (UTC) Look at revisions to Monty Python's The Meaning of Life. RileyBugzYell at me | Edits 21:20, 2 April 2017 (UTC) I don't see anything wrong with the contributions of TheOldJacobite. They were clearly reverting edits that were not supported by a reliable source. The IP editor might want to beware the WP:BOOMERANG. Boomer VialHolla! We gonna ball! 21:28, 2 April 2017 (UTC) @Boomer Vial: I was supporting the contribs of TheOldJacobite. Sorry, should have been more clear. RileyBugzYell at me | Edits 21:38, 2 April 2017 (UTC) Well, isn't this interesting? First, let me say that I feel no need to defend myself or my edits. I've made mistakes like any other editor, but I have never been maliciously intended, as this anon. implies. Second, I really have no idea who this person is, and my instinct is to ignore the rantings of a person who hides behind an IP. All my edits are available for scrutiny – I have never edited anonymously (or not intentionally, anyway), never used another identity (my name has changed since I first edited, but my edit history is the same), and have never been accused of using socks. As I have already said, I stand by my edits. ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 22:55, 2 April 2017 (UTC) Using a despicable attack to cast aspersions on The Old Jacobite is beyond the pale. El_C 05:03, 3 April 2017 (UTC) Given the (now oversighted) content of the edit, I'm currently trying to think of a reason not to block the IP and archive this entire discussion as harassment. Lankiveil (speak to me) 06:59, 3 April 2017 (UTC). The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Amithvpurushothaman

Amithvpurushothaman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is continuing to remove speedy deletion tags and make non-notable articles despite having already been both warned and blocked for this behavior. Was going to report to AIV, but wasn't sure that it was vandalism. Sakuura Cartelet ^Talk 15:12, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Between the repeated creation of a promotional (and it appears probably autobiographical page), the block evasion and sock puppetry, and repeated warnings to NOT remove speedy tags, I've blocked the user indef (They are just off a 1 week block as well). RickinBaltimore (talk) 15:19, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Saharawiki

Saharawiki might not realize they have a talk page and that someone might be trying to communicate. My concern is that they are changing the "tense" while claiming "Edits for writing quality only, not for content" which is also more time than not, not an improvement. Most recently on Stephen Colbert. - Mlpearc (open channel) 15:31, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

User:Himel Rahmon

Disruptive editing by User:Himel Rahmon on Maratha invasions of Bengal. The user removing well-cited content without any proper explanation, no serious effort to engage on the talk page. Shimlaites (talk) 16:43, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Blocked (by me) via a report at AIV. Amortias (T)(C) 16:53, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Name change discussion at Talk:Liancourt Rocks

Because this issue has been extremely contentious in the past, I invite admins and other interested parties to keep an eye on this name change discussion regarding the future naming of the Liancourt Rocks article. Thank you for participating! ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 17:08, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

78.61.230.14

78.61.230.14 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) (probably using other iPs, see talk page) persistently removes historical Polish names from many Lithuanian locations, despite warnings in the talk page. At the same time it adds Lithuanian names to Polish/Belarusian locations (which is OK), so I have to suspect militant nationalism. Staszek Lem (talk) 18:23, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Class Project - Copyright violations added by unregistered class project.

It appears there is an unmonitored class project abound which - effectively - appears to be googling for content to add to various article's with no regards for copyright whatsoever. One student mentioned they are being graded by the amount of content added which really doesn't seem to work at all. As i am about to leave till Monday i won't have the time to deal with this myself so if anyone could that would be excellent.

I left a more thorough analysis and explanation here on the ENI noticeboard. Seeing the situation this one needed flagging on ANI as well to. Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 19:38, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Rapid fire vandalism in progress

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.

---

Its' hard to say I'm positive on all of them, but the account user:Imsp10 was established a few hours ago and has done 14 edits, and it looks like all of them are vandalism. The most recent is at the wp:ver talk page. I think I saw this same content from another vandal recently. North8000 (talk) 23:23, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

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

Personal attack in edit summary -- please remove

I admit to being somewhat testy in the last discussion on Talk:Bellarmine University, but the editor fumed and removed the entire discussion, leaving a nastygram in the edit summary that may be off-putting to others. If it can be disguised or removed, that would be very much appreciated. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 11:20, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

 Done. El_C 11:23, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Disruptive editing and comments by some users at 2017 dissolution of Venezuelan National Assembly, 2017 Venezuelan self-coup d'état

Two users User:Cambalachero and User:ZiaLater have violated the rules. Cambalachero has made comments at the Talk:2017 Venezuelan self-coup d'état that are against rules in order to justify not moving the article. ZiaLater seems to be been imposing his own POV possibly anti-Maduro government and pro-opposition on the articles and is also edit-warring with me unnecessarily on 2017 dissolution of Venezuelan National Assembly and 2017 Venezuelan self-coup d'état. More surprising that they are breaking the rules despite being experienced.

Background of article

To understand the situation first we have to go into what the article is about. The Supreme Tribunal of Justice (TSJ), which is stated to be filled with sympathizers of President Nicolás Maduro (source:[107]) has taken over the legislative powers of opposition-controlled National Assembly of Venezuela and has effectively dissolved it.(sources:[=http://edition.cnn.com/2017/03/30/americas/venezuela-dissolves-national-assembly/], [108]). Per the sources and the article, Maduro has been trying to undermine the legislature for long. The opposition (source: [109]) some international leaders (source:[110]), some analysts described it as self-coup (source: [111]) and media outlets have condemned it as well (example: [112]), some media outlets have also condemned it as a "coup" (example: [113]). However, some of the above sources like [114], [115] and [116] also clearly use the term in a highlighted manner just like I typed, "self-coup" etc or say someone else said it.

Also I'll like to go to some backstory of the edits to properly understand it. The article was created as "2017 Venezuelan coup d'état" by User:Fadesga. This was in contradiction to the content of the source or the reality, the source DW never called it a coup. This source was used iin the article: [117]. User:User:Gustavo Parker changed this to 2017 Venezuelan self-coup d'état which seems to have likely been done based on condemnations of it, but still no reason was given nor sources used. Another user User:Moscow Mule [118] added Wikipedia definition of self-coup and used it as reference which is highly wrong as only sources like news etc should be used. The definition seems clearly lifted from self-coup anyway and was using as a Wikipedia article for a source. These edits all are against rules.

Edits of users

I've explained the background, now about the main point of the disruptive edits of the user I am here to complain about. First I'll like to present their non-neutral statements. In response to User:Everyking's concern about neutrality of the title article in describing it as a coup, User:Cambalachero without reason goes off on to make POV comments and bash Chavez government even though we are not here to do that. He uses a reason like "International reactions seem to be unanimous against dictator Maduro." and calls the contradictions against it being a coup as being promoted by Chavez government stating it is its " official version". Regardless, it was a purely POV statement that is against the rules and had little to do with the actual reason of the neutrality of the title. If it was a justification for the title, then surely it is not appropriate justification and shows an obvious bias. Another non-neutral statement was made again by him after Everyking again asked for a neutral title. Also an OR statement was made by him about the takeover being permant despite no source stating it is so. He made the comment here. More interesting thing is that an IP editor confronted him about him looking biased eariler though he himself seems a bit biased, Cambalachero points him to WP:UNDUE but fails to notice he himself isn't following the rule properly or trying to apply it.

In concerning the article solely, its ZiaLater who is the disruptive one. second edit of User:ZiaLater on the article added a whole background that seems to portray the Nicolas Maduro government as "dictators" but little about their charges on the opposition and the situation which the Supreme tribunal stated that led to the suspension. Per Wikipedia, we must add all points of view. In addition to that he also added an unsourced paragraph in the same edit concerning situation after Hugo Chavez's death and never cared to source it. The further background additions see further negative painting and the dismissal of some lawmakers by Supreme tribunal is also among a background of negative painting: [119], [120]. He also added an OR statement in his edit "The ruling does not include provisions for the eventual restorations of those powers back to the Assembly." despite the source only stating that "It did not indicate if or when it might hand power back." Also CNN clearly has them stating that the suspension of the Assembly is until the contempt action persists and the actions of the national Assembly were invalidated. This is not only unbalanced POV editing, but also ignoring sources and OR. Further edits also seem to be indicative merely of anti-government reports and no government or Supreme tribunal (TSJ) reaction (edit:[121], and also copying as it is from sources like "a rare break in ranks" in this edit which again can be construed as OR.

Also of serious note is his edit warring. I had first moved the title of the page just to satisfy neutrality concerns and follow the rules. First i changed it into [ 2017 annulment of Venezuelan National Assembly 2017 annulment of Venezuelan National Assembly] and later to 2017 dissolution of Venezuelan National Assembly. Also I rewrote the lede to make it look neutral and not like a criticism. Multiple users had concerns that the article's title was neutral. The article was seriously going against Wikipedia guidelines and rules which I states so in my comment and also asked Cambalachero to stop making POV and pure OR statements. ZiaLater however reverted my move and simply copied and pasted the whole content of the article back to 2017 Venezuelan self-coup d'état [122]. This is is against the rules as an article cannot be moved simply by copying and pasting. He however tells me to talk at the talk page even though he himself impatiently goes against the rules and doesn't talk before breaking them and moving the article. He also tried to justify his rule-breaking stating he had to do it since I made multiple articles. Also he made an aggressive statement to me to which I asked him to not break the rules and asked not to indulge in an edit war. Here are both comments: [123]. However he moved the pages again and copied and pasted: [124] [125]. After this I gave him a last warning not to edit-war. Only after User:Panam2014 asked him to stop and reverted him did he desist. Same edit-warring has been done on these talk pages: Talk:2017 dissolution of Venezuelan National Assembly, Talk:2017 Venezuelan self-coup d'état and Talk:2017 Venezuelan constitutional crisis. See these edits of his [Talk:2017 Venezuelan constitutional crisis], [126] and [127].

Additionally this isn't the first time Zialater made such disruptive edits and edit-warred. He has had a large amount of edit-warring with another user User:Tellectualin at Bolivarian propaganda, see its history. the diffs are too numerous to list. Few examples: one of first Tellectualin reverts and counter-revert by ZiaLater, further reverts: [128] and [129]. you'll see in the history that this went on for a long time and kept growing larger in term sof content removed and restored. Whatever the reason such large amount of edit-warring is not acceptable. Whethe rhe was warned for it or not, he still doesn' t seem to be improving much.

Based on the above given reasons, I request the administrators to punish the editors especially Zialater. Cambalachero should be given a warning or at least be told not to make such statements. And Zialater should either be a given a ban or at least a warning that he'll be banned so he desists from such destructive behavior in the future. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 11:40, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Content dispute aside the page is now protected till Monday so you've got plenty of time to discuss it over the weekend before making any changes. Also MonsterHunter32 it takes two to edit war Amortias (T)(C) 12:27, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

I do believe in the mainstream opinion, yes. Everyone calls this a self-coup, except those directly benefited (Maduro, and people who work for him). I don't buy their lame excuse that they had to close the congress because they are the helpless victims of an evil right-wing conspiracy, and I don't know of anyone else besides them who does. It's clearly a WP:UNDUE case. But, as far as this page is concerned, I did not insult anyone nor edit warred or move warred. Calling Maduro the way everyone calls him is simply because I prefer to call a spade a spade.

As for the article name, 5 to 3 is not really a clear consensus. The article should stay at the original title during the discussion. --Cambalachero (talk) 12:44, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

@Cambalachero: Expressing your personal opinion about a living person, no matter how many people you think agree with you, is a violation of policy. It's also unnecessary while working on an article or discussing how to improve an article. So don't do it.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:51, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

• Note: I have modified the protection level to extended confirmed and am keeping an eye on it. This article is dealing with a current event of some importance. Additionally we are trying to get it on the front page but it needs some improvements to pass WP:ITNC. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:17, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

@Cambalachero: This was about your comments which are breaking rules. No everyone isn't calling this a self-coup at least not by themselves anf not in a serious news article. Regardless we need to maintain the rules and wait for things to be clear. There were only three people on the talk page with you. I didn't complain about you having consensus or not. Only about your comments. And you have gone much further by falsely alleging me as a "Maduro supporter" even when all my actions have been to maintain neutrality, not in favor of Maduro government nor I made comments in favor of it. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 17:30, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Zia's explanation

It seems that MonsterHunter32 is a somewhat new user. Their moving of the article here would have made it easier to revert and make discussing the article easier. However, the page was moved again with a different title, causing difficulties of making any reversions and multiple redirects were occurring. I attempted to bring the article back to its original title and discuss the move of the article further on the talk page, though MonsterHunter didn't seem to agree with that and made assumptions about the motives of users (I also agreed to have a discussion about the article's title and made a proposal and was waiting for discussion before MonsterHunter was even involved with the article). I have been involved in Venezuelan articles for some time and know how contentious they are, which is why I was seeking discussions before pages were moved twice and name-calling occurred (trust me, I try to avoid it, it's not fun). Also, I knew that we were attempting to place this in the news and that all of the edits moving the article would be distracting.

As for MonsterHunter32, it is nice seeing that they are making bold edits, though I wish they would assume good faith and attempt to discuss more. I attempted to assist MonsterHunter32 with a request for comment and sought for a more valuable discussion than "complaining". Instead, they decided to take matters into their own hands and moved it again. Overall, I just tried to keep things in order and help a new user through discussion, but my mistake. My actions were not intended to be of POV pushing or vandalism, like I said above, I was involved in the original discussion about making a title change. I will open up a discussion on the talk page to work on a title and hopefully we can figure this out.--ZiaLater (talk) 18:22, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Edit-warring to include vanity press

Cagwinn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is edit-warring, including SHOUTY EDIT SUMMARIES, to include a self-published book on vanity press lulu.com in an article, as a source for the opinion of its author. Cagwinn has appointed himself arbiter of what is acceptable. At Talk:Avalon he seems uninterested in addressing my substantive concerns, instead deciding it's a competition I want to "win" (I don't care about this author, I do care about the thousands of links on Wikipedia to lulu.com sales pages). I see WP:OWN and other issues here. Guy (Help!) 19:30, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

I think WP:ONUS puts you in the right, and he shouldn't restore a contested source without gaining consensus. But why not go to WP:RSN and resolve it there? I go through articles occasionally and strip out citations to self-published books, too. I don't recall ever having this much trouble keeping one out of an article, but the other guy obviously feels rather strongly that the book is reliable. I'm not aware of a blanket ban on books self-published through lulu.com, though I think the website itself is blacklisted. So, technically, I don't think it's even possible to link to lulu.com sales pages. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:11, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

I took it out again. Apart from the fact that Guy is right, I don't see the point of the link anyway - there are four other sources for that sentence, and thus no reason to wedge an extra (dubious) one in. Black Kite (talk) 20:34, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

To reiterate what I posted on my personal talk page, as well as the article's talk, the scholar in question (Throop) is cited - apparently without issue - in many Wikipedia articles and, despite the fact that she self-published this particular book, she had other work published by a reliable publishing house and she meets WP guidelines for citation. Guy has been overly aggressive with me from the start and is the one who initiated the edit war. If the consensus is to remove the citation, so be it, but I object to Guy's heavy-handed tactics and bullying of a fellow editor. Cagwinn (talk) 22:31, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Many links to Throop were added by Liz Henderson (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), an account with little interest other than linking that specific author. That's why saying the author is cited in many articles is evidence of nothing other than Wikipedia's vulnerability to spam. -- Finlay McWalter··–·Talk 22:53, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Colour me unsurprised. That is, in fact, virtually all the mentions that currently exist. Good spot, sir. Guy (Help!) 23:31, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Removal of cited quote at Ernest Bevin

User:2A00:23C4:6392:3C00:CC0E:E611:D9F8:8ABC has three times removed a cited quote about the importance of Ernest Bevin as foreign secretary from the article about him. I have reverted twice with edit summaries suggesting the addition of a different viewpoint with citation rather than removal of a cited quote. I have also tried to start a discussion on the article talk page and users talk page. I don't want to make furtther changes because of 3RR but could someone take a look?— Rod ^talk 15:03, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

The duck test suggests it's probably another sock of HarveyCarter: see Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/HarveyCarter and User:DelmarAndrews, who can be seen trolling in a similar manner in February 2015 on the same talk page at Talk:Ernest Bevin #Quotation from Bullock. --RexxS (talk) 22:09, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Good detective work. Yeah, the IP editor has the same obsessions as Carter. I range blocked 2A00:23C4:6392:3C00::/64 for a month. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:29, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

User:Alex Khimich

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.

---

Now we have another EE editor (around 100 edits) with WP:COMPETENCE issues. They remove the text referenced to The Guardian [130] [131] saying it is not reliable, but they easily add material only sourced to the Ukrainian Wikipedia [132]. After they made the second revert, they went to the talk page describing me as "pro-Russian editor" [133] which is not helpful. To be honest, I am getting seriously tired of Russian and Ukrainian POV pushers who completely ignore our policies because they KNOW THE TRUTH and they think it justifies edit-warring and adding unsourced info, accusing me in pro-Russian or pro-Ukrainian position. Many of those are socks, though this user seens to be a genuine one. I seem to be the only active administrator in the area, and I would appreciate some help from the colleagues, possibly adding some of the contentious pages to their watchlists. I am currently afraid of a burnout.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:04, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

This user removes my edits from article (with citations to governmental websites with corresponding laws described), in article where RU-UK relations described in Eurovision. There is a NECESSITY to describe both points of view when such issues mentioned. Now there is only pro-russian media added by this user at present, and no Ukrainian media. This practice shows that article is being used for Russian lobby. Canceling 3 paragraphs just because 1 (ONE) link to UK wikipedia given along with official gov.ua site to extend last. Also, user cancels added {{neutrality}} template for no reason. Also, I'm not frequent editor here because of many Russians lobbyists here, so that's why here I have just 100+ edits. This user says "many POV pushers here", still being one of them. If this article is to describe everything from point of view from Russia, so let it be. I'm not truth fighter, Wikipedia will lose from such "neutrality". The Guardian's post title does not cite in verbatim the letter of EBU (I read this letter), producing rumors here. Thanks. P.S. Take this Eurovision away from us, but don't lie. — Alex Khimich (talk) 20:22, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

The discussion on my talk page, User talk:Ymblanter#Eurovision 2017, demonstrates indeed serious WP:COMPETENCE issues. The user indeed believes that reliable sources are official documents, even after I directed them to WP:RS which details the difference between primary and secondary sources.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:52, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

The user continued reverting [134], needs to be blocked.--Ymblanter (talk) 22:32, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

You can't have an article about "Russia–Ukraine relations in the Eurovision Song Contest" and then not expect trouble there. Count Iblis (talk) 21:47, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Sure. Do you recommend me to unwatch it? --Ymblanter (talk) 21:51, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps you can look at whether this article fits in of these ArbCom's discretionary sanctions lists. I was active on some Israel-Palestine related articles a long time ago (long before there was a big ArbCom case about such articles), at some point I decided to just unwatch all of these articles because you can't keep on arguing for and maintain certain standards when other editors are not going to support that effort. But today we have a lot more articles that fall under ArbCom's discretionary sanctions system... Count Iblis (talk) 22:14, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

ARBPIA is indeed difficult, I tried to do smth there a couple of times, got booed by both sides who obviously knew the TRUTH, and since then my interaction with Israeli/Palestinian articles was mostly to protect them. The article we are discussing is clearly under ARBEE (Eastern Europe), and the user has been already alerted of the sanctions, but they do not seem to care. They seriously consider me as pro-Russian POV pusher.--Ymblanter (talk) 22:35, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

@Ymblanter and Count Iblis: Nothing of these might happen if not someone's total disrespect and complete deletion of edit. Well Ymblanter could correct links, remind about RS, facts, instead he decided to clean it out, thinking me to be newbie with 100+ commits, remove disputed template just because he is here in high position. Folks, the truth is what we both want, respect others opinions while you write about them. — Alex Khimich (talk) 22:49, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

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

Baggidy1 (talk · contribs) reported by TriiipleThreat (talk · contribs)

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 being reported

Baggidy1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Diffs of the user's personal attacks

• [135]

Diffs of disruptive edit warning

• [136]

Comments:

Personal attacks stems from the user's disruptive edits to Thor (Marvel Comics) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs).--TriiipleThreat (talk) 20:04, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

• Warned. El_C 20:12, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

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

Possible Personal Attack by User:MjolnirPants

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 asked that people assume good faith, but it seems just asking nicely hasn't worked. Instead, User:MjolnirPants responded with "When someone gives you a link, you need to actually click on it and read it. Just assuming you already know what it says is a recipe for foot-in-mouth disease."[137] I take this as an accusation of my personal behavior without evidence. It assumes (1) that I didn't click the link and read it, and (2) that I just assumed I already knew what it said. I did in fact open the link and read it. I even I quoted from it in my response. These kinds of personal attacks need to stop so we can focus on the content instead.Obsidi (talk) 15:59, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

<facepalm> ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:06, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

I did in fact open the link and read it. I even I quoted from it in my response. The quote you provided was not in that link. Which you would have known if... Well, you know. Hell, I even made a mistake you could have lambasted me for. Which you would have known if... Well, you know. Of course, detailed technical criticisms (something I mentioned in the part of my comment you neglected to reproduce here) exist in the source you actually pulled that quote from, which invalidates your argument completely. Which you would have known if... Well, you know. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:27, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

The full sentence was The Beck article provides an interesting test case for E&E’s recently advertised willingness to serve as a forum for “skeptical analyses of global warming” It is on the last paragraph of the linked article (Specifically page 639). I have no problems with your statement on the criticisms in the article, had you left it at that, I wouldn't have said anything. -Obsidi (talk) 16:38, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict)It is on the last paragraph of the linked article (Specifically page 639). Again: No, it's not. You will need to actually click on the link I provided and read it to understand what the problem is, here. Here's the link again, because I'm a helpful guy. And you ran to ANI to complain about someone offering you advice, which is what my comment clearly is. But, I think I'll let an admin explain that to you (assuming one of them is feeling bored enough to actually look into this). Cross your fingers that they don't go through that talk page, looking closely at your arguments and start asking themselves if your participation there is a boon to the project. ;) ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:42, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Open up the linked pdf, goes to page 639. Here let me highlight it and include a pic for anyone that doesn't have access to the pdf at the link:[138] -Obsidi (talk) 16:57, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

But you did not link to the PDF; you linked to another page that includes a link to the PDF. The material you are citing is not at the link you provided, but at a link that can be reached from there. The PDF is what you should link to, because the contact you're citing is not actually at the link you're listing. --Nat Gertler (talk) 17:08, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

The pdf is copyrighted behind a paywall. I would love to post the entire PDF (which I have), but that would violate copyright law so I cannot. This is the same for all these kinds of academic journals. The Link (that was posted above, not by me) was the closest you could get to the pdf that we were discussing. -Obsidi (talk) 17:11, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

• Comment I'm not quite sure what the well, you knows are indicative of. But I do suggest, Obsidi that what you have linked to shows a clear case of colourful expression combined with playing the ball rather than the man,the first of which is not in breach of NPA, the second fully in the spirit of it. And as for content... I know that there are Lies, damned lies, and statistics, but Ill leave this pie chart here :) — O Fortuna! ^{Imperatrix mundi.} 16:38, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure what the well, you knows are indicative of. Substitute "if you'd actually clicked on the link and read the article" for "... Well, you know." to make it make more sense. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:43, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

• (Non-administrator comment) That was not a personal attack. Not even close. That was something you don't want to hear. Taking this to WP:ANI and continuing the quarrel here, is tantamount to begging for a boomerang. Kleuske (talk) 16:40, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
• Okay, I'm posting this at the bottom because I'm laughing too much to trust myself to get it in the right spot, with the right formatting.

1. The link I posted was not to a PDF (though there was a PDF behind a paywall there).
2. The letter at the link I posted was written by Harro A.J. Meijer, not Ralph F. Keeling (this is the mistake I made which I mentioned earlier).
3. The link I provided uses a .jpg image of the printed page, preventing Obsidi from copying and pasting from it (though admittedly, he might have transcribed something read there).
4. The Keeling letter is freely available in a .doc format here. It contains the quote Obsidi purported to pull from my link.
5. Obsidi's argument was as follows "Complains about the "willingness to serve as a forum for 'skeptical analyses of global warming,'" Oh No! Look maybe that paper was bad, but where is the evidence for a lack of peer review? Note how he asks for "the evidence". Now, I'm going to quote from the same paper Obsidi quoted from:

As Keeling grasped already in 1957 – before he had shown that CO2 was increasing – the earlier chemical measurements exhibit far too much geographic and short-term temporal variability to plausibly be representative of the background. The variability of these early measurements must therefore be attributed to "local or regional" factors or poor measurement practice (6). Beck is therefore wrong when he asserts that the earlier data have been discredited only because they don't fit a preconceived hypothesis of CO2 and climate. In fact, this hypothesis was not widely accepted until the late 1970's (7). Instead, the data have been ignored because they cannot be accepted as representative without violating our understanding of how fast the atmosphere mixes.

