Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive998

Edit-warring BLPCRIME violations after warnings and a 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.

---

• Greywin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 2018 Freiburg gang rape (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User Greywin was blocked (by me) about a month ago for refusing to engage in a discussion when this page was protected (also by me) and engaging in personal attacks instead. Having returned from the block, they are again disrupting this article's talk page with novel interpretations of our biographies of living persons policy, and edit-warring to restore info (such as this) which many other users have suggested violates the policy, as it is a clear allegation of crime committed by a living person. It appears they are not going to stop this, and so I am suggesting that Greywin be topic-banned from all articles and discussions about crimes committed or alleged to have been committed by living persons (essentially, topic ban from WP:BLPCRIME-related pages). Or just indeffed. But I'd like this to be a community decision rather than just me blocking them again. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:36, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Oh, and posting the compulsory notice on their talk page reminded me that they've been alerted to the discretionary sanctions on BLPs from the last incident. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:38, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Considering their edit history, a topic ban on BLP crime and an indef might amount to the same thing. As such I will support either remediation; since both will result in this particular WP:RGW issue being resolved about the same. Simonm223 (talk) 19:42, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Users are constantly violating WP:TPNO, editing my posts, removing even sourced material covered by highly reputable sources like Frankfurter Allgemeine. This is no joke anymore, this is MASSIVE CENSORSHIP and a violation of basic WP principles like WP:RS, WP:V, WP:NPOV, freedom of speech and so on. Obviously for reasons of WP:IDON'TLIKEIT.--Greywin (talk) 19:44, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

NON-ADMIN COMMENT As has been repeatedly pointed out to Greywin, undoing violations of our WP:BLP policy is a specified exception to WP:TPNO. --Nat Gertler (talk) 19:52, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

There is no violation of BLP policy. But there is a serious, serious violation of the basic principles which I pointed out.--Greywin (talk) 20:02, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

It's worth noting at this juncture that several of Greywin's edits to this talk page were just revdelled for BLP violations and for copyvio. Simonm223 (talk) 20:04, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

By a small circle of people promoting their common political viewpoint instead of displaying information from WP:RS.--Greywin (talk) 20:12, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

I'm sorry, did you just suggest that Primefac is in a WP:CABAL with me and NatGertler? Just want to be clear. Simonm223 (talk) 20:25, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Don't know what he is. As he didn't write anything and deleted while the discussion is ongoing.--Greywin (talk) 20:31, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Re "Did you just suggest that Primefac is in a CABAL with me and NatGertler?", There Is No Cabal (TINC). We discussed this at the last Cabal meeting, and everyone agreed that There Is No Cabal. An announcement was made in Cabalist: The Official Newsletter of The Cabal making it clear that There Is No Cabal. The words "There Is No Cabal" are in ten-foot letters on the side of the 42-story International Cabal Headquarters, and an announcement that There Is No Cabal is shown at the start of every program on The Cabal Network. If that doesn't convince people that There Is No Cabal, I don't know what will. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:01, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

• Support indef per their comment "MASSIVE CENSORSHIP and a violation of basic WP principles like WP:RS, WP:V, WP:NPOV, freedom of speech and so on". Qualitist (talk) 19:46, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

For what? For bringing in material from Frankfurter Allgemeine, which is deleted on a talk page and for critizing this? This is absurd.--Greywin (talk) 19:50, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

• Support t-ban or indef — For what has already been described and comments like this. Rather obvious this editor cannot be neutral in this area and he has thoroughly demonstrated a bad case of WP:IDHT. BLPcrime is already suffering enough from lack of serious consideration, so another editor inflating that issue does not help the project.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 20:20, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Oh, and the other editors on this topic are neutral? User:Deb for example, hounding me for month, tagging every article by me, if political or not? Or User:Simonm223, who is very obviously acting out of political motivation (according to his user page)? If you would leave it to them to decide what is notable, every article in this topic would have been deleted - as they were placing all of them on AfD. Every article was kept there... But it's ok, settle the score and kill the messenger to get the "balance" or "NPOV" that you want.--Greywin (talk) 20:30, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

• I've indefinitely blocked Greywin. ANI is not on my watchlist, but BLPN is, and I'd made the choice after reviewing their actions there: they continued to hint at and imply on a public page that someone had committed crimes that they have not been convicted of. That is not acceptable. As the conduct was ongoing and involved a living person, I felt a block was needed immediately to contain the damage to a living human being. If ANI decides for a lower sanction, any admin is free to change it in view of the consensus without further consulting me. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:38, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Given the type of articles-in-question, I believe the appropriate phrase might be "Book'em Danno". GoodDay (talk) 20:52, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Or "Wiki 'em, Jimbo!" EEng 01:28, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

I support the decision to indef the user. Given the edits and the user's responses here and in other places, it's clear that the disruption would've continued until this was done. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 04:12, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

His immediate unblock request and comments above are worrisome. Legacypac (talk) 20:43, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

• Support indef because I've complained about this user's inability to comprehend NPOV at the relevant noticeboard, but if anything he has got worse. One has to wonder why he doesn't edit at German Wikipedia but instead spends his time here criticising other editors for "not understanding English". Deb (talk) 10:00, 8 December 2018 (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:List of_bitcoin_forks#Contentious_revert_by_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.

---

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.

Location of dispute

• Talk:List of bitcoin forks#Contentious revert by Primefac (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Fresheneesz (talk · contribs)
• primefac (talk · contribs)
• Praxidicae (talk · contribs)
• Ladislav_Mecir (talk · contribs)
• Jtbobwaysf (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

A number of editors are consistently reverting additions to the page List of bitcoin forks even for additions that are well sourced. Multiple users have complained on the page that too much content has been removed. The users reverting these additions are not giving anywhere near sufficient reasoning for their reverts. After attempting to discuss the issue, most of the users that are reverting these additions simply aren't discussing the issues at all. Specifically, User:primefac and User:Praxidicae only responded a single time to my discussion specifically about their edits, and their responses completely ignored the problem I had with their edits. Those two users have ignored subsequent requests to comment on which they think aren't reliable and why. User:Retimuko has reverted my edits multiple times, and yet hasn't said a word about it on the discussion I created about this.

User:Ladislav_Mecir has been the only person willing to discuss, however he hasn't been very cooperative. His opinion is that the source I chose are not reliable, but he hasn't given me good reasons he thinks that. He chose to focus on the only one, of 8 sources I have to choose from, that is self-published, and only gave reasons that contradicted wikipedia policy. At first, he claimed that self-published sources can't be used at all. Then once I show him that wikipedia policy accepts self-published sources in certain cases, and that this situation met all the criteria to be accepted, he claims that the source isn't giving information about themselves, when it clearly is. When asked to comment on the other sources, which should all be less contentious since they're not self-published, he completely ignored me. This isn't the behavior of someone that wants to ensure sourced quality content on wikipedia.

Key diffs and timeline

• Praxidicae was the first to revert one of my edits, and he did not assume good faith when calling the sources I used "refspam" (which they absolutely are not), and inexplicably references WP:WTAF even tho that page is about redlinks and I did not add any redlinks. If he was talking about the external links I added in to the home pages of those coins when he said "refspam" (even tho they weren't being used as references), he should have simply removed the external links and kept in the content.
• When I reverted his edit, asking him to discuss his content removal on the talk page, Primefac then made some edits:
  1. He first added redlinks to the page.
  2. Then he removed all the content I had added citing "rmv redlinks per convention" when he was the one that added those redlinks in the first place, and made no mention of the reason he removed all that content.
• After I discussed changes to my edits to address any concerns those editors had, after waiting a week without hearing any further discussion, and having not heard any good reason my sources weren't entirely usable, I added just one currency out of the list of those I had sources for.
• Then Retimuko reverted my edit still without discussing anything on the talk page, even after I had asked him to discuss.
• After reverting that, asking again for him to discuss the content he's removing (and him simply not discussing it),
• Ladislav Mecir made the most recent revert which accuses me of violating the revert sanction. I think this is an absurd charge since I put up content that had been modified and discussed

It seems clear to me that these editors are trying to keep this page on lock down, and are harassing other editors with wikilawyering and stonewalling techniques to get their way.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I've started a thread to disucss this issue. I've invited the users involved to comment and discuss. I've discussed extensively with the one user willing to have a discussion. I've proposed alternate edits based on the discussion with better and more sources. I've tried (and failed) to gain an understanding of why these users think my edits aren't up to wikipedia standards.

How do you think we can help?

I'd like to get external opinions on whether my edits are up to wikipedia standards or not (and if not, why not), as well as get opinions on whether the conduct of these editors (that are consistently reverting the work of me and others) is appropriate behavior. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fresheneesz (talk • contribs) 23:43, 8 December 2018 (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.

Genre warring

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.

---

84.248.175.169 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has been changing genres without consensus, with or without reliable sources and has not heeded multiple warnings. Reporting here because disruptive editing such as genre warring have been increasingly denied at WP:AIV. Thank you, - FlightTime (open channel) 15:59, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

• Thank you. Handled by Laser brain--another thank you. Drmies (talk) 16:27, 9 December 2018 (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.

IP Block-evading birthdate 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.

---

• 174.105.159.86 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Editing from this IP address since 13 October 2018, this IP has progressed from general trolling and vandalism (including reverting his own edits back and forth) to altering and fabricating birth dates. He has been blocked three times already, by RegentsPark, NinjaRobotPirate, and Favonian. NinjaRobotPirate's block rationale was "Block evasion".

Anyway, it's time for the IP to get a 6-month block, so that they do not vandalize vital information.

Also, can people help check that all of his edits have been reverted? It's hard to tell on some of the edits because the vandalism was overlooked and the articles have been edited in the meantime. Thanks. Softlavender (talk) 23:47, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

I've applied a six month block to this user given their long-term disruptive editing and their block history, and I've verified that all recent edits by this IP have been reverted. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:32, 10 December 2018 (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.

DCsghost

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.

---

• DCsghost (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Ruggero Santilli (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

DCsghost is basically a single purpose account devoted to adding flattering content to the article on Ruggero Santilli, a fringe scientist. Despite warnings from Doug Weller and revertes from me and David Eppstein, he continues to edit war flattering content and assert bad faith on the part of the reality-based editors who revert his edits. He shows no sign of accepting Wikipedia processes. Guy (Help!) 00:58, 10 December 2018 (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.

Alexandria Poklonskaya

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.

---

Basically all of their edits consist of talk-page trolling on race-related topics. Also the discussion on their talkpage in which they assert that they do not know of the person who has the same name as their username is bizarre in many ways (in particular, it is not clear why they were allowed to edit without a username change). I think this is a clear case of WP:NOTHERE and request a block to prevent further disruption. --JBL (talk) 15:08, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, I had just reverted their last four edits as grossly offensive and racist. O3000 (talk) 15:15, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

I have reviewed their edits and imposed a NOTHERE block. 331dot (talk) 15:21, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Hmm, how was I able to predict that their unblock request would complain about Jews before they made it.. Galobtter (pingó mió) 15:45, 10 December 2018 (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.

Multiple vandalisms by IP user using various addresses from University of Leeds

IP User 129.11.174.166, 129.11.174.84, 129.11.174.134, 129.11.174.139, 129.11.174.142, 129.11.166.201 has been extremely persistent in wishing to introduce nonconstructive edits to EPR paradox. At first, I thought that this person was merely a misguided, but good faith editor. Now it has become apparent that this person is a vandal, with edit comments like "Kindly make proper research before you type. Einstein's name in German is spelled [ Ahlbert Ainshtain ]" with gross misspelling of Einstein's name. Both User:Skysmith and I have been undoing this person's edits, and in the Talk page, User:Spasemunki mentions that he has had previous experience with this IP editor back in October. I had reported this user on WP:AIV and I was advised to bring up this situation here. Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog (talk) 00:00, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

School range block, maybe? Oshawott 12 ==()== Talk to me! 02:04, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Looks like it may have to be. Pranksters like this one can really ruin things for everybody else. Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog (talk) 05:02, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

The range among these IPs is 129.11.160.0/20, and it is now blocked for two weeks. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:35, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks! Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog (talk) 00:39, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

This IP user has found another IP address to vandalize from: 194.80.232.19, also belonging to University of Leeds. Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog (talk) 18:25, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Simon Wessely

• Simon Wessely (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This is an article that's on my watchlist because it catalysed my acceptance of an RfA nomination something over a decade ago. It has been under attack for a long time, by a subset of chronic fatigue syndrome patients who utterly reject the possibility of any psychological component to the disease, reject the term CFS, insist on "myalgic encephalomyopathy" (ME), despite the absence of any evidence, as far as our article goes, that it is actually a form of encephalomyopathy, and so on. Basically Wessely tried CBT with patients, apparently had some success, and the "ME" activists cannot accept that because, in their minds, it means the disease is psychosomatic. That is not at all what it means, there are plenty of real diseases where CBT helps, but never mind.

So that's the backstory.

Today a new user, Rainywednesday (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), has piled in to add a claim that "In a 1993 meeting with a minister for the disabled Simon Wessely claimed that “Benefits can often make [ME] patients worse". That is a pretty nasty piece of writing, and it's sourced to an article in the Independent by someone with zero other articles on their byline. It turns out to be a submitted article by an "ME" activist and not by an Independent staffer. The user provides links to purported minutes of the meeting, I am poring through a looooooong pdf right now, also hosted on the blog of another "ME" activist. I am treating this a BLP issue right now due tot he extensive history of vicious attacks at that article (check the deleted history - Jimbo nuked it at one point). That said, I think it's borderline and more likely to be quote mining than deliberate falsification. Guy (Help!) 00:31, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Oh, the user says there is "a long history of bigotry surrounding ME/CFS". That is a MASSIVE red flag in this case. The "ME" activists consider the suggestion that psychiatric or psychological interventions might help, to be a bigoted attempt to dismiss their symptoms as "all in the mind". This is not true, of course, and also a red herring: PTSD genuinely is all in the mind but is utterly debilitating, as I found out. If anyone can find the text in this bundle, I'd be grateful. It would help establish whether this is WP:UNDUE quote mining or a legitimate quote. Guy (Help!) 00:51, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Wessely’s theories are a good 25 years behind the times, though; we now know CFS/ME is virus-mediated in a similar vein as Guillian-Barre (which, unlike CFS/ME, is more common in men than women and is therefore not considered partly “psychological” in nature). Also, unsurprisingly, his antiquated, now wholly discredited theories have been recently seized upon by the loathsome incel community as ‘proof’ that while men get really sick, women are crazy neurotic malicious liars pretending to be sick to hurt men. Do you really expect the user - or anyone, ever - to believe that there isn’t malice behind these theories? 24.76.103.169 (talk) 03:32, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Response to Guy from Rainydaywednesday

This is interesting. I raise concern about the history of bigotry surrounding ME/CFS, and that's used to tie me to a bigoted view of the motivations and beliefs of 'activists'. Guy's 'backstory' is so confused and misleading that it will take considerable time to properly pick it apart. It might be best to leave that until after looking at the specifics of this one reversion dispute.

I added this sentence to the section on controversies surrounding Simon Wessely:

"Minutes from a 1993 meeting on CFS with Minister of State for Social Security Nicholas Scott record Wessely claiming that "Benefits can often make patients worse". "

Guy reverted this, saying "Not in source, not independent, usual suspects saying usual thing.". I thought that the "usual suspects saying usual thing" was a bit unpleasant, but I had added in the name of the Minister myself in order to provide a link, so then changed the sentence to make it close to what was in the source:

"In a 1993 meeting with a minister for the disabled Simon Wessely claimed that “Benefits can often make [ME] patients worse.”"

The Independent article I was citing states:

"“Benefits can often make [ME] patients worse” claimed psychiatrist Simon Wessely, one of the originators of the biopsychosocial model of ME, in 1993 in a meeting with a minister for the disabled."

Guy reverted this edit, saying that "Still WP:SYN because the source still doesn't say that. Guy (Help!) 18:43, 5 December 2018 (UTC)"

Guy has not explained what it is that he believes the article does not say.

Furthermore, because I care about accuracy, I had already checked the source of this quote, which was the minutes of the meeting written by a Civil Servant, Dr M McGrath Secretary to the Disability Living Allowance Assessment Board. These minutes are available at the UK National Archive, and were released following an FOI request. For anyone wishing to check directly with the UK National Archive, their reference for this file is BN 141/1, but it is not possible to link to this source for a digital copy. A digital copy of this file has been placed on-line here: https://valerieeliotsmith.files.wordpress.com/2015/01/natarchbn141dss.pdf

It is slightly embarrassing that Guy has said he is "poring through a looooooong pdf right now" and "If anyone can find the text in this bundle, I'd be grateful." When I posted a link to this file I had told him that the quote can be found on page 10 of 235. I had tried to make things easy for him. I think that those minutes appear a couple of times in the bundle, so hopefully he'll find one version or another before too long.

If we put aside the prejudices and stigma that can surround ME/CFS, I thikn it's fair to say that my sentence was accurate and provides some useful information about why Wessely may be seen as a controversial figure.

Just to be clear, and I resent the seeming need to comment on this, I do not have an ideological opposition to psychological research or interventions for ME/CFS, nor do I think that any benefits coming from psychological therapies would indicate that ME/CFS was "all in the mind" (a bizarre phrase to use anyway). I also don't think that these sorts of misguided concerns are what motivates most of those patients who have been speaking critically of poor quality research or misleading claims about the efficacy of CBT or GET. Instead, this seems to be a bigoted straw-man created by those who are unable to understand the true reasons for controversy in this area.

In recent years many academics, including psychiatrists and psychologists, have been speaking out in support of ME/CFS patients raising concern about methodical problems and statistical spin, particularly as it relates to the PACE trial, a piece of research that Simon Wessely described as "a thing of beauty". This has been covered by the New York Times: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/18/opinion/sunday/getting-it-wrong-on-chronic-fatigue-syndrome.html Sense About Statistics: http://senseaboutscienceusa.org/pace-research-sparked-patient-rebellion-challenged-medicine/ Science Based Medicine: https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/treating-chronic-fatigue-syndrome-with-cognitive-behavioral-therapy-and-graded-exercise-therapy-how-the-pace-trial-got-it-wrong/ In a special edition of the Journal of Health Psychology: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/1359105317722370 And so on.

For those pseudo-sceptics who had simply trusted the stigmatising smears and prejudice promoted by authority figures a decade ago I'm sure that this is very confusing. It's obvious that when homeopaths run a nonblinded trial in which participants in one arm are told they are receiving an effective treatment, results for subjective self-report outcomes will not be reliable and those who claim otherwise can be laughed at... but if trials of CBT are criticised for doing the exact same thing, shouldn't that be dismissed as militant anti-psychiatry? https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/1359105317700885

Everyone can see how the poorly founded and exaggerated claims of behavioural interventions altering gay men's sexuality were stigmatising and led to social problems, but if ME/CFS patients raise concerns about similar problems, doesn't that mean that they're assuming mental health problems are not 'real'? Peter Tatchell has commented that "Attempt to stigmatise ME/CFS #PACEtrial campaigners reminds me of when I protested aversion therapy for LGBTs" https://twitter.com/PeterTatchell/status/772035205695672320 and "Isaac Marks moved from aversion therapy to a trial of CBT for CFS. Why was he still respected? Lessons not learnt." https://twitter.com/PeterTatchell/status/778256247300775936

I see that Guy has now described Wright's Independent piece (classed as a 'long-read' by them) as "an op-ed by a member of the anti-psychiatry advocacy community". Where has Wright described herself as a member of the anti-psychiatry advocacy community? Is this label applied simply because she is a patient with ME/CFS? Is it acceptable to be dismissive of journalism about an illness because the author suffers from it themselves? I saw that the PACE trial authors had tried to ensure that a patient academic publishing criticism of their work in a peer-reviewed journal was made to declare their diagnosis as a COI. Would such an attitude be seen as acceptable for those suffering from AIDS or depression?

Wright's article includes this paragraph from someone who fell ill with ME/CFS after being engaged in gay rights advocacy: "Adam Lowe, an author and journalist with ME is also demanding accountability. “One of the most common misconceptions about ME patients is that we’re anti-psychiatry and resent all treatments that imply even a partially psychological cause for the illness. This is another myth that needs to be challenged. I’m a strong believer in adequate mental health provision for everyone as are most ME patients."