A small number of the earlier observations may in fact have been done with sufficient attention to sampling and analysis methods. Nevertheless, interest in the early observations waned in the 1980s when it became clear that background concentrations in the past could be established more reliably from air archived in ice cores (8). Although Beck claims that the earlier data exhibit seasonal variations which correspond to modern observations, this claim is unsubstantiated. The diurnal variability that Beck documents is in fact a smoking gun for data being non-representative of the background. There is clearly no basis for assuming that meaningful background trends can be extracted by averaging the early data over 11-year intervals, as Beck has done.

In effect, Beck has turned back the clock to before 1957, rejecting the notion of an atmospheric background, a concept which has stood the test of 50 years of scientific scrutiny.

— Ralph F. Keeling, Comment on "180 Years of atmospheric CO2 gas analysis by chemical methods by" by Ernst-Georg Beck, Energy and Environment, Vol. 18(2), 259-282, 2007.

This is, quite clearly, a content dispute in which one editor got "called out" on not examining evidence presented to them, and responded to that by running to ANI in an attempt to get a leg up in the discussion. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:27, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

I have/had no problems with the rest of your statement (the part not quoted above), which was dealing with the content. But this forum isnt to discuss the actual content dispute and who is right/wrong on that. I'll leave it to the administrators to determine if the part I quoted is a content dispute or a personal attack. I'm not trying to get a "leg up" on anyone. If the administrators feel this is a content dispute and not a personal attack, just say so and we can move on. -Obsidi (talk) 17:35, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Do move on. Bishonen | talk 17:45, 4 April 2017 (UTC).

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

False allegations of meatpuppetry and sockpuppetry by Inlinetext

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.

---

@Inlinetext: is having disruptive mentality of calling his opponents a sock or meat puppet. He made such personal attacks at WP:ARCA[139] despite being warned before not to,[140] and his trolling and senseless badgering at WP:ARCA (forcing multiple checkusers to admit how he is correct about sock puppets but they are wrong[141][142]) is also becoming very disruptive. Just now, he claimed me, @Capitals00 and Marvellous Spider-Man: and few others to be sock and/or meatpuppet of each other, also that all these accounts are connected to some former admin and alleged paid editor, yet Inlinetext provided no proof of his gibberish.

Inlinetext has been editing only for 3 months, even if he claims that he edited before[143] he is still evading WP:SCRUTINY, by not declaring his past identities and taking up fights with editors he never interacted. More importantly, he has been brought to ANI multiple times[144][145] in this small duration and also given final warning,[146] however he continues to get worse. D4iNa4 (talk) 12:32, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

• Inlinetext has been given multiple "final warning"s regarding personal attacks and unfounded sockpuppetry accusations (which are also personal attacks) but has continued to do so even in areas where they ought to know that administrators are watching (like Arbcom). They're also taking a destructively black-and-white approach to paid editing: they made this massive revert to an article that was edited through a proper COI disclosure and edit-request process over several months, and did the same here, restoring an oddly-selected three-year-old version of an article because of paid editing that they never felt the need to follow up on with COIN. These are highly disruptive actions, bordering on WP:POINT in my opinion. This user is very close to a WP:CIR block. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:50, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

I agree, while not the most problematic user, as they have been insightful in the past, they have been unnecessarily edit warring COI's, which caused disruption on multiple pages. In one of the pages, I went to the talk page to see if I could solve the problem, but it ended up going to AN3, with this discussion on the talk page before hand, and one on AN3; Edit warring with unknown COI's is still edit warring and violating WP:3RR. This user also went through my contributions and mass removed content from multiple pages that I had edited or related to my edits. I believe that a block is necessary with this "battleground mentality". —JJBers 16:16, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Inlinetext has accused me of harassing him and also accused me of being meatpuppet of other editors. Inlinetext is possibly a paid editor. These type of editors get the benefit of assume good faith policy, and constructive Wikipedians are harassed. Marvellous Spider-Man 17:07, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Reply @D4iNa4: The filer 'D4iNa4' is an unblocked CU confirmed sockmaster who has subsequently been repeatedly accused of meatpuppetry by several editors see here and here and here, here and here in conjunction with User:OccultZone, User:Capitals00, User:Marvellous_Spider-Man etc. The locus area of User:OccultZone's Arbcom block concerned the Rape in India topic area "long term edit war at Rape in India involving multiple users and spanning several, several months" per the blocking area. User:OccultZone seeks an unblock on the basis that he has not edited after his ban. Because this same set of unblocked editors votestacked at an Indian rape/murder case article Delta_Meghwal_rape_case and its AfD as recently Feb 2017 I expressed my concerns at the ARCA (which is a highly watched page with many CUs present) opposing OccultZone's unblock. I also expressed my concern that a sock of a former admin sockmaster 'Natalinasmpf' also participated at the aforesaid AfD and that previously OccultZone had strangely removed a CU badge of shame from Natalinasmpf's User page diff with the remark "Haven't socked for 3+ years" causing me to legitimately believe that OZ is Natalinasmpf considering that Natalinasmpf's socks have also extensively edited and edit warred in Rape in India which resulted in OZ's block. So I believed in good faith that these are all relevant facts and circumstances that ARBCOM should consider while deciding whether to unblock the banned user since apparently OccultZone's meatpuppets (I didn't call them socks of OZ) continue to edit war in the 'Rape in India' topic area and prevent content creating editors like me from fleshing out articles and sourcing them, like I did Delta_Meghwal_rape_case. It is also relevant that the filer D4iNa4 had mischievously redirected Delta_Meghwal_rape_case to Maratha Empire see diff which is not connected by any stretch of imagination. Insofar as this account goes, I have declared that I have edited with my IRL name accounts since 2004 but no longer want to do so to secure my PRIVACY (which is a legitimate use) and my named accounts have not been used since 2007 and 2012 respectively, and I have also never been blocked. Inlinetext (talk) 17:52, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Reply re: 'sockpuppetry'. @Vanamonde93: The SPIs concerning OccultZone and these other users is marked by their technical ability such that even experienced CU's are unable to clarify the confusion caused by CU detected and blocked abusive socks of OZ like User:AmritasyaPutra and User:Bladesmulti. See the discussion at ARCA. Inlinetext (talk) 18:06, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Reply re: @Marvellous_Spider-Man. Here are a few comments by CU's at OccultZone SPIs concerning MSM's account.

• "Doug Weller unblocked the account on behalf of the subcommittee, so perhaps he can provide some insight. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 16:46, 15 September 2016 (UTC)"

• "We discussed this for quite a while before deciding to give the editor the benefit of the doubt. Bladesmulti had implicitly addmitted to being Oz but argued (not just denied) that he was AmritasyaPutra. We felt that the technical evidence wasn't entirely convincing and we had someone stating that they'd met AmritasyaPutra. But we haven't discussed this yet on the list. It looks as though we might have been wrong. I agree that Marvellous Spider-Man is possibly a sock. Doug Weller talk 19:08, 15 September 2016 (UTC)"
• "@Bbb23, I agree that Marvellous Spider-Man is technically unrelated to OZ and socks. However, their editing does raise suspicions.
• Last year, I found that AmritasyaPutra was a sock of OZ, however, their subsequent BASC appeal was accepted. Currently, though, the CU results connecting them to Ekvastra are unambiguous. The edits here (admin only) add to the result and go a long way toward convincing me that my original analysis was correct after all. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 16:42, 15 September 2016 (UTC)"

• "@DoRD: You aren't the only one who thinks that Marvellous Spider-Man's edits are suspicious. Assuming he is a sock, the question I've had trouble answering is who's the master?--Bbb23 (talk) 17:03, 15 September 2016 (UTC)".

So when so many experienced CU's are in doubt over this team or teams of meat-puppets this needs to be addressed before OZ is unbanned, and I have drawn attention to it concerning the user:Vipul paid editing connection which arose / got exposed after I was harassed and wikistalked at Parker Conrad by User:JJBers and others for protesting undeclared paid edits. Inlinetext (talk) 18:21, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Reply @Ivanvector. Since this experienced editor has deliberately opted to revert my edits which were done to uphold ToU related policy read along with WP:PAID policy. I do not believe that this community of editors is capable of (or empowered to) resolve such ToU matters and I intend to take this up with Wikimedia Foundation, since I am being harassed and made to feel unwelcome here for seeking WMF's policies on paid editing are enforced. Because I suspect sockpuppetry (for promoting paid edits) by an administrator concerning one of these reverts, which evidence I shall place before WMF eventually once I get a reply at WP:VP to a query I posted there, I am prohibited from discussing this matter further due to this community's anti-Outing policy. I specifically highlight that I had reverted at Hilary Rosen with the edit summary Reverting to old version 730150525 by Jasonanaggie at 02:18, 17 July 2016, reason => WP:COIRESPONSE edits fail WP:PAIDATTRIBUTE. However, 'Ivanvector' did not address this aspect while reverting me. The conflicted edits I reverted miserably lacked the suggested disclosure of WP:PAIDATTRIBUTE ie. The edit summary should include the name of the COI or paid editor, a link to the draft or edit request, and that the edit contains a COI or paid contribution. or anything similar to track COI and ghost-writing. Furthermore, WP:COVERT says readers cannot be expected to seek out user and talk pages to find editors' disclosures about their corporate affiliation. Inlinetext (talk) 18:54, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Inlinetext: you're continuing to pull old discussions from archived cases when two checkusers have told you in the last week that there is no connection here, and there has never been any suspicion of paid editing so bringing up Vipul here is a non sequitur. Your continuing invention of and obsession with these connections is disruptive; I'm not the first user to try to explain this to you but I will be the last. If you do not immediately cease your campaign to right this Great Wrong, you will be blocked from editing to prevent your disruption of users who are here to build an encyclopedia. Thank you. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:02, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

@Inlinetext: Stop this harassment, or you'll be blocked.—JJBers 19:10, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Reply @JJBers I recall that you were clearly finally warned at an ANI brought by you against me not to follow me around with this account or your alternate account. I have avoided you as best I can. Beware the WP:BOOMERANG. Inlinetext (talk) 20:03, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Reply @Ivanvector : I believe that WP:BOLD still permits 1 such edit per article. Have I edit warred over those 2 different reverts you highlighted ? In any case I am in a WP:CIVIL discussion with the paid editor 'WWB_Too' concerning whether these kind of unattributed / copy-vio edits can be allowed in the first place. You can join in at Talk:Robert A. Mandell. I regret that since the latest controversy now concerns suspected sockpuppetry from a current admin account, policy does not permit me to discuss this matter further with you or on a public channel. As a CU clerk, I am sure you recall cases where admin accounts were compromised. Inlinetext (talk) 20:14, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Reply @Ivanvector : The issue of sock / meat abusive editing by OccultZone, AP and Bladesmulti is still to be sorted out on the SPI archives, especially when Bladesmulti (a confirmed OZ sock) apparently argued that he was AP. It is trivial to show the strong links between Vipul's paid editing network and Natalinasmpf's if 'Outing' is allowed on this project. I repeat that technical evidence by itself does not / cannot tackle the issue of coordinated meatpuppetry (which is what these cases are all about). And, if sockpupptery is not the issue, why are IPs from Germany stalking my edits to revert my edits on articles where 'JJBers' has previously reverted my edits ? Inlinetext (talk) 20:27, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

And then Inlinetext was blocked for 72 hours... --Tarage (talk) 21:26, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

• Comment: I’m here because Inlinetext linked to this discussion in his response to my edit request on the biographical entry for Robert A. Mandell. For what it's worth, I’d prefer to stay out of this, but his note there seemed to suggest I had something to do with this discussion. (Which I do only tangentially, as he has objected to edits made by volunteer editors on a page I worked on last year.) In any case, the discussion at Talk:Robert A. Mandell may be of interest to editors here. WWB Too (Talk · COI) 21:35, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Proposed topic ban

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

Inlinetext carries an unreasonably harsh view of paid editing which is disruptive to development of the encyclopedia. As an example: the history of Hilary Rosen, in which an editor with a conflict of interest disclosed their relationship to the article subject and went through the proper process to suggest improvements to the article, a process which took several months of collaboration with neutral editors and produced a decent article. Inlinetext came across the article, and with no discussion at all undid the entire process: over four months of discussion and 16k bytes of content. Another example: over the past couple of days the same editor has begun this process at Talk:Robert A. Mandell. Inlinetext has already tried to obstruct the user's contributions, most recently raising their objection generally that we allow paid contributions at all, not because of anything to do with the article. This is not how you build an encyclopedia.

I propose that when Inlinetext's current block expires, that they be indefinitely topic-banned from all matters relating to conflict of interest and paid editing, as their views on the matter do not line up with community consensus and their actions are contrary to the spirit of the project. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 21:32, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

• Support Seems pretty cut and dry to me. --Tarage (talk) 21:37, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
• Support Seems like a good idea, instead of a full block. —JJBers 23:19, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
• support -- User:Bri and I tried to warn them away from this overzealous path, diff, diff and this was unheeded. COI matters need to be handled carefully and Inlinetext is too much about the pitchforks.Jytdog (talk) 23:50, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
• Support - Since a lengthy block is not on the table. Sorry to say, but such a radical approach to editing does not go away with a topic ban. Inlinetext may just find a way around it or say "I didn't know this was in my ban" so better luck next time. Then again, I hope I am playing devil's advocate and we see an improvement over the coming days.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 00:00, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
• Comment from Inlinetext:

Because I shall be reporting an administrator of this project (ie. English Wikipedia) who has the privacy violating check user facility and who is therefore presumably identifed to WMF, and

Because this administrator is a participant in the ARBCOM ABCA unban request of User:OccultZone where I also conveyed certain doubts and apprehensions to prtvent the harassment of users, and

Because the said administrator has a conflict of interest with an account used to make undisclosed edit(s) on behelf of the paid editor 'WWB_Too' account without prominently disclosing the Conflict of Interest to the readers as prescribed in the community applicable guidelne paragraph WP:PAIDATTRIBUTE, and

Because the innocent and trusting average internet users and readers of Wikipedia are being thereby deceived;

I am stating that a miniscule section of the community cannot topic ban me for my referring to these easily verifiable facts about administrator misconduct and their paid edits through alternate account(s), but that the topic ban must emanate from ARBCOM or the WMF only.

It is relevant that the Vipul paid editor network was essentially exposed by me, and it was operating in clear contravention of the 'applicable law' mentioned in WMF's Terms of Use. Similarly editors acting for the 'WWB_Too' account are likely to be exposed to personal liability if they insert content with commercial impact which is not prominently disclosed on the article itself to the readers of Wikipedia.

Such flouting of Wikipedia's WP:COI guideline, and WP:PAID policy for paid content in articles which policy is incorporated by specific reference in the WMF Terms of Use also engenders potential risk for innocent volunteer editors who insert paid content suggested by WWB_Too.

I had posed this query at the Village Pump policy here and it was unanswered for 3 days.

I am concerned that the paid template being suggested is not directly visible in mobile view.

I am concerned that the WMF is well aware of this problem and is therefore getting pasted paid templates occasionally on those pages where WMF is soliciting donations within the European Union. eg. link to comply with applicable law amnd to protect editors within EU from potential liability.

Since the remedies I seek, as a reader and consumer of Wikipedia, to enforce the regulatory FTC and FDA directives for prominent disclosure are incumbent only on WMF and not on anybody at this community it is now quite immaterial what happens here. Of course, if I am banned by ARBCOM to protect their admin corp, I shall then also be set free and at liberty not to respect this community's privacy, "assume good faith", harassment etc. policies.

It is incorrect to say that I am against paid editing which reason is being cited for my TBAN. I am only against unfair and deceitful paid editing without prominent disclosure to readers. I have already declared that I do not really consider myself to be exclusively a member of this project's community and my user account is a global one, so I would appreciate an ARBCOM or WMF ban, if at all, mainly because like the Daily Mail, I don't consider a handful of anonymous editors on a niche noticeboard to be representative of the "community" to be able to ban me. Inlinetext (talk) 01:12, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

(Copied from his user talk page by me) NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:19, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

• Support immediate ban for threats of harassment and vandalism. You just killed any good will you potentially might have had. --Tarage (talk) 02:25, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

• Comment How come Inlinetext knows about Natalinasmpf? --Marvellous Spider-Man 04:01, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Comment Inspite of being nicely explained by other administrators and check users, he has pinged me two more times, that I am linked with OccultZone and others. He is blocked, but he believes that he is right. After 72 hours, he will still make the same accusation, from old archived SPI case. He should be topic-banned indefinitely from Indian articles, and block should be increased to one month. Marvellous Spider-Man 02:57, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

• Support - Based on the above and his/her participation in other recent threads concerning COI/paid editing. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 03:21, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Proposed Community ban of Inlinetext

The comment of Inlinetext's above makes it very clear that he simply holds no regard for dissenting opinions, no matter how many people voice them. It is my opinion that Inlinetext is simply incapable of functioning in a collaborative environment, and should be indefinitely banned from Wikipedia. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:09, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

• NB, User:NeilN has indeffed them, here, block log here with quotes from the rant above -- rightly so in my view. Don't know that we need to proceed to community ban.Jytdog (talk) 04:27, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

• Yep, we don't need to. In that case just count this as my support of Neil's indef. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:38, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Endorse indef and Strong support for indefinite ban This comment I shall then also be set free and at liberty not to respect this community's privacy,"assume good faith", harassment etc. policies alone should be enough to warrant an immediate ban with TPA revoked. There is no other way to interpret this as "if you ban me, I will do my darnedest to dox/harass whoever I see fit". Any appeal in future better be fucking good for the community to let people like InlineText who resort to these sort of threats to get their way.Blackmane (talk) 06:38, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

I have revoked talk page access because they're only using their talk page to continue their harassment. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 12:49, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

• Comment - I am not in favour of a community ban at this point, given their indefinite block with tpa revoked. The user has made serious allegations supposedly backed up with evidence they're not comfortable (or claiming not to be allowed) submitting on the wiki, but allegations that should be dealt with nonetheless if they will submit their evidence to the proper authority (i.e. Arbcom), and it ought to be left to Arbcom to decide what to do with the whole situation at that time. A community ban might stand in the way of that. It's highly unlikely they would be unblocked in the meantime anyway. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 12:59, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
• Support site ban with topic ban from entire Sock puppet investigation(alleging of sock/meat puppetry), Conflict of Interest: Inlinetext claims he is assuming "good faith" when we all know that he is desparate to troll and cause mischief. We have seen he presents no evidence but only tells what he believes and wants it to be enforced. D4iNa4 (talk) 18:28, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Block rationale

"You state that the community cannot topic ban you. You strongly imply that if Arbcom bans you, you will feel free to engage in disruption. This presumably implies you will engage in the same disruption if the community topic bans you. I am therefore indefinitely blocking you to prevent such disruption." --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:29, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

• endorse (if endorsement is felt to be needed). I think this thread can be closed. Jytdog (talk) 04:37, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

• Now he is accusing an administrator and check user of being a paid editor. This, after being indeffed. --Marvellous Spider-Man 07:25, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

• And now TP access has been revoked. SmartSE (talk) 14:49, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

• Support: I believe that this is been handled very well by the administrators, and that the issue can be quietly closed for now. —JJBers 16:32, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
• Endorsed by a completely uninvolved editor. This was a good block, with a good rationale. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:22, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

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

User:Bob Henshaw introducing errors en masse

For over a year and a half User:Bob Henshaw's only purpose on Wikipedia has been to add census information to articles on English villages and parishes. I've seen him regularly pop up on my watchlist and have never interacted with him prior to today, but a few months ago I saw him add blatant errors to a couple dozen of Hampshire villages that I watch. I thought little of it at the time and quietly fixed his errors. However, a cursory glance through his contributions reveals that he doesn't just add nonsensical statements, mangled sentences, and incorrect population figures to just a few stubs, no, he's been doing this every day for every county in England since January 2015. Hundreds of unseen edits. While I think he's been doing this in good faith and don't want to discourage him from adding population figures from the 2011 census (which is useful), the fact is that does more harm than good and most of his edits are disruptive. The problem is much larger than I can put in diffs, but I'll highlight several I've pulled out from his recent contributions at random as examples:

• After I left him a message on his talk page pointing out his errors, he ignored it and made two more errors to Antony, Cornwall, completely breaking the infobox template twice and not bothering to fix it
• Adds nonsensical sentences like "At the 2011 Census the population was included in the civil parish of" which makes no sense gramatically and is just fluff. He does this to almost every article he comes across. He also very rarely adds full stops[147][148][149][150][151][152][153]
• Lately he's been adding the same horrible construction to villages in Cornwall[154][155][156][157][158][159][160][161][162][163][164]. These are only just a few - spot the missing brackets, full stops, and typos.
• According to the Post Office the population at the 2011 census. According to the Post Office? This is just one diff, but a recent one. "According to the Post Office" is a commonplace phrase in his editing. No idea what it even means. That and "at the 2011 census", not "as of the 2011 census", which makes grammatical sense
• [165] According to the Post Office again
• Durford Wood, 14 Dec: Adds that it is in the the civil parish of Rogate. No it isn't, Rogate is in Sussex, a different county. The post town is also incorrect[166]
• Bentworth, 31 Jan: Adds that Woolmer is in the civil parish of Bentworth. No it isn't, Woolmer is 20 miles away and isn't related at all. Where does he get this from?[167]
• Flexcombe, 27 Dec: One of the countless "(where the 2011 Census population was included)," sentence again. Flexcombe is not in the parish of Liss, it is in Steep[168]
• Froxfield, Hampshire, 18 Dec: "At the 2011 Census the hamlet had become a civil parish in its own name".[169] What the hell. It has had its own civil parish for centuries. It wasn't suddenly created in 2011. Where in this source does it say that? He's making it up
• Finchdean, 16 Dec: The Post Office does not tell you what civil parish a hamlet lies in, maps do. At least he got the civil parish right this time, but still adds in the fluff[170]
• Another thing he does all the time is adding in the 2011 population figures in an infobox whilst keeping in the 2001 figures.[171] (only one diff, but there are likely hundreds more). I think this clutters the infobox because there's no need to keep an outdated figure
• At the 2011 census, not "As of the 2011 census". Rare full stop
• Isington, 21 Dec: " At the 2011 Census the Post Office confirm that the population". The post town is not Alton, it is Farnham.[172]
• Idsworth, 21 Dec: Another "the Post Office confirm that", but at least the post town is correct this time[173]

The diffs are the tip of the iceberg. You just have to look through his past 250 contributions to see that he is adding these nonsensical sentences and false information en masse in almost every edit. I know that he does this in good faith his editing is very problematic. I would like to propose a topic ban if the gross errors continue. I'm sorry that I can't list more diffs, but I invite you to just look through his contributions and pull out an article at random. JAGUAR  21:08, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

I have reverted a few unreferenced population changes but there are many hundreds, it's getting VERY disruptive, the vast number of poorly edited, unsourced changes. Theroadislong (talk) 22:47, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

I don't quite get why you found it necessary to leave two level-3 warnings and one level-4 warning hours after he had stopped editing. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:19, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Doesn't look like he's ever used a talk page. A short block might get his attention. --Tarage (talk) 23:34, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

He's used his twice so he know it's there. I'd rather wait and see if he starts editing without responding. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:19, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Do we want to bet on how poor his unblock request will be? No points for "I dindo nuffin" 01:17, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

When I saw the heading of this section I thought it was something serious, like use of inaccurate data or unsourced and unllkely information. Biut these are minor errors in wording and grammar. They do not confuse the sense. I think all that is necessary is for them to be silently corrected, and the standard wording explained to him. DGG ( talk ) 01:30, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Are we reading the same section? There's an entire list of "inaccurate data or unsourced and unllkely information" just above. --Calton | Talk 03:51, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

I was literally about to say the same thing. There's almost nothing accurate about this person's edits. Putting towns in the wrong county is very serious, let alone not being able to write a simple sentence. Capeo (talk) 04:03, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes, the problem is much larger and more serious than I had previously thought. I went through his contributions a minute ago, skipped 100 pages and pulled one a diff at random. On St Anthony-in-Meneage he has changed the population figure from 178 to 168.[174] According to the source which he got it from, the population is 178 as of the 2011 census, not 168. He changed it for no logical reason. The sentence in the lead now reads "In the 2001 census the parish had a population of 171, increasing to 168 at the 2011 census". Increasing from 171 to 168. Pretty much every edit I'm pulling out either has an error in it or contains a mangled sentence. The list of errors above were mostly from Hampshire, and I could tell right off the bat that the post towns and civil parishes were wrong because I know the local area well. I have no idea how many hundreds of errors he has made nationwide. JAGUAR  12:10, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

I've raised similar issues with this user in the past and been ignored as well - the user talk page has a section from 2016 when he was editing Suffolk articles en masse (my area). Others have added similar concerns as well. I don't think I ever got a response or saw a change in editing style or content. Blue Square Thing (talk) 14:23, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

I am one of the few editors that Bob has interacted with on his talkpage, and I don't think it's his intention to be disruptive, though I agree that some of his edits are unclear or a bit slapdash, and need adjusting or tightening. For example, in this edit, which Theroadislong reverted as not being supported by the source, if you look at the Neighbourhood Statistics page for Manaccan, it can be seen that the figure tallies with what Bob changed it to. Unfortunately Bob didn't change the source. (There remains the question of which source is accurate - it might be that the figure on the Neighbourhood Statistics page includes another unnamed parish in addition to Manaccan - a quite common scenario - whereas the the genuki source does not). PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 14:32, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Exactly and he is making hundreds of similar edits which might be accurate, but are unsourced or are now cited to the wrong source. Theroadislong (talk) 16:31, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

I have encountered Bob elsewhere on the net. Without wishing to out him, he's an intelligent and knowledgeable chap, but computers aren't his forte. Obviously blocks are not punitive, but I really hope it doesn't come to that as I'm not sure he'd be able to file a convincing unblock request. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:57, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm sure he's doing this in good faith, and I don't wish to antagonise him, but the majority of his edits are either incorrect of malformed. I'm in the process of doing a cleanup of all the Hampshire settlements he has edited, and already found a couple of errors in the first minute. "At the 2011 Census the population was included inb the civil parish of King's Somborne"[175], "According to the Post Office the 2011 Census population was included in the civil parish of Langrish"[176]. I really don't want to see him blocked but the problems are very widespread and I dread to think of the hours of cleanup that is going to be involved. I hope he can change his approach to editing. JAGUAR  17:13, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

I think it's more the case that some of his edits are not clearly written or explained. In the example given above from the Little Somborne article, I think what Bob meant was that the census information for the parish has been lumped together with that of King's Somborne, as can be seen from the map at the Neighbourhood Statistics page for King's Somborne (and also from Bob's edits at the King's Somborne article). I suspect many of his other 'errors' are similar. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 18:07, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

@Ritchie333: Any idea how to reach out to him? He's edited without acknowledging this thread. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:15, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

@NeilN: I've blocked. I've not used the template, but a personalised message trying to explain as best I can that we're not punishing him. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:25, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll have to go through AWB and do my best to remove his awful constructions but I'm worried how many errors there are that people won't be able to pick up. I looked through his user talk page on the SABRE wiki—it seems that he caused the same level of disruption over there as he did here. It's a shame as he could have been a productive editor had he just stuck to updating population numbers themselves. JAGUAR  21:48, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

It does look like the post-town and census changes got all mixed up. Perhaps we could just apply the correct data to the articles. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 20:29, 26 March 2017 (UTC).

Is there any way to mass rollback somebody's edits through AWB or a bot? I have never seen anything this bad before. It has taken me over two hours to fine-tune AWB and yet I had to remove 200 of his malformed sentences manually. I still can't pick out his errors. Every edit of his I have been through so far has had the wrong civil parish in it. So far I've been through over 300 of his 11906 remaining edits and it just screams "nuke from orbit". I can't begin to explain the extent of this problem. JAGUAR  15:58, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure if it's appropriate for me to post this here (and note that I'm not an administrator). If it is not possible, perhaps that a hidden category and a temporary census-update WikiProject may be in order? Software algorithms are often weak at merging old diffs into new revisions; a backlog of cases that couldn't be done would usually still result for human manual fixing, except if completely reverting to an older revision. But I actually don't know much about the current software Wikimedia has, except for the database backend of an old MediaWiki version that I had to port to another database as a job, years ago... PaleoNeonate (talk) 08:26, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. I really doubt it's possible to merge old diffs or rollback one's edits, but it would be a quicker way to get rid of the errors... JAGUAR  19:45, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

This is is a potentially usful bit of info, but in the wrong place. Saying that the population for a hamlet was included into the total for a larger nearby village is a useful comment, but the way he's done it is odd to say the least. He added the text "(where the 2011 census population was included)" in the middle of the introductory sentence so that it now reads "Darite is a village in the civil parish of St Cleer (where the 2011 census population was included), Cornwall, England, United Kingdom." (diff) Why didn't he add it as a separate sentence? - X201 (talk) 09:50, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

His nonsensical statements are everywhere. I reckon three in every four of the articles he has edited has a mistake like that in it. JAGUAR  19:45, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

• Bob hasn't edited anything since his block. L3X1 (distant write) 21:08, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

I know what you mean, but ... this sounds kind of like how blocks are supposed to work... --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:14, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

I've just combed through every single one of his 11,000+ edits through AWB. To accomplish this I split the articles he edited into several lists so it would make AWB load the pages faster. It wasn't that difficult considering he has only made two non-mainspace edits! I managed to rewrite most of his mangled and nonsensical sentences through the "find and replace" function, but I definitely missed some. Every now and again I rollbacked some of his obvious errors if he was the most recent person to edit the article in question. I made almost 2000 corrections in total, but of course AWB didn't fix the errors themselves. To do that would require going through every article, checking the census information and looking at a map to see if the civil parish is correct or if the population figures check out. Cornwall, Northamptonshire and Hampshire were the worst affected, and Kent, Manchester, Somerset, most northern counties and all Welsh counties were almost untouched, although he had edited them. It was astonishing to see that he went through every county in England and Wales in the space of one year without anybody noticing his errors. I'm not sure how to proceed now since AWB is quite limited and many of the errors can only be found by fact-checking. It's a pity that Fram didn't get to this first... JAGUAR  19:45, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Hear ye hear ye. When the above user is one a mission, steer clear. Half of this week's edits they did in 24 hours. L3X1 (distant write) 23:14, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

@Jaguar: The more I think about this case, the more I think that the best course of action is to put every potentially affected article in a polluted hidden category to keep track of them, and then start the slow trudge through them. - X201 (talk) 20:41, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

I suspect almost every edit he has made either has a subtle error in it or an ungrammatical/broken sentence somewhere. I'm sure I didn't fix all of the issues through AWB, but a process like that would take a very long time. It does seem to be one option though... JAGUAR  11:26, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

I am slowly correcting those articles on my watchlist as I spot them - mainly Bracknell Forest settlements, all done, and Lincolnshire villages. But I haven't had time to check the 2011 figures he has added. The number of edits he has done is huge. Dsergeant (talk) 05:50, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

massive deletions

User:JzG has been doing wholesale deletes on any footnote citation to a thinktank. about 50+ in the last hour or so. Most of theese are solid rs -- including two I added after studying an issue on food supply. user Rejects using talk page and gives a very poor explanation at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Rjensen&diff=prev&oldid=772281822 Rjensen (talk) 10:56, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

I have been removing large scale link spamming, in this case notably including think tanks. The paid editing of user:Vipul and associates added large numbers of links to libertarian think tanks (Vipul is an associate of Bryan Caplan and added numerous primary sourced sections of the form "Bryan Caplan said X, source, Bryan Caplan saying X on his blog"). I have also been removing references to anti-vaccination propaganda sites, predatory open access journals and other sources we should not be using.

There's been discussion of a very small number of these removals on my talk page, most have been uncontroversial. And when I say most, what with the predatory journals it must be well into the thousands by now.

And every now and then someone doesn't like it and complains. Welcome to the list :-) Guy (Help!) 11:01, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

And there is also talk at User talk:Rjensen. This has not excallated to a point where it needs discussion here yet. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:09, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Also, this edit [177] by the OP is supposed to be a "fix" for my "bias", claiming that he'd checked the sources. A website called "Farm Policy Facts", of no evident authority, a 404 link to farmland.org, and primary sourced references to someone the OP says he has personally decided is reliable (good job, well done). So this is perhaps not entirely as straightforward as the OP makes out. Guy (Help!) 11:12, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

• Some think tanks are considered reputable and neutral sources of information about a particular center that they specialize in (e.g. Pew Research Center), others are simply providers of opinion from a particular political perspective. In dealing with think tanks of the latter type there needs to be some kind of indication that their opinion on a topic is notable, and generally it should be explicitly attributed to them as their view. (i.e. not "Charles Murray is a White Nationalist" but "The Southern Poverty Law Center have described Murray as a White Nationalist"). It seems reasonable to remove information based on political-opinion type think tank sources if they do not clearly identify the source, if the view they express can be considered controversial, or if there are more reliable sources available about the topic. When information is challenged and removed, the person who wishes to include it must make the argument for why the source is admissible and the material neutral.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 11:57, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Meanwhile Rjensen has claimed that WP:NPOV requires the use of biased sources, which is contradicted by the NPOV policy which says " Neutral point of view should be achieved by balancing the bias in sources based on the weight of the opinion in reliable sources and not by excluding sources that do not conform to the editor's point of view. This does not mean any biased source must be used; it may well serve an article better to exclude the material altogether.". ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 12:25, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

• Links to Library of Economics and Liberty http:// econlib .org/ is one the of think tanks affected. Is it considered unreliable, with no useful information? I know it has a libertarian bias, but some of its content could be valuable.Jonpatterns (talk) 13:06, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Econlib definitely has good content and pieces published by it have often been quoted or cited in reliable secondary sources. Many of its authors are AFAIK professors of economics. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:01, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

And if there are articles which are good, then they will be published in the peer reviewed literature. The issue here is somewhat analogous to the many SCAM-specific pseudomedical journals: when your peer review consists solely of people who have the same ideological biases, then it is not effective because ideologically consonant bullshit, or mischaracterisations of competing ideologies, are much less likely to be detected. Guy (Help!) 16:47, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

• The claim appears to be WP:REFSPAM. That policy seems to be about deliberate insertion for some gain other than providing reliable citation. Jonpatterns (talk) 13:12, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Think tanks have an interest in being linked from a site like wikipedia, so I would tend to agree with Guy that if a another source is available for the same information it should be preferred (unless of course the opinoin of the think tank is itself notable).·maunus · snunɐɯ· 13:18, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

First, a lot of it was deliberate refspam. Vipul blogs at econlib (or rather, econlog, which it econlib's blog), and virtally every article he edited where any ref could be crowbarred in, there it is, loud and proud. He also expanded articles on a number of other econlib associates, and added self-sourced opinions by Caplan, especially, to dozens of articles on high level subjects.

Second, a lot of it was subtle refspam, such as online copies of books by historical figures like Mill, presented as being published by the "library of economics and liberty". This is basically no different to linking to a book source via Amazon: the website is selling something (in this case libertarian ideology, more than product, but that's not a difference that is actually important). Out of copyright books should be ported to Wikisource or linked on Gutenberg or some other neutral source. There's a second more subtle bias too: if we only have online full text for the books that the libertarian think tank likes, are readers more likely to drink of that well, rather than look up dead-tree books with a different perspective? That question answers itself, and is a large part of the reason I think these links have been added.

Third, the "library of economics and liberty" is a libertarian think tank, and in many cases its publications were presented as if they were authoritative and neutral sources. That is an NPOV problem. And I wuld have exactly the same issue if it were the Fabian Society, and in fact I have removed a lot of links to a Marxist equivalent as well.

Vipul's paid editing ring was all about SEO. Removing these links is just undoing that damage. If any of this content is published in scholarly journals, it can be cited from there. We should not use partisan primary sources, and we definitely should push back when people associated with those sources have engaged in years-long efforts to boost their presence on Wikipedia, as is unquestionably the case here. Guy (Help!) 14:41, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

External links/refs are no-follow, so the SEO argument is invalid. Using a primary source (partisan or otherwise) is dependent on the topic and the content. Morphh ^(talk) 15:37, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

I don't think that can be stated categorically. Consider a recent paid-editing job "we are looking for a strong signal from Wikipedia Page to our website" [178]. – Bri (talk) 16:10, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

That's not really a refspam problem as what's being described here though. That's an article notability, self-interest problem. We also can't speak to that advertiser's competency on the matter. No-follow was added on all external links in 2007 at the request of Jimbo. Morphh ^(talk) 16:58, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Every single SEO article I have read that mentions Wikipedia, notes that fact, and then goes on to say that it's still extremely important to promote your website and brand on Wikipedia, including through reference links. These are dark arts, and the people who do it for a living appear to have no morals. Guy (Help!) 20:01, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

• I also have problems with the way Guy is going about this. This appears like a one-sided machete approach of search and delete for sites he doesn't like (free market think tanks). I've been in organized campaigns to remove econ ref-spam for Austrian school - this is not how it is done. I've not see consensus to remove these sources, no review of the sourced content, no review of the source itself. I've never even heard of Vipul. It's a blacklist and if the article references something in the blacklist, it's bias and needs to be removed. Take a look at this ridiculous tagging of an FA article that has received considerable peer-review and been stable for years. I think this has moved from a well intentioned effort to remove ref-spam into something else. Morphh ^(talk) 15:37, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

I inclined to agree with this. It has been with good intent but a bit heavy handed. I'm all for finding better sources, but this takes time. Perhaps it would be better to remove questionable reference and initially put in a citation needed tag, rather than chopping whole paragraphs.Jonpatterns (talk) 16:25, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Or alternatively, rather than delete, add, for example, .--Wehwalt (talk) 16:35, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

That FA hasn't been reviewed for ten years, and I strongly suspect it might fail if that was to happen now. It's 33K bigger, there's a whole unsourced section in there, and it's full of weasel wording ("Critics say...", "Supporters claim..." and similar). It does need a good clean-up. Black Kite (talk) 18:13, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

@Black Kite The unsourced section is due to Guy removing the sources as described in this ANI. I haven't reverted it. The large increase in size was likely the last section recently added that lists all the sponsors. Again, I didn't revert it and it hasn't been discussed - it's more of a list than content. That's not to say it couldn't use cleanup, but those are things we can easily discuss on the talk page. Morphh ^(talk) 18:35, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

The source for that entire section gives you a 404 error. Regardless, even if it was fixed you can't source an entire section - in Wikipedia's voice - to "Americans for Fair Taxation". Black Kite (talk) 18:53, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

I agree with you there. My point wasn't a rebuttal - I also agree that it would probably fail. I was just explaining the current state. At one point that section had several sources but I haven't kept up with it. That's actually one of the edits that I agree with Guy on, so it's a bad example. Morphh ^(talk) 19:01, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

• Certainly edits like this or this aren't too clever. Nor is the edit summary remotely accurate. Here and here we see a link to an out-of-copyright textbook being removed because the website hosting it somehow contaminates it as "refspam" (but we keep the ref because it was always relevant, now just without easy access to the online text). Or even valid ELs from elsewhere that are simply in the same EL section.

I have an inherent distrust of any single-issue crusades like this. They rarely give rise to well thought out edits. This batch seems to be based on econlog.econlib.org (which I can't even add) being seen as so non-RS that it should be in the edit blacklist, bulk-removed (and of course BRD then conveniently no longer works, as it's blacklisted from the pleb editors) and then any associated articles AfDed. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arnold Kling Now I can't immediately justify that Kling is notable, or that economists (he's clearly an economist) shouldn't just be removed because they play for the wrong team. And certainly not when that involves facing off against an omniscient, omnipotent admin over a content dispute. But bulk removals with an agenda behind them so rarely give rise to positive editing. Maybe these do need to go. Maybe as a "socialist cuck" my personal agenda agrees with Guy's here, I just don't use mine as a guide to editing. Re [179] I have absolutely no idea what "think-tankery" is and why it justifies summary removal of references like this. I don't like right wing fruitbats any more than anyone else, but sometimes the contemporary fruitbat position on a theory such as hydraulic macroeconomics is still worth knowing. Certainly right wing fruitbats are commentators on the naming of fruitbats. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:15, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Of your diffs, I would have removed the first one straight away as well - that's just original research (at the very least, it needs an "According to..."). The second one is a blog and whilst not terrible, I'm pretty sure if that's a notable theorem there will be better sourcing than that. The third and fourth are just unnecessary - the cite is already there, I don't see the need for the refspam especially as the online book is available from non-contentious sources. Black Kite (talk) 18:09, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

So you think the first one is a "good edit"?

Read it again.

I'm not disagreeing that, "Econlib must go!!": that's both above my pay grade and also a bit pointless to try and debate when it's such a fait accompli. But this sort of crusade (and I use the word deliberately) makes for bad, careless edits, and these are just some of them. As to the sources, then if they're so widely available then why couldn't they be fixed cleanly and fully at the time? This sort of crusade has regularly been carried out by editors (and I'm not including Guy here) doing Serious Bizniz so rapidly, because the world would end if these awful years-old links stayed there a moment longer, yet at the same time doing things like losing links to online copies (which have a tangible value to our readers). Then the poor bloody infantry are expected to clean up the mess afterwards, restoring links from hopefully acceptable sources - a task which is always far harder to do that way round, than in the right order. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:17, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

That first diff sources the phrase "Mainstream macroeconomics is hydraulic. There is something called aggregate demand which you adjust by pumping in fiscal and monetary expansion.", but the source actually says "Mainstream macroeconomics is hydraulic. There is something called aggregate demand which you adjust by pumping in fiscal and monetary expansion. I wish to reject this whole concept of macroeconomics." So it's actually being sourced with something that not only is an opinion piece, but actually disagrees with it! Black Kite (talk) 19:25, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Like I said, read it again.

I'm not making subjective judgements about the meaning of the sources cited. I'm just talking about basic editing, where Guy shouldn't leave truncated sentences lying around. And as for your, "(at the very least, it needs an "According to...")", then read it again: it did do just that. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:32, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

No, Andy, you're just doing what you always do: stoking needless drama. Guy (Help!) 19:59, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Then be more careful with your bloody edits and don't be in such a rush that you leave obviously broken stuff like half sentences. There is no excuse for this, not even when someone as hugely important as your illustrious self is out righting great wrongs against Gotham city. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:43, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

I didn't see the problem at first either, in the first one, but when I did, I fixed it. Andy, be more explicit, less elliptical, to be less dramatic. Dicklyon (talk) 23:08, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

If a few admins here want to appoint themselves as Judge Dredd, being the sole law as to whether some content is permissible or not and protecting the pages from any plebs who disagree, then it's not the pleb's job to do their proof reading for them. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:16, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Wikt:melodramatic TimothyJosephWood 23:27, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

The perennial problem

I am seeing above the beginnings of a repeating issue that I have encountered when removing links to predatory open access journals. I will remove, say, a hundred of these, and I will be challenged on a handful. The people challenging me will demand one or more of the following:

1. No source be removed, however problematic, unless I personally find a better source.
2. Sources be removed but no article content, i.e. replace the deleted source with {{citation needed}}
3. When removing sources, also remove all contentby that source.
4. How dare you remove X type of source, it's perfectly reliable, you're just trying to suppress Y kind of activity or viewpoint.

My usual approach is to read the text, deciode whether it's likely to be challenged without the source, and then remove either just the source, or the entire sentence if it looks dodgy. So, WP:SYN type claims such as "Anarchists believe this is wrong, source, anarchist blog", I will remove the sentence. "Unemployment is where people have no job, source, partisan think tank" I just remove the source.

And yes, I sometimes get it wrong, and the result is usually that it gets fixed and we all move on. In some cases, though, I have had two or three people demanding mutually exclusive combinations of the above, usually because the article or content in question basically has no other source. Of the three, the last is a problem because it does not self-resolve.

Check my talk page for a list of the kinds of crap sources I am removing. OMICS Group journals and other predatory publishers, insane conspiracist websites like Natural News, whale.to and the National Vaccine Information Center, sales pages for self-published books, self-promoting spammers. I'm also active at the blacklist.

This is not some out-of-the-blue agenda against libertarian think-tanks, it's part of a long term personal project to review and improve sourcing. This particular one hit my radar due to conflicted promotional editing by user:Vipul. The problem is partisan, promotional or commercial websites which go out of their way to create a veneer of authority, used as sources on Wikipedia. Guy (Help!) 19:58, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

• This is a collaborative project, so can collaboration assist?

How about: Discuss first, get agreement (probably not that hard), agree the scope of how far to prune (is a notable fruitbat still WP:N, or do they have to go too?) and then identify the tasks.

What is the difference between removing Econlib as a source, removing content sourced to Econlib, and removing subjects discussed by Econlib? I think this might be harder. Yet many editors, and I am one, feel deeply uneasy about removing content or topics simply and only because it has so far been sourced from Econlib.

Then there is the issue of the PD texts, with copies available from Econlib. These are a far lower priority to remove. They also add value. Per the SEO argument above, it's hard to show that they are damaging or convey prestige. So should they be removed at all? If they are to be, then there is clearly no reason to cut off our fruitbat muzzle to spite our pointy little fruitbat ears. So don't just remove them: tag them first (a 'bot task), identify the canon of texts sourced (probably not that many), find alternative and acceptable free sources for those texts, then text-by-text go through by 'bot and replace (not remove) them. Nothing is lost, the problem is fixed. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:52, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

• Thanks for still being active on the Vipul front, Guy. The workload you're taking on is appreciated. El_C 03:21, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
• The pollyanna approach starts with "let's not bite the newbies" (that is, we should encourage Vipul and friends), then continues with "omg someone is reverting refspam without spending an hour to polish each turd". Instead of enabling refspam, those commenting here should be trying to improve JzG's edit at Hydraulic macroeconomics (I can't think of anything better than clicking "thank" myself). Johnuniq (talk) 03:43, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

So how does one improve hydraulic macroeconomics? This is an old theory, largely superseded as being too simplistic. It's attractively easy to explain, but it doesn't seem to match how reality actually behaves. Now the right wing is talking about it again. So is it relevant to that article that the right-wing has re-adopted it? Have they? But with the recent blanking, and the admin-only lock on these articles, it's impossible for other editors to work on that. That is using admin privilege to strong-arm a content issue, and it's far from the first time that we've seen Guy using his privileges to do such a thing. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:08, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

That's an interesting question, but actually not specific to this topic. Wikipedia has people who add content and people who curate. This is a curation issue: the content that was added, is poor. Someone will be along real soon now with some better content - especially since this is a hot topic for right wingers (check the talk pages on climate science topics). The right does currently seem to have decided to collectively re-enact the 1980s, when simplistic notions could be asserted without serious challenge. I think this is one of the reason the centre is struggling right now, because you have many complex problems and, as Mencken would have put it, each has a solution that is neat, simple and wrong. The extremes at both ends don't worry about that, the centre does. Moderate Republicans were part of the reason Trumpcare failed to make progress last week, but those same moderate Reupblicans have basically no voice in framing a better alternative, the strident soundbytes of the House Freedom Caucus drown out all other voices. Guy (Help!) 16:42, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

• As a partial counter to the headache these occasional complaints cause, let my add my thanks to Guy for working to clear out bad sources. I especially appreciate the removal of citations to predatory journals, but removing the paid-to-have-a-particular-opinion pieces from think tanks is also a very valuable service. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:18, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
• What where the reasons for blacklisting econlib, was it its libertarian bias, its association with refspam behavior or something else? Jonpatterns (talk) 10:06, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Spamming. Its POV is irrelevant. Guy (Help!) 15:09, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

I wonder if POV has an influence though. There doesn't seem to have been much effort to search for sources onWikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arnold Kling before nominating it for deletion. Maybe I don't understand what "unique" means in the context of "Google finds fewer than 150 unique hits for this name," but I get 91,400 Google hits for "Arnold Kling" in quotes[180]. Even if "unique" means some kind of limited search, there are 32 results in the NY Times alone [181], so I don't see how it's plausible to think there'd be 150 only in the universe of web pages. How does an experienced editor fail so completely to find sources? --Jahaza (talk) 15:23, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

No, the direction of the POV is not relevant. The fact that the POV is non-mainstream is relevant (as it would be if it was anarchist, say), but the fact that its non-mainstream POV is free market fundamentalism is not relevant, it just happens that this is the POV of the person doing the spamming. If they have been an Occupier then the problem and the fix would be exactly the same. Guy (Help!) 15:29, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

"The fact that the POV is non-mainstream is relevant" and "Its POV is irrelevant" are contradictory. You've also not explained at all what happened with this AFD.--Jahaza (talk) 15:33, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

I see your misunderstanding. The issue here is WP:SPS, WP:PRIMARY, WP:ASSERT and a side order of WP:REFSPAM. The REFSPAM was the flag to review the content, but the core issues are the first three. If this was a mainstream scholarly economics journal then there would be no issue, because we can rely on their peer review, but n this case we're talking about think tanks and fundamentalist free market websites masquerading as independent scholarly sources, and that plainly is a problem. So: the direction of the POV is irrelevant, it's the magnitude that's the problem. It would be the same if it were Occupy or a Marxist site. POV think tanks are not neutral sources, however fervently they might believe otherwise. Guy (Help!) 15:38, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