Guy makes some more confused claims about the controversy over the naming of ME/CFS/SEID. It is of course not the case that a preference for ME requires one to be committed to a particular pathology for ME/CFS. Lots of medical conditions have names stemming from tradition or old ideas. We now know that the flu is not caused by the influence of the moon. The term CFS can cause problems for patients, and many have been unhappy that some researchers chose to promote the use of CFS over ME, but that is no reason to assume that they are idiots.

One reason why patients a troubled by the use of CFS over ME is that it leads to them having reduced legal rights. PACE trial researcher Peter White gave a talk on the PACE trial's results to his employers at Swiss Re insurance, and the legal advantage the 'CFS' diagnosis provides to insurers was explained there: "A final point specific to claims assessment, and a question we’re often asked, is whether CFS would fall within a mental health exclusion, if one applies to a policy. The answer to this lies within the precise exclusion wording. If the policy refers to functional somatic syndromes in addition to mental health, then CFS may fall within the exclusion. If the policy doesn’t refer to functional somatic syndromes as well as mental health then it would be difficult to apply. The point made is that a diagnosis of Myalgic Encephalomyelitis or ME (a term often used colloquially instead of CFS) is considered a neurological condition according to the arrangement of the International Classification of Diseases (ICD) diagnostic codes whereas CFS can alternatively be defined as neurasthenia which is in the mental health chapter of ICD10." https://web.archive.org/web/20130824093822/http://www.swissre.com/clients/newsletters/Managing_claims_for_chronic_fatigue_the_active_way.html All three of the PACE trial's primary investigators declared insurance industry COIs, and this was one of the issues covered in Wright's piece.

In 2013 the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), the National Institutes of Health, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, the Centers for Disease Control & Prevention, the Food and Drug Administration, and the Social Security Administration announced their intention to ask the Institute of Medicine (IOM) to convene an expert committee to examine the evidence base for ME/CFS. When this report was published in 2015 one of the conclusions they reached was that "The committee agrees that the term “chronic fatigue syndrome” can result in stigmatization and trivialization and should no longer be used as the name of this illness." https://www.nap.edu/read/19012/chapter/9#227

Guy describes me as having 'piled in' - does he just mean that I added one sentence to an article? He says of my edit "that is a pretty nasty piece of writing" - in what way is it 'nasty'? More importantly, is it inaccurate?

I've not done much editing on wikipedia, only a few CFS ones, but the experience has not been great. I think I've won out in the debates I've engaged in but it's been tedious and I've often avoided commenting when other people were clearly promoting misleading claims because of this. I'm also going to ignore some of Guy's misleading claims above. I fear that we're already at the point where my attempting to clarify just some of the misconceptions here will be viewed as tldr evidence that I am an unreasonable obsessive.

Does Wikipedia have any policies in place for addressing problems with a culture of prejudice? If so, I think that the way some editors write about ME/CFS needs to be looked at. If not, I think that you're long past the point of needing one.Rainywednesday (talk) 04:43, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

References

So you don't have to comb through it, folks - that paragraph from the Indy feature: "The biopsychosocial model, and the assumption that if people who become disabled from conditions like ME adopted the correct attitudes and behaviours they could recover, seems to appeal to politicians looking to cut the costs of disability payments. “Benefits can often make [ME] patients worse” claimed psychiatrist Simon Wessely, one of the originators of the biopsychosocial model of ME, in 1993 in a meeting with a minister for the disabled. If giving disability benefits to patients, such as those with ME, may foster a culture of dependency, then cutting these benefits can be presented as a positive intervention. According to a document promoting the biopsychosocial framework circulated by Lord Freud, the former minister for welfare reform, it is important for those with health problems like ME to “recognise that the sick role is temporary, in the expectation of recovery” and that giving disability benefits to such patients, may foster a culture of dependency." Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 05:16, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

That not is dispute. I take it the issue is whether or not the op-ed in Independent is a reliable source for Wessely having said that. I suspect at least that the report, being activism, is shorn of context. Rainywednesday's repeatedly bombing it into the article lede here strikes me as problematic. [Add: so here's a relevant tweet from Wessely[1] Yes, he wrote these words - but he now says they are too crude ... so putting this front and centre in his bio certainly is problematic.] Alexbrn (talk) 08:19, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Is there some reason this is at ANI? It looks like the sort of dispute best discussed elsewhere like at WP:BLP/N. I'm not really sure what sort of administrative attention is required. I appreciate there have been problems in the past, but the editor above seems to be engaging in discussion and there have been sources provided. Whether or not the sources are good enough is something which should be handled via ordinary WP:dispute resolution. If there's some fear of WP:sockpuppetry or something, that's one thing but none seems to have been presented and in any case, it's probably better handled at WP:SPI. Nil Einne (talk) 09:45, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

I see Guy appears to have exceeded 3RR. Is the administrative issue whether the editing falls under the BLP exception of WP:3RR or Guy needs to stop? Nil Einne (talk) 09:50, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Exactly, it's a BLP exception specifically due to the history of activist attacks at this article (check the deleted history for some real pearls). As you see above, these people want to right great wrongs - the claim that Wessely's views ib CFS are out of date is telling, since the alleged date of the statement is 1993 and Wessely has not worked in CFS for a long time (his focus now is PTSD). There is a desire to rewrite history. In this case the "source" is an op-ed by an ME activist (Google is a thing, folks), a class of source that has been consistently problematic in that article. Again, check the deleted history, you will see just how bitterly some of these folks hate Wessely. But you have to know the history to see the problem, so I brought it here for more admin eyes. As an aside, the question of whether the claim is true or not is only part of the issue, there's also the possibility of cherry-picking or quote mining. I still haven't found the purported minute of the meeting. The PDF is 235 pages and is not searchable, my Adobe subscription has lapsed so I can't OCR it. The fact that this has not been reported by any source other than this activist seems to me to be the clincher: the article's comment is clearly motivated by personal animus towards Wessely. Guy (Help!) 11:26, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Guy, see Wessely's tweet I linked above for the National Archive excerpt. Alexbrn (talk) 11:47, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Guy says: "I still haven't found the purported minute of the meeting. The PDF is 235 pages and is not searchable, my Adobe subscription has lapsed so I can't OCR it." As I've now repeatedly told you, the quote is on page 10 of that document. How can you find this simple task such a struggle?

Guy says "these people want to right great wrongs" - I'm almost impressed by your continued willingness to use terminology like 'these people'. Don't you think it's ironic to raise concerns of an ideological commitment to righting great wrongs leading to unreasonable editing, considering your own apparent fear of 'these people': "activists unhappy with any possibility that CBT might help with CFS (they utterly reject anything other than a purely physical cause)". Everything I've said can be shown to be accurate, whereas I do not believe that the same can be said of you. I care about accuracy - if that's seen as a bad thing on wikipedia then that is worrying.

Guy says: "The fact that this has not been reported by any source other than this activist seems to me to be the clincher: the article's comment is clearly motivated by personal animus towards Wessely." This is such warped reasoning it's barely comprehensible. If Nathalie Wright was the only person to have taken the time to read the 235 pages of government records Guy is now having such trouble with, and the only person to quote from the minutes of Wessely's meeting with the Minister of State for Social Security, then why would that indicate that the articles' comment is clearly motivated by personal animus towards Wessely? Is it really the case that some at wikipedia have so absorbed ideological opposition to 'original research' that they now think it is evidence of animus for a journalist to engage in such work? Fair journalists would rely only on information already reported by others?

Alxbrn says: "Rainywednesday's repeatedly bombing it into the article lede here strikes me as problematic." My edit was to the second paragraph of section 2.1 of the Wessely article. Why have you described me as "repeatedly bombing it into the article lede"? In our dispute about your attempt to include a stigmatising claim within the lede of the CFS article I raised concern that you were allowing prejudices to affect the editing of wikipedia. Could it be that prejudices led to you making a misleading claim about me? https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Chronic_fatigue_syndrome&diff=prev&oldid=864475590

Alxbrn says: "That not is dispute." Actually, Guy had repeatedly disputed the content of the article, saying things like: "The source inserted by user:Rainywednesday, a single-purpose account, does not contain anything like the content of the edit." If Guy has now changed his mind about this, I have not seen him acknowledge anywhere that he got this wrong.

Alxbrn wrote: "Add: so here's a relevant tweet from Wessely[32] Yes, he wrote these words - but he now says they are too crude ... so putting this front and centre in his bio certainly is problematic." I inserted a sentence about this meeting in the second paragraph of section 2.1, and I included the date of the meeting so people would know it was not something that happened recently. Guy claims that "There is a desire to rewrite history" - but surely it is trying to use someone saying that their earlier claims were 'too crude' as a justification for removing information about these earlier claims from their biography would be an example of rewriting history.Rainywednesday (talk) 13:38, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Page 10 says, point 7 of 7, "As regards benefits:- it is important to avoid anything that suggests that disability is permanent, progressive or unchanging. Benefits can often make patients worse". However: page 8 has the first three of Wessely's numbered points, then page 9 is the first page of a letter from Aylward, then page 10 has points 4-7, which, in the context of the PDF, is a non-sequitur, followed by page 11 which is the conclusion fo Aylward's letter and one has to assume that pages 8 and 10 belong together. And far from being the dismissive and flippant response as presented by "ME" activist Nathalie Wright, his previous point was "TREATMENT is difficult, extraordinary sensitivity is necessary. Great flexibility is essential in treating these patients, each case is different" and so on. To cherry pick the closing sentence without noting the context that Wessely's clinical work indicated that prolonged inactivity caused adverse physical and psychological consequences, is misleading at best and actually more like opposition research. Guy (Help!) 21:49, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Flippant? Your emotional responses are a distraction from what is important, which is accuracy. Wright accurately quoted from the official record of what Wessely said, yet you seem to be trying to present her as having twisted Wessely's words into being dismissive and flippant as an act of 'activism'. Why do you think that those previous points from Wessely's talk do anything to undermine the legitimacy of Wright's work? So far the most stinging criticism you've made of her work is to just repeatedly refer to her an an "ME" activist. Given the growing awareness of the methodological problems underpinning Wessely's research on CFS 'rehabilitation', and particularly the PACE trial he described as a "thing of beauty", the earlier parts of his talk make him look much worse to me: https://bmcpsychology.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s40359-018-0218-3

Do you think that Wessely had some reliable evidence to show that benefits can make CFS patients worse? If so, why hasn't he published it in the 25 years since this meeting?

I'm not sure if you have any real concern about the National Archives file, of if you're just complaining about the way these sorts of documents are often scanned and compiled. If you want to inspect the paper documents themselves you can go to the National Archive.

I note that you've not responded to the points I made, or apologised for the misleading claims you made earlier. Rainywednesday (talk) 00:05, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

I have, you just didn't like the response, but I will repeat it here if you like: stop POV-pushing, this is a biography, if you continue adding poorly sourced negative material then you may be blocked from editing or banned from this and related articles. Guy (Help!) 19:41, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

This section seemed to be moved to the archives very quickly, and I then could not find it for a while. Now that I have I thought I'd try to simplify matters by taking one point at a time. You reverted my edit of: "In a 1993 meeting with a minister for the disabled Simon Wessely claimed that “Benefits can often make [ME] patients worse.” You said that: "Still WP:SYN because the source still doesn't say that." The article said: "“Benefits can often make [ME] patients worse” claimed psychiatrist Simon Wessely, one of the originators of the biopsychosocial model of ME, in 1993 in a meeting with a minister for the disabled."

Which part of my edit do you think is not supported by the source?Rainywednesday (talk) 04:36, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Personal Attack on Me by HafizHanif

HafizHanif is sending personal attacks on Talk:Muhammad#Alternative_proposal:_Central_figure (diff) and most recently, stated (here) "myopic minds fail to understand", referencing Pinkbeast. I removed their initial attack, only for them to declare me "dead" and restore it (here) - death threats.

Note that in the scope of the discussion, none relate directly to the debated modification to the article. Instead, I am being targeted and harassed for religious reasons and ad hominem (basically, the first two points and possibly the fourth on WP:WIAPA. Please ensure this stops. Thank you, – Batreeq ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 23:19, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

This is an odd first. The record clearly shows after I cited primary, secondary, and tertiary sources, that particular edit was removed by the person making the accusation. They also called out "personal attack". I understood that accusation meaning I personally attacked the man believed to be a prophet (the article's subject - who has been dead for hundreds of years, thus the mention of a dead man), not the contentious editor. I had previously expressed how Muhammad was, according to his poetry and what contemporaries talked about him, a murderer (the cutting off of heads and fingertips). I think this is an issue of comprehension and a misunderstanding regarding the subject of my comments. Notice also I had ceased corresponding with the edit warring editor after an inability to convince them of their subjective nature regarding the subject matter. As to my response "myopic minds", I am referring to what I previously mentioned regarding editing efforts from unqualified persons and the apparent inability to objectively edit the article. It is a general statement regarding the unsophisticated nature of most Islamic articles. -- HafizHanif (talk) 23:53, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

This does not relate to the specific controversial edits being debated, and you used your interpretation of facts to launch a personal attack (you even said "I personally attacked"). Article talk pages are not soapboxes and I merely responded with the accurate info to diffuse the situation and prevent it from escalating. It is never acceptable to insult the mental states of individuals as any editor out there with a mental disability may feel distraught (disability is listed on WP:WIAPA). – Batreeq ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 00:07, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

So I note two things:

1. This was not a death threat against User:Batreeq; Batreeq misunderstood the "personally attack a dead person" edit summary.
2. If User:HafizHanif doesn't stop taking every opportunity to attack Islam all the time while pretending he is only having policy discussions, I will just block him indefinitely, and with very little if any further warning. Multiple editors at that page have told HH to knock it off because he is disrupting discussion. He needs to listen to them if he wants to keep editing here.

Hopefully that's clear. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:01, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Floquenbeam, just saw your response - thanks. Can the unrelated/attack comments be purged from the talk page and replaced with {{RPA}} (no, it's not "censorship" but it's not a soapbox for general discussion of the article's subject [as the top notice reads] either, HH)? – Batreeq ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 00:08, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

I'm not a big fan of removing soapboxing that's interweaved with comments by others. IMHO it causes more confusion than it solves. In particular, it's not good for an "opponent" (for lack of a better word) to do it, that often just escalates things. I'm more interested in preventing future soapboxing. Other admins may disagree, so if others think it should be removed they shouldn't worry about my disagreement, they should do whatever they think best. I'm about to go offline for the evening. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:16, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Both HH and Batreeq could use a bit of encouragement to stick to the point. What's this screed got to do with the question at hand? Also, Batreeq is engaged in a lengthy exercise in IDHT - it seems pretty clear that the vast majority of commenting editors are perfectly happy with "founder", but they won't knock it off. Pinkbeast (talk) 13:32, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

No worries! Was just defusing the attack. – Batreeq ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 01:52, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

So my response regarding a linear understanding of prophetic procession was labeled 'soapboxing' and summarily removed. I think this manner of narrow-minded critique is why so many wiki articles are not only poorly written, but poorly managed. -- HafizHanif (talk) 19:34, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Jesusforu and Jewish conspiracy in edit summaries

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.

---

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

The user has been previously warned for edit summaries, but now I noticed Pew Research is Established and controlled by American Jewish people, according to your IP address you are a left wing with hatred of Christianity, and You are one person with hatred towards Christians with IP adress of 39.45.209.67 you deleted the most best sources and most recent source to shows my information (the edits themselves might be fine, the problem is with the summaries). If anybody has a good reason why this user should continue editing Wikipedia, please let me know, otherwise I (or someone else) am going to block them indef.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:25, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Also doesn't communicate, go ahead. Doug Weller talk 13:36, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Ymblanter, Doug Weller - I just indefinitely blocked this user and left a custom block notice here. FYI - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 14:58, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Promotion of antisemitic conspiracy theories should mean blocking them and throwing the key away I'd say. The lack of communication or whatever all seems secondary. Galobtter (pingó mió) 15:04, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Thank you.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:05, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Galobtter - I guess I could've touched on that a bit more in the user's block notice... please feel free to add to it if you feel that it's necessary; you don't need my blessings or my approval to modify the notice I left. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 15:26, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Well..this should cover that. Galobtter (pingó mió) 15:30, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Galobtter - Looks good to me! :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 15:35, 9 December 2018 (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.

Smocking needs protection

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.

---

Since Trump misspelled "smoking" as "smocking" in a Tweet [2] our Smocking page has become a target for some vandalism. [3] [4] [5]. I request page protection on this page. --В²C ☎ 19:52, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

 Done by Xaosflux. 28bytes (talk) 20:04, 10 December 2018 (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.

Genre warring by 2A00:F41:188C:67E9:8950:6BD5:D4D:69D6

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.

---

2A00:F41:188C:67E9:8950:6BD5:D4D:69D6 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has been changing genres without consensus, with or without reliable sources and has not heeded multiple warnings. Reporting here because disruptive editing such as genre warring have been increasingly denied at WP:AIV. Thank you, - FlightTime (open channel) 22:37, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Blocked for 36 hours. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:33, 10 December 2018 (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 addition of original research, following a 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.

---

• Fghsfijgig (talk · contribs)

I can take a lovely hiatus, and be assured upon return that this account will still be adding unsourced content to multiple articles, including the species of cartoon animals [6]; [7]; [8]. The latest spate follows multiple warnings, conversations and a one-month block. Requesting mass reversion and a longer block. Thank you, JNW (talk) 01:03, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Given the user's block history and their continued problematic edits, I've applied an indefinite block to the account. This way, this user will have to file an unblock appeal and request their account be unblocked before they can continue editing. This is the appropriate next step, as it's clear that the user needs to acknowledge this ongoing problem and how they'll improve their editing before we can let them do so. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:27, 10 December 2018 (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.

Secondststudio

I'm not sure what's going on with this editor, who has been on Wikipedia since 2009, but their recent edits are very disruptive:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Barbara_Januszkiewicz&oldid=872506605
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Barbara_Januszkiewicz&oldid=872525019
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Barbara_Januszkiewicz&oldid=872521840
• and this request for help, formatted as a draft article page

It seems like they might be not in the best state of mind, based on the comments. I warned them to please stop destroying pages.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 17:39, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Might this be a compromised account? ^Semi_Hypercube ✎ 18:10, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

I believe that it's a COI problem since all edited pages are connected with the subject. Skirts89 (talk) 19:08, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

I would advocate for a short block, to let the user have an opportunity to get reacquainted with our policies and procedures before such heavy-handed editing continues. Ifnord (talk) 00:48, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

It looks like the edits by this user have stopped as of a few hours ago, so I'm going to hold off on taking any administrative action. I left the user a warning here instead. If the disruption continues, I would also support a block in order to prevent further disruption. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 04:18, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

This appears to be resolved as the user was indefinitely blocked for promotional editing and a username violation.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 12:22, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

User:Surtsicna

This very active and valuable user is well known to habitually personalize many discussions, disregarding basic guidelines under WP:TPYES that we should not do so, and for often being aggressive. Something like this is an example where I believe the habit carries this user into behavior which is inappropriate for Wikipedia work. Thus, I feel the user needs a reminder that civil behavior is expected of us all, always, toward each of us, no matter how much we disagree. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 12:06, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

This and this are the edit summaries that SergeWoodzing called a "personal critique", then again, and again. Even though he acknowledged here to another user that it was the edits that were called unnecessarily pedantic, he still has the need to portray the other user as a bully and himself as the victim. A half of virtually every discussion with SergeWoodzing, be it mine or someone else's, consists of the other user explaining that he or she did not mean to hurt his feelings. I have had it. This behaviour of his has been plainly described as ridiculous whining for complaints like these at ANI before. Others have observed this annoying tendency too, saying: "Pieter Kuiper can call article content a hoax and a BLP problem and SergeWoodzing will immediately cry 'I'm being personally attacked.'" I do not appreciate being pestered by these accusations, and I feel that the user needs yet another reminder that histrionics such as these waste everyone's time. Surtsicna (talk) 12:52, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

IMHO, this is really a content dispute. FWIW, there's inconsistency among the Swedish consort bios, concerning what to show (Queen of Sweden or Queen consort of Sweden). With the likely accession of a Queen regnant (which will be shown as Queen of Sweden in the pros, I assume), we should likely get the consistency established for the Swedish consorts. GoodDay (talk) 13:07, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

This is a reoccurring behavioral problem, not a content dispute.