(non-admin view) Econlib is undeniably biased in favor of laissez-faire capitalism. This alone isn't a problem, since WP:BIASED says "reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective." You claim they are fundementalist and masquerading as an independent scholarly source. Have they actually advocated for fundementalism, or is this your personal analysis of their views? I don't think they're masquerading anything. They acknowledge on their about page that they want to advance people's knowledge of liberty. As far as I know, they don't claim to be unbiased or representative of mainstream economics. Do you have any evidence to the contrary? IWillBuildTheRoads (talk) 01:30, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

I have already discussed cases where these links have been misrepresented as an authority they are not, and deceptive titles have been used. The "library" is selectively curated and only ideologically consonant articles have been promoted here, so the problem is pretty obvious. As to fundamentalist, I think it's pretty clear here as well, not least from their characteristically fundamentalist free market title, replete with Orwellian overtones. A bit like the House "Freedom" Caucus. Guy (Help!) 17:25, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

• I fully support Guy's cleanup of these low-quality WP:REFSPAM sites. Thanks for doing this work. Before any source is deployed widely and intentionally as it was in the Vipul effort, it is common sense (among experience editors anyway) to check it with the relevant editing community (like a WikiProject) first. If that isn't done, one can expect pushback, as has happened here. If folks who find these references valuable want to keep them, they should discuss them and get buy-in at the relevant WikiProject. This is very similar to what happened with the overall paid edit effort btw. Jytdog (talk) 00:01, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

• I am surprised, disappointed, and dismayed to find Econlib on the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist#econlib.org Spam-blacklist]. (Who added it?) This is a step well beyond RS analysis or discussion. Is Econlib mentioned on the WP:RSNB? Was there any discussion anywhere? Absolutely not. Instead we read that Econlib is an "agenda driven source"; therefore, a widespread campaign to remove all Econlib-linked references citing REFSPAM, SPS, PRIMARY, LINKFARM, agenda driven, polemical, libertarian, libertarian think tank, free market think tank, and other ersatz rationales to remove the links in undertaken. Never mind the fact that Econlib's Concise Encyclopedia of Economics contains original articles by highly respected professors, authors, and Nobel Prize laureates ([http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/HumanCapital.html#abouttheauthor Gary Becker] and [http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/Information.html#abouttheauthor Joseph Stiglitz]). The removals are not confined to Further reading or External links sections. Swept-up in the purge are in-line citations and material from Econlib and other sources (such as Cato Institute and Pittsburgh Tribune). The original motivation may have been to clear out contributions by Vipul, but was Vipul ever warned about spamming? (Yes, once in 2013 and again earlier this month.) Talk about "agenda driven" – the ideas and scholarship presented by Econlib are of secondary importance. Instead, agenda-driven objections about "dark money", "political activism", "conceal[ed] sources of funding", etc. are motivating this effort to censor WP. – S. Rich (talk) 14:36, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the link to the discussion. It could be blacklisting is too heavy handed.Jonpatterns (talk) 12:24, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

That was the result of citation spamming by user:Vipul. It is one of a large number of sites he spammed for SEO purposes. Guy (Help!) 12:29, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

I've always been told that secondary sources is what makes something notable. So if paper XYZ has a reasonable number of citations from non-spammy other papers in (say) Google Scholar, it's ok for Wikipedia even though the journal that it's in might not have the best possible provenance. Therefore, I'd ask people to check for inbound citations before taking out a reference that they have doubts about. I agree that links to public domain materials should go to repositories like Gutenberg rather than to partisan web sites, when possible. 50.0.136.56 (talk) 00:58, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

List of terrorist incidents in Sri Lanka

Currently all the ‘terrorist incidents lists by country’ pages in WP including the master list – List of terrorist incidents do not use the term ‘non-state’ in page titles. However user:Obi2canibe is insisting that the List of terrorist incidents in Sri Lanka should contain the term "non-state" in its title, going contrary to the other lists of terrorist incidents. I have discussed this issue at the talk page of the article with him before, but he is not accepting the definition of “terrorist” accepted in WP for these kind of pages. He has reverted moves done by my self and user:Kristijh (in August 2016) to remove the word non-state from the title previously. Hence I would like to seek administrator intervention to solve this issue that has been going on for some time now. ---LahiruG ^talk 11:07, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure this is the right place to discuss this but here goes. This is an old dispute which first arose in August 2015 when LahiruG refused to allow state-terrorism incidents in the list, reverting several times any attempt to add state-terrorism incidents (e.g. 1; 2). A discussion ensued following which LahiruG himself re-named the article List of (non-state) terrorist incidents in Sri Lanka. Eighteen months later LahiruG wants to resurrect this old dispute for some reason.

Calling an article "List of terrorist incidents in..." and then excluding a particular type of terrorism from the list is a violation of WP:NPOV and WP:PRECISION. The fact that there are few other articles like this does not make it right.

Frankly, this article should be deleted - it just repeats content found elsewhere: List of attacks attributed to the LTTE, List of attacks on civilians attributed to the Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna, List of massacres in Sri Lanka.--Obi2canibe (talk) 12:29, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

@Obi2canibe: From the beginning I have clearly stated in the lead section of this page that this is the list of 'non state' terrorist incidents of Sri Lanka 1.You first tried to delete this page by naming it for deletion but after failing to do so, then tried to add incidents from the List of attacks attributed to Sri Lankan forces to frustrate me 2. As I have said earlier WP currently do not categorize incidents that are attributed to any government forces as terrorist incidents. However at that time, the master list of terrorist incidents had the term "non-state" in the page title within brackets and considering that I have once renamed this list as "List of (non-state) terrorist incidents in Sri Lanka". However recently and administrator has renamed the parent list as List of Terrorist Incidents. Hence I have moved this list to the earlier title to sync with other terrorist incidents lists including the parent list.

It seems that you need to challenge the policies of WP such as RELART to delete this article first. This is the standard terrorist incidents page of Sri Lanka which follows the similar terrorist attacks by country lists. All the pages that exposes the crimes of tiger terrorists should be deleted according to you while, only the articles that can be used to show the attacks attributed to Sri Lankan government forces have to be expanded. But in Wikipedia editors have to follow the basic policies such as NPOV and other accepted standards of WP irrespective of their edit counts. Considering your stubborn behavior and unwillingness to accept the standards of WP that are used elsewhere in-similar kind of pages, I have decided to report this incident here.--LahiruG ^talk 11:07, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Stating in the lede that it's only for "non-state" incidents does not mean it complies with WP:NPOV or WP:PRECISION. Would it be OK if List of international cricket centuries by Kumar Sangakkara only included test centuries if the lede stated so? No, the article would have to be re-named List of test cricket centuries by Kumar Sangakkara. Wikipedia has not made a decision not to categorise incidents that are attributed to any government forces as terrorist incidents - only a small number of editors like yourself have. Why are there several articles on state terrorism?--Obi2canibe (talk) 17:42, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Person edit warring and refusing to discuss proposed merge

User:Dennis Bratland has four times [182] [183] [184] [185] decided to merge two articles because he thinks he owns them. I've asked him to discuss and use the merge procedure at WP:PM [186] but he refuses. Why does he think he does not have to use the discussion Proposed Merge procedure like other people? Amisom (talk) 08:29, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Suggest you both start making use of the empty article talk page. I fully protected the entry. El_C 08:36, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

OK but my understanding is that WP:PM is a mandatory. He can't just edit war to refuse to discuss something which requires consensus. I want an admin to consider the WP:OWN issue here please. Amisom (talk) 13:13, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Utter hypocrisy. I revered 3 times. Amisom reverted 3 times. I did not start a proposed merge. Amisom did not start a proposed merge. When he tries to get his way, that's acceptable. When I try to get my way, that's "ownership"? His behavior is identical to mine. We have an essay on this kind of hypocrisy: Wikipedia:Don't shoot yourself in the foot. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 17:01, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

I didn't start a proposed merge because I didn't want a merge. Don't be ridiculous. Amisom (talk) 20:10, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

If it's ridiculous, then why have you gone and done it now? If you had done that instead of reverting, there would be no edit war. An edit war begins with a single revert. That revert was made by you. You didn't post a single word discussion until you had made 3 reverts in a row and had no other choice than come to the bargaining table. The system forced you there. There's no grounds for any further admin action, other than I'd like the personal attack against me removed from the merge discussion. I tried removing the off-topic personal attack but (surprise) Amisom reverted. There should not be one discussion of my behavior over on that talk page while a second one is going on here.--Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:54, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

What have i 'done now'? Proposed a merger? No I have not, Amisom (talk) 22:21, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

This. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 23:44, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

If you read WP:RFC and WP:PM you'll notice that they have different words in and are actually different pages. Amisom (talk) 08:38, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Regardless of trivial semantic differences, you yourself have demonstrated that you didn't need to wait for me to start the discussion you wanted. Are we done here? --Dennis Bratland (talk) 15:20, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

@Dennis Bratland: Yes, as long as you understand that if someone objects to your merge and reverts it automatically becomes controversial and it's up to you to then propose a merger on the talk page. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:38, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

OK. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 16:38, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Thank you @NeilN: my point exactly. I hope @Dennis Bratland: gets the message. Amisom (talk) 17:56, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Misconduct by User:Doc James in removing a properly cited article

User:Doc James removed on article on Heart failure medications that was properly cited with highly credited sources obtained from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed. He claims there was a copy and paste issue for a couple sentences, but everything was put in my own and my collaborator's words except for a few minor sentences that my collaborator copied and pasted with proper citations that could have been removed or changed without the deletion of an entire article. Additionally, he claims that the same article already exists; however, this is not the case, for the article on Heart failure medications described very detailed animal models, mechanisms of action, and indications for heart failure drugs that are very important for researchers like myself investigating the said drugs. I ask that the administrators undo the delete with the exception of the few sentences that must be re-edited and look into User:Doc James, for he does not know or understand how useful this information is for pharmacologists, cardiologists, and electrophysiologists, yet persists to make edits that are detrimental. Thank you! Sazhnyev (talk) 18:45, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

This user has been making some strange edit.

Here he links antiarrhythmic agent to his newly created page. When we have an actual article on that topic.

Here he links the term "medication" on cardiac arrhythmia to his newly created page.

And he does this all the while well claiming that this new page was not about "cardiac antiarrhythmics".

Part of the text that was copied and pasted can be seen here and is at least 227 words.

On my talk page they claim the copyright issues were his collaborator's and he just copied them into Wikipedia.

The piece was mostly based on primary sources and we already have an article called Management of heart failure Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:54, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

As already mentioned to User:Doc James, those link edits are not strange because my page consisted entirely of antiarrhythmic drugs, which would not have been too hard to understand if User:Doc James was experienced in this field. As far as the copied and pasted material, it can be very easily removed and re-edited with sabotaging an entire, very useful article. Sazhnyev (talk) 18:59, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Over two hundreds words is too much for a copypaste. El_C 18:57, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes yes exactly. That page you created consisted almost entire of antiarrhythmic medications so why was it called "heart failure medication"? And why were you not working on the article we have already on antiarrhythmics? The page you created was a co tract and a "copy and pasted" one at that.

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:04, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

My article contained many more words than 227. Me and my collaborator can work on rewriting the 227 words, but this article is of high importance for researchers who are experts in the field. As for the page on heart failure that he is talking about; it is absolutely useless in regards to the research that my article presented Sazhnyev (talk) 19:08, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

As for his claim that I simply used my collaborators information, me and my collaborator were working on this together right next to each other, and it was overlooked that their few sentences or so were copied and pasted, which is again something that can be easily fixed without deleting and article. Sazhnyev (talk) 19:08, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

More copied "Verapamil binding is voltage-dependent with affinity increasing as the vascular smooth muscle membrane potential is reduced. In addition, verapamil binding is frequency dependent and apparent affinity increases with increased frequency of depolarizing stimulus." from[187]

And this "adrenaline induced ventricular arrhythmias were examined in halothane anesthetized guinea pigs... Arrhythmogenicity was significantly increased with vagotomy and higher concentration of halothane. After injection of diltiazem at 0.5 mg/kg, the arrhythmic ratio (the number of ventricular ectopic beats divided by the total heart beats) was significantly reduced compared with the predrug control value (0.69 vs 0.04, P0.05)." from [188] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:13, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

The table assembled on the new page I created was different from the existing article on antiarrhythmic agents. It provides detailed animal models that other pages don't offer. Sazhnyev (talk) 19:15, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

If it's intertwined with that much copypatse content, the onus is on you and your collaborator to redact those from the article. There has to be no copyvio. El_C 19:38, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes, and I'm willing to fix the mistakes, but I am unable to access the source code for my article. Sazhnyev (talk) 19:57, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

To restore the article we would need to revert to a version without any copyright violations in it. There is a version available, the very first one (admin only). If we did that it would then be eligible for deletion under WP:A3 as there would be no substantive content in the article. ~ GB fan 19:46, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

@~ GB fan could you provide me with the source code for that version by adding it to my user page? I am unable to access it because it says that the article is restricted to administrators. Thanks Sazhnyev (talk) 19:55, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

 Done, but I doubt it will be much help. El_C 20:20, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! Is there a way to access the source edit code for my entire article so I could work on it? It contains 45 references that I've compiled, which are essential for my edits. Sazhnyev (talk) 20:31, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Maybe via email, if you have it enabled. El_C 20:38, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

 Done. El_C 20:41, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you so much! Glad to see people who actually know what they're doing. Sazhnyev (talk) 21:06, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Are you sure you want to go down that route? Doc James is a doctor and a long time Wikipedia admin,. You, on the other hand, appear to be a rude and obnoxious person with an agenda and a hearing problem. Guy (Help!) 22:40, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Not collaborating with other individuals is an aspect of being rude - he heedlessly deleted an entire article with valuable information for researchers in the field of pharmacology and cardiology without considering the possibility of promoting improvement in the article. Thus, before you attack an individual's intent, know both sides of the story and approach things objectively. Even if he really is a doctor, his actions aren't justifiable by the carelessness of assuming that what he doesn't find useful is such for everyone else - that's just being disrespectful. Sazhnyev (talk) 02:58, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Can someone please evaluate if this article, which appears to be based on one specific paper (?), is in violation of WP:OR? Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:26, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

@Sazhnyev: It appears you have not read this discussion, or have not understood it. Different people above have explained the problem—copying text from other sources is not permitted, and that is the only reason the page was deleted. Clicking the red link Heart failure medications shows a pink box with a very clear explanation of why the page was deleted. It was a copyright violation. If unsure about anything, try clicking the links in the message and reading them, then ask at WP:HELPDESK whether it is really true that people are not allowed to copy text from other sources to Wikipedia (answer: yes). To collaborate, it is first necessary to read messages from others, then take the time to comprehend them. Any reply should engage with the issues raised. Johnuniq (talk) 03:32, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

@Johnuniq, you have misunderstood or completely missed my point. He could have only removed the few sentences that contained some cited copyright material added by my inexperienced collaborator. The entire article did not have to be removed because it needed a few minor fix-ups. Any decent person would understand that. Sazhnyev (talk) 03:42, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

A decent person (El C) put the article without the copyright violation on your talk page (diff). Did you notice that El C also commented "It's blank, there's nothing there"? Johnuniq (talk) 09:48, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Sazhnyev: If you're suggesting that the article could have been kept with the copyvio sentences removed but the history kept, no this isn't generally allowed. This has already been mentioned before above, and really after this blew up you should have read WP:Copyvio. We can only keep the revisions without copyvios. This means if the copyvios were inserted very early on, there is basically nothing to keep as was apparently the case here. If there is some non copyvio content amongst that copyvio content, then it's possible that content could be re-used but you should take great care in doing this. As mentioned above, if you are re-adding the content the onus on you is to make sure it is completely free from copyvio. Often when an article is new and there is substantial copyvio concern it's better to just started again rather than trying to salvage anything. In any case, the content was emailed to you, something you could have requested earlier rather than complaining about the correct removal of copyvios. If you have any complaint, it's the person who created this mess by inserting the copyvios in the first place, something which is a very serious issue on wikipedia, and not those who wasted their time fixing it. New editor or not, people need to understand our copyright policies and requirements as it's a fundamental part of wikipedia. Nil Einne (talk) 11:43, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Ongoing disruption by User:Sazhnyev

We have an article called antiarrhythmic agents which is exactly the same topic as the cardiac dysrhythmia medications this user has created. This has been explained to Sazhnyev both on my talk page and above. This is a Wikipedia:Content forking and he has been trying to get around this for some time (see his creation of heart failure medications). Rather than working on the existing article using high quality sources they continue to persist and continue to use small primary sources. At this point I am wanting to propose a topic area ban from health care widely construed for one year. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:07, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

• Support At first I thought this was a new user given the WikiEd tag on the top of their page but it turns out they've been editing for almost a year. If after all this time they haven't learned about copyvios, medical sourcing, and haven't learned to listen before lashing out then a stronger measure needs to be taken. Capeo (talk) 21:56, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

• user was a student editor (Spring 2016 course page) last spring who came back to do more on their own time, which is nice, but their conduct here (their first significant foray back since the class ended per their contribs) has been horrible; they have added weird/bad content, ignored every bit of input from other editors that they have been given here and elsewhere, have tried five ways from Sunday to force this content into WP, and been insulting in the meantime.
  • odd obsession with animal models; content based on old/primary sources added to several articles about antiarythmic drugs: dif, diff, diff, diff
  • their contributions are apparently "important" per their edit notes: diff, diff, diff
  • in response to feedback, just removed Doc James initial response from their Talk page, and wrote these lovely things on Doc James' talk page dif (please read, starts with What do you think you're doing?); diff (includes Why do you feel the need to do what is not asked of you?); diff (includes How is that so hard to understand?? The article on Heart failure medications went into a much greater detail describing animal models and indications that researchers use in their studies! If that's beyond your understanding, then editing Wikipedia articles on antiarrhythmic heart failure drugs is not in the realm of your expertise!) and see above.
  • On this specific content, first added it here to Cardiac arrhythmia, edit warred to restore it here, tried to create it as a new article here, and ignoring several warnings about where it should go, and about COPYVIO and then again tried to create a new article here.

Seems like this person is an EXPERT (they noted here that the information is related to a research project in their lab) and could contribute a lot but they need to get grounded on how WP works. In addition to difficulites that academic scientists sometimes have adapting to WP, they seem to have some hangover from student editing, where students are actually taught to create some block of content and to dump that into WP, rather than trying to improve existing content and think about things like WEIGHT in a given article and meta-editing across related articles (that is a whole other kettle of fish)

A year seems weird. I would support an indef with the standard offer, which could let them back in 6 months but they would have to show that they understood how they have acted completely wrongly. I think a lot will depend on how they respond here. Jytdog (talk) 00:26, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Oh dear, it seems we have a case of Mad On The Internet-ism. I'm all for encouraging new editors and I have reservations about dragging newbies to ANI when they screw up, but I think this contributor needs to calm down and settle into the idea of collaboration. Oppose ban for now, but I recommend that they run their ideas and drafts past WP Medicine from now on. Blythwood (talk) 01:34, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

• So User:Sazhnyev has the content including the COPYVIO since the 28th on their userpage dif) and also in a sandbox this diff. And they are not responding here. Persisting and not talking are not promising. Jytdog (talk) 18:02, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Emergency brakes for User:92.12.209.70 please

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

92.12.209.70 seems to have spent the day creating dozens of articles on the theme of "East Pakistan relations to nation X" and is still going strong. The majority of these they are creating on the talk page, which would be annoying but can be cleaned up (indeed someone seems to be mopping up behind them in this regard, incidentally erasing the editing history in the bargain - not such a great idea); but if short, they are entirely unreferenced, if long, blatant copyvios (example [189]). I don't think they are aware they have a talk page. Could someone please apply some brakes before the already necessary cleanup balloons even further? --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 20:31, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

I blocked for 3 days, but it seems to me that this could be easily lifted with the right unblock request. I wouldn't have even blocked that long except the IP just got off a prior block for disruption. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:40, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Cheers. I'm off for now but shall try to sift through the goods on the morrow (and hopefully they'll see the necessity for improvements themselves). --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 20:45, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

NinjaRobotPirate Should we be going through the articles created by the blocked IP, and CSDing them? Boomer Vial^{Holla! We gonna ball!} 21:07, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure what to do with unsourced articles created on a talk page, but the copyright violations definitely need to tagged. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:24, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

NinjaRobotPirate Alright. I'll go through, and see what I can find. Boomer Vial^{Holla! We gonna ball!} 21:42, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

BLP issue at Middlesex University

I wondered if someone with more experience than me could look at recent edits at the article Middlesex University. The dispute is around a professor named in the media, and there is edit warring around this. See diff concerned, also diff which maybe an issue also. Aloneinthewild (talk) 11:40, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Hm, let's see...WP:NOTNEWS...WP:BLPPRIMARY...perhaps others. Biographical material (like everything else) must be based on secondary sources, not primary sources like the latest reports from The Telegraph. This must wait until it's covered in a reliable secondary publication: a printed history of the university, an academic journal, a retrospective from the Department for Education, etc. Until then, it belongs at Wikinews if anywhere. Fully protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Nyttend (talk) 11:52, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) @Nyttend: I'm getting confused here. Isn't a newspaper article about an event the author wasn't part of, a secondary source? To be sure, that tidbit has no relevance for the article in question, but still. Kleuske (talk) 12:04, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Indeed it is a reliable secondary source. It is, ironically, the Dept of Ed that is more likely to be the Primary source. — O Fortuna! ^{Imperatrix mundi.} 14:55, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Primary sources are those published during or immediately after an event, or published later but drawing upon the author's memories of those times, while secondary sources are ones produced afterward based on primary accounts. [190] and [191] give basic explanations; you'll note that news reports are included. Nyttend (talk) 22:48, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

• There's no need to start adding crap like this to show how bad Middlesex Uni is. The record speaks for itself. Stick to things for which the place is actually responsible, like its abysmal standards. Guy (Help!) 12:26, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Cliff1911 editing logged out, same stuff that got him blocked

Cliff1911 was blocked one time on October 7, 2016, and he never again edited under that account. Instead, the articles that he was interested in have been edited by an array of IP addresses from the same area of Pennsylvania.

• Glenside: 216.162.93.36 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• Glenside: 216.162.93.37 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• Glenside: 216.162.93.47 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• Glenside: 216.162.93.41 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• Glenside: 216.162.93.50 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• Glenside: 216.162.93.52 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• Ambler: 107.1.239.210 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• Fort Washington: 68.238.243.3 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• Fort Washington: 50.251.33.241 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• Doylestown: 98.115.219.127 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• Northampton: 207.172.54.71 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• Bryn Mawr: 96.245.54.204 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))

This guy is especially interested in the articles Josh Groban (a BLP), Bad Santa, Angry Grandpa (another BLP), and High Hopes (Frank Sinatra song). He adds trivial, unreferenced stuff that was apparently observed by him, for instance this series of additions which shows a big problem with WP:NOR and of course undue emphasis which falls under WP:NPOV. He often adds more detail to film plot sections in violation of the 700-word limit set by WP:FILMPLOT. This person's disruption has caused the Angry Grandpa article to be put into protection several times.

So what do we do to stop the disruption? A rangeblock on 216.162.93.30 to 216.162.93.60 would catch the most frequently used range, and of course we can block single IPs that show up. If anybody has other solutions I'd be glad to hear about it. Binksternet (talk) 05:51, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Is he currently evading any blocks? That would make this a bit easier. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:43, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

I would recommend hiring a checkuser to see if either of these involved IP addresses link to the user who was blocked. SportsLair (talk) 18:13, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

@SportsLair: Sorry - as per our checkuser policies, CUs cannot connect accounts and IPs. GAB^gab 18:20, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Actually our checkuser policy does allow checkusers to connect blocked users to IP addresses in some circumstances. It's probably best to read all of Wikipedia:CheckUser #IP information disclosure if you want a fuller understanding of when it might be appropriate. Anyway, in this case, it's not terribly relevant whether the blocked user and the IPs are the same (and the account's CU data is almost certainly stale by now), because the disruption by the IPs is grounds for a range block regardless. Just find a friendly admin who will check for any collateral damage on the 216.162.93.0/26 rangeblock and then perform the block. --RexxS (talk) 19:21, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

The whole /24 range is one that is pesky and belongs to a school district. Note the 3 year blocks here, here and here. After looking, the /24 range could be blocked for 3 years as a school block. NeilN placed the latter block and may be able to help here on the range. Regarding the other IPs that Binksternet listed, Cliff isn't hopping within those ranges.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 21:37, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

I've done a 216.162.93.0/24 rangeblock for one year. This will leave the three year blocks untouched but shut off the others for a year. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:53, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Excellent, thank you. Binksternet (talk) 23:20, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Unfounded accusations of disruption and vandalism to try and halt constructive editing

Resolved

 – user was blocked, block has come and gone, hopefully lessons were learned. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:49, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

AGF issues. It seems constructive encyclopaedic editing of this page results in unwarranted accusations of "disruption" and vandalism. There are clear errors in the article including misuse of sources, synthesis, and OR. The same editor responded to a merge proposal with language such as "bunch of dogshit" and "crap Wikipedia users." Editor assumes they have the authority to undo edits because they created the article. Acousmana (talk) 22:03, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, the editor in question has some issues with civility, but I would love to see more of an attempt from you to try to talk about your edits on the talk page. What I can see is you making a bunch of edits, him reverting it, you reverting his revert. You should have taken this to the talk page instead of here. --Tarage (talk) 22:24, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

thanks, isn't bold editing warranted when there are errors in an article? Anyone who checks the sources against the article content will issues, do I literally have to evidence them point for point on a talk page to make improvements? Who has the time for that? Acousmana (talk) 22:46, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

The typical cycle is edit, revert, discuss. You skipped the third part. Either way, now the article has more eyes on it for sure. --Tarage (talk) 22:52, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

@Acousmana: "When you start a discussion about an editor, you must notify them on their user talk page." I have done so for you. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:04, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

• sighs* Well, I guess I should've seen this coming. editorEهեইдအ😎 23:10, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

not sure how this string of insults is indicative of the type of communication Wikipedia should be fostering: "your comphrehension [sic] skills are the problem"; "stupid fucking edits";"your crappy comprehension skills";"sick of your stupid nonsense";"there's no fucking original research."

• For the record, I've been editing on and off for 10 years at this point, time was this kind of hostility and profanity would not be tolerated. Acousmana (talk) 00:01, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Without taking a position on the underlying facts about the article content, @EditorE: can you address why you felt it necessary or usefully to report Acousmana to AIV and insult him like that on the article talk page? Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:09, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Simple: Acousmana's edits were unproductive and cause by lack of comprehesion of the sources cited to say the least. Since you guys are never gonna learn your lessons despite providing evidence on the Hardvapour talk page that his actions have ruined the article, I guess I might as well let the article get ruined by you people. People like Acousmana. User:AldezD and User:Catlemur are an insult to the Wikipedia community because of what they've done and what I've tried to stop them doing. editorEهեইдအ😎 00:20, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm gonna stop leaving comments on this discussion BTW editorEهեইдအ😎 00:20, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm gonna block you, btw. The edit warring is one issue, but you've been warned about personal attacks and civility before and clearly have not brought that on board. Take 31 hours off and don't act like that again when you come back. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:28, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

@EditorE: That is just sad. I hope the ban gives you enough time to find enough rare Pepes for you to incorporate them into Wikipedia.--Catlemur (talk) 09:06, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

@EditorE: You need to grow up. Pinging me in this ANI—a dispute about something completely unrelated to my activity here—is absolute nonsense. Apparently you still hold a grudge over a discussion at Talk:Judith Barsi#Recent edits and WP:NOTMEMORIAL from FOUR YEARS AGO. Hopefully this ban will allow you to focus your life on something far more meaningful than Wikipedia. AldezD (talk) 13:34, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

@Beeblebrox: I would not normally engage in this activity, but perhaps you should reconsider a block longer than 31 hours for EditorE per WP:AGF and WP:CIR. AldezD (talk) 13:39, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

unfortunate behavior when edits like this demonstrate that @EditorE: knows exactly why certain content was tagged, would have been simpler to address the issues than attack an editor. Acousmana (talk) 09:36, 1 April 2017 (UTC

• Comment... It's sad, but calling people names (e.g. "fuckwad" is tolerated on Wikipedia, as evidenced bythe many links returned in that search. I'm betting the American editors would say it is just free speech, but I cannot see how calling another editor a fuckwad, for example, generates any benefits for the encyclopedia . Maybe the person doing the calling feels better for three seconds... but the encyclopedia gets another little metaphorical dent in it.104.163.140.228 (talk) 00:54, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Annoying little violations of MOS from Kent IPs, going on for years

Somebody from the area of Kent, UK, has been making a bunch of little changes to music articles for years. Many are okay but a large percentage of the changes include violations of Wikipedia's manual of style. The problem is that there seems to be no way to tell this person to stop it, since they use an IP address for a only short period. He doesn't use edit summaries and he never touches a talk page.

Here are some examples of negative changes

• Changing to upper case "The" in violation of WP:THECAPS and WP:BANDNAME, for instance "The Who" or "The Kinks". [192][193][194][195][196][197][198][199][200][201]
• Adding italicised Magazine after Rolling Stone. [202][203][204][205][206][207][208][209][210][211][212][213]
• Linking common words in violation of WP:OVERLINKING, for instance studio album and rock music. [214][215][216][217][218][219]
• Removal of wikilinks to likely articles in violation of WP:REDLINK. [220][221][222][223][224][225][226][227][228]
• Section blanking, NPOV violations. [229][230][231]
• Removal of reliable sources. [232][233][234]

This person's edit warring has repeatedly put the biography John Deacon into protection over the last two-and-a-half years. Recently, the editing behavior is less about edit warring and more about making lots of little adjustments. Some of these are good, but taken together, all the little changes are wearing on page watchers, and they are not always useful.

I would like to see two rangeblocks set in place to stop this guy temporarily; an attention-getting block. 2.97.160.000–2.97.174.256 would catch one range, and 92.20.114.000–92.20.125.256 would catch the other. If anybody can think of other solutions, I'd be happy to hear them. Binksternet (talk) 23:17, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

• I thought these would be too wide for rangeblocks and have too much collateral damage, but they're - surprisingly - not. 2.97.160.0/20 and 92.20.112.0/20 blocked for 3 months. Let me know if an extension is needed. Black Kite (talk) 23:46, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, Black Kite. I will keep an eye out for this person finding a workaround, and I will let you know what happens in three months. Binksternet (talk) 00:00, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

No doubt about it, that's a LOT of IP addresses. Just posted an ANI notice on every one of them. Talk about workaholic. But hey, it's all part of life. SportsLair (talk) 23:56, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Ha! That's almost as obsessive as my posting them here! Binksternet (talk) 00:00, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

When I saw that all those IPs had a talk page, I wondered if al they had was an AN/I notice :). L3X1 (distant write) 01:37, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

RECENTIST editing to members of Congress articles

There has been a spate of editing of members of Congress articles by different editors including text which appears to qualify as RECENTIST (I am personally aware of Claire McCaskill, Peter Roskam and John Faso, although there are probably others). Please see [235], [236], [237], and [238] for starters. My own opinion is that the articles constitute recentism, perhaps for partisan purposes, but these edits are vigorously contested and some admin insight will be appreciated. There are various editors involved but I have only notified Klkl3000 as I was only directly interacting with him/her. Quis separabit? 00:26, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Just a note that WP:RECENTISM is neither a guideline nor policy. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:21, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

I mean, well no, but a lot of editors think that it is a good enough reason on it's own to revert edits for some reason. ThatGirlTayler (talk) 05:34, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Hey, @ThatGirlTayler -- just curious where you stand on the issue based on your edit here. I mean congresspersons should be treated equally. If McCaskill's town hall policies are unwarranted for inclusion then surely all congresspersons' handling of this recent phenomenon should be treated consistently. Thanks. Quis separabit? 05:49, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

@Rms125a@hotmail.com: That was before I knew WP:RECENTISM wasn't actually part of WP policy. ThatGirlTayler (talk) 06:18, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

This really looks like a content dispute to me... Tazerdadog (talk) 06:01, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Not really, at least on my end. I just believe that there needs to be consistency on the town hall issue. This townhall phenomenon is not going to go away any time soon and should be addressed sooner rather than later. If McCaskill's town hall policies are not worthy of inclusion then neither should those of Faso, for instance. Quis separabit? 06:11, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

No matter what you think about the need for consistency, Rms125a@hotmail.com, this is a content dispute that does not belong here at ANI. Administrators do not use their toolkits to intervene in content disputes. And your notion that we must somehow be consistent concerning biographies of politicians who are members of the U.S. Congress is incorrect. Some are first termers and others have served many terms. Some stay out of the limelight while others crave national publicity and it comes to them. And so on. We summarize what the range of reliable sources say, and if they emphasize "Issue X" regarding one politician far more than another politician, then our biographies should reflect that. Now, take it to the various article talk pages, please. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:54, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

POV Pushing is a behavioral issue; it is not a content issue.--v/r - TP 02:07, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Quis separabit? - Lets meet at the talk page and work this out Klkl3000 —Preceding undated comment added 12:13, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Bureaucratic threat by an editor at a tainted RfC

An RfC at Talk:X-Men (film series) was tainted by an editor who did inappropriate WP:VOTESTACK canvassing to rally other editors who agreed with him. When I pointed this out, editors in favor of the now biased and tilted responses began leveling arguments against me and in favor of the editor who cheated. Despite the inappropriately canvassed editors brought in to bias the results, the RfC is still roughly evenly split. Yet the same editors who supported the canvassing now are claiming consensus and suggesting they themselves declare the RfC closed in their favor — one more in a string of improprieties.

When I pointed out here, "Be aware that Wikipedia allows WP:Move review in case of closing improprieties," editor User:AlexTheWhovian threatened me here that, "Any move review that is submitted by yourself in question to this discussion, after the page has or has not been moved, will be reported as harassment against the editors of this discussion...."

Pointing out policy/guideline violations that tainted an RfC is not harassment. Reporting an improper close, if one happens, also is not harassment but following the rules that were established precisely for such occasions. What I believe is harassment is an editor threatening another editor simply for wanting to make use of a mediation venue, for goodness' sakes. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:57, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Please note I did apply the required notice to his talk page, but he immediately removed it here. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:03, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Funny how you forgot the rest of the sentence. "... given how close you already are to this issue over your inappropriate actions here"[239]. I tried to warn you of WP:BOOMERANG, but you didn't listen, so I'll list your heinous acts against the editors of that discussion, and the invalidity of this report, when I'm free. I have no need of the notice on my talk page, I am aware of it, obviously. -- Alex^TW 22:06, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

The rest of the sentence was subjective opinion and a falsehood. But by all means, feel free to include that additional uncivil and false accusation. And by the way, trying to deflect responsibility for your threat by arguing that "he asked for it" is an old and not very good debate trick. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:10, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

@AlexTheWhovian: The Doctor would be disappointed in you.--v/r - TP 02:10, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

@TParis: Lol k. -- Alex^TW 02:12, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

• The RfC still has a way to run, but I'm going to close it now as "No Consensus to move" not because of the canvassing, but because of its ludicrous premise. You've got a load of supports for moving to Title A, Title A or B, Title A or B or C, Title B or D (etc. etc.) and a load of Opposes. Nothing is ever going to come out of this. It needs to be restarted with a much shorter list (preferably one or two) titles to move to. Otherwise you're never going to get anywhere - which this RfC has proved. Black Kite (talk) 23:51, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

With the RfC closed, this discussion is moot. I'm withdrawing it. User:AlexTheWhovian can continue with his own claims in a separate ANI if he wishes. --Tenebrae (talk) 15:34, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Please clarify my doubt administrators!

OP sock bleached. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:10, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

One administrator speedy deleted a page ,immediately some other administrator re created the page…Is it correct procedure? or against Wikipedia policy?

(Bestwishes1 (talk) 18:36, 4 April 2017 (UTC))

Probably a lack of communication. L3X1 (distant write) 18:40, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

It's impossible to even guess without the specifics. You may wish to ask either administrator. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 18:41, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

@Bestwishes1: I see this is your first post :) welcome! Was the article in question yours, perhaps? With more info, we can help more. Or as Zzuuzz says, you could ask them! — O Fortuna! ^{Imperatrix mundi.} 18:47, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

  :: user:BigHaz  speedy deleted a page.

07:55, 4 April 2017 BigHaz (talk | contribs) deleted page Jacques Rivière (A10: Recently created article that duplicates an existing topic, Jacques Rivièry)

   ::user:BethNaught recreated the page

(Bestwishes1 (talk) 19:05, 4 April 2017 (UTC))

And seeing as multiple socks were tagging this page as A10 (and Beth reverted the deletion as trolling), and have since been blocked, I do find this a bit curious that a brand new editor makes their first edit here to question this issue. RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:07, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Blocked the OP as another troll sock. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:09, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Vandalism at Wikidata on definition of Chhetri and Bahun

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:Damien2016 has been plundering the definition of Bahun and Chhetri at Wikidata, even after I had warned him at his talk page. Please provide serious reprimand to the user for preventing such in future. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Airkeeper (talk • contribs) 13:20, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi, I reverted your definitions because they're unsourced and very subjective. You posted pictures on my Wikidata talk page to prove that the specific group is "Aryan". This is not how you source information. We may also have an issue with communication as it's clear that English is not your first language. Damien2016 (talk) 15:55, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Non Admin Comment You didn't provide the {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ template as you are directed to do here. I did this for you. Also, should this e taken to Wikidata noticeboards? L3X1 (distant write) 14:31, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

This seems like it should be at d:WD:AN. --Izno (talk) 16:43, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

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

Muhammad

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 admins, i am on wiki since 13 years, writing mainly on religious articles and technology articles, have a good background on both topics. since 3-4 days the article of the prophet Muhammad has been disruptively edited, also i backed evidence of my changes by the book Sahih-i Buhari (one of the most reliable sources about islam) this was mentioned as "unreliable", i assume that those editors are either not experts in that field or like the recent incident (see version history for User:Yeshua_Ha'Mashiach) trying to destroy the article. asking for your help on this situation. kr, ERDINC (talk) 22:54, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

You are in a content dispute. If you want to resolve it, follow the steps laid out at dispute resolution. Someguy1221 (talk) 23:00, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

WP:BOOMERANG. I'm involved but the edit summaries and edit warring without participating in discussion are problematic. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:01, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Add: You have 50 edits to articles in 12+ years. I suggest you are in no position to call longstanding editors who actually do edit names when they explain their positions on the talk page. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:13, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

• So, to be clear, you inserted a large amount of contentious information into the article, and when quite correctly reverted and told to discuss at the talk page, you entered into an edit war, including calling editors "vandals", "zionist vandals" and "disruptive editors". Also, from the title of this section (now changed), you are also claming they are sockpuppets. And when you are reverted for a third time, you post here, repeating your claims. I am struggling to think of a reason why you simply shouldn't be blocked right now. Meanwhile, you've been reverted for a fourth time by another editor - now discuss the changes at the talk page or that WILL be the outcome. Black Kite (talk) 23:02, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

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

Insultive and personal attacks by User:Juliancolton

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 is just for the background of thebsituation not why I'm complaining. The administrator User:Juliancolton blocked me for "3RR breach" on 2017 St Petersburg Metro bombing. I did not make this complaint because he blocked me or refused to unblock me. Simply that he made insultive attacks, baseless accusations and baselessly assuming bad faith painted me negatively. I made 3 actual reverts: No 1, No 2 and No 3. However, he still thought I breached it. He claims my reverts along with edits which added new material along with material which was removed several times by an edit-warring user Coffee, breach 3RR.: Edit no 1, Edit no 2. He also claimed this edit counted as revert too, even though I made no such changes earlier, it was an edit in clear sense of the word by just removing a statement and not a revert. It seems he didn't properly investigate. The situation was about mutiple reports of the Saint Petersburg metro suspected bomber which Coffee kept removing or changing for various reasons. But it isn't about him.

Regardless I didn't think any of my edits as reverts, because I didn't revert or undid anything. I was only adding material and still don't consider it a 3RR breach. And I had no intention of edit-warring and reverting continuously. It was me who opened the discussion on the talk page. This was long before the edit-warring Coffee gave me a warning and told me to discuss or Juliancolton's block. Coffee soon stopped replying anyway, this was his last comment.

I seriously considered wromg the reasons for the block and being cooperative, I still accepted whatever Juliancolton claimed. I okayed many times counting my edits as reverts as I didn't want to get into a dispute over them and I am not perfect at all Wiki rules, so I could be wrong, and I pleaded many times to him to forgive me this once and give me a chance to prove myself. He pointed out my mistake about my revert count which happened because I wasn't keeping track. All of this was said and done by me in these comments: [240], [241].

However none of this was important to Juliancolton. I made mistakes, many probably and couldn't keep track which is already made clear in this comment of mine and he earlier pointed out as well in his comment. However, despite my genuine please and realization of mistakes in addition to accepting something which I didn't think was wrong, me trying to abide by the rules and trying to enforce them. Though I might have violated them withiut realizing and I was sorry. Regardless of this, not only did he not give me a chance, he retored with deliberate assumption of bad faith and baseless accusation which were quite insultive in nature. For example, here he decides not to unblock me by claiming that I have edit warred in the past based on comments of other users, however he neither investigated these discussions once nor what prompted them and who were the users and what they themselves did. The comments he seem to be the like of User talk:MonsterHunter32#1RR, User talk:MonsterHunter32#Disruptive editing 2 and User talk:MonsterHunter32#Take a look at this. However, he failed to notice that all of these users have themselves been involved in shady practices and many of their comments were made after I changed an article based on their edits. Users like EkoGraf and ZiaLater have been complained and broke rules in the past including edit-warring. I cannot provide links as it will take too much time to find them all but you can search and verify yourself. Mr.User200 falsely accused me of diseuptive editing even though I only edited to remove unreliable material based on unreliable sources once or twicr, and another user MordeKyle clearly pointed out ony talk page that his accusations were clearly false. All of these comments were motivated by me changing their version of the article. Despite all this, Juliancolton thinks something else, he thinks they're all true and I am wrong without mounting any investigation of his own. And I didn't breach 3RR nor got into any continuous reversal. I pointed out all this in my reply. However, Juliancolton again retorted back with an insultively false accusation. He claims that when I said he is "keeping a block on me based on some discussions without properly checking for evidence of 3RR breach or edit-warring" I am referring to my recent block and edits at 2017 Saint Petersburg Metro bombing. However I never said anytging such. Anyone who read my comment, can understand that it was in reference to him keeping a block on me based on past comment where others accussed me of disruptive editing or edit-warring just because I dared contradict them. Not only he makes a false accusation, he claims I am making "false excuses and empty apologies" which is another false and baseless accusation and breaches the policy of assuming good faith and not accusing others without proof. I was sincere in everything I said, whatever I said was the truth and was right except where I may have made mistake due to me not being properly informed or not noticing. He tells me in the same comment to try to understand the spirit of the law and the rules, even though he himself so clearly broke them.

Had he simply secline to unblock me by simply saying much or simply stating something like I should take the time to review and understand the rules, I wouldn't have minded it much and would have let it go. However as I explained above, he went far beyond it. This was no longer a matter of block. His behaviour eas completely rude. He made baseless accusations, made claims which he didn't investigate much about like about my "past behavior" and made comments assumimg bad faith which painted me very negatively and frankly were completely insultive and hurting. It is highly irresponsible that he has indulged in such behavior and it will be dangerous to freely let him get away without amy punishment for such uncivility. I request that he at the least be warned not to do this and apologize. Thank you. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 02:23, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

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

Eyes on Teo Mora

Over at WP:REFUND I came across this request to delete a page (I'm fairly certain the IP in question is Teo Mora (talk · contribs) herself as the IP belongs to a research institution), based on "[...]I assume to have the right to pretend oblivious in the form which is available" [sic], which I assume is meaning Right to be forgotten laws. I'm not inclined to remind her that Wikipedia is not exactly subject to EU laws, though I did remove the G7 speedy that was placed on the article in question (there's two significant contributors, which contraindicates G7).

Could I get some more knowledgeable-in-these-sorts-of-matters users to communicate with User:Teo Mora and doublecheck the article to make sure it's in apple-pie order? —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 03:23, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes, the request comes from me, Teo Mora; by the way I am a "himself"

Without entering into legal aspects, yes what I want is to remove this page.

--Teo Mora (talk) 14:27, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Oh. Well, there is no legal aspect to enter. Wikipedia is based in California and thus not subject to any current "Right to be forgotten]] laws. Now, whether the article should be deleted for other reasons (such as lack of notability) is a different story. 74.70.146.1 (talk) 14:51, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Hmm...well... I'll leave an obligatory link to Wikipedia:Contact us - Subjects for Teo Mora for future reference. There's really no more high-profile forum on the project than ANI, but the information can be useful if at any point this should take place in a bit more private an area than a page with 7,000 watchers.

I don't think the article qualifies for speedy deletion. We could try to take the article to WP:AfD, but honestly I really have doubts that it would get deleted, since Mora appears to be pretty exceptionally well published in their field, in addition to what non-scholarly and editorial work he's done.

Wikipedia doesn't really have a "right to be forgotten", and we are generally well within our rights to create and maintain articles on comparatively public figures, which includes public-facing and widely published authors and academics. Although the content of those articles comes with all the protections of our policies on biographies of living persons. Honestly, the best option here may be to try to find some motivated volunteers from Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics, and help fix what is ostensibly wrong with the article by including neutral and well sourced information. TimothyJosephWood 15:11, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

I knows personally Teo Mora (since more than 35 years), and this is me who has informed him of the existence of a recent article about him. He immediately reacted strongly against the existence of this article. Thus, I can certify that he is the author of the request.

IMO, it is a matter of WP:BIODEL, which says Discussions concerning biographical articles of relatively unknown, non-public figures, where the subject has requested deletion and there is no rough consensus, may be closed as delete. He is clearly a non-public figure, and, although he undoubtedly satisfies the criteria of notability, he is relatively unknown, as in a few minutes, I have found more than five searchers in the same area that have a similar of better notability, and do not have a Wikipedia page. I'll thus open an AfD over this basis. D.Lazard (talk) 18:09, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

As the primary author of the article, I support deletion of the article; Particularly I agree with the argument that it is a matter of WP:BIODEL. Nanuvutpanther (talk) 18:58, 2 April 2017 (UTC) 18:58, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Fair enough. Then we can probably close this since it's up to AfD at this point. TimothyJosephWood 03:28, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

User:Jablonskyman

• Jablonskyman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) – On Harry Andrews (diff): vandalism after final warning. Continues to change "British" to "English" in violation of BLPLEAD and UKNATIONALS. (Note: user has never engaged fellow editors or acknowledged repeated warnings. He may make several edits, then nothing for several days, then more. Request at least 1 week block.) (Moved from AIV.) —ATS 🖖 talk 20:03, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

 Done. El_C 20:16, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

He's never edited a talk page and 99% never used ES. I doubt' we'll ever see him again, which is sad as I want an explanation. L3X1 (distant write) 20:25, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

So did I. —ATS 🖖 talk 21:12, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

ATS The explanation I want is why he doesn't use the talk page, not about his actions. I see many gnomy-type editors who rarely if ever use their own or an article talk page, and never give any sign of communicating with other editors (like conversing via ES, which demonstrates that they know how to find a pages' history). I wonder if many editors never get a chance to learn about the functions of wikipedia, so as to improve themselves. I guess this is stems from the Bob Henshaw incident. (entry #2 on this page). He was editing when the block dropped, so he must of noticed that he couldn't edit, but we have no idea what he did afterwards, or if he saw his block notice. Now, Bob had edited his talk page of two prior occasions, in February and October of 2015. It is possible that he could of forgotten about, and not seen the block notice. I wonder if Wikipedia could be improved so that editors will be made more aware of on-Wiki communication methods so as to prevent confusion and retain good editors. L3X1 (distant write) 22:01, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

That's what I meant as well, L3X1—as in, is he oblivious to the page? Oblivious to edit summaries? Contemptuous of other editors? There's no engagement of any kind, anywhere. —ATS 🖖 talk 22:22, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

In my experience dealing with editors like this, if they aren't replying to anyone, then they will almost certainly never explain why. Users who don't reply to anyone tend to be users that are warned for disruptive or questionable editing. These are users that never had any intention of collaborating to begin with, which is why they usually don't last long. DarkKnight2149 23:09, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Is there any particular reason they have no Block template on their TP? L3X1 (distant write) 01:18, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

El C forgot? —ATS 🖖 talk 02:08, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Whaddya talkin' about? Admins never forget to dot the i's and cross the t's. Nuthin' to see here. :-) — Preceding unsigned comment added by NeilN (talk • contribs)

{{pp-protected}}! El_C 05:00, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

NeilN: please tell me the irony was intentional ... —ATS 🖖 talk 06:10, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

@ATS: See previous message :-j --NeilN ^{talk to me} 11:29, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

User:Antonio111222333

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.