Citing 8-year-old arguments isn't helpful. I have learned a lot about civility and WP:TPYES over the years. What I want to know here - indeed need to know - is whether or not the community considers this acceptably civil behavior, such as we all are expected to adhere to. I too can be sarcastic, belligerent and personal in every debate and edit summary, if I choose to be. Nowadays, and for years, I have chosen not to be. I've learned that such behavior is neither allowed (???) nor constructive. Please reply to the issue! --SergeWoodzing (talk) 10:24, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Five years ago you were told at ANI that there is nothing uncivil about commenting on edits, yet here you are again. Obviously you have not learned a lot since then. Surtsicna (talk) 12:39, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

PS In comparison to the reoccurring behavioral issue in this case, the article content is of little of no importance, to me or to this community. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 10:30, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

I am waiting for an administrator to tell me if this is acceptable behavior, and if the user seems habitually to disregard some basic WP:TPYES guidelines such as not to user-personalize entries on article talk pages. I have never (never) claimed that "commenting on edits" is uncivil. Obviously, the user h-self is going to want to defend h-self (with a few personal slurs thrown in, as usual), but that's not what I'm looking for here. We need administrative guidance on this behavioral issue. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 18:10, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

• It makes no sense to look at one diff in isolation. Looking at that discussion, it seems to me that you are both over-personalizing the issue. I'm sure you both think the other one started it, or the other one is incrementally worse. I have no interest in estimating who is 43% responsible and who is 57% responsible. I wish you'd both dial it back. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:05, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Floquenbeam, I have provided the rest of the diffs. This and this are the edit summaries that SergeWoodzing called a "personal critique", then again, and again. I called that ridiculous whining. Do you think I was being personal when I described the changes as unnecessarily pedantic in the edit summaries? Do you think that SergeWoodzing's complaints are not ridiculous whining? Surtsicna (talk) 19:28, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
    • Yes, I know, I read that thread and this thread. I think your original edit summaries were unnecessarily almost-but-not-quite-too personal in isolation, to which SW then overreacted, to which you overreacted, to which SW overreacted. I assume there is some prior history here as well. There is no bright line personal/not personal dividing line, it's a continuum. In an escalating feedback loop like this, it makes no sense to say "all comments up to this point were ok, all comments after this point weren't". Both of you need to recognize that every time one of you said something snarky, the other one replied with a comment or action that was 50% more snarky. In the end, the important takeaway is that you're both making each other, and other people, marginally less happy to edit with you. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:38, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
      • There is nothing personal about stating that the newly introduced wording is unnecessarily pedantic. I will not walk on eggshells simply because one user cannot take the most harmless criticism of his work. Experience has shown that he will complain about being abused anyway, be it me or someone else. Surtsicna (talk) 20:09, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

There is nothing (nothing) in evidence of my behavior during the last few years as being anywhere near the picture painted of "snarky" me here. Some of us try to improve. I think I've done well and I almost never have any trouble with anyone anymore, because I've taken WP:TPYES "Comment on content, not on the contributor: Keep the discussions focused on the topic of the talk page, rather than on the editors participating." and other guidelines, experiences and criticism seriously. But is this "And ridiculous whining makes me lose control over my eye muscles" acceptably civil behavior which is supposed to inspire for such improvement, is it a negligible boo-boo which any one of us should be able to fine A-OK? Please reply to that issue, if at all! That's what I keep asking. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 14:39, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

I have directly answered that question already; it makes no sense to look at one comment in isolation. Since both of you are convinced that the other editor is 100% at fault, and apparently do not value uninvolved feedback from someone unless they agree that you are 100% innocent, it might be best for the two of you to just continue making each other miserable. At some point, it will start making other editors miserable too, and at that point we can block one or both of you. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:26, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

I did not seek any intervention, nor do I ever feel miserable on Wikipedia. If I did, I would leave. The histrionics are almost as amusing as they are annoying. I do promise to tone down my response to them to just eyerolling and calmly going on about my beeswax. I am sorry for the time you spent on reading all of this silliness. Surtsicna (talk) 16:32, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Summary of what I get out of this:

1. It makes no sense to report a comment like "ridiculous whining makes me lose control over my eye muscles" because it's "one comment in isolation".
2. I "apparently do not value uninvolved feedback from someone unless they agree that" I am "100% innocent".
3. I am as guilty as anyone, despite the fact that I try very hard (for years now) to be civil and adhere to WP:TPYES
4. Without ever having to apologize, we all can be as snide, rude, sarcastic, belligerent and uncivil as we please, as long as we do it as "one comment in isolation".
5. A comment like "the histrionics are almost as amusing as they are annoying" is OK too.

A sad day for me on Wikipedia, and a sad day for the project, I think. Will file this in my What's The Use? Department and still try to be civil and avoid personalising talk page entries. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 13:43, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

USER:Calthinus

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 doing unjust edits forcing people do break three reverse policy with his companions, you need to pay attention to this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Calthinus https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Skanderbeg&action=history He is deleteing posts in talk pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.149.9.21 (talk) 17:26, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

OP blocked for a year (and only because we do not block IPs indef), legal threats removed from talk page.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:34, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Does anyone want to revoke talk page access? I am not very good in Serbian, but I guess they write smth about "fucking Albanians".--Ymblanter (talk) 18:13, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

@Ymblanter and Iridescent: Thanks for dealing with the IP editor. Their words in Serbian meant: "I've killed over 100 fucking Albanian terrorists you think I'm kidding". I have seen other similar comments in the past, and the best thing to do is ignoring those people who make such comments. Ktrimi991 (talk) 18:34, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Done. GoldenRing (talk) 18:59, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

@Ymblanter, Iridescent, and GoldenRing:, i just awoke here in the morning on my side of the world and i find multiple IPs making death threats against me. I just took a look at the edit histories of the IP accounts and they have placed similar comments on other respected editors pages. What's the best course of action here (as one does not know if this IP has personal information through goodness knows what means and may actually carry out those threats)?Resnjari (talk) 19:09, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

I guess the best is to write to ArbCom.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:19, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Resnjari - We'll look into this matter and take care of it as best as we can. I assume that they're being made on your user talk page? I'll check things there and handle things that I find. In the meantime, it's best that you don't respond to any of those threats and just ignore them completely. However, if you feel threatened or genuinely concerned for your safety due to the threats, you can contact Wikimedia's emergency team by following the directions here. Best - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 19:22, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Resnjari - Are you able to email me the list of IP users that you see were making threats against you? I only see one IP (who is now blocked), and I want to make sure that I locate and take care of all of them. You can email me by clicking here. Thanks :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 19:26, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

2C0F:F930:0:3:0:0:0:221 appears to be an open proxy, but in any event I've given it a six-month vacation. 178.149.9.21 geolocates to Trstenik, Serbia, which would tally with the anti-Albanian sentiment, so I assume that's the true user IP. I haven't seen any others. ‑ Iridescent 19:30, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Iridescent - Perfect. :-) Resnjari, if the IP users are listed above, don't worry about emailing me. If we're missing any, please let us know. Best - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 19:35, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks @Oshwah: for deleting those comments from our talk pages. I have been threatened in the past but today's guy was very aggressive and insulting. Ktrimi991 (talk) 19:36, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

@Oshwah, Iridescent, and Ktrimi991:, in those comments by both IPs there are clear death threats and threats of violence to the people pinged by the first IP and comments left on multiple editors talkpages by the second IP. I read Serbian. Its disappointing it has to come to this with some people out there in the digital space.Resnjari (talk) 19:42, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

I have notified Oshwah about the other comment.Resnjari (talk) 19:43, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Two years or so ago I was threatened in a similar way because of my "pro-Serbian" edits. Today I was threatened because of my "anti-Serbian" edits. I guess trying to be as neutral as I can is a crime. Ktrimi991 (talk) 19:46, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Resnjari - Indeed, it is quite unfortunate that people resort to such words in order to push their opposition or to get their point across. Such threats are absolutely against Wikipedia's policies and won't be tolerated; please don't hesitate to let myself or someone else know if you see more threats like this being made and we'll do our best to put a kibosh to it. While such threats should (and are) always taken seriously and as if the user has the intent or the means to carry them out, just know that such threats are some people's method of handling conflict (as low as it sounds). Many are also trolling. :-) That being said, (I'm stating this to everyone in general) all threats of harm should be reported by following the directions here and regardless of whether you're the recipient or the witness of them, or how serious you believe the threats are - report them! :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 19:52, 8 December 2018 (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.

Wow that escalated fast... uh, hey guys, I think I came late to the party here but would someone mind sending me by email or something what these death threats, now apparently suppressed, that were directed to me were? --Calthinus (talk) 20:08, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Hey @Calthinus:, I just sent you an email with some death threats. As the IPs said, "I would be careful when crossing the street" . Ktrimi991 (talk) 20:13, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

I just sent you an email with some death threats – Rather an odd way of putting it. EEng 02:40, 9 December 2018 (UTC) Maybe we should have a specialized "You've got death threats!" template that especially courteous people can add to the recipient's talk page.

Well, they literally asked for it. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:40, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Just to be clear, they asked only for death threats, not actual death. We don't want anyone going overboard. EEng 11:48, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

@EEng: Do not exaggerate things, nobody sent "actual death". If you are not able to understand a friendly joke, do not comment on it. Thanks, Ktrimi991 (talk) 15:20, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

If there is anyone here able to understand jokes, it's EEng –FlyingAce^✈hello 15:38, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I've often been told that I find humor in things no one else finds amusing. EEng 19:01, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Being careful crossing the street is always a good idea. Ktrimi991's post is the funniest thing I've seen on this board in a long time. Legacypac (talk) 17:59, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

You are welcome to add to your watchlist a number of high-traffic articles on Eastern European politics, they provide such things on a regular basis.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:07, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

That is less funny. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 05:38, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

The obvious reply to the death threats is a SEAL copypasta.[9] 173.228.123.166 (talk) 09:48, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Anti-Semitic triple parentheses

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.

---

Aspensti made two recent edits adding the anti-Semitic triple parentheses to the articles of Kirsten Gillibrand (diff) and David Paterson (diff). I thought the account had perhaps been compromised, because these two edits are the first since July 2017; however, I see that the account has performed similar edits in the past (example). I am not sure what to do with this issue, so I thought it best to bring it up here. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:37, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Unexcusable. Indef blocked Courcelles (talk) 14:50, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

non-administrator comment Given the sort of edits being done, I suspect that this is less a case of someone trying to put triple-parens into Wikipedia, and more someone who has a browser extension that adds such parenthesis to every web page (yes, there are such extensions, for sad reasons), and is missing that that is happening in the edit window. So user should be blocked with an explanation until they acknowledge the problem on their talk page and says that it has been fixed (through turning off the extension or editing with a different browser.) --Nat Gertler (talk) 14:52, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

@Courcelles: Thank you for the quick response!

@NatGertler: Yes, the same thought about the browser extension had occurred to me. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:54, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

If they explain they are using such an extension, AND confirm it has been turned off , any admin has my clearance to unblock, of course. Courcelles (talk) 14:57, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) That does seem to be the case, but good block nonetheless. Adding neo-Nazi symbols into Wikipedia is inexcusable and grounds for immediate indef. The fact it's happening unawares because the user has an antisemitic browser extension installed is not grounds for leniency. We did the same for users changing Trump to Drumpf not too long ago. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:58, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

To be honest, this is not exactly common knowledge that three brackets is an antisemitic symbol (I did not know this before I saw this thread, and I am supposed to be knowledgeable in this subject). It is too late now, but it might have been a good idea to check that the user is aware of that.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:18, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Fairly common knowledge, I'd say. And the fact that the user has such a browser extension means they are highly unlikely ever to be welcome here. Guy (Help!) 15:27, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

I don't think it's necessarily common knowledge, but I strongly suspect the user knows: what other reason could there be for adding three parens?--Bbb23 (talk) 15:30, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, that's what I meant. Maybe it's not common knowledge for everyone, but clearly this user knows what it's about. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:02, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

I don't think anyone was calling for them not to be blocked, just that we shouldn't view them with the degree of suspicion about their editing intent that we might view a standard vandal with (although I wouldn't criticize anyone who was now looking at their edits with an eye to the politics of them; such extensions are intended for those with anti-semitic views.) Given that they might not even be aware of what their edits were doing and why, I've added a note to their talk page. --Nat Gertler (talk) 15:49, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

It all depends on what the User says, in this instance. The User's response is what matters, in this instance. If this was inadvertent, according to the User, their account should be unblocked. Ping Aspensti Bus stop (talk) 15:54, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

The only explanations I can see are either (a) the editor is deliberately inserting triple parentheses, or (b) the editor is running the Coincidence Detector extension. I can think of no conceivable way in which one could do either by accident. ‑ Iridescent 16:07, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

According the this Vox article some people are using triple parens in solidarity with those who are being targeted, this is intended to render triple parens useless as a mark of who is jewish. So I don't think that having a browser extension adding triple parens is proof that someone is a bigot. Tornado chaser (talk) 16:22, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

That's wrong. The "solidarity" thing was putting triple parentheses around *one's own name* - this anti-Semitic user has a browser extension that puts triple parentheses around explicitly *Jewish* names, as in this edit. This user should be indeffed and never allowed back. Why would we want an editor who subscribes to vile neo-Nazi white supremacist browser extensions? This isn't an accident, this user demonstrated their ideology is incompatible with decent society. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 16:42, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

@NorthBySouthBaranof: I should have looked at the diffs first, that does look like a Nazi browser extension, Nazis have no place here. Ever. Tornado chaser (talk) 17:48, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Their browser extension also replaces instances of "Israel" with (((Our Greatest Ally))) as seen in the Kirsten Gillibrand edit. I can't believe we're talking about ever unblocking this user - they're clearly a neo-Nazi. Nobody uses this vile nonsense unless they're actively engaged in anti-Semitic hatred. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 16:43, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

The provisions at WP:MOS would not support triple parentheses (except at the article called Triple parentheses). It is only antisemitic if the User says it's antisemitic. If the User claims its use was inadvertent, then we should accept and unblock. Sorry to repeat myself. Bus stop (talk) 16:49, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Please explain how it would be "inadvertent" to make tiny minor edits to articles about Democratic politicians while using an anti-Semitic browser extension to pump them full of an anti-Semitic symbol. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 16:53, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Nobody has to explain "how". Bus stop (talk) 16:58, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

So you're saying that we should just unblock someone who made a bunch of neo-Nazi anti-Semitic edits over the last year and a half as long as they say "oops sorry I exposed myself as an anti-Semite, I'll be careful to be more subtle next time"? Like, you're saying this is the kind of user we *want* on Wikipedia? Because as far as I'm concerned, Nazis should be no more welcome on this website than child sex advocates. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:06, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

A lot of people do a lot of dumb things, NorthBySouthBaranof. What are triple parentheses? We don't coin new block-able offenses based on punctuation marks. You are essentially arguing that because they used triple parentheses for a year-and-a-half that we should block them now. If punctuation was such a big bug-a-boo why didn't we warn them before now? We don't need to compound dumbness with further dumbness. The notion of using triple parentheses to identify Jews is dumb enough. Do we have to block people for falling prey to all the dumbness embodied in this new thrust to use punctuation to advance ethnic causes? Bus stop (talk) 17:28, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

The instances where "Israel" was replaced with "(((Our Greatest Ally)))" is pretty solid proof that the triple parentheses were meant to highlight Jews. This is further reinforced by the fact that triple parentheses were only added around common or famous Jewish names. It's not just punctuation, they were using software that exists solely to cast Jews as The Other, a method started and used primarily by Neo-Nazis. Stop enabling them with an argument that amounts to "I didn't know that so maybe it's not true." Ian.thomson (talk) 17:37, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

The countermeasure to that is not to block. The countermeasure is to allow the User to speak, but this time using proper language. You are arguing that this is not only punctuation but it is only punctuation. You are saying that I am "enabling them" but I am enabling them to participate constructively in this project. It is only a punctuation mark that is separating them from being blocked and editing constructively. I am glad that I am standing for "enabling them" to contribute to the encyclopedia constructively in the future. Bus stop (talk) 17:50, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

I'm not drinking your Flavor-aid until you can provide a meaning for the triple parentheses within the context used besides the antisemitic one. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:53, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

I am completely accepting of the findings at our article Triple parentheses. But the User should not be blocked for something so arcane and without warning and if they make a simple statement that they didn't intend anything antisemitic and that it happened inadvertently and that they won't be using triple parentheses again. The issue is resolved at that point. Bus stop (talk) 18:00, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Bus stop Even if the changes were made by accident, ultimately that would be because the person uses anti-Semitic software. I don't remember who said it originally, but again we need WP:NOFUCKINGNAZIS. —{{u|Goldenshimmer}}｜✝️｜they/their｜😹｜T/C｜☮️｜John 15:12｜🍂 17:00, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict)That's not the only instance where Israel was replaced with "(((Our Greatest Ally)))." They have been using the antisemitic browser plug in for two and a half years: [10] [11]. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:04, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

I'm having trouble seeing how this could be an accident either unless this plugin downloads, installs and runs itself; the fact that they have this plugin at all is indictment enough. Mr rnddude (talk) 16:55, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Just a note to say that Aspensti was asked not to do this on their talk page last year, with a link to our article on triple parenthesis, and a note that it might be their browser doing it automatically. Hard to believe that they didn't know it was problematic. GirthSummit _(blether) 18:26, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

@Girth Summit: Well, that pretty much rules out the only mitigating factor I could think of: Unknowingly doing it while (on occasion) using a compromised shared computer. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.8% of all FPs} 22:37, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

I find what is being said by users like Bus stop a bit bizarre here. The user is clearly aware (or even if we go hardcore AGF, must have become aware) of what the meaning of the triple parentheses are. Thus -- it's clearly an intentionally provocative behavior. WP:NOTHERE, block him while it's easy, before he learns to push Nazi POVs more subtly.--Calthinus (talk) 20:06, 8 December 2018 (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.

Community ban proposal

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.