---

Antonio111222333 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) continues to make major changes to Association of Tennis Professionals (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) and Lists of tennis records and statistics (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). Other editors previously reverted his/her changes and said to bring it to the article talk page, where consensus could be reached. The editor continued to make these changes despite numerous warnings, and said that they could "do this all day long" with this edit. I left them a message on their talk page but they removed it without reply. They aren't willing to participate in any discussions. Adamtt9 (talk) 13:58, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Warned user. I'm not very confident that's going to put an end to it, but we'll start there. Note that they're at 6RR and 5RR on these articles respectively, and all conversation so far has occurred in edit summaries. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:21, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

A newly created account has now begun to make the same edits. QWERASDF (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Adamtt9 (talk) 18:07, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

CU confirmed, blocked both indefinitely. Normally we might not block the puppetmaster, but given the "all day long" business, I don't see much hope for him. Doug Weller talk 18:12, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

I had a feeling. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:16, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

No ES, and when he did use them he wrote snark: Take the dictionary and see vhat vandalism is.This is not vandalism,this is just small addition to the page and doesn't disturbs the page, yeah 948 bytes doesn't disturb the page my foot. L3X1 (distant write) 18:48, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

I've had such a lovely email promising more socks. Confirms my decision to block indefinitely. Doug Weller talk 19:08, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

That's a wrap. No more from the sock. SportsLair (talk) 21:58, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Good, now it is safe to say: Ping me if you want some special attention applied to an article. L3X1 (distant write) 02:07, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

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

In wikipeida any article can be undeleted with out following

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.

---

In wikipeida any article can be undeleted with out following https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Undeletion_policy/process ? requesting please explain undeletion porcess

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Undeletion_policy/process ? is compulsory?

(EditorINspace (talk) 04:31, 5 April 2017 (UTC))

@EditorINspace: That process is no longer in use (and hasn't been for quite some time). Please see WP:UDP for our current policy. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 05:06, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

@Coffee: Thanq for your reply! Is it any short cut to undelete a page with out any discussion ? or WP:UDP or Wikipedia:Undeletion_policy/process ? Can we apply for any administrator for undelete a page (EditorINspace (talk) 05:37, 5 April 2017 (UTC))

@EditorINspace: Your control of the English language seems to be at a beginner level. I recommend you use our sister project Simple Wikipedia, until you have learned enough to contribute successfully here. Thank you. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 05:48, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

EditorINspace has been blocked as a sock of a community banned user. --bonadea contributions talk 06:54, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

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

Insultive and personal attacks by User:Juliancolton and User:Primefac

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 had made this complaint before, but User:Primefac closed it in a matter of very few minutes, probably even shorter rudely and baselessly saying "I'll sum it up: user got blocked by Juliancolton, was not happy about it, and is now bitching." This despite my complaint never being about the block. My complaints are about User:Juliancolton and User:Primefac.

Background of how the situation with Juliancoltonbegan (Non-complaint stuff)

This is just for the background of the situation and not why I'm complaining. My complain will be in next section. The administrator User:Juliancolton blocked me for "3RR breach" on 2017 Saint Petersburg Metro bombing. I did not make this complaint because he blocked me or refused to unblock me. Simply that he made insultive attacks, baseless accusations and baselessly assuming bad faith painted me negatively. I made 3 actual reverts: No 1, No 2 and No 3. However, he still thought I breached it. He claims my reverts along with edits which added new material along with material which was removed several times by an edit-warring user Coffee, breach 3RR.: Edit no 1, Edit no 2. He also claimed this edit counted as revert too, even though I made no such changes earlier, it was an edit in clear sense of the word by just removing a statement and not a revert. It seems he didn't properly investigate. The situation was about multiple reports of the Saint Petersburg metro suspected bomber which Coffee kept removing or changing for various reasons. But it isn't about him.

Regardless I didn't think any of my edits as reverts, because I didn't revert or undid anything. I was only adding material and still don't consider it a 3RR breach. And I had no intention of edit-warring and reverting continuously. It was me who opened the discussion on the talk page. This was long before the edit-warring Coffee gave me a warning and told me to discuss or Juliancolton's block. Coffee soon stopped replying anyway, this was his last comment.

I seriously considered wrong the reasons for the block and being cooperative, I still accepted whatever Juliancolton claimed. I okayed many times counting my edits as reverts as I didn't want to get into a dispute over them and I am not perfect at all Wiki rules, so I could be wrong, and I pleaded many times to him to forgive me this once and give me a chance to prove myself. He pointed out my mistake about my revert count which happened because I wasn't keeping track. All of this was said and done by me in these comments: [242], [243].

Complaint about User:Juliancolton

However none of this was important to Juliancolton. I made mistakes, many probably and couldn't keep track which is already made clear in this comment of mine and he earlier pointed out as well in his comment. However, despite my genuine please and realization of mistakes in addition to accepting something which I didn't think was wrong, me trying to abide by the rules and trying to enforce them. Though I might have violated them withiut realizing and I was sorry. Regardless of this, not only did he not give me a chance, he retorted with deliberate assumption of bad faith and baseless accusation which were quite insultive in nature. For example, here he decides not to unblock me by claiming that I have edit warred in the past based on comments of other users, however he neither investigated these discussions once nor what prompted them and who were the users and what they themselves did. The comments he seem to be the like of User talk:MonsterHunter32#1RR, User talk:MonsterHunter32#Disruptive editing 2 and User talk:MonsterHunter32#Take a look at this. However, he failed to notice that all of these users have themselves been involved in shady practices and many of their comments were made after I changed an article based on their edits. Users like EkoGraf and ZiaLater have been complained and broke rules in the past including edit-warring. I cannot provide links as it will take too much time to find them all but you can search and verify yourself. Mr.User200 falsely accused me of diseuptive editing even though I only edited to remove unreliable material based on unreliable sources once or twice, and another user MordeKyle clearly pointed out on my talk page that his accusations were clearly false. All of these comments were motivated by me changing their version of the article. Despite all this, Juliancolton thinks something else, he thinks they're all true and I am wrong without mounting any investigation of his own. And I didn't breach 3RR nor got into any continuous reversal. I pointed out all this in my reply. However, Juliancolton again retorted back with an insultively false accusation. He claims that when I said he is "keeping a block on me based on some discussions without properly checking for evidence of 3RR breach or edit-warring" I am referring to my recent block and edits at 2017 Saint Petersburg Metro bombing. However I never said anything such. Anyone who read my comment, can understand that it was in reference to him keeping a block on me based on past comment where others accussed me of disruptive editing or edit-warring just because I dared contradict them. Not only he makes a false accusation, he claims I am making "false excuses and empty apologies" which is another false and baseless accusation and breaches the policy of assuming good faith and not accusing others without proof. I was sincere in everything I said, whatever I said was the truth and was right except where I may have made mistake due to me not being properly informed or not noticing. He tells me in the same comment to try to understand the spirit of the law and the rules, even though he himself so clearly broke them.

Had he simply declined to unblock me by simply saying much or simply stating something like I should take the time to review and understand the rules, I wouldn't have minded it much and would have let it go. However as I explained above, he went far beyond it. This was no longer a matter of block. His behavior was completely rude. He made baseless accusations, made claims which he didn't investigate much about like about my "past behavior" and made comments assuming bad faith which painted me very negatively and frankly were completely insultive and hurting. It is highly irresponsible that he has indulged in such behavior and it will be dangerous to freely let him get away without any punishment for such uncivility. I request that he at the least be warned not to do this and apologize.

Complaint against User:Primefac

As I said in the beginning, I had complained before, but User:Primefac closed it in a matter of very few minutes. In the reasoning section, he made a very rude and uncivil comment saying I was bitching and also falsely and baselessly claiming that I was complaining because or about my block. This is a complete breach of rules, including maintaining civility and not accusing others without proof. Here's his comment: "I'll sum it up: user got blocked by Juliancolton, was not happy about it, and is now bitching." Had I instead said this to him or any other administrator, I might have been blocked. I reopened it and requested him to not close in an instant in addition to proper investigation (which he never did and closed my complain in an instant it seems like from his reason for closing) allowing other administrators to give their opinion. However, he closed it again, pasting the same reason as earlier and claiming int he summarily he had "properly investigated" even though his comments suggest the opposite, he caloussly dismissed it as "nothing to investigate". Now there might not be no hard and fast rule, but ideally under such conditions one migh tallow others to offer their own opinions and decide what to do with the complaint. However he violates any basic sense of civility, good will and good practice as well as rules which actually exist.

Few closing comments

I do realize that my edits at 2017 Saint Petersburg Metro bombing got me the block, but that is not what I am here for. It is solely because of Juliancolton's comments on my character, behavior and assumption of bad faith. Also please note that User:Ks0stm recently intimidated me, saying I was "wasting time" and threatened to block me if I tried to make a complaint against the attacks and deliberate breaking of rules by some administrators as well Primefac shutting me down in an instant without even listening to me or investigating anything at all. Although the complaint is not against him, this is getting out of hand. People cannot be allowed to say or do or threaten others openly. Though I did tell him that if he tries to shut me down from having my justified complaint properly investigated I shall complain of him as well, I fear it will make little impact on his threats and actions. I ask that something be done for this and he be reprimanded for his comment. I request that this complaint not be closed in an instant or in a few minutes, I request the incident be investigated properly and opinion by multiple administrators be offered so a fair chance is given for me to be listened. I will also ask User:Primefac to not close or alter this complaint since he is complained of as well, I request that he only comment for his defence. Thank you. I've made a separate section for comments by users and administrators. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 07:27, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Comments by other users and administrators

• Recommend WP:BOOMERANG Block to prevent further disruption. This user is now being disruptive with their continued AN/I reports. I've tried telling them to drop the stick on Primefacs talk page, as did Ks0stm and the user responded by threatening to complain about Ks0stm. -- Dane ^talk 07:35, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

User:Dane I only wanted a proper review. that is it. I am tried of getting shut down in an instant, which has happened 2 times. I am not here top complain again and again. Please at least review instead of just saying I should be blocked or accusing me of disruption. If you think this complaint is not worth merit, then just opinionate so. I won't complain again.

Also you claim I "threatened" Ks0stm but not that he was the one who made a threat in his comment by saying he'll block me if I tried to make my complaint. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 07:41, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm not seeing any issues with how the block was handled, or with how Primefac closed the previous baseless complaints. I recommend you just move one, MonsterHunter32. You are not currently in the right, and your block was valid. If you continue down this path, you'll be choosing your own consequences. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 08:17, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

I have no problem in moving on. Thanks for your comment. I am just waiting for 2 or 3 more administrators to give their opinion. If they too find that there was nothing wrong, then there is no point in having the complaint open. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 08:29, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

MonsterHunter32, I'd say just drop the stick....this was adequately handled, the block was valid and your complaints...well, they were essentially baseless; perhaps you care a little too much about the whole issue. Try walking away from it and do something else for a while, either on- or off-wiki. Lectonar (talk) 09:09, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

I am one more admin. What I see here is @MonsterHunter32 complaining about every other editor and admin involved in this saga, often based on a failure to understand that while WP:3RR is a bright line, actions well short of that count as edit-warring.

I haven't counted how many admins have already been involved in warning MonsterHunter32, but it's more than enough already to make the message loud and clear.

Time to drop the stick, MonsterHunter32. If you continue down this WP:IDHT path, then this thread may yet close with the WP:BOOMERANG block suggested at the top of this section. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:18, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Okay, MonsterHunter32, you want a fair review, so I'll give you one :

You were editing 2017 Saint Petersburg Metro bombing. As a general rule of thumb, I personally recommend adhering to a strict 1RR on any article that is on a current event and where events and views may be under contention, which this is. (Some articles in the past that have been applicable include : 2017 Westminster Attack, Violence at UEFA Euro 2016 and 2016 Nice attack). This means you make your edit and then walk away from the article. There have been over 200 edits since yours, and enough eyes are looking at the article, so there's no real value in trying to make the same edit more than once.

While technically you may have been removing other information under the rules of WP:3RR, it's not a clear and obvious edit-war where everyone's edit summary is something like "Undid revision 12345 by User:Xyz - removing blatant falsehood" Moreover, you removed the name of a suspect in the attack because you didn't believe it was confirmed, and I am happy to assume good faith you were attempting to adhere to the biographies of living persons policy, which can be used as an exemption to edit war. I see you going at hammer and tongs with Coffee on the talk page, but he seems to have responded in kind and ultimately you both walked away in frustration (although in your case I think the block had something to do with it). I do see Coffee has been editing the article a lot as well, but again I can't obviously see a situation where blocking him would have helped stabilise things.

So, on a purely content based overview, I think blocking you would have been superfluous and unnecessary, without an explanation (and as people who know me well enough will know - a Twinkle edit warring notice is not really good enough).

However, admins sometimes just plain disagree on whether a 24 hour block is justified or not. That's just a fact of life. Now the block has ended, you have caused a colossal storm in a teacup, and from my experience, stamping your foot and demanding retribution for the admin that wronged you just isn't going to happen. I get it that it's "unfair" but yelling about it doesn't really do much. Sometimes you just have to pick your battles. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:59, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

• @Ritchie333: Well, since BrownHairedGirl, Lectonar, and Nihonjoe have all advised Monster32 to 'let this go', in three different ways, encouraging Monster32 to respond further to this thread does seem to be rather against the spirit of the thing  :) but you carry on. — O Fortuna! ^{Imperatrix mundi.} 10:30, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Well I've also told him to drop it as well, so if he fails to - it's his own look out. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:33, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

@Ritchie333: You're the good guy; my hat's off to you, Sir. Lectonar (talk) 11:54, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

As Big Ted once said, "speak softly, and carry a massive banhammer". Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:28, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Well since so many administrators think I should let it go, I think it is better thr complaint is closed as it doesn't make any sense to keep it open and reopen. I withdraw my complaint, so I request someone to close it. Of course it's up to the administrators, if they instead want to opinionate first then they are welcome. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 18:03, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Done. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 18:06, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

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

User:Monday13

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.

---

Mondaye13 (talk · contribs) is spending a lot of time adding information suggesting that Alexis Brimeyer's claims to be an heir to various European throne are legitimate. Brimeyer was according to all sources a professional hoaxer and royal impostor. I have previously removed a large amount of Mondaye's contributions, but today I saw that he has been at work again in various articles over the past couple of days. The only thing he seemingly does is trying to bolster Brimeyer's royal pedigree with fabricated titles and genealogies - so i think probably this user just needs to be permanently blocked.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 09:06, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

• For the record, obvious sock User talk:Lhagyari17 just created account today and made some of the same changes to John Mundy (mayor). I've indef blocked. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:24, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

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

One administrator re-opens an Afd discussion.(.which was previously closed by Bad NAC.)...

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.

---

Any 2nd administrator have right to close this Afd discussion immediately with out permission of first administrator ? (NICE juntleman (talk) 12:36, 5 April 2017 (UTC))

@NICE juntleman: what AFD discussion? Please link. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:39, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Another Nsmutte sock, blocked. Widr (talk) 12:40, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

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

Confused

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 was told when I tried to save the article that only an admin could do this. A red screen popped up and said I can't save it because the article name had been flagged. Can you please look into this? Thank you for your help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GHD4Cali (talk • contribs) 04:28, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

@GHD4Cali: We need the name of the article to know what you're talking about. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 04:54, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

@Coffee: User is referring to Ryan Hampton (addiction advocate). [244] Stikkyy (talk) (contributions) 05:26, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Excuse me for all the jargon, GHD4Cali.

Coffee: regex SALT after a long PAID SPI - see the MWTitleblacklist. The SPI has been re-opened about o/p. AGF but also BEANS.--Shirt58 (talk) 05:28, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Roger that. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 05:30, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

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

Persistent copyright violation by User:Iryanapinto

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:Iryanapinto is an SPA account who persists in restoring copyvio text to Richard Berry (scientist). After the article was tagged on March 10 by User:Mifter for a copyright violation review [245], Iryanapinto first tried reverting the template, then eventually blanked the article and it was speedy deleted per G7. Iryanapinto recreated the exact same article on March 14. (I ran across it after reviewing CSD tags on copyvio images uploaded by the same user). I have now removed the copyvio text twice [246], [247] but have been reverted both times [248], [249]. At this point, because of multiple warnings, I would block Iryanapinto indefinitely — but I’ve also been involved in trying to bring them into a discussion about their addition of promotional content at Talk:Nanocellulose (without success, unfortunately) Could another admin take a quick look at this? — CactusWriter ^(talk) 17:05, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Iryanapinto blocked for 24 hours for copyvio and their latest revert to include the copyvio text has been undone. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 18:09, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

@CactusWriter: And if they come back again and continue as they have been, I have no problem with an indef block. I did 24 hours to try to get their attention to see if they are willing to discuss issues. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 18:12, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, Nihonjoe. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 18:34, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

@CactusWriter: looks like the account has been blocked indef by Bbb23 per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Iryanapinto. Just noting that here for future reference. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 18:37, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

I expected that this would eventually end there anyways. Thanks again. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 18:46, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Well, that does it. But if anything else happens anywhere else, be sure to go to the steward requests page to stop this socking psycho for good. SportsLair (talk) 21:33, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

@SportsLair:, stop adding nonsense, unhelpful comments to different ANI threads. You do not know enough about how this place operates to be useful. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:41, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

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

Destructive sockpuppet (suspected)

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.

---

Wikilester1999 (talk · contribs) is possibly a sock of Dragonrap2 (talk · contribs)

• Past socks have been blocked immediately, and include: 104.243.160.113 (talk · contribs), WXA53 (talk · contribs), Futurewiki (talk · contribs), 104.243.169.127 (talk · contribs), 104.243.167.109 (talk · contribs), Futuristic21 (talk · contribs), Futurewiki2 (talk · contribs), Mega256 (talk · contribs), Futurewiki The Third (talk · contribs), Mega257 (talk · contribs), Mega258 (talk · contribs), Futurew (talk · contribs), 104.243.166.108 (talk · contribs), 104.243.170.125 (talk · contribs), and Mr. Jazz, Rhythm & Blues (talk · contribs).

• Of Wikilester1999's 363 total edits, 44 have been to an article edited by 104.243.167.109 or Futurewiki.

• Similar edits at McNary, Louisiana: [250][251][252].

• Similar edits at Arnaudville, Louisiana: [253][254].

• They have also edited obscure articles together: Template:The Radio People, Racks (song), KNNW logo, and Cenla Broadcasting. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 22:16, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

SPI opened. – Train2104 (t • c) 22:29, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

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

2600:8800:FF04:C00:D571:F7F5:8413:7AE9

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 IP editor has been frequently editing the current events portal, adding less than neutral wording, unsourced content, etc. Any editor who reverts them is subsequently reverted by the IP editor, who claims that anybody who disagrees with their edits (regardless if the editor has reverted the IP) is a either a vandal, or a sockpuppet. [255][256][257][258] Administrator intervention is needed, as this editor obviously does not the meaning of civility, nor verifiability. This behavior also led to a 72 hour block by Oshwah, per edit warring. Boomer Vial^{Holla! We gonna ball!} 04:40, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

They're already at 3RR, so a block could be levied. I've dropped a warning on their page to see if that gets any notice. If not, then, well, there's only one thing left to do. Blackmane (talk) 06:26, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

the editor above you is clearly a sock of an indefinitely banned user - to be clear it is a violation also of wiki policy to assist a banned user--2600:8800:FF04:C00:D571:F7F5:8413:7AE9 (talk) 07:37, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

This behavior is exactly why I filed this ANI case. Do you care to explain who, or how any of the editors you've accused are indeed so? You're digging your grave, and I'm warning you to stop. Boomer Vial^{Holla! We gonna ball!} 07:44, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

The IP has been blocked for 2 weeks by Bbb23. Blackmane (talk) 08:17, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

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

Repeated blanking of Kristina Pimenova

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:Atlantic306 keeps blanking the article Kristina Pimenova, falsely alleging that this is an attack page, which it very obviously is not (other users have rather called it promotional, but that is equally incorrect). They threaten to have me blocked as well. Note that similar versions (but less well sourced) of this page have been around for years without any user making such a comment, ever. Lyrda (talk) 00:30, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Nominated this as G10 which has had the tag repeatedly removed by the creator. The page is automatically blanked when a G10 is applied. I believe this page is inappropriate description and criticism of a child. Atlantic306 (talk) 00:35, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

I am not the creator of the page.

What criticism are you talking about? What do you consider inappropriate? Lyrda (talk) 00:41, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

"If this article does not meet the criteria for speedy deletion, please remove this notice."

Why do you not respond on the talk page? Lyrda (talk) 00:44, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

• @Atlantic306 and Lyrda: I removed the CSD. This is not an attack page. For the most part, it's pretty complementary. Take this disagreement to the article's talk page, and be specific about what is believed to be an attack on this child model. — Maile (talk) 00:53, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
• I gotta say, this is ... well, I suppose it's disturbing in a few ways. One of those ways is that the Daily Mail is cited in the BLP of a child. Another is that someone sees the need to insert editorial commentary to "complement" the references--"Note: actual age was 8 at the time." Huh? Finally, the whole thing is larded with unencyclopedic terminology and unencyclopedic content, citing highly questionable sources. What is "women.ru"? And yeah, this is obviously not an "attack page"--Atlantic306, how did you come up with that?--it's almost speediable as promotional. And what's funny is that Lyrda's other work in progress is Draft:The Russian Bride, starring the aforementioned child star, and their other edits are all related to the same topic. I'm going to post on WP:BLPN, with a link to this discussion. This smells. Drmies (talk) 03:18, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

@Drmies: Allow me to add this - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Russian Bride - there's a ridiculously obvious conflict of interest here. Exemplo347 (talk) 13:31, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Oh thats why this rang a bell. I commented at the AFD for that after it popped up at RSN. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:02, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

User:Only in death, Exemplo347, yes. The editor is on a tear, duking it out with NeilN as well, trying to get as many promotional links in as possible. Drmies (talk) 18:41, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Linking an official webpage is not promotion. Linking any of the more than 10,000 fan pages would be, but I have not done anything of the sort. Lyrda (talk) 21:44, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Looks like User:Atlantic306 has moved on to bother other editors. Lyrda (talk) 20:30, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

• NeilN, I invite you to judge whether this comment is appropriate or not. Drmies (talk) 23:38, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

• Drmies, I'm supposed to be a happy admin, remember? Grump, grump. Anyways, Lyrda you'll find that little asides and flounces like that turn off editors who are willing to help you or give you the benefit of the doubt. And given your answers at COIN, the benefit of the doubt is playing an important part of keeping you unblocked. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:19, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

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

editor call my editing "personal anaylysis" while i present sources and the dont

both the constitution and reliable sourcing say no other parties are allowed but Acroterion is pushing his unsourced editing and calling my editing "personal anaylysis" while i present sources and he dont have any sources suppporting his view 194.68.94.68 (talk) 12:29, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

With all due respect, if someone is reverting you, using poor grammar doesn't help your case. Wikipedia comes in other languages, if that helps. DarkKnight2149 14:17, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

• Non-admin comment - Uh, administrators... I think we have a serious WP:CIR issue here. Check this user's contribution history and you will see what I mean. DarkKnight2149 14:22, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

194.68.94.68, looking through your edits, I see things like this that suggest you have not read and understood our most basic polices, such as writing from a neutral point of view. Antandrus (talk) 14:26, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

suggest you have not read and understood our most basic polices That's definitely one way to put it, but I think most would look at something like [259], [260] and [261], and simply call it vandalism. TimothyJosephWood 14:30, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

References

Non-admin comment I believe we have a serious WP:CIR issue with this IP, who does not seem to understand Wikipedia policies or plain English. Just look at their "editing" history. Acroterion is a much respected contributor and admin and is not pushing any unsourced editing. David J Johnson (talk) 15:18, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

You read my mind. DarkKnight2149 15:23, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

It has become axiomatic that we need to look more closely when we see the word "truth" in an edit; the same applies to "fake." While it may be worthwhile for (other) editors to examine the practical existence of Cuban political parties and to enlarge upon their viability by reference to sources, just putting "fake" into articles isn't acceptable. 194. is warned and will be blocked if they keep putting their opinions in articles. Acroterion (talk) 16:58, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

User:Qomppp

Disruptive editing, substituting "British" for "English" in multiple articles, also removing valid information from infoboxes. I have begun reverting, perhaps a more experienced editor could take the appropriate action on user's talkpage and whatever else is required? Example diff: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=R._L._Holdsworth&diff=prev&oldid=773645473 Captainllama (talk) 17:51, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

• Not a major issue. "British" and "English" are both correct in the article; as long as they don't change the nationality in the infobox, because "English" (like "Scottish" or "Welsh", isn't a nationality). Black Kite (talk) 17:58, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Edits aren't disruptive and your claim is false as I haven't removed any valid information. I was merely changing categories to more specific (and accurate) one (if they weren't supposed to be used, they wouldn't be there) and updating description in the lead to reflect. I haven't moved any incorrectly, and have moved some to Scottish explorers too. Interesting though, that I remove a superflous "Scottish" nationality from an infobox, but this user reverted that back in - when it's fairly obvious that if there is a nationality in the infobox, whether English, Scottish or Welsh it should state British.

Qomppp (talk) 19:02, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Gikü on Vladimir Plahotniuc

Please to investigate the situation and consider blocking user Gikü. This Wikipedia user countless time deleted my contribution to the article Vladimir Plahotniuc. His first argument was "such bold statements have to be cited from other sources than massmedia owned by the subject". In accordance with his recommendation I sourced the affirmation with several/various references not owned by the subject. After what he deleted again the statement and argued "You're not trying to perform original research, are you? I am tired to say the same thing: Wikipedia gives the information, the reader decides on who is the good guy" Wikilaj (talk) 19:21, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

On what grounds does Giku need to be blocked. It appears very clearly the paragraph you want included was removed according to consensus. Regardless, this is a content dispute and there are other venues to go to before coming to ANI.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 19:33, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

References

Legal threats at Talk:Zenji Nio

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 SPA, Artbitration (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), appeared on 6 April and as of this moment has only made 5 edits: two on the AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zenji Nio and three on Talk:Zenji Nio. The latter three involve accusing another experienced Wikipedia editor of violating libel and hate speech laws [262]. This may be in violation of WP:NLT. Michitaro (talk) 03:00, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Definitely a violation of our no legal threats policy. RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 03:23, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Blocked. Someguy1221 (talk) 03:31, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

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

Wtmitchell's block of AusLondonder

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.

---

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

At 04:31 today, Wtmitchell blocked Auslondoner for 12 hours with a block log comment Blocking ato stop series of edits flouting WP:ENGVAR. May block indefinitely if this resumes.

I see no sign of any interaction at all before this block. Wtmitchell reverted none of AusLondonder's edits, made no comment on AusLondonder's talk page (let alone an attempt at discussion), gave no warning of impending block, and left no notofication to accompany the block.

I have unblocked AusLondonder, replying to the unblock request with the comment Bizarre block. No discussion, no warning, not even a block notification, even though AusLondoner's last edit was 16 hours before the block was applied. This was a very bad block.

Non-admin User:Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi had commented on the block before I spotted it, asking if it was a belated April Fool's.[263]

Comments in support of my unlock have been posted on the talk page by admins @Boing! said Zebedee [264] and DoRD [265].

Please can Wtmitchell urgently explain what is going on here? On the evidence so far, this looks like a very bad block. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:00, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Is there a diff of where you raised this and discussed it with your fellow administrator BEFORE reversing the administrative action? Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:08, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

There's no policy requirement to do that - I'd have unblocked had User:BrownHairedGirl not acted first. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:15, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Btw the blocking admin had not been replying to other editors. They've made no public edits since 02:10 UTC. This was first raised by another editor at 09:01 with no reply and by me at 11:08 with no reply. AusLondonder (talk) 13:17, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

(ec) @Only in death does duty end: Boing is right. See Wikipedia:Blocking policy#Unblocking.

And in this case, Wtmitchell had not edited for 10 hours. I saw no reason to keep an editor-in-good-standing blocked while we awaited the return of a blocking admin who had made zero attempt to communicate with the editor who had been blocked. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:22, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

FWIW, I was ready to unblock prior to either BHG or Boing! posting on AusLondoner's talk page had I not been short of time at the moment. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 14:03, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

OID, there was a discussion on User talk:AusLondonder which began 09:01, 4 April, in which WTM was pinged multiple times. However, WTM's last edit was at 02:10, 4 April. So they've had a six hour window to respond since the conversation started, but they appear to be offline. Also, the unblock came eight hours into a twelve hour block. So waiting for discussion before unblocking would have been a defacto endorsement. TimothyJosephWood 13:17, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

WP:RAAA and pings are neither considered notification by any wikipedia process, nor are they an attempt at discussion. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:26, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

WP:RAAA: "administrative actions should not be reversed without good cause, careful thought, and (if likely to be objected to), where the administrator is presently available, a brief discussion with the administrator whose action is challenged." The reversal of the block seems to have been done with good cause and careful thought, and the blocking admin was not presently available, so all conditions of RAAA have been met. Fram (talk) 13:31, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

• Comment This certainly was a surprise drive-by block and I hope that the rationale behind it, not to mention the bypassing of community norms relating to the exercise of administrative functions, can be explained by Wtmitchell. Thanks to BrownHairedGirl for starting this thread. AusLondonder (talk) 13:11, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
• On the question of compromised accounts (or otherwise),, they have made only two edits today, before this block- and, mind you this is one of the first ever blocks this admin has made that didn't consist of a canned block-reason using Huggle. The last fifty blocks they made have all been made with huggle, and with auto summaries. Completely different to this one...? — O Fortuna! ^{Imperatrix mundi.} 13:26, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

(ec) Yeah that definitely puzzled me. This didn't seem like their usual modus operandi. AusLondonder (talk) 13:43, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

• I saw the block when I was reviewing some unblock requests, and I came to the same conclusion as BrownHairedGirl and I would have unblocked had I seen it sooner. It was a 12-hour block, imposed 16 hours after AusLondonder's last edit, with no notification or explanation, and where there were no obvious breaches of any policy by AusLondonder. It's arguable that different interpretations of WP:ENGVAR might have disagreed, but AusLondonder cited part of that policy that does appear to support the changes (assuming those were the problematic edits - Wtmitchell didn't actually say). At the most, all that was needed was a message on AusLondonder's talk page to discuss any possible disagreement over that policy. The block looks bizarre to me, and at this stage it appears to be a very bad one. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:27, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Having read the comments from others, below, and having examined some of Wtmitchell's previous admin actions, I agree that this one does seem very much out of character. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:13, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

• Could it be possible that Wtmitchell has been compromised? Boomer Vial^{Holla! We gonna ball!} 13:32, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
  • That seems like a possibility, as suggested by AusLondonder on their talk[266] before the unblock. It's one of the reasons why I opened this discussion here, rather than at User talk:Wtmitchell. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:38, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

I had some thoughts on this above. Seems not unlikely: although the use of the linked WP:ENGVAR would mean compromised by someone with ?extensive experience here, which is wildly coincidental. — O Fortuna! ^{Imperatrix mundi.} 13:40, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

It's also Wtmitchell's first block not directly related to vandalism since May 2015, and I have not checked them all of course but it seems that each and every blocked user was previously and appropriately warned. This bizarre block is completely out of character, and I agree it suggests a compromised account (rather than a gross failure of admin discretion) and I don't think it's much of a stretch to believe a person willing to hack an admin's account would have some familiarity with Wikipedia. There's no need for AGF here: I suggest starting WP:LEVEL1 procedure, and Wtmitchell can get their rights back when they can confirm their account is secured. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:02, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

@Ivanvector: Hacking, of course you're right, there would be little point in their doing it otherwise. I admit I was thinking, in this case, compromised = laptop left unlocked or something like that. But either way, the effect is the same. I suppose there's no way to tell if they had two-factor authentication activated? — O Fortuna! ^{Imperatrix mundi.} 14:07, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

• (edit conflict)As O Fortuna (velut luna!) pointed out, Wtmitchell only made two edits today before this block. The most recent one mentions something that is quite telling: "I've been running my WP watchlist in an internet cafe lately as I'm currently in Romblon, Romblon and internet connectivity is really miserable here. I am sometimes doing that in a pretty chaotic atmosphere." I believe it would be wise to, at the least, give some very serious though to this being a compromised account. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:11, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

(ec)No need to jump to conclusions or take drastic measures for the moment. While a compromised account isn't impossible, it could just as well be a mistake (intended to block someone else, misclicked), or adminning while under the influence, or ... Of course, if the next edits by Wmitchell are erratic or downright problematic, blockand/or temp desysop as emergency procedures are advisable; but for now I would wait until they edit again and see what their explanation is. One bad block is something that needs a good explanation, but not a panic reaction. Fram (talk) 14:13, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

I agree. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:15, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Me too. There are now plenty of eyes watching, and as Fram, notes, it will be easy enough to take emergency action if it turns out to be needed. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:17, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

I couldn't disagree more, and I don't just throw that phrase around. With admin accounts there's no need to wait around to see what other damage they might do, the thing to do while they're incommunicado is to remove their permissions as a preventative, until they can confirm their account's security. The fact they were running WP in an internet cafe is all the more cause for concern. It's not a mark against the admin, it's just taking reasonable precautions. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:27, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

This was clearly not a misclick/mistaken block though. AusLondoner's edits regarding ENGVAR were directly referenced in the block reason. EvergreenFir (talk) 14:33, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Well, after ten years, it might be that a doppelganger ~public account be in order :) incidentally, they have a committed identity- use that. — O Fortuna! ^{Imperatrix mundi.} 14:48, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

The only thing that worries me is how unlikely it is that if Wtmitchell's account was really hijacked, that the person themselves is familiar with, and able to use policies and guidelines as justification of a block. Especially one of the policies that is not considered a core policy/guideline. I agree that action should be taken, at least until Wtmitchell can verify the security of their account. Boomer Vial^{Holla! We gonna ball!} 14:55, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

• My impression is that the block was made in good faith for AusLondoner's edits such as this, changing the spelling of Labor to Labour in an article about a US topic. Note that the block was only 12 hours in duration. Of course, the spelling issue and the appropriateness of the block are still quite debatable but I doubt that there was any hacking involved. As Goethe said, "misunderstandings and neglect create more confusion in this world than trickery and malice". Andrew D. (talk) 17:16, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

@Andrew Davidson: Well, if you are right, then they ignored most of WP:BLOCK's requirements in order to do something immediately that should be last resort  :) Which I agree, is clearly either a misunderstanding, confusion, or malice  :) none of which are required or requested qualities in today's admincorps. — O Fortuna! ^{Imperatrix mundi.} 17:20, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

That was an entirely appropriate change of spelling: the International Labour Organization has the same spelling of its name from within any article. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:38, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

My impression of AusLondoner's changes is also that they were within WP:BOLD especially since they referred to the guidelines in each one of their edit summaries. At any rate, it's not apparent that anyone tried to raise an objection prior to Wtmitchell who, having a history of using Huggle for vandalism-related blocks only after having thoroughly warned a user and also having not edited in a few hours, blocked AusLondoner with no warning at all without using Huggle, for an unconventional length of time, and then disappeared. To be honest I hope their account is compromised, because that's a more reasonable explanation than I expect to be forthcoming otherwise. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:32, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

• ArbCom is chatting about this. We do not (yet) see evidence of a compromised account, and while I can't speak for the whole committee, the facts don't seem to warrant an emergency desysop. For now we should wait for Wtmitchell to respond; if there's any more odd activity we will reconsider an emergency desysop. Drmies (talk) 17:55, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
• NA com Is there any evidence of this user being reported to a noticeboard or in some manner as to get Withcmell's attention? L3X1 (distant write) 18:51, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Not that I've been able to find. I had a look in the history at WP:AIV since yesterday and on Wtmitchell's talk page. It could be he's watching one of the pages AusLondoner edited, I don't think we can check that. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:24, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

I can! <puts on his cool h4ck3r sunglasses and starts typing random gibberish on his keyboard at 10,000wpm while techno music blares in the background and random windows open and close all over his screen>

In all seriousness, I think this is pretty well settled. I believe there's a good chance their account was compromised, but all this admin attention is plenty to prevent further disruption if that is the case. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:27, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

• The weird thing is, I can't see a single edit in AusLondoner's contribs that is deserving of even a warning, let alone a block. There are no warnings on AusLondoner's talkpage. I think this will have to go to ArbCom regardless, because their account being compromised is the least worst situation here. Black Kite (talk) 19:50, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
• Way back in my Wiki-career, pretty much all I di was vandal fighting. It can really skew your perception of things if you only deal with people who are here to do harm, you can find ourself making stupid mistakes because you jumped to the conclusion that someone was acting in bad faith when in retrospect it is obvious they were not and you completely over reacted. I would suggest it is possible that is what happened here, resulting in this completely unjustified block. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:02, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

• Well yes, but (a) you don't block a regular contributor (or indeed anyone save for obvious vandalism etc.) before at least warning them, and (b) they hadn't done anything wrong anyway. It's really bizarre. Black Kite (talk) 20:17, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

I was trying to explain rather than excuse. This is obviously a bad block, I'm just not convinced it was the result of a compromised account. (My one and only block occurred when I did something someone thought was "out of character" and the next thing I know I'm not only blocked but globally locked out, luckily it was resolved quickly) Beeblebrox (talk) 20:47, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

The fact that Wtmichell has not had any overlapping edits with AusLondonder leads me in the opposite direction in regards to a conclusion about why this happened. It was also already established that the actual owner of the possibly compromised account was editing from a public location. Adding the fact that they have not editing a single time since the ban in question, adds to the already overwhelming possibility that the account has been compromised. We do not even know for sure if the account is currently logged on, or off. Or at least it hasn't been addressed yet. Boomer Vial^{Holla! We gonna ball!} 20:51, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

I still say we wait. If we decide here that the account is compromised, that calls for a global lock, which means any chance for the blocking admin to comment on-wiki is out the window. We know that arbcom is aware of it and watching as well, there's little chance if the account is compromised that it could get away with much before drawing their attention. (and I note that according to the "local time" indicator on their talk page, it is currently 5AM where they are) Beeblebrox (talk) 20:57, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

What about the option for a level-1 procedure?, as brought up by Ivanvector? Boomer Vial^{Holla! We gonna ball!} 21:08, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

I emailed arbcom-l about that a few hours ago, not long after my first post in this thread; Drmies is an arb and responded here that they're on it. Presumably they're doing what they feel is appropriate. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 21:13, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

I doubt that it's a compromised account, unless it's been compromised by someone who knows WP, because of the block rationale (including a reference to WP:ENGVAR). I also doubt that it's an WP:EUI issue, as they posted this eloquent message only 2 hours previously. Their interaction analysis throws up nothing [267]. As I say, it's very odd. Black Kite (talk) 21:55, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

2 hours is more than enough for various substances to have quite a significant influence. But we have no evidence either way, so this is all speculation. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:28, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Very strange, indeed. Nothing in the archived talk pages for Wtmitchell concerning AusLondonder, either. Boomer Vial^{Holla! We gonna ball!} 22:33, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

(a) you don't block a regular contributor (or indeed anyone save for obvious vandalism etc.) before at least warning them why waste the time on a warning they're never going to se eor heed? Determining AGF vs ABF is dangerous work, but in cases of drive by vandalism warning are pointless. And as I have seen VOA indeffed after one edit, I would not consider it strange if a block was dropped w/o prior interaction, I've "argued" with admins over this on AIV a couple times. Not saying that AusLondoner is a Drive by or VOA, but it's not totally weird for this to happen. If you checked the 15 year global block log I'm sure you'll find a dozen or so such un-prefaced blocks a year in there. L3X1 (distant write) 02:06, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Reiterating Drmies' comment that Arbcom (currently night shift) is aware. Personal opinion that we aren't at the Level I procedure threshold of obviously compromised, or is intentionally and actively using advanced permissions to cause harm in a rapid or apparently planned fashion (emphasis added). Presently waiting to see if they either resume editing and/or offer an explanation; or if it becomes clear this isn't likely to occur. -- Euryalus (talk) 02:57, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Response by Wtmitchell

RESPONSE I seem to have unintentionally kicked over a hornet's nest here. Let me describe from my perspective how this came about.

• First, some background: As mentioned by ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants above, I am currently located in Romblon, Romblon, internet connectivity from here is really bad. I still try to review my WP watchlist daily and perhaps do some editing and a little WP:Huggle vandalwatching, though.
• Yesterday, after doing a few edits, I took a look at my watchlist before putting WP aside for the day, saw this edit by AusLondonder to the Prostitution in the Philippines article listed there, took a look at the diff, and saw that the edit changed the spelling of a word from Labor to Labour with an edit summary saying, "per WP:BRINT". BRINT is not a familiar WPacronym to me, so I clicked on the wikilink and didn't see any relevant guidance there. I looked at AusLondonder's then-recent contribs and saw a series of rapid-fire edits (looking again, I see 9 edits in the 5 minutes preceding the edit which had caught my eye in my watchlist), some with edit summaries wikilinking BRINT. I looked at a couple of these edits and saw that they changed word spellings from American to British English.
• The edit which had caught my eye looked like a WP:ENGVAR flout and, if this was one of an in-progress rapid series of such edits, it looked like cleanup might be a lot of work. I placed a short block to shortstop this series of suspicious-looking edits with a terse explanation in the block summary. I chose the block duration pretty arbitrarily, thinking that I would get back to it and either remove the block or lengthen it once I had a chance to look more thoroghly at the edits in that series and/or to discuss this with AusLondonder. I was in the process of adding a section on user AusLondonder's talk page to explain the block and to open a discussion there when my internet connectivity vanished. I was unable to open that discussion or to take a more liesurely look at past edits in the series.
• Checking WP this morning (at the internet cafe, as my apartment still had no connectivity), I saw notification on my talk page about this discussion (thanks, BrownHairedGirl, Beeblebrox, Drmies). I was able to open this discussion section for editing. Working through connectivity which comes and goes, it has taken me some hours to put this response together.

In hindsight and in light of discussion above, it seems clear I that pulled the trigger on the block too quickly, even with the situation as I saw it being likely a fast-moving series of vandalizations. I agree with the unblock and thank BrownHairedGirl for doing that. An attempt at discussion on AusLondonder's talk page ought to have been my first move. My connectivity disappearing in the middle of such a discussion would have caused confusion, but nothing like the furor above.

Looking at just a few of AusLondonder's edits around the time of the edit which caught my eye, it still looks to me as if ENGVAR is being flouted. [268], [269], [270], and others all mention BRINT in the ES and look questionable to me. Other of his edits I looked at which mention WP:TIES instead of BRINT look less questionable.

Further comments? Suggestions? Admonishments? Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 04:48, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Do you agree with others that this was a bad block, even though from your initial perspective it seemed warranted? A {{whale}} is certainly in order at the very least. EvergreenFir (talk) 05:06, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Also, did you not read the discussion above noting that the edits changing the proper name International Labour Organization to its proper spelling (which mixes the UK "labour" with the US "organization") are not in any way problematic? Because the three diffs you list as "still looks to me as if ENGVAR is being flouted" are doing only that. Nothing is being flouted, and AusLondonder deserves an actual apology, not just "he's guilty but I convicted him too quickly". —David Eppstein (talk) 05:25, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Just for the record, http://www.ilo.org/global/lang--en/index.htm shows the organization's official name in three languages - "français" and "español" links at the top right. Btw, "organization" isn't US-only - see Oxford spelling. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:18, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

• Wtmitchell, I could more easily understand the process and rationale you described had you been dealing with a serial violator who has been warned before, by you or by someone else. Drmies (talk) 05:21, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

• Agree, we don't block users in good standing for that(!). I'm concerned that the gravity of this eludes you. El_C 05:43, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
• I'm also concerned that a 12-hour block was placed 16 hours after AusLondonder's last edit. When would a block like that ever make sense? (I'd also suggest that if your internet connection is so flaky that you don't have time to do an admin job properly, including the communications part, you shouldn't be doing any admin jobs at all.) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:18, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

• @Boing: when I spot a perceived problem editor, but lack the time and/or stable connectivity to do the due diligence required of a admin, I leave a quick note for another admin, or at ANI, or I leave it until I can devote the required time. Wtmitchell should have followed one of those options. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:50, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

• Reply to Wtmitchell's response:

The more I look at your reply, the less persuasive it seems. I see a cascade of poor judgements. AFAICS, sound judgement at any one of these 6 steps would have taken you off the path to a block:

1. Perceived damage. I agree that AusLondonder's use of the wrong link in edit summaries didn't help to describe the purpose of the edits, and that the edit summary would have been better as something like "correct spelling of proper nmame International Labour Organization". However, the edit[271] which you first spotted (to Prostitution in the Philippines) is very clearly a single-purpose edit, altering the spelling of a linked proper name: International Labour Organization.
   It would have taken you a matter of seconds to follow the link and verify that AusLondonder had accurately corrected the spelling. Why did you not do so?
   (PS And why did you not do so before writing your response here, where you persist in your mistaken claim that these edits were wrong? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:23, 5 April 2017 (UTC))
2. Perceived rapidity. You note 9 edits in the 5 minutes preceding the edit which had caught my eye in my watchlist.
   Actually, that's not particularly rapid-fire, and rolling them back would have been very easy. Given that they were all single-issue edits, it is highly unlikely that any further edits would have impeded the use of undo, so even after delay of a few days, reversion would have been simple and quick.
3. Perceived urgency. You note if this was one of an in-progress rapid series of such edits, it looked like cleanup might be a lot of work.
   Your use of "in progress" is crucial here: the edits concerned were 20 hours old, so this was definitely not in-progress. A look at AusLondonder's subsequent edits (see article-space contribs list) shows that by time you were checking, AusLondonder had moved on to other things, so this wasn't even an intermittent on-going problem. It was over.
4. Checking the editor's experience. If you use WP:POPUPS, a quick mouseover of Auslondoner's linked username would have shown you that this is an editor ragistered for two years, with over 18,000 edits. In other words, this is not a newly-registered vandal; it is someone with a long-term commitment to en.wp. Regular contributors deserve better than a shoot-on-sight response.
5. Checking the editor's history. One click from the links at the top of AusLondonder's contribs list would have taken you to their block log, where there was only one block, two years ago. A futher mouseover of the username to re-check dates woukd have shown you that this was 3 days after AusLondonder registered their account. In other words, this editor had been clean for two years after a one-off error as a newbie.
6. Warning before a block. Per WP:BEFOREBLOCK, a warning is appropriate when dealing with an editor in good standing who is acting in good faith. Even if your cascade of misjudgements had led you to believe that there was a real problem here, a further leap was required to assume bad faith. So your first step should have been to warn. You didn't do that.
7. Threatening indef-block. Despite your complete lack of engagement with AusLondonder, your block threatened an indefinite block as a follow-up. At this stage, even your cascade of misreadings of the situation had given you had absolutely no basis for considering that this was anything other than a misunderstanding of one minor style issue, so you had no basis whatsoever for threatening that an indef-block might possibly be necessary.
8. Not communicating after your block. I accept your statement that you lost internet connectivity soon after imposing the block. However, as an admin for nearly 8 years, you must be aware of the importance of explaining your actions, so why did you not take prompt steps to find another internet connection to allow you post even a brief follow-up message explaining the block?

I find it very unsatisfactory that an admin would make such a long series of basic errors before rushing to block.

I find it even more troubling that when reviewing your actions at ANI, you still seem to be unable to acknowledge anymost of this cascade of errors.