---

Based on the evidence of using an anti-Semitic browser extension to make edits inserting anti-Semitic symbols into Jewish-related articles spanning, as User:Ian.thomson has noted, more than two and a half years, I believe this user is not someone we want back on Wikipedia in any fashion. I am proposing a community ban on User:Aspensti for using the encyclopedia as a platform for neo-Nazism and anti-Semitism. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:09, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

• Support as proposer. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:09, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
• Support - Nazis get the fuck out. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:20, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
• Support. Bishonen | talk 17:22, 8 December 2018 (UTC).
• Oppose although in this case indefinite should mean infinite, not undefined, and nobody should even think of lifting the block. On a check through the last few years of edits, we're only talking five problem edits at my count out of 1500; I don't see any benefit in converting the block to a ban just for the sake of it, and doing so would in my opinion devalue the intention behind bans as a signifier that an editor is particularly problematic. Note that WP:NOFUCKINGNAZIS, being cited above as justification, is a personal essay in userspace, not policy, guideline, or anything remotely official. ‑ Iridescent 17:29, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

(For what it's worth, when I linked WP:NOFUCKINGNAZIS earlier, I didn't even realize there was a page there, thought it was just a red-link someone thought should exist. It wasn't intended as a rational for a CBAN, which I haven't commented on, just as an endorsement of its title, although its content looks helpful too. In terms of a CBAN, I think it's a bit sad that there isn't a rule that nazis are all considered banned automatically, but don't see why I shouldn't support this. —{{u|Goldenshimmer}}｜✝️｜they/their｜😹｜T/C｜☮️｜John 15:12｜🍂 18:10, 8 December 2018 (UTC))

If the blocking admin hadn't said If they explain they are using such an extension, AND confirm it has been turned off , any admin has my clearance to unblock, this proposal wouldn't be necessary. Anyone who would intentionally use such an extension for any reason is not someone we want editing the encyclopedia. Nobody downloads that extension unless they're a devoted anti-Semite. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:22, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

• Support About the only thing I can think of that's at all innocent is some misunderstanding of wikimarkup, e.g. isn't {{{1}}} the wikicode for the first string passed to a template? Even then, though, this isn't being done to a template... I mean, I suppose he could have been lied to, or have been using a roommate's computer, or something, but that's for him to argue, not us. Ban. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.8% of all FPs} 18:35, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

• Support this is vandalism by any other name. Unlike some people I'm not afraid to denounce Nazis. I'm also disturbed by User:Bus stop's repeated excuses for this behavior. Maybe Bus stop should get a censure. Legacypac (talk) 18:37, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment I find Bus Stop's reasoning to be unpersuasive, but I fail to see how a censure is needed. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:27, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
• Support based on what is written above. Ktrimi991 (talk) 18:38, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
• Support. AGK ■ 18:56, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
• Support, and Bus stop needs to think a bit more about the behaviour that they're trying to defend. Res ipsa loquitur applies here with respect to Aspensti. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 19:10, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
• Support There are 2016 and 2017. talk page notices about the user's use of triple parentheses with links to the wikiarticle. Meters (talk) 19:21, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
• Support. Fuck this guy.--Jorm (talk) 19:25, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose per the reasoning of Iridescent; as a personal opinion, there's no chance of the character ever being realistically unblocked (unless a wandering admin has forgotton what the view out of a Hotel Arbcom window looks like); but a racing certainty of WP:CREEP. I also agree with Jorm's reasoning, if not their !vote  :) ——SerialNumber54129 19:32, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
• Support (non-administrator comment) There really aren't very fine people on both sides. I saw the issue from last year, but I did not look back far enough to realize this was spanning 3 years, with the appropriate warnings. It's hard to image the editor in question is ever going to make useful contributions to the project. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:27, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
• Support. I hadn't seen that the User had been warned before. Bus stop (talk) 19:32, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
• Support This editor ignored two previous warnings and yet continued to add neo-Nazi garbage to the enyclopedia. What they did to former Congressman Steve Israel's name is especially appalling. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:33, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
• Support. We don't need anyone who dumps anti-semitic code into articles. Binksternet (talk) 19:46, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
• Support Warned before, still doing it. Somebody who runs this sort of script is a Nazi. If it happened once, perhaps they were editing from a public computer, AGF and all. In response to above mentions of the self-identification/solidarity movement, that does not involve running a script that changes names. This is how that's done ->> (((∰Bellezzasolo✡))) Discuss 19:47, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

• Support: might as well. --K.e.coffman (talk) 19:54, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
• Support - was warned twice with a link to our article on what they mean, and count me as one of those who didn't know this was common knowledge. If this browser extension doesn't have the ability to disable it on certain websites, like many extensions do, then they should have absolutely known this was going to cause serious problems here. Shame on them. Isaidnoway (talk) 19:55, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
• Support clearly WP:NOTHERE, so why should they be here?--Calthinus (talk) 20:03, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
• Support - No excuse shall be given to an apparent, and quite possible deliberate use of a Neo-Nazi Chrome extension while editing Wikipedia, considering the timespan and multiple warnings. We don't need to have someone screaming insidious joy while inserting fashy trash here. Give Nazis no platform. Tsumikiria (T/C) 20:27, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
• weak/conditional support. The more I read here, the more there is to explain, but when you get right down to it, the evidence here boils down to use of unusual punctuation and I'm somewhat reluctant to see a community ban placed on this basis. I'd really like to hear from Aspensti (who hasn't edited since this discussion began) before this is enacted. GoldenRing (talk) 21:15, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
• Strong unconditional support - No conceivable excuse for this behavior. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:26, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
• Support - They were warned in July 2017 not to do this. Their continued use of this abhorrent Nazi signal makes their intent quite clear. - MrX 🖋 21:48, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
• Support - I'd support this even if they hadn't already been warned about it and continued, because this is about the integrity of Wikipedia and the necessity of zero tolerance for this kind of thing. But they had been warned so there's not even a possible mitigating circumstance. --bonadea contributions talk 21:54, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
• Support - And this grotesque behaviour has been noted for 2 years? Sorry, but zero tolerance for the oldest pathological hatred in the book. Simon Adler (talk) 21:58, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

• Floq: I hope you can guarantee us that if any soft-hearted (or weak-minded) admin was to unblock this editor in the future, you'd be right there with us in asking ArbCom for an immediate de-sysopping for overturning a de facto community ban. That's really the only reason to go through with this, to ensure that any unblock has to be run by the community first, and cannot be undertaken on the responsibility of a single administrator. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:36, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
• @Floquenbeam: I understand your motivations, but you cannot unilaterally deny the community the right to decide on a formal ban. I have, therefore, reopened this discussion. When it is closed, it needs to be closed as a formal ban discussion. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:12, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
• Support per most of the above, how is this still a discussion? The Moose 09:20, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

• Because someone just reopened it ‑ Iridescent 09:28, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
• It needs to be open for long enough to qualify as a formal community ban and to be closed as such. At WP:CBAN it says "Sanction discussions must be kept open for at least 24 hours to allow time for comments from a broad selection of community members" (emphasis in original). Floquenbeam closed it at 23:30, 8 December 2018 (UTC), less than 6.5 hours after the ban was proposed, and I reopened it at 09:12, 9 December 2018 (UTC). I reckon that means it needs to stay open for around another 17.5 hours, at least, to qualify as an acceptable community ban. Please, folks, let's not have another (well-meaning) fuck-up like we just had at AN - and just stick to the rules! Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:32, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Agreed with Boing! said Zebedee. The user is already indef'd; there's no reason that we should feel rushed about this or that we have to close and implement the proposed sanction right now. Let the discussion remain open (set the starting time to when discussion was re-opened so that we're certain that the discussion duration requirement is followed), comply with all of the requirements necessary, and everything will be okay. There's no doubt that the disruptive edits by this user were grossly and egregiously hostile, in direct violation of our policies and core principles, and added with the intention of targeting and expressing open hatred; they're a perfect example of edits and behaviors that have absolutely positively no place here and that we should not stand for. But we need to relax... it's over now, it won't continue from this user any further if things remained at the status quo, and the discussion will close when the right time comes... :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 14:33, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

• Support - the user has already received two previous warnings about it.--Staberinde (talk) 11:05, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
• Support - when I had made my previous comments, I missed that there were earlier Talk page warnings made. (!admin !vote, if that matters.) --Nat Gertler (talk) 15:21, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
• Strong support I am surprised that there is any opposition to this. This use of triple parentheses is a well-known antisemitic practice.[12][13][14] There have been several previous discussions about this, and we even have an article. There is no innocent explanation of this practice, and no excuse; and regular visitors to this page should be aware of this. Any editor acting in this offensive and racist manner should be permanently banned; we don't need them. RolandR (talk) 21:41, 9 December 2018 (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.

Edit filter

@Zzuuzz and MusikAnimal: would you please evaluate the above and see if this is a good candidate for an edit filter. It should flag "Our Greatest Ally" and the triple parentheses if possible and maybe anything else this browser extension might do. We shouldn't let other editors using it go undetected. Thank you.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 13:06, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Just as an observation, we do have a legitimate redirect that starts with a triple parenthesis – (((20-oxopregn-4-en-3-ylidene)amino)oxy)acetic acid – so an edit filter would need to consider any legitimate uses of triple parentheses and / or collateral damage. I recognise that avoiding the inclusion of this bigotry in article space is important so it may be worth an edit filter so long as an admin can create any pages or make edits that may be needed on request. EdChem (talk) 13:33, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Without saying too much, the complete pattern we want to block could never arise in legitimate math or other technical use of parens. EEng 13:42, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Follow-on: Of course, there needs to be some way to still edit the Triple parentheses article. EEng 20:11, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

As EEng says. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:44, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

<Winks discretely and offers the secret handshake> EEng 13:48, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

I'm not going to dispute how the filter could / would operate, given my miniscule knowledge on the subject, I just wanted to mention the issue.  :) Though I'm not learning much about how to stick multiple parentheses up my nose – I guess that's what ANI is WP:NOT. EdChem (talk) 13:57, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

We already have Filter 766. It's a public filter so check it out. It could do with a little tidying, but the key change would be to apply it to basically any user. For performance reasons I would probably still exclude bots and sysops (who would be soon spotted it they did this). -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 14:40, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

I agree with Zzuuzz about excluding bots/sysops. I've got a revised filter drafted up, but before we start disallowing I think we should have a customized message. Totally agree there's no room for anti-semites here... goes without saying. But the browser extension thing means some good edits, that otherwise have nothing to do with anti-semitism, will get blocked. We should at least them know why. Anyone want to author the message? It should follow the format MediaWiki:Abusefilter-disallowed. — MusikAnimal ^talk 19:48, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

I've written User:MusikAnimal/Abusefilter-alt-right. Please copy edit as desired. The language should maybe not be too strong, as I've seen some possible false positives such as Special:Diff/872177455. On that note, I wonder if we should just warn/tag as we are currently? — MusikAnimal ^talk 20:09, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

That is not a false positive. No conceivable excuse exists for this particular edit. I copy-edited the notice a bit. Hopefully this is useful. On another note, as the current Internet goes, we should probably develop some UW template to specifically adapt for this kind of inexcusable behavior. Tsumikiria (T/C) 21:08, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

I'd go for a warning until or unless the filter is proven. And I would definitely agree it shouldn't be worded too strongly because the syntax is often (mistakenly) used for other reasons. Suggesting that someone is antisemitic, when they're not, is going to be offensive. For example, this is a false positive (though misplaced), and this is not anti-semitic. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 21:27, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

The first example you link (intervening parens) is easily handled in the filter, and the second one need not be accommodated. EEng 04:16, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose edit filter too much automation obsession, unless this type of vandalism is happening frequently rather than one-off incidents here and there. Just revert the normal way and block the person, or anyway set the filter to log only and occasionally check hits and respond to them. (((a b c))) is a perfectly good Lisp S-expression denoting three nested lists. And I'm old enough to remember when triple parentheses meant (((group hug))) not anti-semitism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.228.123.166 (talk) 03:42, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

  Shit, I forgot about lisp, which as usual has to screw everything up with its perverted syntax. Look, we don't need opposes and supports and so on. Programming language snippets should be enclosed in appropriate syntax and that can be excepted in the filter. Group hugs will be a unfortunate casualty. EEng 04:16, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

• Question is, do we actually need this filter or is it a bandwagon thing? We don't need a filter for every type of obnoxious vandalism ever invented. How about a Cluebot action? EFs (in general) have enough frustrating false positives that I'd rather have fewer than more of them. I do understand that they are needed sometimes. But this paren issue hasn't come up before, at least often enough to think one is needed this time. When it happens frequently is when it's time to think about automation. 173.228.123.166 (talk) 05:58, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
• Also it's not just Lisp, a quick grep through some C code shows this from RRDTool 1.6.0:

  rrd_fetch.c: if (((*data) = (rrd_value_t*)malloc(rows * sizeof(rrd_value_t))) == NULL) { ...

  That's many more like that. It's all that uncommon. I guess the code tag can be a usable workaround some of the time. 173.228.123.166 (talk) 08:29, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

• Yes, C (and C++, Java, etc) use multiple parentheses, but the syntax is always characteristically different from (((text))).

  (And yeah, I hadn't thought about Lisp either - silly language). Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:09, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Just have the filter only pick up on uses of three left brackets in sequence with no intervening characters ("(((") followed by three right brackets (")))") with no intervening characters, and a maximum of 25 characters with no other brackets between the two sets of brackets. I don't know the code for that, but I can't imagine it would give many false positives. Fish+Karate 14:20, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

173.228.123.166, my request for an edit filter was to flag uses so that they may be detected. No request was made to block the usage. We want to flag it so that it may be examined more closely. As to "unless this type of vandalism is happening frequently rather than one-off incidents here and there...", you have missed the point that this one editor was doing it for more than two years. We want to find those that may still be out there. Also, if an automated tool has been built to do this then it seems warranted to use automation to detect it.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 10:32, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

If it's just logging that won't cause as much hassle, but if the idea is to find existing instances in mainspace, search makes more sense. If there are occasional insertions that are getting reverted, who cares? Vandals vandalizing and getting RBI'd is routine, and treating this parenthesis stuff specially just seems to create a new hobby for the vandals, contra DENY. Well, whatever. 173.228.123.166 (talk) 18:49, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

• I did an article search for insource:/\(\(\(/ and there are 2800 uses in articles, mainly citations of AllMusic for which I'm not sure why the parenthesis are added. Added in diffs like [15] and [16]. Strange. Galobtter (pingó mió) 07:07, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Personal attacks

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

---

Hi. I can't edit as an IP, but I'm reading this discussion.

I would like to report this personal attacks done by @Chetvorno and FkpCascais: against @Bilseric:

Their edits:

1. Accusations of single account and POV pushing [17]

2. Accusations of sock puppertry [18]

3. Linking more accusatios [19]

4 Sock accusations [20]

5 Sock accusations [21]

141.136.229.217 (talk) 10:47, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Thank you ip, but I don't need you nor them dragging me into pointless arguments like this. Bilseric (talk) 11:04, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

I am up that found source you are using. I have the right to join discussion, but they banned ips. If I find more sources I can post to your talk page. 141.136.229.217 (talk) 13:54, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

You're not demonstrating that semi-protecting the page was a mistake when by your own admission you would be engaging in illicit socking by editing there as an IP. Assuming none of your accounts (if you have more than one) is blocked or banned, you're welcome to contribute there from a single main account. Nil Einne (talk) 17:33, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Sure, I'll do it when you stop personal attacks of this kind I reported. Until then I can talk to objective editors over talk pages. 141.136.229.217 (talk) 17:59, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

I missed this until now. I'd note that you're describing yourself as the person who found the source. From what I can tell, most contributors from your IP range to this page when you found the source Talk:Nikola Tesla/Nationality and ethnicity/Archive 9#Just some sources for those interested seem to have been considered Asdisis socks. It's difficult to be sure if any particular edit is definitely from Asdisis since of course Croatian editors are likely to be the one of those most interested in such discussions, however the infestation with Asdisis socks means that any IP or even a SPA is likely to be regarded as strong scrutiny and suspicion. I mean Bilseric used a Croatian IP range in the past Special:Contributions/141.138.31.170 but likewise it isn't that much evidence in and of itself but the fact they're still an SPA gives strong cause for concern even to someone with no experience with the history like myself. If you are genuinely another editor in good standing, edit from your main account and perhaps you'll actually have a chance of achieving something. Nil Einne (talk) 18:55, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

I'm sick and tired of seeing Fkp mentioning this Asdisis guy. I thought I was the only one, but every now and then when I see his contributions I see him mentioning him. He's obsessed. Asdisis is nothing special, a newcomer to Wikipedia who got dragged by Fkp to disputes and got banned. Much like he is doing now to this guy. As Bilserik said "he's is all over a place". Of course his palls donnt say he is IDONTHEARYOU. If anyone is IDONTHEARYOU its Fkp, just read how many objections he spinned in one evening. He's the all knowing expert and he doesn't need sources. 141.136.229.217 (talk) 19:23, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

In my opinion, having been involved with Asdisis (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)' nationalistic POV pushing on on Croatia-related topics, there are a lot of similarities between the talk page comments of Bilseric and Asdisis. The suspicion about sockpuppetry seems warranted. It's interesting that the IP's first edit was to an editor's talk page complaining about a sub-subpage of talk:Nikola Tesla and then straight to ANI to file this complaint.- MrX 🖋 12:47, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

I wan´t even bother to comment. I just feel sorry that we don´t have a more efficient way to deal with this disruption. FkpCascais (talk) 13:00, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

After guy beat every one of your sceaming arguments with sources, you started with personal attacks. Fkp was warned against such behavior in ANI. There is no excuse to use personal attacks on talk page, and your status as experienced editors don't mend you that. Its shameful that mrx is saying it is ok to use personal attacks on talk page. Admins please stop that.141.136.229.217 (talk) 13:50, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

It's interesting that both you and Bilseric refer to FkpCascais as Fkp. - MrX 🖋 14:12, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

To me it's more interesting your guts to say that personal attacks on the talk page are warranted. Just search ANI and you will see how many people have reported Fkp for personal attacks. I have participated in one of them where he was warned against such behavior. 141.136.229.217 (talk) 16:52, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

It seems to me the OP should be blocked for WP:ILLEGIT socking [22]. At the very least they're violating "Editing project space" with their edits here. Probably also WP:SCRUTINY too. BTW to the OP, I had a quick look at the ANI archives. Most discussions I found concerning alleged personal attacks by FkpCascais involved Asdisis socks. Please link to a clean discussion from your account if you want us to take any of this seriously. Telling us to search is pointless when all we find is nonsense. Nil Einne (talk) 17:25, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

I'm perfectly legit to logoff and edit as an ip on another topic. I don't wan't this kind of personal attacks tied to my account. The ANI discussion I was mentioning is this : [23]. All IPs in that ANI are mine.141.136.229.217 (talk) 17:49, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

No it's not. "Undisclosed alternative accounts are not to be used in discussions internal to the project." Intentionally logging out so it's not tied to your account counts the same as editing with another account. I will not investigate the evidence as long as your violate normal contributor rules we expect of all contributors. Edit from your account if you want us to take you seriously. Not from Croatian or Ukrainian IPs. Nil Einne (talk) 18:00, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Do you have a link to the rule? I extract my info from one report to one user where he was accused of puppertry, but then he explained that he edits as an ip often and that he just forgot to log in. His complaint was accepted. 141.136.229.217 (talk) 18:04, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

I already linked to it in my first message. I have no idea the relevance of the case you bring up when someone with an account either forgot to log-in or engages in normal editing as an IP without the intention of evading scrutiny or participating in internal project discussion, to anything I've said though. BTW I had a closer look at the discussion you linked to and from what I can tell, everyone seemed to think you were Asdisis and shouldn't have been participating as an IP so you've still completely failed to actual provide a case which wasn't infested with Asdisis socks and instead linked yourself to Asdisis. In addition the primary concern in that case did not seem to be personal attacks but other matters. Nil Einne (talk) 18:23, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

I don't understand what "Editing project space: Undisclosed alternative accounts are not to be used in discussions internal to the project" means. If that other user was permitted to edit as an IP and over account in separete topics, then I'm also. But this isn't about me. I see that Bilseric and you dont care. Why should I. Leave personall attacks, that's why Tesla topic is a mess for 10 years. Bye141.136.229.217 (talk) 18:25, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

I didn't open that ANI nor I was reported in that ANI, nor I should interest you. You should be interested in Wikipedia rules. Bye. 141.136.229.217 (talk) 18:27, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Um you were explicitly told to stop socking in that previous discussion so clearly it was about you amongst other things. You yourself have linked to an example. And if you open or participate in a discussion, it is about you, hence why there are so many WP:Boomerangs here. Most discussions which occur on wikipedia name space, are internal to the project hence why they are on wikipedia namespace. Editing articles, and discussions concerning article content as an IP when you forgot to login may be okay provided there isn't another problem (like evading scrutiny). Bringing someone here for sanction when you have intentionally made sure you aren't logged in, not so much. And of course the precise circumstance matters. Since you keep harping on about personal attacks, surely you understand that it's clearly not a personal attack to repeatedly say User:Detoner is a sock of User:Asdisis but it may be a personal attack to repeatedly say that User:Jimbo Wales is a sock of Asdisis. Nil Einne (talk) 19:17, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Because everyone asums IP is a sock. Ok I didn't know I can report as an IP, but I am not logging in to be personally attacked by the same group of users. I did it because it happened to me. Goodbye, I don't wish to continue this anymore. 141.136.229.217 (talk) 19:37, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

@141.136.229.217: Diffs 1,2, and 3 are not personal attacks. Diffs 4 and 5 are edgy because they convey the assumption that Bilseric is a sock of Asdisis. That assumption is reasonable given the apparent single purpose of both accounts, and the striking similarities in their communication style.- MrX 🖋 17:40, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

All of those are personal attacks, the manner to which Fkp is often resorting. [24]. He's obsessed with this Asdisis guy. He has often accused me and I had to open at least 3 RfCs against him, all of them I won with the help of other editors despite his attempts to ban me. 141.136.229.217 (talk) 17:54, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Just as extract from the ANI I mentioned, since the same thing he is doing here in this topic:

LjL, if you look closer at the discussions, you'll see he's really been attacking everyone who doesn't agree with him. The user who started the discussion got reported by him. He got fed up with Fkp and left. I got attacked that I'm a sock to the point that it's generally accepted as a fact, although no report was made. Director got attacked as a nationalist. You got attacked...The whole discussion should be reviewed so let's leave it for the admins. Every single editor had left the discussion because of FkP and if it weren't for me he would successfully enter his POV to the article after all the opposition is gone, one way (by blocking) or another (by exhaustion). I told it a long time, he's not been discussing in good faith and it's really hard to notice until you get involved with him. Isn't that right LjL. It's hard to notice that when someone puts a direct question how he neglects to answer it and buries it with a wall of text. You can't easily notice if you don't read carefully. But when you get involved you see it very clearly. Your last section is a great example. 159.224.0.18 (talk) 01:18, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm afraid you're pretty much on the spot (but you still shouldn't evade blocks). LjL (talk) 01:29, 25 October 2015 (UTC)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.136.229.217 (talk)  

Please. I didn't report anyone. I'm starting to regret this all. In two years I haven't posted as much as I did in one evening. I don't have such time. Bilseric (talk) 19:50, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

I stand by my comments, which were not "personal attacks". This is all in the context of an extremely severe edit war on Nikola Tesla over a few words about Tesla's birthplace, that has gone on for 11 years between Serbian and Croatian nationalist supporters, including several accounts that were blocked as socks. It was so contentious that in a 2015 RfC, discussions of Tesla's nationality were moved to a separate Talk subpage. In 2017 editor Bilseric participated in an unsuccessful effort on this Talk page to change Tesla's stated birthplace to Croatia, in which he was accused of being a sock of banned sockpuppeteer Asdisis [25]. I was on the side of keeping the existing language. Then on 8 December 2018 he started an RfC [26] whose purpose was not to change the article text, but to insert a source for a quote that had been discussed and rejected in the previous debate, that seemed to be original research. So far, this RfC is opposed by 6 editors, and he is the only supporter. I didn't understand the purpose of this RfC, as the content in question is already supported by two sources. The only thing I said about him of a personal nature was [27]: "Bilseric seems to be a WP:single issue editor whose only activity on WP has been to WP:push for saying that Tesla is "from Croatia". It looks as if FkpCascais is right, that this RfC is an effort to "wedge" WP:original research into the article containing language that supports his position." I think this is clearly revealed in his edit record. My only reason for making personal comments about him was to raise the possibility like MrX above that Bilseric may be a sock. --Chetvorno^TALK 21:01, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

And since you are so worried that someone might damage the article, how do you and Fkp explain this? [28]. 141.136.229.217 (talk) 22:07, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Consensus is there in the article already. Consensus is that Tesla was born in Military Frontier, and not Croatia, neither MF was part of Croatia. Exactly thwe opposite of what the "two of you" pretend. Its exactly this manipulative way of discussing Asdisis used, and you use just as same, a clear blatant disrtuption here. Other editors can confirm. FkpCascais (talk) 22:12, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

141.136.229.217: Yes, I don't know what Bilseric is talking about when he says [29] that FkpCascais and I are "opposing consensus". The current wording was decided on by an 8 June 2014 RfC here in which at least 15 editors participated. That is the "consensus". And 6 editors are opposing his current proposed changes [30] - he is the only one supporting it - so I don't see that there is any support for change. --Chetvorno^TALK 22:50, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

You perfectly well know what he was talking about [31], since you said your opposition. 141.136.229.217 (talk) 23:13, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Yes, Bilseric also without consensus for some reason deleted the sources supporting the sentence "His father, Milutin Tesla, was an Eastern Orthodox priest."[32] which was decided in a 14 July 2014 RfC RfC:_Is_Tesla.27s_father_a_Serbian_Orthodox_priest. On Wikipedia, statements require supporting sources. Changes to content decided by an RfC require consensus on the Talk page. --Chetvorno^TALK 00:28, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Those are not the sources that were decided by the RfC you are referencing, but the sources which are against the outcome of that RfC. Even Fkp admitted that a few posts below when I pressured him. Why am I dealing with you? When something goes against your POV you are all knowing experts and when it goes along your POV you play ignorance like this. The guy clearly said that this is against the consensus and you ignored him. Dealing with you people who have occupied Tesla article is impossible. 141.136.229.217 (talk) 01:13, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Let me refresh your memory. You and other garudians of the article are always there when your POV is being tempered, but when someone edits against your POV you leave it be in the article. He is speaking about this consensus [33] and the fact that someone hadd added references next to Orthodox priest saying "Serbian Orthodox ", which doesn't exist at that time. This is not the first time that this was done. Last time you tried to block me reestablish this consensus after the same thing happened. 141.136.229.217 (talk) 22:30, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

I reverted a Serbian POV-pushing. You lie with all youth teeth. I really cannot handle this anymore. PS: The "guardians" are actually the regular editors of that article which happened to be totally neutral regarding Tesla´s birthplace dispute. Admins please intervene. FkpCascais (talk) 22:47, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Look at references 15,16,17,18 in this sentence "His father, Milutin Tesla (1819–1879),[14] was an Eastern Orthodox priest.[15][16][17][18]". It was pointed out to you and that other Chetworno guy, but you ignored it. 141.136.229.217 (talk) 23:04, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for reverting now when in front of admins I pointed out, but where were you when it was put into article, where were you when it was pointed out to you a few weeks ago. You jump immediately when someone changes your POV but you and others alike leave this stuff let be. 141.136.229.217 (talk) 23:09, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

141.136.229.217: You need to read more carefully. Read the RfC [34]. It only says that the text in the article should describe Tesla's father as an "Orthodox priest", not "Serbian Othodox". This is to avoid confusing readers about his nationality. It doesn't say that the sources have to describe him as "Orthodox priest". The discussion pointed out that many sources use the term "Serbian Orthodox". You and Bilseric are getting upset over something that is not an issue. --Chetvorno^TALK 01:16, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

You are even more crazy than the Fkp who accepted that this edit was done against the consensus. The RfC clearly says "saying the father and grandfather were Serbian Orthodox priests, would introduce ambiguity. (E.g., 1. Orthodox priests from Serbia, or 2. Serbian Orthodox priests". Not only that, but the editor who closed it himself has made an edit putting valid references. Someone has since posted cherry picked sources which mention Serbian Orthodox Church, thus introducing ambiguity. To me, it's more interesting that you think 2 sources on the matter are enough when it comes to the current RfC, but this sentence has not 2 but 4 source boundled together and against a consensus , yet you see no problem. 141.136.229.217 (talk) 01:29, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

• I just noteced a thing I missed out. Bilseric announced at Tesla talk-page that he is planning to add his POV to other articles such as Military Frontier, meaning he totally ignores all evidence and just wants to make Military Frontier Croatian by any means.... Can someone please block him to stop this madness? Also, the other IP account is clearly Asdisis. Asdisis already said in the past that he was going to use IP accounts and that nobody could stop him. He always started as IP by deniying being Asdisis but when upset he acknolledges and changes IP. I honestly think Bilseic, Asdisis, all this IPs, is one same person, the already indef-banned Asdisis. FkpCascais (talk) 22:10, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

You cant ban people and sources just because you don't like. How did each RfC I opened against you finish? Was I banned? No, I carried each one of them to the end and in each one of them I was proven right. If enough objective editors come to counter you POV pushers this one will pass too. You couldn't bury this source forever. 141.136.229.217 (talk) 22:30, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

"he was going to use IP accounts and that nobody could stop him". :) He's a true Wikipedia villan, haha. Fkp, as much as I hate your POV pushing, I couldn't do without your humor. Maybe we should continue our discussion about the same thing that we started here [35]. 141.136.229.217 (talk) 22:32, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

What sources? A Wikisource citing a text from 1905? WHich has dubious wording and just says what a declaration had written? While duzens of other modern-day scholar sources say the opposite? No, Military Frontier didn´t become part of Croatia in 1850, it existed as separate province until 1881. By then Tesla already left the area. So Tesla was not born neither lived in Croatia. All sources indicate so, and so that yours as well cause says "Things are to stay as they are" which was Croatia-Slavonia on one side, Military Frontier on other. Your refusal to acknolledge the sources presented and what our sourced articles here indicate is extremellçy disruptive. And you accused me of being a POV-pusher (I guess pro-Serbian you mean) so see my last edit at Nikola Tesla. I am against any POV-pushers, and you are clearly one, that is why no other Croatian editors support any of you, cause they know and want to stay away from you. FkpCascais (talk) 22:37, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

I spend a lot of time searching for this source and I'm very proud I have found it, so please, have some respect. It says that from 1850 Croatia, Military Frontier and Slavonia constitute a single land. It goes so far to quote the kings proclamation. No other source can possibly say otherwise since this one quotes the kings proclamation. You are just misinterpreting them. Separate government and administration doesn't make it a separate land. Austrian Empire was divided on crown lands and Tesla was born in one of those crown lands. Military Frontier was not a crown land. Show me in the king title that he is a king of Military Froniter. Yeah, the source indeed says that Military Frontier will stay with separate representation and administration, but it also adds "however it will with Croatia and Slavonia constitute a single land". Everything is said in the quote I provided. This is the part which is bothering you. 141.136.229.217 (talk) 22:53, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

It seems increasingly clear that the IP is Asdisis. I'm leaving a reply on Asdisis's talk page since I think this discussion should just die and in any case, Asdisis shouldn't be editing here, not that they can edit their own talk page either but still it somehow seems a bit better. Nil Einne (talk) 11:06, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Reply left [36] Nil Einne (talk) 11:29, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Nil Einne you can say everything you said about me. I realize how I come out. But what's to say about "guardians" of Tesla article who on the one side, were repedetly notified that someone has breached a consensus [37],[38], [39],[40], yet they play dumb (Ok, Fkp has done one revert, but only after I pressured him with this all attacks), and on the other side are experts when it comes to banning sources they don't like. Luckily there are others that are objective [41], who I can contact. However, this just shows which topic this guardians are guarding. You can see for yourself what they did on Tesla page. Not 1, not 2, not 3, but 4 of them are ignoring the source they themself asked for. You were objective on me, be also objective on them. 141.136.229.217 (talk) 19:11, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

• 141.136.229.217 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and 89.164.164.9 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) are now editing in the same discussion at Talk:Nikola_Tesla#Serbian Orthodox Church - FlightTime (open channel) 20:36, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't change my ip, it changed by itself. Why would I do it? It's obvious that I'm the same person.89.164.164.9 (talk) 20:45, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Nil Einne, hope you see how abnormal this is. They should establish the consensus without me, and not that I have to do all this disruption to establish a consensus. They are being disruptive and they are making me be disruptive. 89.164.164.9 (talk) 20:49, 10 December 2018 (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.

More than three reverts

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:Onel5969 have made more than three reverts on the page AMEP Parekklisia. Xaris333 (talk) 16:36, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

That's true. It's also true that you have too. Perhaps now would be an excellent time to discuss on the talk page. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:47, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

I have made only three. If I have done more than three, you have the right to block me. The same for User:Onel5969. Xaris333 (talk) 18:09, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Surely WP:AN3 is the correct venue for this? Adam9007 (talk) 18:11, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) 3RRN is thataway >>> - FlightTime (open channel) 18:15, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Your first edit today was also a revert of the previous edit from July. I know I have the right to block you, but wouldn't it make more sense for you to use the talk page instead? You still haven't posted there, although Onel5969 has. Why solve something by blocks when it can be solved by using the talk page? --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:18, 10 December 2018 (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.

Article naming mess

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.

---

BrosefStalin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) recently moved Pork roll (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Taylor ham (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (see also TaylorHam (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)), over what seems to be long-standing consensus. I moved it back and engaged the user on their talk page. Today, they redid their original edits, but left a complete mess in the process, apparently in an attempt to work around a technical move limitation [42][43] (see user contribs for more). Page histories got clobbered, etc. Need an admin to figure this mess out. User was notified and acknowledged (on my talk page) need for admin intervention (technically, at least). --Fru1tbat (talk) 20:06, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

That is a mess. Give me a minute to sort it out. 28bytes (talk) 20:18, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

 Done. Discussion on the article title can now resume on Talk:Pork roll. That made me hungry. I am going to go get a sandwich. 28bytes (talk) 20:28, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Thank you! Much better now. --Fru1tbat (talk) 21:03, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, @28bytes. I had removed deadlines and added new citations supporting the name Taylor Ham. As @Fru1tbat and I discussed, the topic of moving the page will be revisited following further debate.BrosefStalin (talk) 22:15, 10 December 2018 (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.

Blatant content removal without cause by admin User:JzG at Unfulfilled

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.

---

Administrator User:JzG has blatantly and without cause blanked the entire episode recap written by independent editors including myself of the article Unfulfilled. He claims on his edit and talk page that the summary violates WP:V, WP:NOR, and WP:BLP. When I reverted his edit the first time he immediately issued me a WP:3RR warning without just cause. He apparently has no clue on how episode recaps work. Per MOS:TVPLOT the fact that the episode itself exists is sufficient enough for the purpose of a recap. Per WP:PRIMARY again the existence of the episode is sufficient for this purpose. And his claim of BLP is blatantly false as all episodes of South Park are by definition parodies and even have a disclaimer that all persons depicted are fictional, including those that may be based on real people. There are multiple articles written with episode recaps, especially ones from South Park, that have been deemed perfectly acceptable, but because JzG decided to blank out content on a subject matter that he apparently knows nothing about, we are here. This content should be restored immediately. - SanAnMan (talk) 23:21, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

BOOMERANG 207.38.146.86 (talk) 23:22, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Edit - shortly after posting this notice, an independent third party editor has restored the content based on the arguments I stated here. - SanAnMan (talk) 23:30, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

• (1) This should not have been brought to ANI, which is for discussion of urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems. SanAnMan, please take content disputes to the article's talkpage from now on. (2) JzG, plots do not need sourcing and never have. Softlavender (talk) 23:47, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

• Redundant to #Long-term abuse and reversions without cause by User:Nightscream above. Guy (Help!) 23:49, 10 December 2018 (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 want a dollar every time someone uses my phrase urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems. Not that it seems to be helping. EEng 01:57, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Oh, so when you coin a phrase, you actually want coins. ^{Atsme✍🏻📧} 03:54, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Unusual behavior

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.

---

• Lacwonda Sharell Mott (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Um, apparently this user is claiming to be Sia (musician)... but not not Sia Kate Isobelle Furler... Sia Kate Isobelle Furler apparently killed Lacwonda Sharell Mott and her friends but Lacwonda Sharell Mott survived. Her death and survival of it as apparently affected her English abilities. This user also owns UMPG ([44]).

NOTHERE block please? EvergreenFir (talk) 00:00, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

lolwat? Blocked. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:04, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

@Ian.thomson: ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ EvergreenFir (talk) 00:08, 11 December 2018 (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.

KidAd

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.

---

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

The following edit[45] to American politician Kevin Shelley appears to violate KidAd's topic ban.[46] Normally I would warn the user instead of reporting the violation, but he just came off a one-week block for previous violations of his topic ban,[47] and there was zero response to my last attempt to engage with him.[48] --Guy Macon (talk) 21:57, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

There's also this edit to Lee Holloway. Whether they don't or won't get it, they're clearly not gonna abide by the ban. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:18, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

He also appears[49] to have followed me to Liberty University, which is described in the lede as "a "bastion of the Christian right" in American politics, the university plays a prominent role in Republican politics". So, a clear violation of the topic ban. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:33, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

I have blocked them for a month, doing now necessary administration.--Ymblanter (talk) 22:37, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Eh... He did have edits relating to academia before he started a crusade against your dirty, un-American, Godless, inhuman, delusional liberalism, so I could imagine it being from that and not necessarily continued harassment. Liberty University is definitely a factor in right-wing American politics but it's a grey area for the topic ban. The Shelley and Holloway articles were obviously within the field of American politics, though, he has no real excuse for those edits. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:39, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

• The user disagrees with the block and asks it to be lifted. Whereas I do not agree with their arguments, I would welcome comments of uninvolved users here on as the duration of the block I have chosen has been appropriate. (I am off to bed now).--Ymblanter (talk) 00:10, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Entirely appropriate decision. I also wouldn't be opposed to unblocking him now with the understanding that the next violation is grounds for an indefinite block. But up to you. Good night! NW (Talk) 01:06, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

• A clear violation, and the editor has exhibited IDHT behavior recently -- they violated their TB smack in the middle of an appeal to remove the ban! (see recent AN archives) They haven't earned any dispensations. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:10, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
• At this point I don't think KidAd should be unblocked. I think I made it clear that the ban included all edits to post 1932 American politics when I said, "As you know you are banned from editing anything to do with post 1932 American politics.". The response to my post indicated a lack of concern about violating the topic ban while a ban appeal was taking place. ~ GB fan 01:37, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
• The block length as it was set (1 month) seems appropriate to me, but I'm not against reducing the block duration (or removing the block) with the condition that he asks any questions now and asserts his full understanding of the topic banning policy and what it means, and he acknowledges that a block of significantly longer duration (up to and including an indefinite length) will be applied if the user's topic ban is violated again. KidAd was given plenty of warnings, followed by the appropriate alert here that provides information and explains this process. Later, this user was sanctioned and placed on a 3-month topic ban from post-1932 American politics and appropriately notified here. The notice cited the exact reasons that led to the decision (which appear to be sufficient given the user's disruptive edits to the topic), and included a link to the topic ban section that clearly defines what this means and includes a very detailed example. A responsible user would have asked for clarification before making questionable edits if they had any questions - this user did not. KidAd even received a warning here for their edits made to two different articles that violated this ban, and KidAd did not follow up with any questions. Despite these opportunities to comply with the ban, ask questions, and have a clear understanding of the process that may be confusing to KidAd, he violated the topic ban again and was blocked for one week (notification is here). During the user's one-week block, he was also given advice on what he should do in order to turn things around, avoid further sanctions, and improve their editing. Despite this, the user violated their ban yet again, was given a one-month block for this, and notified. I'm the type of person that naturally leans toward giving users another chance and trying to educate and help them (as you all know), but I'm sitting here in the "neutral zone". I'm sympathetic and I don't want to see someone who really does want to improve and learn sit blocked for so long, but their edits in violation of policy and the numerous chances given that weren't taken by KidAd make me unwilling to take the lead on lowering the user's block duration give me pause. If another admin does, I see nothing against it, but I think a month is also fair. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 04:01, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

  I think at this point I am the only admin who can reduce the block, because it is an AE block. I will be still waiting for more opinions.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:08, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Ymblanter - Correct; I didn't mean to imply or state that I would attempt to modify or remove your AE block. I've clarified my above response to remove such implications. My apologies - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 15:46, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

• I'm leaning towards keeping the one month in place or at most, reducing it to 2 weeks. Before they were blocked the last time, they made multiple violations and were warned at least 2 times to stop [50] [51]. Once they claimed they didn't think it applied because the person wasn't a politician [52] although they work for a think thank and most of their article is related to political issues. Maybe the other time they thought it was okay because they were simply trying to recruit someone else rather than directly edit, I don't know. It got ridiculous when in the middle of a topic ban appeal on ANI [53] they started to edit the articles of the current speaker of the US House of Representatives and as well as the article which lead to their topic ban in the first place, with edits which clearly weren't copyedits. I guess they recognised that they had clearly violated their topic ban so their only response was "Ay caramba" [54] and then after being blocked, to post a quotation from the The Gulag Archipelago [55]. To their credit they didn't even try to appeal the first time and dealt well with being the victim of a joe job. But their second edit after coming back was to copyedit the article of a politician [56]. They were already told (per earlier link) that they really need to familiarise themselves with the topic ban. They were also told they need to edit other areas, that they "can't discuss political topics or political editors or political anything" and even when their topic ban expires they should still limit themselves to non controversial edits on political articles [57]. While they were never explicitly told that staying away means no copy editing the articles of politicians, or that an example of a non controversial edit they could make when their topic ban expired would be copy-editing, they've also shown little regard for the topic ban. They've made no real attempt until this appeal to try and properly understand the scope of their topic ban e.g. by asking questions. I'm not even sure if they've read WP:TBAN. While their next violation is likely to be an indef whatever happens, it would be good if it doesn't come to that. IMO a long block is more likely to get the message to them that they need to take this seriously, no messing around testing the limits and instead seek clarification if they're uncertain of the limits. Since multiple people have already tried to get this message through them on their talk page and it hasn't stuck until now, maybe a long block will. Nil Einne (talk) 13:09, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

KidAd asked me to let everyone at ANI know about the conversation we are having on his talk page. BTW, I welcome comments and/or criticism regarding how I am trying to handle this. If you think that I could use a better approach, please tell me. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:09, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

In that discussion, KidAd insists that they now (at last!) understand what their topic ban means. Color me unconvinced. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:22, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Why do I have that slight feeling that after the month topic ban of his, something unexpected is going to happen. Aceing_Winter_Snows_Harsh_Cold (talk) 00:36, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Here is my thinking on this: he is either going to follow the rules or not. Reducing the block to two weeks doesn't really change the probability of him either following the rules or not, so per WP:ROPE I say make the block two weeks with a strongly worded warning about the indef waiting for him if he does it again. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:27, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, Guy, I strongly disagree. I'm not buying the "I didn't know what a topic ban meant" routine. If he's legit, let him sit out the month and think about what he did wrong, and come back chastened and ready to follow the rules. I see no persuasive argument for giving him a break. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:41, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

You make a compelling argument. I could go either way, and the consensus seems to be for one month. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:55, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Impersonation attempts

Someone has been impersonating KidAd in an obvious Joe Job to try to get him in trouble. The latest attempt was removed within 2 minutes,[58][59] but everyone should be aware that there are have been messages from IP users pretending to be KidAd. (And no, I do not think that KidAd is stupid enough to engage in ssockpuppetry on the ANI page.) The person doing this may be someone who has tangled with KidAd on one of the politics pages. Alas, that doesn't narrow it down much. :( --Guy Macon (talk) 05:23, 9 December 2018 (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 possibly NOTHERE?