And while I welcome your thanks to me for the unblock, I find it downright rude of you to acknowledge that the unblock was appropriate, but still fail to apologise to AusLondonder. I could forgive all the incompetence set out above if you had at least said a big, unequivocal "sorry" to the editor you blocked. But you didn't. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:35, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

• I don't intend to pile on, but I do have a couple of thoughts to share. When I'm pressed for time, on a flaky internet connection, or stuck using a tablet, I find that there are very few things that require administrative action right now. Like yesterday, for example, I would have unblocked AusLondoner myself, but not having the time to properly write up my reasoning, I left the unblock request for another admin, or for when I did have the time to return to it. Likewise, I frequently see something that needs doing while scanning my watchlist on an iPad, but not wanting to risk "fat fingering" a mistake, I'll wait until I'm in front of a computer to take action. As seen here, a poor internet connection can combine both lack of time and a risk of errors, so in my opinion, that's really not the time to be taking administrative action. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 12:29, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
• Comment I can't add a great deal to what has already been eloquently written above. My thanks to every single editor who has devoted their time to this. As already stated, fixing the spelling of the official name of the International Labour Organization does not flout WP:ENGVAR. That was the first basic mistake made. The reason I cited WP:BRINT is because the shortcut takes you to a section of WP:REDIRECT which states "Spelling errors and other mistakes should be corrected. Don't link to a misspelled redirect". I don't accept this could possibly have been perceived by Wtmitchell as a "in-progress rapid series of such edits" or "likely a fast-moving series of vandalizations" as there was a significant time difference between my last edits on the matter and the 12-hour block. Wtmitchell failed to follow the basic steps set out at WP:BEFOREBLOCK. My thoughts are that no editor should be using administrative tools if they are unable to use such tools in a cool-headed and competent manner. Let alone being unable to explain or justify the use of such tools to other editors. AusLondonder (talk) 16:12, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

• I think we can all agree that a "block first, figure out why later" mentality is not something we want to see in an admin. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:20, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
  • I wish it was just the trigger-happiness. All of the layers of misjudgement I set out above, and the misjudged response here when challenged, are not qualities I want in an admin. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:28, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
• Two quick things: I do agree that judgment is at stake here. BrownHairedGirl's points are convincing, though we should realize that this is, AFAIK, the first time that Wtmitchell has gotten accused of such misjudgment in a long career of service. The other thing is that there is nothing to do here for ArbCom anymore; it is in the hands of the community. Thanks to all, including AusLondonder and Wtmitchell. Drmies (talk) 17:41, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
• I'd add, and this is relevant to all admins, that one should never make a block - especially one of a seasoned editor - and then disappear. And this is always likely to happen if one is on a flaky Internet connection. In such circumstances, I would suggest that using your admin tools at all is a very poor idea. Black Kite (talk) 18:17, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
• I can't add much to what's already been said. This was a bad block but an intentional one, not a compromised account. Yay for security I guess? The remaining question seems to be whether this sequence of misjudgements was so bad as to warrant revocation of rights. I agree with Drmies that this seems to be a first misstep over a long period of service, and I recognize that Wtmitchell's internet connection is currently extremely intermittent, but as yet there has been no apology for the sequence of events leading up to this thread. Noting that this discussion up to this point has been primarily amongst administrators, is it evident that Wtmitchell has lost the trust of the community? Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:34, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
• Wtmitchell made a bad block - a very bad block - but he has explained why he did it, and acknowledged that it was wrong. There has been no abuse of admin tools here, malicious or otherwise. Trout and move on. Hopefully Wtmitchell will have learned lots and won't repeat this behaviour again - don't forget this is the first time they have been admonished, AFAIK. GiantSnowman 18:38, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
  • AFAICS, Wtmitchell has not acknowledged that the block was wrong, merely claimed that it was premature ("too quickly"). And the response still doesn't spot the simple core of this: that the edits which they objected to were actually correct. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:54, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
    • As Tide rolls says below, an explicit apology to AusLondoner would go a long way. But is it clear they know they've cocked up. GiantSnowman 18:58, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
• Comment. GiantSnowman types faster than me. Wtmitchell has acknowledged their mistake. If there's no pattern existing then I see no reason for further action. An apology to a conscientious, dedicated editor (AusLondonder) caught in the mistake would be something I would hope to see. Tiderolls 18:49, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Agree with all that. this was clearly a serious error in judgement, and that has now been acknowledged. While an apology would be nice we can't force it and shouldn't try. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:41, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

You are all right. I made a precipitous judgemental error here and rushed improperly into action based on that judgemental error. My improper action caused all of you to spend time on this. Although this discussion has certainly been instructive for me, the time spent on it would probably have been spent more productively elsewhere had I not diverted your attention by improperly placing this block. I have apologized to AusLondonder on his talk page, and I apologize to all of you here. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 00:41, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

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

Afd disruption by an Editor

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 editor disrupts afd and doing disruptive reverts...

Link : https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/773602342

(Kkforteu (talk) 12:01, 6 April 2017 (UTC))

Do you mean this? https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion&diff=773602342 at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Futsal at the 2018 Summer Youth Olympics – Boys' qualification? Andy Dingley (talk)

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

IP bogus 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=Logarithmic_derivative&diff=773086794&oldid=770024992

Please block the respective IP --Mathmensch (talk) 09:53, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Mathmensch: You need WP:AIV; but the user has not demonstrated any major vandalism, so I see it is unlikely the user will be blocked. (Non-admin comment) Nördic Nightfury 09:57, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, there haven't been any edits from this IP in a week, and the last warning is weeks old. Thanks for reporting the vandalism, Mathmensch, but we can't really do anything about it right now. Next time you see an IP editor vandalize an article, you can use Twinkle to easily revert it and warn the vandal. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 10:15, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

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

Talk:Terry Bean is repeatedly being sanitized to remove embarrasing material.

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 just noticed that there is a substantial recent history of the Talk page for the article Terry Bean being "sanitized" (really, vandalized) to repeatedly remove commentary in that page. Further, the article itself has been protected to prevent edits. My recent edit hasn't yet been vandalized in that way yet, but no doubt it will be soon. 71.36.114.245 (talk) 07:45, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

I think it's adorable that you've had numerous editors tell you what you are trying to do is a BLP violation, and your first thought was to run to ANI to get even more eyes on it and make it even less likely that your vandalism would stick. You aren't very clever are you? --Tarage (talk) 08:22, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Tarage - Lets not engage in uncivilized responses like that :-). It's not needed, and it doesn't resolve the matter in a positive way. There's no reason for it -- if what you're saying is right, we need to deny recognition. Making responses like that give trolls exactly what they want. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 08:34, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

I don't understand what you mean at all. Removing commentary and content that isn't written in a neutral point of view is not vandalism. You added a discussion to the article's talk page here, which is fine. I just fail to see what the problem is here... ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 08:38, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Apparently a sock has been going on (and off) re: child molestation for many many moons. Their comments were deleted because they are a sock, not because of content. Involved editors should be contacted for an explanation of their deeds. L3X1 (distant write) 13:16, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

I have to say, sock or not, they have somewhat of a point. Their wording, making a direct affirmative claim, is a BLP violation but their source is good. WW is renowned for their investigative journalism and actually nabbed a Pulitzer for it. I would say the story deserves a properly attributed sentence or two. Capeo (talk) 15:15, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Why don't we ask editor Ebyabe why he did it? https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ATerry_Bean&type=revision&diff=760363427&oldid=760349355 Curiously, Ebyabe does not appear to have ever before edited the article Terry Bean, at least back until June 2012. Are there people on WP who simply randomly find articles, or Talk pages, find text, delete it, and then don't bother to explain what they did? They must have had a reason, right? 71.36.114.245 (talk) 04:00, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

I removed a rambling comment that contained no constructive input for article improvement. Almost three months ago. Does that help clear things up? --‖ Ebyabe ^talk - Opposites Attract ‖ 05:19, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

The IP's comment has not been deleted. I have offered a suggestion on how they may resolve their issue. Cheers. --‖ Ebyabe ^talk - Repel All Boarders ‖ 05:31, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

What's your definition of "rambling"? That editor merely complained about how text was being removed from a Talk page. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ATerry_Bean&type=revision&diff=760349355&oldid=758262610 And you referred to "their issue", as if the deletion of the only material on a Talk page is somehow ONLY one person's issue. That text was not libelous or irrelevant, and it was obviously not vandalism. And it was clearly intended to spark a discussion. And you still didn't explain why you, with no prior involvement in the article Terry Bean, just happened to show up to delete what was, at that time, the only comment on an otherwise-blank Talk page. Who asked you to do that? That's the only explanation I can see. Also, you mislead by claiming that "The IP's comment has not been deleted". You said, on a comment on my Talk page, that it has been ARCHIVED. Archived is the approximate equivalent of putting this month's utility bill into the attic, in a large box, piled high. Who, do you expect, will bother to look for that archived material? How will they know it exists, in the first place? And, please note, I notice you did that within TWO HOURS of the other editor's addition. Sounds like you considered it an emergency!! Can't allow others to speak their mind? 71.36.114.245 (talk) 17:01, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

I've removed some more WP:BLP issues from the article talkpage. As a general comment, everyone should feel free to discuss potential edits to the article there, but please don't insert personal opinion on guilt or innocence, or waste time disputing the court outcome. Everyone is welcome to their views but an encyclopedia article talkpage isn't the place. And because it seems necessary to say: I'm not an American, don't care about US politics and have never previously heard of Terry Bean. -- Euryalus (talk) 01:38, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

My complaint has gone pretty much as I expected: A heaping dose of blame-the-victim/blame-the-complainer, add some "let's ignore the complaint", mix in some "the complainer must be a bad guy", and then they ignored what amounted to an admission (by lack of objection) by user Ebyabe who failed to explain why he just happened to show up and erase the only text in the Talk Page. There has been absolutely no study of the history of the Terry Bean article, since November 2014, and a pattern of people removing well-sourced material that happens to be embarrassing to Bean. Can we actually address the problem here? No more "blame the complainer", okay? 71.36.114.245 (talk) 19:37, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

The problem is that multiple experienced editors who are well aware of applying Wikipedia's BLP on articles (and talk pages) have to keep removing information from the article and the talk page because a particularly persistent IP wants to slant the article to indicate that someone who has not been convicted of a crime is in fact guilty. Wikipedia is not a soap box, we don't care about some random persons opinion of their guilt. We are not here to discuss their guilt or innocence. And we are certainly not going to slant an article of a living person by implying wrongdoing. So I suggest you take the hint and find something else to occupy you. Only in death does duty end (talk) 19:58, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

For many months, OJ Simpson was accused of the murder of two people. Ultimately, the jury found "not guilty", but that does not mean that the events before and after the indictment, the trial, etc were not notable in OJ's article. Follow me? Did anybody have the gall to try to remove that material on OJ's article "OJ Simpson Murder Case", based solely on the claim that he was found "not guilty"? I conclude that if anything, the slant in the Terry Bean article is that some people have been trying to remove well-sourced material that might lead a reader to believe that Bean was in fact guilty. Nothing wrong with that, at least if you're not a Terry Bean fan. So, think again: Let's include the full, well-documented events, even if there was no "guilty" verdict. And remember, there was no "not guilty" verdict either: The charges were dismissed solely because the victim in that case refused to testify, staying away from the state of Oregon to avoid a subpoena. Bean and his attorney negotiated a $240,000 payoff which ultimately wasn't approved by the judge. That was well-publicized. Does that sound like Bean was truly innocent? 71.36.114.245 (talk) 19:00, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

It's not Wikipedia's responsibility to judge whether a person was innocent or not, period. Claiming a person was guilty, when in fact they were found not guilty is a direct violation of our policy on living people. You need to stop and drop the stick now. RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:04, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

STOP misrepresenting what I am doing!!! I am not "claiming a person was guilty". I am not "judging" whether a person was innocent or not. I am in favor of including in the article material that has been repeatedly excluded by others, well-sourced material which reveals what actually happened, rather than concealing this material. You, like others, are willing to misrepresent repeatedly to get what you want. 71.36.114.245 (talk) 06:29, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

You could accept that quite a lot of expererienced people disagree with you. Where no one has been convicted of a crime, we almost always have minimal coverage in line with reliable sources. "material which reveals what actually happened" is unlikely to be in line with WP:NPOV given the subject is *not* a criminal, has not been convicted of anything etc etc. If one editor says there are issues, then their opinion may not be accurate depending on the situation. If multiple editors all take a look and say 'yes this is a problem' you need to learn to let go. Making arguments that 'because there is no not guilty verdict it doesnt mean he isnt guilty' is never ever going to fly on wikipedia. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:27, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

You are continuing to misrepresent what I said. You are ignoring the fact that I am using the OJ Simpson case as an example of good WP coverage DESPITE the fact that he was eventually found "not guilty" by a jury. If your "logic" were followed, nearly everything within the "OJ Murder Trial" article would have to be removed, solely because he was eventually found not guilty. You also screwed up when you said, "You could accept that quite a lot of expererienced people disagree with you." I haven't made an edit (to the article, anyway) yet! You forgot that, huh! What they disagree with is what they fear that I (and others) will eventually do: Cover the Terry Bean case as well as the OJ Simpson Murder Trial article currently does. Note: This doesn't mean that I anticipate the Terry Bean article will be as long as the OJ Simpson Murder Trial article currently is! Not even close. But that's solely because there was a huge amount more of reporting and discussion involved with OJ, in comparison with Terry Bean. But right now, the Terry Bean article's coverage consists solely of an announcement of the existence of a case, followed by another sentence where Bean gets to misrepresent why the case was eventually dismissed. You will not be able to explain why there aren't at least a few paragraphs of detailed information between these two components. In fact, I think that the article has no business including Bean's self-serving statement, except perhaps to eventually showcase a delusional nature: No reports so far suggest that Bean was accidently, incorrectly, or negligently charged. Multiple statements by the victim were made, and were never retracted. The charges were eventually dropped, but solely because they could not serve the victim with a subpoena, so they could not bring a case to trial. That's because the American justice system requires that an accused person be entitled to confront his accuser: To ask questions of him, to determine if he's lying, etc. Ordinarily, in many crimes, we think that the victim is willing to testify. But this specific crime required the participation of the victim in a very embarrassing event, and due to his then-age (15 years old) he was legally unable to give consent to that. If the prosecution could have been brought solely on the statements made by the 15-year-old victim, that could have occurred quite well. There were plenty of well-sourced reports that could be cited. The problem simply is that there are people who don't want this material included. You too, apparently. 71.36.114.245 (talk) 16:53, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

The informtion has been added by another user. [272] --‖ Ebyabe ^talk - Attract and Repel ‖ 18:08, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

I don't mean to nitpick, but you refer to it as "the information", as if we are talking about one specific, limited piece of "information". One fact. I am talking, instead, about many well-sourced facts. Yes, some edits have been made, but the article is far from containing all the material it could reasonably contain, now. 71.36.114.245 (talk) 18:44, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

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

Changing !votes at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elliott Moglica

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.

---

99.255.160.85 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) is one of the IP's trying to stack !votes at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elliott Moglica, also went as far to change my !vote. It is also agreed all IP involved in the AfD are in fact the page subject. Mlpearc Phone (open channel) 23:59, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Closed as Delete. WP:SNOW --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:27, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

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

Johntth

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.

---

Johntth (User talk:Johntth) appears to be ignoring repeated warnings about spamming and edit warring. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:03, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

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

Time again to rangeblock the dog and rapper vandal

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 Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Dog and rapper vandal has been ramping up lately, and I think we need three rangeblocks.

• 172.56.28.0 to 172.56.29.256
• 208.54.90.0 to 208.54.90.256
• And something appropriate to stop the 2607:FB90 addesses he's been using. Binksternet (talk) 03:55, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

All done, for a year, with talk page access disabled, per this. There may well be collateral damage, but that's a small price to pay in this case IMO. Graham87 08:59, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Also, IP addresses go up to 255, not 256. Graham87 09:00, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes, 0-255 means 256 numbers. I made that mistake for a long time. #bad@division L3X1 (distant write) 16:56, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

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

WP:REALNAME

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.

---

Resolved

 – user soft blocked Beeblebrox (talk) 00:39, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Apparently not quite resolved. Beeblebrox (talk) 15:56, 5 April 2017 (UTC) Re-re-resolved Andrevan@ 22:40, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Sk-gorka (talk · contribs · deleted · filter log · SUL · Google) • (block · soft · promo · cause · bot · hard · spam · vandal) This was declined at UAA, and so here we are. I'm not really concerned about whether this account actually is the subject, but I am concerned about the fact that we have CNN, and Talking Points Memo speculating publicly that it is in fact Sebastian Gorka. I'm personally assuming it's actually not, which is precisely the reason to block under WP:REALNAME, the purpose of which is to act as a precaution against damaging impersonation. I'm also not concerned that it's stale, because assuming this probably isn't the subject, and considering that one of those stories was published today, it's more conservative to block rather than risk the possibility that they get wind of the attention, and the fact that reporters from TPN and CNN are definitely keeping an eye on the main article, and decide to do something intentionally to garner media coverage. Overall, the safer bet is to block and let them explain, or not, in which case no harm done. TimothyJosephWood 22:42, 4 April 2017 (UTC) I'm normally a bit of a stickler about the "must have recent edits" rule, but I think we can WP:IAR on this one, and I have blocked the user pending verification that it is in fact Mr. Gorka. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:05, 4 April 2017 (UTC) Works for me. Let's close then. I have a pot of tea on for anyone interested. TimothyJosephWood 23:29, 4 April 2017 (UTC) Works for me, too. Thanks to both of you. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 00:12, 5 April 2017 (UTC) I have made the block settings more aggressive since it seems to be clear WP:SPAM. Andrevan@ 09:14, 5 April 2017 (UTC) @Andrevan:Uh... and you revoked talk page and email access? Because....? Could you update the block template to reflect this drastically different block settings, so they at least know how to appeal the block should they wish to? (or just remove those questionable aspects of the block settings as they seem unjustified) Beeblebrox (talk) 16:00, 5 April 2017 (UTC) Request for uninvolved admin After looking at User:Andrevan's contribs, it is clear they tend to make a few edits and then go inactive for days or weeks at a time, so I'm concerned that these unjustified changes to the block settings will just remain in place unless and until they come back and happen to agree that it was unjustified. (I also note this is the first time they have blocked anyone in over three years.) The hardening of the block, I don't agree with it I but I suppose it falls within the realm of admin discretion. The revocation of the talk page and email access seems completely arbitrary and not based on anything at all. I would reverse these actions myself, but I'm concerned that as the original blocking admin I would run afoul of WP:WHEEL by doing so. I therefore ask that a previously uninvolved admin look into this and take action as appropriate. Thanks. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:04, 5 April 2017 (UTC) On a technical point I don't think this would run afoul of WP:WHEEL as the other admin only modified your block, they didn't revert of undo your admin actions. I also don't see any reason as to why talk page and email access needed to be revoked; this is only done if there is a history of abuse.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 20:13, 5 April 2017 (UTC) As Andrevan has made a total of six edits outside of their user space on en-wiki in all of 2017 and is therefore unlikely to respond here in due time, I've restored the original block settings.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 20:20, 5 April 2017 (UTC) Gah, I had a long paragraph written up justifying why *I* was comfortable restoring the settings, but then real life intruded for 5 minutes, and Ponyo snuck in to get all the glory. Anyway, concur with restoring original settings, and I think I concur about Ponyo's interpretation of WHEEL, too. But it doesn't matter because this could be considered a consensus of sorts. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:33, 5 April 2017 (UTC) They don't call me the Keyser Söze of admins for nothing.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 20:57, 5 April 2017 (UTC) I tend to take a "better safe than sorry" approach to wheel warring as it can be so harmful. Thanks all for your attention to this. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:35, 5 April 2017 (UTC) I'm OK with this although I think a hardblock is merited for a purely promotional account. I don't have a specific point of the talk page/email restriction, I kind of just checked all the boxes and wasn't being particularly discerning there, so my bad on that. Also, keep in mind that while I may not be very active, I do still get email notification of talk page posts and mentions. At any rate, I would ask that those involved in this discussion consider upping this to a hardblock given the spam/self-promotional intent of this account. Andrevan@ 21:13, 5 April 2017 (UTC) I'm not particularly concerned about it either way. The article has some pretty active page watchers, so if they create another account and edit in the same manner it certainly won't unnoticed, and the important thing is that we made the responsible block as far as the media v. our policies are concerned. Also, just in the unlikely case that this is actually the subject, hard blocking might have some side effects, no? TimothyJosephWood 21:27, 5 April 2017 (UTC) My understanding is that this is a character who is trying to improve his own credentials. He calls himself a counter-terrorism expert, but others argue that he is not a counter-terrorism expert. Aside from the NPOV of the article, if there are people with his IP address trying to insert self-promotional content into the encyclopedia on other articles etc, I would want a block to catch that so we can know about it. If we actually accidentally block the White House or whatever, that is also to me, kind of a feature and not a bug, since we'd then know that White House operatives are trying to insert POV into articles (theoretically). Either way, a hardblock seems the logical move, that's just my opinion. Andrevan@ 21:31, 5 April 2017 (UTC) Four months after their last edit? I could only justify my own block because of the press attention and the possible real-world consequences of an impersonator. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:34, 5 April 2017 (UTC) Yeah, apathetic as I am, I'm fairly with Bb on this one. The block was to prevent potential but not necessarily imminent damage, but damage nonetheless which could have not-unrealistically ended up in a lawsuit if the story somehow continued to grow. TimothyJosephWood 21:37, 5 April 2017 (UTC) We can agree to disagree and I'm not going to lose sleep over it, but if this user realized editing under his own name was a dumb idea, and is still editing to insert POV or COI-related info under a sockpuppet account, wouldn't a hardblock fix that problem? Don't we have a responsibility to be proactive in a case when we already have evidence of POV/COI/SPAM editing? Andrevan@ 21:43, 5 April 2017 (UTC) We can agree to disagree Oh definitely. FWIW, I took probably too many minutes to combine the fame and spam block templates to accommodate the spam block. I'm not losing any sleep either, and I don't think it's an issue worth debating at length if there's even moderate disagreement. I'd just as well see the whole thing closed. TimothyJosephWood 21:54, 5 April 2017 (UTC) Whatever we may think of the editing and who the editor might be, the person whom the article is about is a BLP subject. The account in question hasn't edited for four months and has only one edit in nine months. I don't think it is necessary to discuss its editing further, unless and until there is either actual evidence of socking, and/or an unblock request. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:50, 5 April 2017 (UTC) Well, if you look at the page history of Sebastian Gorka, there are anonymous editors both besmirching Gorka's reputation and protecting it (by removing and adding terms like "self-proclaimed"). I wonder if a different approach would be to protect or semi-protect the article, given its media attention and BLP status. Rather than acting unilaterally, perhaps someone else here could second that and protect the article in some way. Andrevan@ 21:59, 5 April 2017 (UTC) Can I also add, if you take a look at User:Larvatus v. Prodeo/sandbox, you have someone working on another Gorka article, this Gorka's father, who on a cursory Google may not be generally notable. I'm not necessarily saying this is a sock puppet or a meat puppet, but an autoblock of the original account would certainly reveal that if it were the case. I just think we're handling this with a bit of light touch considering the obvious conflicts of interest and vanity involved. Andrevan@ 22:05, 5 April 2017 (UTC) Yeah. I'm watching. Have been for a while. TimothyJosephWood 22:09, 5 April 2017 (UTC) Actually, is it even possible to autoblock an account that hasn't edited in several months? Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:07, 5 April 2017 (UTC) Point taken, if it was a dynamic IP that was changing more frequently than that. The software allows the autoblock, it may not catch anything if the IP has changed. A static IP, though, would be caught. Maybe a checkuser would investigate since I think there is a credible possibility of socking. Andrevan@ 22:12, 5 April 2017 (UTC) But there is also the time limitation on how long IP information is retained. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:15, 5 April 2017 (UTC) And  CheckUser is not for fishing anyway. Ypu're not doing yourself any favors by trying to retroactively justify this poorly thought out block. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:17, 5 April 2017 (UTC) You can call it fishing or be snippy about this, but it seems pretty obvious to me that something fishy IS happening here. Maybe it's just that the entire Hungarian nationalist movement is defending this guy. I don't know. I do think we have a responsibility to pursue this more than we are. You are entitled to your own opinion, no need to make it personal. As you said, I'm an admin from the "cowboy" days where we were happy to aggressively block spammers, I don't see the merit of tiptoeing around it, but I'm not going to get into a wheel war. I've stated my opinion, if I'm standing alone, so be it. Andrevan@ 22:21, 5 April 2017 (UTC) Given that Beeblebrox has protected the article, and I'm willing to forgive him for templating a regular, if we're keeping this discussion open on my account, I suppose it can be closed. As Newyorkbrad points out, there may not be a technical basis to pursue this. Andrevan@ 22:36, 5 April 2017 (UTC) (edit conflict)There's nothing more mysterious going on here than a reaction to the article being mentioned in the press drawing extra attention from POV-pushing users. (I note neither outlet has updated their story to reflect the block) As you have seen, I protected the page for a few days. At the rate we're going there should have been at least three new political scandals to distract the masses by then. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:39, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

I Don't think it takes a royal proclomation from ArbCom to figure out that 30/500s are cheap regarding anything that has to do with the Orange One. L3X1 (distant write) 22:42, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

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

Little violations of MOS in rap related articles

24.178.29.47 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) 24.178.2.82 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) 66.169.145.202 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) Somebody is using multiple accounts for disruptive editing in rap related articles in recent months. They don't seem to have any concept of proper grammar or Manual of Style, and they are continuing to be disruptive and change the prose on articles, such as Hurricane Chris (rapper), if you look at the edit history of this article, these IPs keep coming back changing the grammar all over again as a sandbox. I believe these edits are made by same editor because their grammar is terrible, and their changes are disruptive as they keep making them and add nothing constructive.

Here are the examples of these IPs edits on other articles in the past months.

• [273]
• [274]
• [275]

These IPs also have a bad habit of linking common phrases like "rapper", "recording artist", "producer" or any other common words to articles, especially in the lead section, it doesn't really need to be linked because a majority of readers would already understand the basic concept. Linking common words are a violation of Wikipedia's guidelines (WP:OVERLINKING), please look in to it. Thank you. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 08:08, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Just revert with an edit comment and maybe a talk page comment. I looked at 24.178.2.82's talk page and didn't see any attempt at discussion there either (just a bunch of templates). I see good copyediting from that user so I think it's just a matter of communication. Just explain that we generally don't use multiple links to the same term nearby to each other, since that distracts the reader. I wouldn't put it in terms of the MOS directing us to do anything, since most people don't care about the MOS. 50.0.136.56 (talk) 02:40, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

@50.0.136.56: What did you mean you're didn't see any attempt at discussion. I try to get a response from this editor in 24.178.2.82's talk page right here but didn't get a response, I try again but still didn't a response. And I did left an edit comment here at Finally Famous (Big Sean album), after 24.178.2.82 has unnecessary changes the contents of the article in February this year. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 23:35, 3 April 2017 (UTC)