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 WikiAnthony (talk · contribs) who has been here since 2010 seems to be having some problems. He has a history of seemingly normal edits interspersed with inserting deliberately false information and other unconstructive edits, for which he as been warned in the past [60]. Today, for no apparent reason he created a nonsense page in Spanish [61]. Strange behavior... ♟♙ (talk) 01:25, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

I have given this editor an indefinite block and deleted the bizarre Spanish rant, which I believe contained a slang threat against whoever deletes that junk. Oh, well. This may be a compromised account, or perhaps this person is going through some sort of crisis. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:20, 12 December 2018 (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.

Incivility

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 tagged admins about my complaints at WP:AN ([62]) and @Floquenbeam: called it an "incoherent rant". Stop this incivility. It's the reason why I am not editing Wikipedia anymore. It's rude af and unnecessary. Dolfinz1972 (talk) 19:00, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Having read both your initial post and Floquenbeam's response, it seems that you expect to be treated with a much greater degree of civility and respect than you are willing to show other people. MastCell ^Talk 19:04, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

WP:FORUMSHOP. Home Lander (talk) 19:02, 11 December 2018 (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.

Help.

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 no idea what to do. A new user User:Laftsir has been doing editing on https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_original_programs_distributed_by_Netflix&action=history that was wrong: putting animes without clear premiere dates in a wrong place, and was reverted by multiple people now, and he just keeps reverting things back. Can this issue be looked at? Jovanmilic97 (talk) 23:16, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

I've warned all parties involved for edit warring and I'm applying full protection to the article for a few days. This is a content dispute and needs to be discussed and resolved properly. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 23:19, 9 December 2018 (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.

Routine thread for expiring of the range block of Malaysian nationality 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.

---

Let see how long the article list would be this time

• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive997#Range block needed again for Malaysian nationality vandal (last thread)
• Diving at the 2017 Southeast Asian Games (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Faris Ramli (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Matthew Davies (footballer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Jaycee Chan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Sporting Kansas City (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• 2016 Saint Louis FC season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• 2018 AFF Championship squads (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Koo Ja-cheol (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Wan Kuzain (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Pahang FA (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• 2405:3800:380:39b0:31e8:50e3:b3e4:4ee4 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) (active 10 December, blocked after starting ANI on 11 December 02:48)
• 2405:3800::/37 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

Despite there is high potential collateral damage for the range, the vandal return every time and vandalize many article each time, with an annoying ip hooping ability, either report 6 ip a day to WP:AIV for block evasion, or a range block every time he return. Matthew hk (talk) 02:34, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

•  Done Blocked again, for 3 months this time. Despite being a big range there are practically no edits at all from it except this vandal. Black Kite (talk) 13:02, 11 December 2018 (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.

Table

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.

---

Would you please remove incorrect plate table from my new article? I am refugee from Russian Wikipedia--1Goldberg2 (talk) 07:27, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

...I assume you mean this? This should be discussed with the person who placed the template, not here. The Moose 08:00, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Try asking at WT:WikiProject Insects whether an "unreferenced" tag is appropriate for Polistes adustus. There might not be much activity there, but that would be the first step. Johnuniq (talk) 01:59, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

I would have expected WikiProjects Insects to be a hive of activity. EEng 15:41, 12 December 2018 (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.

IP making mass politically motivated edits to 1975 Australian constitutional crisis

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 edits by anon and newly registered users to this article be prevented, at least until Christmas? Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 05:20, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

 Done, I protected the article for two weeks.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:30, 12 December 2018 (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.

SideShow Bob - Multiple personal attacks and now one more

Sideshow Bob has been active for many years and has so far made many personal attacks, insults and other sorts of behaviour not accordance with the rules of Wikipedia. He has just recently, on the page Mihailo Lalić, called my edit (with ref) - idiotic, followed with undone. Please help me and other Wikipedians in this situation. Thank you.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Sideshow_Bob

Mm.srb (talk) 01:07, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Can you provide some diffs illustrating this behavior? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:03, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Here's one. But that's about all I can be bothered to look for now. Mm.srb, you'll have to do better than this. Drmies (talk) 02:11, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

As long as we're doing the OP's job, here's another.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:16, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Like it or not, the edits in question were factually wrong and were reverted for that reason, regardless of the phrasing of my edit summaries. Using wikipedia for nationalist propaganda is also against the rules, as far as I know. Also, I have no personal interest in the reporting editor, and therefore could not personally attack him/her. On the other hand, the reporting editor has contacted me a few times, seemingly frustrated that I dare to put facts in encyclopedic articles, rather than my personal views and/or beliefs. Sideshow Bob 08:22, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

The reference which I have put in the article, which can be also found in English, states that during the lifetime of the author he was published in the collection of Selected 100 books and writers of Serbian literature. Editor in charge was Nobel prize winner Ivo Andrić. Mr Lalić did not protest this move and he was never quoted as a speaker of "Montenegrin language" which is a political construct of a newer age, and it can not be implemented retroactively. He wrote in Serbian (or Serbo-Croatian if you want), was a member of Serbian academy of scinces and arts, lived and worked in Serbia and finally died in Serbia and as I previously quoted was, during his life, included as a part of Serbian literature with good reasons. If this is not enough I do not see what is. Sideshow Bob is trying to spin the situation, because he in fact is using Wikipedia for nationalistic, unthruthful and biased edits. Plus, he has previously offended several users and made fundamental changes to the articles without any sources. This can be seen on Petar Petrović Njegoš. In fact I have contacted him before for exactly these reasons, to give a fair warning before anything would further escalate. If you open the edit history on Mihailo Lalić, you can see that he has now reverted my and another user's edits. That summs his respect for Wikipedia's rules and other users. Mm.srb (talk) 11:52, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

User:Caltraser55

Caltraser55 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). New account, lack of substantive contributions. Account created only for push own photomontage to article of Brisbane. In addition, vandalisms - for example: removes posts by other users: [63][64] (two times), removes data (-17,156‎ b) and sources without consensus [65], personal attacks (four times) - two examples: [66][67], edit-warring (many times) with pushing own graphics [68][69][70][71][72][73][74][75][76][77]. Discussion on his user talk page (he received a few requests and warnings by few users), requests and warnings in description of changes and requests and warnings in Talk:Brisbane do not help (also warning, as last warning). For several weeks still the same troubles with him. Unreformable user, account created for vandalism, spreading problems and pushing own graphics. The user has made 70 editions, almost all of them are vandalisms, controversial changes, personal attacks and the fight for his graphics as photomontage. My suggestion: to block indefinitely. Subtropical-man (talk / en-2) 00:15, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

hmm, and he remove majority of own user talk page [78], to read the all posts in talk page, you need to use the history of changes :/ Subtropical-man (talk / en-2) 14:49, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

plus lies, new personal attacks and vulgarism [79]. It will not end? Subtropical-man (talk / en-2) 02:00, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

• @Subtropical-man: You might be looking for WP:AIV? ^{[Username Needed]} 10:45, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

• @Username Needed: - no, they sent me here (from AIV to ANI) [80]. Subtropical-man (talk / en-2) 13:14, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Progress being disrupted

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

---

Hi, I'm a professional copyeditor/writer and am currently trying to improve the Ada Lovelace article. However, my progress is being obstructed by one particular editor (Xxanthippe) who appears to be standing guard over the article and preventing things from moving on. His initial revert Special:Diff/871944954 was at 09:44 on 4 December, when he assumed good faith and asked me to comply with WP:BRD before proceeding. I've attempted to do this, but it has proved to be ineffectual as no-one else has raised any objections to my recent edits, nor do they seem interested in discussing the matter.

In the meantime and as a compromise, I decided to continue my work extremely slowly (barely a couple of minor edits every few hours), thus giving people the chance to review/revert each one as we go along, and so far no-one else has complained about this. However, this morning Xxanthippe has accused me of potentially edit warring through my recent actions, which I strongly refute. I consider his interventions to be a case of disruptive editing as he is preventing me from making progress, without providing any concrete arguments to illustrate his specific objections. This is hugely frustrating and precisely the type of behaviour that drives away conscientious contributors like myself. Luckily I am fairly thick skinned but there is a limit.

As a result, I have ceased editing the article until further notice and have made a second attempt to garner support from the community. But I'm not too hopeful about this, as I suspect people are either disinterested or don't want to get involved, and I predict a stalemate. Please can you advise. Rodney Baggins (talk) 11:16, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

@Xxanthippe: Hiding behind BRD, as you do on Talk:Ada Lovelace, helps nobody. The onus is on you to explain why these reversions - [81], [82] - were appropriate. Reverting swathes of constructive edits because you don't like them, and saying "BRD, take to talk page" is obstructive and unhelpful. To paraphrase you, it's not "bold revert", it's "bold revert discuss". Please therefore fulfil your part of that bargain, and explain why the edits were reverted, and what was wrong with them to the point that the status quo to which you reverted was an improvement. Because, to me, they all seem to be well-meaning and valid improvements. Fish+Karate 12:12, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Comment about the matter made on the talk page Talk:Ada_Lovelace#WP:_Copy_editing. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:46, 8 December 2018 (UTC).

I expand here on the content dispute. WP:Copy editing, when needed, is welcome but it must be consistent with the subtleties and nuances of the subject to which it applied. In the case of the popular and much edited Ada Lovelace article there are several complexities that are dealt with well by the formal biographical sources for the article, and those should be born in mind when editing. A particular issue is the naming of the many people that appear in the narrative, which has been discussed much on the talk page. The complexity is exacerbated by the British system of titles that were frequent in the aristocratic milieu in which Ada moved. Ada herself had at least three different styles of address throughout her life, with formal and informal variants. Also did her husband and some of her relatives. In a previous version of the article, there was a list of these, which I will restore in due course to give clarity to the reader. The solution adopted by contemporary biographers, and in particular Ada's, is to use the same name for the same person throughout the narrative. Unfortunately, this is not done in the article. She is called "Ada Byron", "Ada Lovelace", "Lady King", "Lady Lovelace" and "Lovelace"(which is incorrect and sexist as that term refers to her husband alone and thereby attributes her achievements to him). They are all basically correct (except for the last) but are confusing for the new reader. The edit that I reverted [83] changes "Annabella" to :"his wife". Well, Annabella was his wife as further reading reveals, but the use of multiple terms for the same person, is poor style, confuses the reader and is inconsistent with modern biographical writing, where clarity is paramount. Also, why was the perfectly good blue link to Deed of separation removed? There are other issues that I don't have time to go into. I find of the edits proposed so far, a few detrimental, a few beneficial and many doing little but churn the article to minimal purpose. The practice of editing scholarly material may differ from editing non-scholarly material where "It looks OK" may suffice.

[84] Remember that Wikipedia is a collaborative, consensus-based environment. Be bold in making changes, but if you find that your work has been undone by another editor, visit the talk page of the article and start a discussion before reinstating it.

According to Butcher's Copy-editing, "The good copyeditor is a rare creature: an intelligent reader and a tactful and sensitive critic; someone who cares enough about perfection of detail to spend time checking small points of consistency in someone else's work but has the good judgement not to waste time or antagonize the author by making unnecessary changes. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:35, 9 December 2018 (UTC).

References

• I have a slight doubt about "Lovelace"(which is incorrect and sexist as that term refers to her husband alone. The dear William was elevated to Earl of Lovelace only to acknowledge the fact that his wife, the Hon. (Augusta) Ada Byron was the only daughter of the 11th Baroness Wentworth, who herself was a descendant of the extinct Barons Lovelace. (how romantic are all these remains of a verlorn past !) Pldx1 (talk) 13:56, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Interesting. If you can find a source, it could make a constructive addition to the article. Thanks for introducing us to the word verlorn. Perhaps you could say what it means as it ain't in the COD. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:42, 10 December 2018 (UTC).

Recipe for how to obtain verlorn: take de:Die verlorene Welt (Fernsehserie) and wait for two "e" being eaten by some dinosaurs. Concerning the family tree, this is exactly what is said at en:Earl of Lovelace. If you think this is unsourced, and even false, you are welcome to act accordingly.Pldx1 (talk) 19:04, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Speaking generally, if you start a brief discussion on the talk page outlining why you believe the changes you are making improve the article, it's sort of incumbent on the other editor to explain why they believe they aren't if they want to continue to oppose your changes. If after a few days of no negative feedback on a proposed change, it's probably fair to take it as WP:silence suggesting WP:consensus and you can make your edit again referring the talk page discussion in the edit summary. If an editor still reverts you even without explanation, you shouldn't edit war but you can wait for them to join the discussion, or even directly invite them. If they still don't join the discussion you can try again, and if they still revert but don't join the discussion then you can start to consider bringing an ANI case. If they do join the discussion and give reasons why they feel your changes are not an improvement but you don't agree, then WP:Dispute resolution outlines ways to try and resolve disputes, including ways to try and get feedback from other parties if discussion between the two of you is looking like it won't come to consensus. Note as mentioned on the talk page, it can sometimes be better to break down a major edit into smaller parts so it's easier to follow what changes are being made. Nil Einne (talk) 15:30, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

OK, for my part, I've agreed to step back from the article to await input from other interested parties, and hopefully some constructive feedback from Xxanthippe, which I have requested on more than one occasion to no avail. The overall result of all this is that my planned improvements to the article have been delayed until at least next weekend, and beyond, as free time is increasingly difficult to come by as Christmas approaches... So you see how the disruption has perpetuated itself. I will check in again next Friday, having giving 7 days for discussion/feedback. Thanks. Rodney Baggins (talk) 16:36, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

I commented on the article talk page. Xxanthippe is being annoying imho. Rodney, you don't need to wait a week. A day or so is plenty in this situation. 173.228.123.166 (talk) 03:23, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, discussion is now ongoing, so we'll see how it goes. This ANI can probably be closed now, but I might have to get back to you depending on how things work out... Rodney Baggins (talk) 11:08, 8 December 2018 (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:HotArticlesBot is malfunctioning

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.

---

It’s not updating which aviation accident articles have been edited in the past 7 days. Tigerdude9 (talk) 21:05, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

@Tigerdude9: The bot doesn't appear to be running amok, editing disruptively, or otherwise 'malfunctioning'. If the bot is failing to make the edits expected, please contact the bot operator on their user talk page. AGK ■ 21:31, 11 December 2018 (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.

The case of the disappearing actor

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.

---

• Shane McDermott
• Shane McDermott (actor)
• Shane McDermott (American football)

I received this as a COI edit request, but because the article may have been deleted, I needed a sysops to check. The COI editor was wondering what had happened to Shane McDermott (an actor) which existed in early 2017. The current Shane McDermott is about a football player, and while there was a change to remove the football player DAB in March 2017, it has always been about the football player. Was the actor deleted? Thanks in advance for your help.  Spintendo  06:19, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

The article on the actor was PRODded for notability reasons and on 20 February 2017 deleted by Vanamonde93--Ymblanter (talk) 06:27, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Thank you!  Spintendo  06:56, 12 December 2018 (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 changing my talk page comments

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

---

Hi, this certainly isn't an emergency, but I thought I'd ask for clarity or guidance since I don't know the details of WP:TPO. I recently made this comment [85] at Talk:Douma chemical attack, in response to a comment by MrX, where I quoted from a Reuters article.

In response, MrDemeanour first removed my comment entirely [86], then restored it [87], and then altered the bolding and highlighting of my comment [88], while warning me on my own talk page, without explanation, not to do what they had just done to me [89]. Can somebody explain what I'm missing here? -Darouet (talk) 17:12, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Non-administrator comment It looks to me like he saw the edit comment "adding random bolding", and thought you were randomly adding bolding to other people's material. Doing things actually randomly on a page is, of course, discouraged. Nothing urgent here that would seem to need admin attention, just something for you to discuss with the user in question. --Nat Gertler (talk) 17:34, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

@NatGertler: thank you. I guess I should avoid using flippant edit summaries to avoid this confusion in the future. I did so because I thought it would be clear the bolding wasn't random at all, but the summary misled a passing editor, obviously. -Darouet (talk) 17:37, 11 December 2018 (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:Constantinehuk: trolling continues, plus vandalism

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.

---

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

In April, I presented the user at this very forum: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive980#User:Constantinehuk, because all of their contribution consisted of trolling. They got a fairly strong warning [90], but managed to escape a block. They are not extremely active in the project, however, they continued trolling here (note that they denied they have been warned), here. Note that this discussion of Kiev vs Kyiv is a sensitive topic which always attracts attention among some editors and leads to some useless discussions. In addition, they developed an interest to editing of articles: borderline vandalism, vandalism, restoring vandalism. This is pretty much all of their contribution since April. May be it is time to re-evaluate their usefulness for the project. Thank you for consideration.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:34, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

I acknowledge my mistake with Jacqueline Roque. You still have not given any examples of my "trolling" except op Kiev/Kyiv discussion, which you successfully suppressed. Constantinehuk (talk) 04:55, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

I gave that warning and would appreciate it if another administrator would take a closer look. I suppose that there is a tiny chance that the recent edits were due to incompetence rather than deliberate vandalism. In either case, they are quite troubling. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:27, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Maybe you can remind me of your warning giving a link to it? If it is not against the rules. Constantinehuk (talk) 05:07, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Oh, I found it - here it is. Very constructive warning - but maybe some other editors can take a closer look. You raised some important questions here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Constantinehuk#April_2018 Constantinehuk (talk) 05:19, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

I looked at about every edit they've made, and they are either relating to continuing wasting time/trolling in the Kiev/Kyiv naming dispute (which they started from their very second edit) or other talk page edits like [91] which can hardly be called helpful. In article space, they're either adding Ukraine to various lists, or making either clearly unhelpful edits that Ymblanter points out above, or mildly/borderline helpful edits in articles; an inability to correctly fix a typo sort of sealed the deal regarding their ability to be constructive on the Encylopedia. So I've blocked them indefinitely as WP:NOTHERE. (also, I'm quite perturbed regarding this edit) Galobtter (pingó mió) 05:33, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Thank you.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:33, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

I thank you as well, Galobtter. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:42, 12 December 2018 (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 unmerited vandalism warning on user talk page

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

---

Hi, I am having a problem with the user Strikerforce posting vandalism warnings to my user talk page [[92]], for vandalism alleged to have been committed in the discussion at this talk page: [[93]] The first warning, posted on 4th December, did not give any details of the alleged vandalism. When I later denied this accusation and asked for specific details of the vandalism, user MPS1992 interceded before Strikerforce replied and removed the warning because “it seems inappropriate”. I assumed user MPS1992 was an administrator and the issue was now dealt with. However on the 10th of December the warning had been replaced, this time with specifics, a diff, of the alleged vandalism: [[94]]

As I am not a frequent editor of Wikipedia (the last time I edited prior to this discussion was in 2011!), I admit I could not make sense of this at all. I went through the diff (I did not even know what a diff was!) and the pages preceding and following it to no avail; I simply did not know what I was looking at. I went back to Strikerforce and asked for clarification, asking if he was referring to a strikethrough error I’d made (and corrected) which had altered text, to which he replied, very unhelpfully, “TL:DR”. However, he did then leave a further oblique comment which led me to look at the diff again and I finally surmised - by noting that the page had been “restored” by user Bradv - that I had deleted a whole discussion page, completely unbeknownst to myself.

I’m afraid I can offer no proper explanation for this because I did not know it had happened. The only thing I can think of is I did receive an error message while posting this particular comment, saying I had posted at the same time as another user. I panicked and used the back arrow to navigate back in order to save my (long, time-consuming) comment and I remember receiving an odd pink bar alert that either the page or my post had been “reverted”. As you may surmise, I am wholly ignorant of all these procedures and nothing had particular significance to me – I Just blundered my way on through it. As far as I was concerned all was well because I never saw a deleted page, or any indication that I had royally screwed up. No-one mentioned to me that this had occurred and I received no warnings or dressings down. I continued to post on the discussion, without problems, until it was closed,

I only saw Strikerforce’s warning on my user talk page some days after the event and had no idea it was there. He had not mentioned it to me on the Malcolm Kendrick talk page. After explaining all this to him I approached user Bradv, who was responsible for restoring the page, within one minute of me inadvertently deleting it, (see diff) and asked if he could clarify what had happened. This was his reply: “Sure, you removed the entire discussion and posted your own comment instead. I reverted that edit, and you reposted your comment. I understood that to be a simple mistake, which is why I never mentioned it, and I'm not sure why you are getting grief for it six days later. Bradv 00:33, 11 December 2018 (UTC)” [[95]]

As you can see, he realised it was an error, fixed it immediately and I continued posting, cheerfully unaware that I had, at one point, deleted the whole page.

I have since approached Strikerforce and asked him if he would remove the warning as nothing in my behaviour on the discussion was disruptive or indicates that I intended to deface the page. It was not in my interest, or in the interest of the entry I was defending, and I did and said nothing that would suggest such a bizarre action. In fact, removing the entire page would have removed not only all my own arguments but the arguments of those people who were ‘on my side’ plus done a great disservice to the entry I was defending. Not only that, but the ‘vandalism’ was so glaringly obvious it was insane. To be blunt, only a lunatic troll with nothing to lose would have done it. Despite this, Strikerforce has refused to remove the warning on the grounds that “you… expect me to believe that your edit - deleting over 40K bytes of material, mostly in opposition to your argument - was an accident? I'm sorry, but even AGF doesn't make that believable”.

Given that there were an unprecedented amount of users engaged in that very lively debate, and that contrary to Strikerforce's opinion, many of them were not in opposition to my stance, I would argue removing “over 40k bytes of material” could only be believable in the context of an error because anything else would have been sectionable. How could I have expected it to go unnoticed (it wasn’t – it lasted exactly one minute!) or not to be challenged for it? (Oddly enough, I wasn’t, but I think that proves my point precisely; Bradv, who incidentally was also in opposition to my arguments, didn’t think for one instant it was a serious attempt to vandalise the page. He took it for what it was, a stupid error, which I didn’t even know I had committed.)

I would simply remove this warning myself, but frankly that is likely to come back and bite me if I am ever involved in another contentious discussion; it would be all to easy for any angry or unscrupulous editor to claim that I had a ‘record of vandalism’ which I had attempted to hide by removing the warning myself. Also, given my very infrequent editing, it leaves me wide open to accusations of sockpuppetry, which I already had to endure in this discussion, and which I don’t want to have to defend again. Lastly, I take exception to being accused of something that is patently such a crass and stupid move, and I’d like to think that if you look at my arguments on the discussion you can see that I am nothing if not reasoned and rational. Once again, why would I bother to put such long, well-thought out comments on a discussion only to delete them all myself in one utterly futile move that would have achieved exactly nothing but the trouble I am having now?

To this end, I would appreciate an admin removing this warning so that I have a clean slate and this doesn’t follow me through my time on Wikipedia, blighting any contribution I might make. Thank you. Pirate hamster (talk) 06:04, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Pirate hamster, you can remove the warning yourself; it's not going to come back and bite you -- removing a warning implies that you have read it. You can remove the entire thread if you like, or create an archive and archive it. It doesn't have to stay on your talkpage.

Two formatting things: Please learn how to format a username, which you have been doing incorrectly: the link needs to include the word User, or you need to use a WP:PING code such as {{U|Strikerforce}}. Also, remember to sign every post using for tildes. Softlavender (talk) 05:37, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Softlavender thank you, but with respect, the fact that {{User Strikerforce}} (that formatting doesn't work either!) reinstated the warning as soon as he saw it had been removed would indicate that he will continue to do so; I don't want to engage in a petty tit for tat war. As regards the formatting, the Wiki markup is far from clear as to what formatting to use for names - I've tried! Hovering the cursor over it does not inform you what the markup does. I am assuming there is a markup insert and you are not expected to type it all in every time you write a user name, or am I wrong? If you could tell me which one of the markups listed I should use then I will be happy to use it. When I try to use {{}} all I get is thisTemplate:Strikerforce - which doesn't look correct either! Failing that, is there a page you could refer me to where I can go and learn all the formatting without this annoying and time-consuming trial and error? And I tried to edit the post to put the forgotten tildes in but you were writing your comment at the time! Pirate hamster (talk) 06:07, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

He was within rights to restore his post, since you had already responded to it, and it had then been removed in violation of WP:TPO by MPS1992. If you want to remove it, remove the entire thread, not just selected posts, because removing posts selectively changes the meaning of the conversation. To link a user name, choose one of these sample options (copy and paste them): [[User:Pirate hamster]] (creates a ping notification); {{U|Pirate hamster}} (creates a ping notification); {{noping|Pirate hamster}} (does not create a ping notification). Please always use "Show preview" to check your edit before you post. Softlavender (talk) 06:28, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

User:Softlavender Thank you for clarifying the formatting tips. However, I've now copied and pasted, tried inputting it myself and inserting it via markup but it is still not showing correctly in the preview. It is identical to what you have above so where is it going wrong, or is that how it is supposed to look, with the brackets showing? I expected it to look like the signature - a different colour and with no formatting showing, in other words, like a link, but if this is how it is supposed to look then all is well. I assumed there was a way to just highlight and insert a user name, with the formatting automatically applied, but that appears not to be so. And I do always use show preview, but of course errors still slip through! Pirate hamster (talk) 20:16, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

I think The Wikipedia Adventure has several tutorials, and there's also a "Cheatsheet". Vandalism is definited on Wikipedia as intentional and malicious disruption. So, if you screw up accidentally, it's not vandalism – and it generally won't be held against you. You can remove the entire discussion from your talk page, and it won't reflect badly on you. If you feel like you need an administrator to do it, I can. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:40, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

User:NinjaRobotPirate Many thanks for the tutorial tips; I shall check those out, and thank you very much for the offer to delete the discussion/warning from my user talk page. I feel that if an admin does it, it will make it all above board and will discourage Strikerforce from just constantly reposting his warning, so yes, please, delete whatever you think is appropriate. Will this also delete the edit history, or does that remain ‘on record’, as it were? Pirate hamster (talk) 20:16, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

User:NinjaRobotPirate Just a note to let you know Floquenbeam has kindly deleted the discussion for me and hopefully sorted the problem. Thanks again for your kind of offer of help.Pirate hamster (talk) 21:54, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

• I've removed the incorrect warning template, along with the resulting discussion. Hopefully this was a one-off error on Strikerforce's part, and not a more chronic issue. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:09, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

• Pirate hamster, you are still not doing the username links correctly. Please use "Show preview" to ascertain that what you typed is working before you post it; the username should be an actual clickable link if you are doing it correctly. Do not use "nowiki" codes, just use the wikilinks or template links as I have previously indicated. Since Floquenbeam has now removed the thread from your talkpage, I believe this thread can be closed. Softlavender (talk) 21:14, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

User:Softlavender I was aware that I was still not formatting them correctly, hence me saying so when I replied to you. No matter how often I use show preview if I don't understand where I'm going wrong, I can't fix it. However, Floquenbeam has since kindly explained my error and they should now be correct. I'm more than happy for this thread to be closed now, thank you. Pirate hamster (talk) 21:52, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

• @Pirate hamster: I have put a quoted signature within the fourth paragraph into a {{tt}}. Please don't quote signatures in-line, particularly at the end of a paragraph, because it gets really confusing. AGK ■ 21:28, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, @AGK:, You will need to clarify for me what you mean by "Please don't quote signatures in-line". Are you saying that in my text I should only use the User markup if I want to alert that user? If that is the case, I take it it's perfectly acceptable to just refer to them by name, no mark-up required. I ask because it says clearly at the top of the page that you should "provide links and diffs here to involved pages and editors. The templates Example (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (for pages) and Example user (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (for editors) may be helpful." I took this to mean that if I named an editor I must use (the ping?) markup to do so. Pirate hamster (talk) 21:52, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

He meant that you copied Bradv's signature and timestamp in normal text or wiki markup, which you shouldn't have; the only signature and timestamp you should be posting as wiki markup or normal text is your own. In terms of editors mentioned in an ANI thread, there is no need to link their names unless you want them to be pinged (notified), which can be a nuisance to them if they are not directly involved and do not need to comment. The instructions/templates you quoted refer to the editor whose problematical actions you are reporting in the ANI complaint. Softlavender (talk) 22:05, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, User:Softlavender. In short, that means if I ever (God forbid) have to do one of these again, I should only put those users I want to be alerted into markup and that would only be necessary (assumably) once, as that is all that would be needed to advise them that they were being discussed, or to provide a link to their page for the admin. And for the editor who was being discussed the ping is not necessary at all, only the notification on their user talk page. I think I have that now; feel free to seal up the tomb any time you like. Pirate hamster (talk) 22:35, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

You've basically got it right, except that if you are filing an ANI report you should link the reported editor in the initial filing, so that people can click if needed. You can also ping editors when you want to make sure they read your reply, as you have been doing with me. I doubt you'll need to file an ANI report any time in the near future, but just for some context about those longer editor templates, sometimes in complex cases or cases where an editor's full edit history may warrant looking through, people choose to put the lengthy templates at the top of such an ANI report, as in this one, above: [96]. Hope that helps. Cheers and happy editing! Softlavender (talk) 23:00, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

It does help, thank you, User:Softlavender. I confess doing this for the last couple of weeks has been like wading through treacle - I can only marvel at how admins survive the baffling bureaucracy of just being an admin, never mind trying to resolve the in-fighting itself. I'm surprised you don't all have combat fatigue! Thank you for your patience.Pirate hamster (talk) 00:17, 12 December 2018 (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 Александр Мотин

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 Александр Мотин (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) deletes parts of the content of the article ([97], [98], [99], [100], [101]), confirmed by reliable sources without explanation. In my opinion, these actions violate WP:DIS, WP:NPV, WP:VER, WP:CONS. Александр Мотин's comments: «removed incorrect explanatory footnote» or «restoring to consensus version» are not true. The user was warned about violations ([102], [103], [104]), but did not change his behavior. --Germash19 (talk) 19:08, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

The same misinformation pushed by Germash19 about the length of the bridge was removed from Russian Wikipedia by one of administrators [105]. After that he filed a complaint against the administrator [106]. For now with no luck. And now Germash19 is trying to push this misinformation here.--Александр Мотин (talk) 20:33, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

This is not true. The administrator of the Russian-language Wikipedia section did not delete the information that the Crimean bridge is probably not the longest in Europe. Only you do it. --Germash19 (talk) 21:13, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

• Appears to be a content dispute. ^Thanks, L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 22:02, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
• This is clearly a content dispute that needs to be sorted out between the parties involved. Germash19, Александр Мотин - Let's take this to the article's talk page and start a new discussion to sort this content dispute out. Given that there's claims of previous consensus vs claims of edits by an administrator removing content and the argument that it should take place over any such consensus, this definitely warrants a discussion here. To keep you both from the temptation to continue reverting the article, I've put a gold lock on the front gate for a while. Please work things out and resolve the issue properly and peacefully. Thank you :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:40, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Discussion was started by me a week ago here: Talk:Vasco da Gama Bridge#Misinformation about the length of the bridge. Instead of discussing it there he came here to complain.--Александр Мотин (talk) 10:03, 10 December 2018 (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.

Urgent matter at 1924 Democratic National Convention article. Please asisst

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

---

A user on Talk:1924 Democratic National Convention#Nix the Klanbake spin or I will has made it clear that they will use "onion routers" and "library computers" to evade any blocks and impose their desired Republican Party POV on the 1924 Democratic National Convention article. What can be done? Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 01:40, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not accept edits from Tor outlets so there should be no problem there. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:03, 10 December 2018 (UTC). Xxanthippe (talk) 03:03, 10 December 2018 (UTC).

I have posted the required notification on their talk page of this discussion and I have also posted a formal warning. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:30, 10 December 2018 (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.

Apparent violation of WP:ROLE

The user Glodxin2 has declared on their userpage to be a "role account", in direct violation of WP:ROLE, which says that such accounts are "forbidden and blocked". In addition, they share their password on their user page and on the page Wikipedia:Public user accounts, which they created. This isn't exactly vandalism or sockpuppetry so I couldn't think of a better place to take it than here, but this seems to warrant an indef block. IntoThinAir (talk) 16:16, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

The account was already indef'd but their edits looks like vandalism to me. (Taylor Swift as a spam attacker?) RickinBaltimore (talk) 16:21, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

The published password was the correct one. I've scrambled it, so that account is done. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:28, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be easier to just have it locked? Natureium (talk) 17:32, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Would that still allow login at Meta? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:46, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

I'm not an expert at anything, but I thought locked accounts couldn't log in at all. Natureium (talk) 17:48, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Yes, people can't log in to locked accounts (see m:Global locks). Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:50, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Good block, and so on. Account was obviously only going to be used for spam. I do think that WP:ROLE would have applied but reporting here was fine. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:57, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Terryfirut (2nd)

Terryfirut (talk · contribs) still made disruptive edits like Special:Diff/872282428, Special:Diff/873157477. I agree that this user is not a sock of other users, but this kinds of acts are considered as WP:GAMING, in order to attain extended confirmed user rights. Since the user has been warned for times, I assumed that he should know about this act is unacceptable. This needs admin attention, apart from Ad Orientem. --219.79.97.247 (talk) 09:43, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

First of all, I am new, Second of all, I changed it because the kong Rey page only leads to the dis page, however, it won't load Kong Reys page in 2018 typhoon season, so I undo it, Third of all, I have already learned the things I did and will only change some things, Last, I will be asking b dash if this is disruptive editing or not @B dash:Terryfirut (talk) 11:02, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Long-term disruptive editing from hotel IP

I'm requesting a new longterm block on 175.103.25.178 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) for repeated disruptive editing, ranging from inappropriate use of a fair-use image to inserting their own ideas, false accusations of vandalism, and just general disruptive behavior, too much to list here. A 1-year block just expired on December 1, and they're back at it. Pinging Ad Orientem, the last blocking sysop. Home Lander (talk) 22:51, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Blocked x 2 years. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:23, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Ad Orientem, appreciated. I ran through the recent edits and reverted the obvious ones; some of the others might be better off reverted as well. Home Lander (talk) 23:27, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Home Lander I will defer to your judgement as you are more familiar with their editing history. If you think it is seriously disruptive go ahead and revert it. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:30, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I think they are mostly  Done. I don't recall coming across this IP before, but saw the book-long list of warnings on their page and figured they were worth a review. Home Lander (talk) 23:34, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Is there a way to find the top ten unblocked user talk pages by numbers of warnings? --Guy Macon (talk) 01:06, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

That might be difficult since pages can be blanked. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 01:09, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Dragos Simandan reference spam

Yesterday I noticed this edit (which I reverted) by a single-edit single-purpose account (SPA) that added a marginally relevant in-press journal article by an academic named Dragos Simandan to the lead section of Time geography.

I searched for Dragos Simandan on Wikipedia to find whether similar edits had been made to other articles. I found a pattern of SPAs adding references to Simandan's publications, from May 2017 to yesterday. All or most of the edits incorrectly added ref tags before punctuation, spaces before ref tags, and/or other punctuation-related weirdness. Often the references were added to an article's lead section so that Simandan's publication would appear at or near the top of the reference list, even when such prominent placement would be inappropriate, as in the first edit I noticed. Here is another example that is similar to the first edit I noticed: In Psychological stress, the second sentence "Stress is a type of psychological pain" is referenced to a journal article by Simandan titled "On how much one can take: relocating exploitation and exclusion within the broader framework of allostatic load theory", which does not clearly describe how "stress is a type of psychological pain" (the phrase "psychological pain" does not even appear in it), but rather explains how "allostatic load theory" is relevant to geographers—not a good source to explain how stress is a type of psychological pain.

Here is the list of edits I found that added Simandan references, in random order:

• Special:Diff/872981015 (the first edit I noticed, reverted) by Oxana Ribald (talk · contribs · count)
• Many edits by Angela Gh (talk · contribs · count) — As noted by Jytdog on the talk page of Angela Gh, the same user was also making similar edits from an IP address. After being warned by Jytdog, the user abandoned this account and started creating new accounts.
• Special:Diff/868485727 by Josh Turnbull (talk · contribs · count)
• Special:Diff/855024437 by Chan Shi Min (talk · contribs · count)
• Special:Diff/824493212, Special:Diff/824493585, Special:Diff/824494594 by 103.203.188.143 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• Special:Diff/791023580, Special:Diff/791024361 by 88.87.203.28 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• Special:Diff/824723756, Special:Diff/824724023, Special:Diff/824724559, Special:Diff/824724910 by 203.167.201.34 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• Special:Diff/851976036 by Valentino Primi (talk · contribs · count)
• Many edits by 216.110.240.191 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• Special:Diff/790517165, Special:Diff/790518056, Special:Diff/790518862 by 212.145.222.82 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• Special:Diff/869564647 by Hunor Szabo (talk · contribs · count)
• Special:Diff/823195293, Special:Diff/823196056, Special:Diff/823196615, Special:Diff/823197274 by 209.226.201.242 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• Special:Diff/856764180 by Territo Minhao (talk · contribs · count)
• Special:Diff/868785374 by Jeanne Coutue (talk · contribs · count)
• Special:Diff/860252726 by Sasha Shoren (talk · contribs · count)
• Special:Diff/864147583 by Denzel Krinos (talk · contribs · count)
• Special:Diff/858148152 by Mo-Chi-Chan Mi (talk · contribs · count)
• Special:Diff/862286480 by Elena Bihari (talk · contribs · count)
• Special:Diff/825703020, Special:Diff/825703962, Special:Diff/825704461 by 114.23.138.41 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• Special:Diff/850855637 by Arnold Kahn (talk · contribs · count)
• Special:Diff/854730171 by Marinella Inglewood (talk · contribs · count)
• Special:Diff/860991525 by Mona Rodon (talk · contribs · count)
• Special:Diff/870690774 by Ludovic 3Cairn (talk · contribs · count)
• Special:Diff/850523262 by Ramon Varga (talk · contribs · count)
• Special:Diff/866613575 by Gayatri Pateli (talk · contribs · count)
• Special:Diff/863375276 by Pilar Negropontes (talk · contribs · count)
• Special:Diff/869953884 by Anette32 Beaujeau (talk · contribs · count)
• Special:Diff/867392641 by David3 Yeung (talk · contribs · count)
• Special:Diff/856081093 by Lori Watts (talk · contribs · count)
• Special:Diff/862058406 by Levy Johen (talk · contribs · count)
• Special:Diff/872146587 by Marina Kirilowa (talk · contribs · count)
• Special:Diff/788934254 by Ghena Dimitrova (talk · contribs · count)
• Special:Diff/861294056 by Pradesh Peri (talk · contribs · count)
• Special:Diff/823262273, Special:Diff/823262855, Special:Diff/823263336 by 216.9.110.10 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• Special:Diff/852945577 by Min Chi-San (talk · contribs · count)
• Special:Diff/824998438, Special:Diff/824999085, Special:Diff/824999513, Special:Diff/825000471 by 118.92.105.145 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• Special:Diff/857074918 by Malina Olean (talk · contribs · count)
• Special:Diff/871024390 by Dimitre Kabaivansk (talk · contribs · count)
• Special:Diff/789602935, Special:Diff/789604281 by Arta Gencer (talk · contribs · count)
• Special:Diff/847445105 by 2607:FEA8:6E0:94E:14DA:B479:DE2A:3430 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• Special:Diff/865199200 by Irina della Carra (talk · contribs · count)
• Special:Diff/823999974, Special:Diff/824000731, Special:Diff/824001832, Special:Diff/824002968 by 49.227.229.24 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• Special:Diff/852645772 by Genevieve D'Arnout (talk · contribs · count)
• Special:Diff/871788558 by Min Chang Kan (talk · contribs · count)
• Special:Diff/867698200 by Kurzban Babaduk (talk · contribs · count)
• Special:Diff/848800477 by Pushpa A. Patel (talk · contribs · count)
• Special:Diff/791289485, Special:Diff/791290312 by 213.0.118.98 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• Special:Diff/864467691 by Maria della Ronea (talk · contribs · count)
• Special:Diff/866277924 by Dan Mallars (talk · contribs · count)
• Special:Diff/859979365 by Ronald Godlew (talk · contribs · count)
• Special:Diff/847732980 by David Chan Wen (talk · contribs · count)
• Special:Diff/853700060 by Krishna Spivak-Patel (talk · contribs · count)

Effects of economic inequality also includes a Simandan reference because that article was split off from Economic inequality after the person made an edit that inserted a Simandan reference in two places in the latter article.

In at least one instance, the person made an edit that inserted a Simandan reference that was quickly reverted (by Snowded), and then eight months later made an edit that reinserted the same Simandan reference (but without the talk page discussion requested earlier by Snowded). In both edits, the person referenced the same publication, but not in the same place, which (along with the creation of multiple single-edit accounts listed above) suggests that the principal purpose was to promote Simandan's publication, not to support a specific claim with the best source.

The person appears to have discovered that the winning formula to avoid being reverted was to reference both a Simandan publication and a publication by someone else and include the magic words "academic" and/or "peer-reviewed" (or similar authoritative-sounding phrases) in the edit summary.

The only instance I found of an edit that added a publication by Simandan that was likely not the same person as the edits listed above was this edit to Pedagogy, which does not share the characteristics of the other edits above, all of which were likely added for the principal purpose of promoting Simandan's publications.

The fact that Jytdog warned the person about reference spamming on the talk page of one of the accounts, and the person did not respond but instead started creating new accounts, suggests to me that there is a good chance that the person knows that this behavior is spammy and is being deliberately evasive.

I am not sure what action should be taken. The Simandan references do not appear to be essential, and they are often only marginally relevant, so it may be appropriate to remove most of them. I could work on that task if others agree.

I notified the person at the talk page of the most recently active account, User talk:Oxana Ribald. Thanks, Biogeographist (talk) 06:40, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

I think that pretty clearly qualifies as reference spamming. Relevance of the article to the spammed topics appears to be rarely substantial, generally slight to very slight, and always post-hoc - i.e., the material was not used as a source for the content but the ref was slapped on afterwards. This is misuse of WP for academic promotion; I'd suggest complete removal. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 08:21, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

{{checkuser needed}} MER-C 16:50, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

 In progress and could take a while.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 17:42, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Angela Gh. If you find more accounts/IPs they may be reported there. If those accounts have edited within the last 90 days and are not already blocked by a checkuser then request a checkuser to look at it.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 19:28, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Mass deletion of blocked sock

Hello, a blocked sock, user:Hayholt, has made several pages that have all been tagged as a G5. Me and a couple other users (@Barkeep49: and @OhKayeSierra:) have tagged most of them although quite a few still remain untagged. Would an admin be willing to special:nuke it or use AWB to delete the pages already tagged as there are quite a bit of them as seen here. Thanks, Kb03 (talk) 02:34, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

I've deleted a good chunk of it. GAB^gab 05:18, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

A little bit late to the party, but I just want to thank User:GeneralizationsAreBad and User:Oshwah for their assistance in clearing the CAT:G5 backlog tonight, which was a sizeable amount of work to be done. I owe both of you drinks. 😁 OhKayeSierra (talk) 07:40, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

• It looks like there are a few pages still not deleted. Pinging @Kb03, GeneralizationsAreBad, OhKayeSierra, Oshwah, and Barkeep49:. -- Softlavender (talk) 21:32, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

I don't feel confident enough about the Files to touch those but given that they're non-free would presume if they're not in use they'll be deleted through normal processes. I think the remaining articles left untagged have significant contributions from people other than Hayholt and thus should not be deleted. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:28, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Possible IP abuser - DPPTPP

I think DPPTPP used 107.64.X.X (/ 20) IP address range.First, I noticed the recent edits of 107.77.211.48, 107.77.211.127 and 107.77.212.195. Their editing and the DPPTPP editing I canceled were the same model. Second, DPPTPP used to react quickly the editing of 107.64.X.X (/ 20) IP address range was cancelled by me.If he doesn't respond so fast, I think I shouldn't notice that he is having problems.

I'm ‎36.232.87.193 or 36.232.207.225. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 36.232.207.225 (talk) 22:37, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

What exactly is the problem? That an editor might be editing without logging in? What is urgent about this? 104.129.198.99 (talk) 22:46, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Can I imagine you are DPPTPP himself?If so, then the number of IPs you can use makes me surprised.I originally only noticed that 107.64.X.X (/ 20) IP address range was abused.Among the 107.64.X.X (/ 20) IP address range, I found that DPPTPP is also one of the abusers.The reason I noticed him was because he reacted too fast.I need to thank Oshwah for letting me know that DPPTPP is also one of the abusers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 36.232.207.225 (talk) 23:06, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

• Oshwah, you were mentioned here. Can you please look into this? It concerns DPPTPP. -- Softlavender (talk) 21:34, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

He may have abused other IPs 205.173.47.252 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chinese_nationalism&type=revision&diff=873363773&oldid=868699930 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Chinese_scientists&type=revision&diff=873365450&oldid=867908441 , 67.188.179.66 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tashi_Dondrup&type=revision&diff=873359430&oldid=840894866 or 2600:387:6:800::/60 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Chinese_scientists&type=revision&diff=873365450&oldid=815859282.

I found that his anomaly editing also contains swear words or nonsense words in the editorial summary.https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sino-Vietnamese_conflicts,_1979%E2%80%931991&diff=prev&oldid=873348089 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=CIA_Tibetan_program&type=revision&diff=873361619&oldid=873361517 Deliberately making spelling mistakes https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=CIA_Tibetan_program&type=revision&diff=873361517&oldid=873359701. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 36.232.207.225 (talk) 22:01, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

I found that he wanted to keep his spelling mistakes through the editorial war. In order to stop him, I reported him at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 36.232.207.225 (talk) 22:46, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Legal threat by User:Brees4

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 came across a clear legal threat here by User:Brees4. I gave him a warning about making legal threats, but I haven't dealt with this enough to know what other steps are normally taken. Sounds like we normally block the user in cases of clear legal threats? Looking for input from admins who deal with this more regularly. Thanks.--Mojo Hand (talk) 16:08, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Indeffed.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:15, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

The article in question is Tyreek Burwell, and the blocked account was edit warring to remove some content that almost certainly violates BLP policy. The block is proper but the BLP concerns are real. More eyes are needed on that article. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 16:57, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

uhuh..just been going through it..not a single ref refers to Tyreek, muh less states he was involved; none of them state the person was even his sister!! There have been Ips waring to get that stuff out for months, and editors have just been blindly reverting..Curdle (talk) 17:03, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

oops I see its closed, still, this does bear discussing I think..Curdle (talk) 17:03, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Rms125a@hotmail.com is the person who added the content; he's definitely experienced to know better and that is quite the WP:COATRACK and problematic for a BLP, definitely warrants attention; not sure why so many different editors restored it. Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:16, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

For the time being, Cullen328 removed the paragraph, and I left a note on the talk page explaining why it is a BLP violation. If appropriate sources have been found though which relate the subject of the article to this information it can be restored.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:24, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Apologies - I was one of the people blindly reverting. I saw citations to respectable news outlets and assumed that this was a POV-pusher wanting negative information removed from the page, but I should have checked more carefully. Thanks Cullen328 for doing what I should have done in the first place. GirthSummit _(blether) 18:42, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

• @Girth Summit:, just FYI, the Washington Times might look like a reliable source at quick glance, but it isn't. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:10, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Floquenbeam. I'm not as familiar with US newspapers as I am with UK ones - I think I saw 'Washington Times' and thought 'Washington Post'. I accept that I should have looked into this more closely, and I'll be more careful in future with this sort of thing. GirthSummit _(blether) 20:15, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

• Rms125a@hotmail.com, I'm sorry, but what were you thinking? Sourcing and framing etc. set aside, what on earth made you think it was OK to drag this into a BLP? Drmies (talk) 21:52, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Rms125a@hotmail.com hasn't edited in a week. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:57, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

This is about the Tyreek Burwell page, I presume. I had the page watchlisted and noticed, albeit belatedly, that sourced text had been removed. Like @Cullen328, I "assumed that this was a POV-pusher wanting negative information removed from the page", as I have seen occur so often. I did not realize that restoring it --- despite and I'll say it before you bring it up --- all my years of editing --- that this action constituted WP:COATRACK. Apologies to all. I will remove the page from my watchlist. I will just point out that these reliable local websites (https://www.timesunion.com/tuplus-local/article/Witness-threatened-after-UAlbany-bus-incident-was-6861347.php, https://www.news10.com/news/ualbany-students-claiming-to-be-victims-of-racial-bus-attack-to-face-charges/1108250835) still carry the story and the claims about Tyreek Burwell as well as the Daily Beast and several right-of-center sites that I know don't carry much weight here. Have they all been threatened with legal action? I wonder. Quis separabit? 01:32, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Rms125a@hotmail.com AKA Quis separabit?, you described my involvement incorrectly. I removed the BLP violating content, I did not restore it. You also described your own role incorrectly. I just spent a lot of time examining every edit to this BLP since this incident took place in January, 2016. This has been a three year edit war with IP editors clumsily trying to remove the BLP violations and at least 19 editors with accounts battling to keep the garbage in. Pretty shocking and depressing. The original BLP violations were introduced by an SPA, Don Quabauos who made at least 12 edits over several months to keep the crap in. It came back in various forms and was then out of the article for several months in late 2017. It was you, Rms125a@hotmail.com, who rewrote and expanded the BLP violations starting at 20:41 January 19, 2018, and you made at least 14 edits to solidify, expand and keep the BLP violations in the article. You added many references that did not mention this person at all. You called one attempt to remove the BLP violations "gangsta vandalism". You were not alone because several other highly experienced editors just immediately restored these "well referenced" BLP violations when they saw IP editors removing them, but at least those did not write the offending content. You did. Whether news sources have been threatened with legal action is irrelevant here. We have a stringent BLP policy and they don't. To say that I am both angry and disappointed about this situation is an understatement. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:38, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Pinging Rms125a@hotmail.com, since I screwed up the first ping. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:41, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

I'm with Cullen on "angry and disappointed". Galobtter (pingó mió) 15:03, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

I am not looking for anyone to be censured here but I would like to ping a few experienced editors as I'm curious as to why they thought it was a good idea to restore this material. @Oshwah: ([107]), @IronGargoyle: twice ([108] and [109]), @Ifnord: ([110]), @SemiHypercube: ([111]) If nothing else, as a lesson in a) just because something is sourced doesn't mean it's necessarily appropriate, and b) read before reverting; don't blindly assume that the IP editor is always wrong and the logged-in editor is always right, or that because the IP has made a legal threat you *must* undo their edit. Fish+Karate 15:29, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Cullen328 -- my last edit was on 24 November 2018‎ when I restored text I believed to be accurate based on such sources as [112], [113], and [114], all of which reference Burwell. My last edits before that were on July 30, and I heard nothing from anyone about that or since then until now. There are a lot of attempts to whitewash bios (such as Donna Hylton) on Wikipedia and I was simply trying to keep that from recurring. If this is not the same Tyreek Burwell whose public threats towards several university students -- who were forced to drop out of college due to these threats -- based on the lies of his sister, Asha Burwell, who was later expelled herself from SUNY Albany, along with another student (a third was suspended), then I understand the outrage. Otherwise, I don't. See the following quotes, despite @Curdle's assertions:

At 3:13 that same morning, Tyreek Burwell, the brother of the most outspoken accuser, Asha Burwell, sent the man this public message on Twitter: "just found out that you were one of the dudes that put your hands on my little sister. Hope the police get to you before I do." Burwell, an offensive tackle for the San Diego Chargers, later deleted that tweet.

and

Last month, three University of Albany students claimed to have been targeted and beaten on a public bus “for being black.” The attack drew rallies in support of the students, a Twitter threat from an alleged victim’s NFL linebacker brother, and even outrage from Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, signed in her name on Twitter. But video of the ‘attack’ from the bus security cameras shows a different story: One of the students who alleged she was beaten is seen striking a man, who doesn’t retaliate.

References

As far as Fish and karate, I do understand the point he/she is making, vis a vis, "If nothing else, as a lesson in a) just because something is sourced doesn't mean it's necessarily appropriate, and b) read before reverting; don't blindly assume that the IP editor is always wrong and the logged-in editor is always right, or that because the IP has made a legal threat you *must* undo their edit." That is behavior I have certainly been guilty of on occasion in the past, but I guess I just have a permanently flawed sensibility about what and what doesn't constitute BLP COATRACKING no matter how much I study the section and try to understand it. Quis separabit? 22:57, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Those look like tabloidsm, and the Daily Beast is certainly not reliable for anything with a political angle. Why not just bring better sources? Guy (Help!) 23:07, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Rms125a@hotmail.com, this man's sister (not him) got into a fight on a bus and lied about it. He tweeted once (you used the plural "threats") in defense of his sister and then withdrew the tweet. His sister (not him) got expelled from school and is on probation. You cannot possibly think that this trivial incident deserves to dominate this man's biography, can you? As for Curdle's assertions, at the time they checked the article, which had undergone almost three years of edit warring, none of the references mentioned the football player. I have no idea why you are making a comparison to Donna Hylton who is a convicted felon. Tyreek Burwell has not been accused, arrested or convicted of any crime. Please explain your "gangsta vandalism" edit summary and why you chose that particular misspelling. Do you think you need a topic ban on editing biographies of African-Americans? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:30, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Rms125a@hotmail.com, you just wrote "whose public threats towards several university students -- who were forced to drop out of college due to these threats". Did you actually read the Times-Union source you provided above? That source makes it crystal clear that what you wrote is false. Why are you continuing with BLP violations right here at ANI? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:02, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

@Guy -- The Albany Times-Union website and News10.com are most certainly not tabloids. Quis separabit? 00:53, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

@Cullen328 -- " this man's sister (not him) got into a fight on a bus and lied about it. He tweeted once (you used the plural "threats") in defense of his sister and then withdrew the tweet. His sister (not him) got expelled from school and is on probation. You cannot possibly think that this trivial incident deserves to dominate this man's biography, can you?" -- NO, of course not. But it was originally claimed by @Curdle that there was "not a single ref refers to Tyreek, muh less states he was involved; none of them state the person was even his sister!!", to which you claim "at the time they checked the article, which had undergone almost three years of edit warring, none of the references mentioned the football player", which makes no sense as the links I cited have been there since the incident took place.

As far as your comment that "You cannot possibly think that this trivial incident deserves to dominate this man's biography, can you?", I agree. I did not realize that my edits had made it appear to dominate his entire biography. We don't always view our own edits the way others do. Perhaps, subjectively, because of my own thought process, I attributed greater importance to the incident than I should have, which is the result of my experiences, my codes, my age, my background, etc. I don't know if I should have to apologize for that. I never falsified anything, never used unreliable sources (except The Daily Beast, but that was in addition to the reliable url links I provided).

As far as Donna Hylton, I bring it up, because, and I do not know if anyone is going to see any comparisons given Hylton's far more serious and criminal offenses but I connected her because there were several blatant attempts to whitewash her article, by Users Latoya Merkel and Tchampagne. The latter's edit summary reads "Made it reflect how the person wants it reflected. She wrote a book and is changing lives and doesn’t need her mistake To be the first thing seen." I tend to regard all attempts at whitewashing as morally equivalent. As for my wrongheaded edit summary "rv gangsta vandalism", I really do not remember why I used it. A third editor of the Hylton page, Jturtleneck, added the term "Jamacon” to Hylton's infobox (which was of course reverted) and that term is rap for criminal from Jamaica, so perhaps it all got conflated in my head. I admit the edit summary was wrong and unprofessional on my part. That's all I can say about that. I believe I have explained everything else, albeit whether to your satisfaction or not is another matter. [[User:|Quis separabit?]] 00:53, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Rms125a@hotmail.com, why the heck are you going on and on about Donna Hylton, when this discussion is about another article? Don't you realize how bad that makes you look in this context? No, you have not explained things to my satisfaction, which is probably impossible under the circumstances. I think that I have said enough on this matter, so all I can hope for is that you have learned something from the conversation. Time will tell. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:13, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

The article never seems to have contained any of the sources you have quoted from or mention here as naming Tyreek, Rms125a@hotmail.com; it makes little sense to me either; thats why it was so perplexing, and slightly horrifying that stuff that could do so much damage to a career could be put into an article with so little care. I hoped that drawing attention to the edit warring might remind all of us to pause to check things before reverting on BLPs, which is why I didnt single out any particular editor. After looking at the history, it is clear neither the text, or sources that were added by you, on 19th January 2018 Diff mention Tyreek Burwell at all, not even the two refs that supposedly support the statement that the lady involved is his sister. The sources used included both the Daily Mail, and the Washington Times, neither of which are RS, and certainly should never appear in a BLP. It is also a textbook example of a coatrack- controversial material that has no direct relevance to the subject, and so shouldnt ever have been there, (even if it did have better refs). "look this guy's sister did something really awful"= coatrack.

It wasnt until the 30th July diff when you expanded it, that mention of the tweet was introduced, and so some actual involvement by the subject in the incident. Still no mention of Tyreek by name in any of the refs, not even the one used to directly support the statement that students have withdrawn because of said tweet.[115].

By this time, despite taking up almost half the articles text, the incident only peripherally involves the subject, and is still not even fully supported. The two links you quoted from (Daily beast, or that particular Times Union article) were not in the text at this stage. They were not when I commented either. Curdle (talk) 15:09, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

The "gangsta vandalism" comment by RMS is very troubling. I think it's worthwhile to examine whether this editor has problems when it comes to issues of race. I briefly checked the 'editor interaction analyzer' to see RMS's edits on pages that I've edited that relate to race. There were not a lot of pages related to race that we had in common, but I noticed that he wrote "Holder gone (thank god)"[116] in the edit summary on the New Black Panther Party voter intimidation case (a minor controversy blown out of proportion by rightwing media). This refers to the black Attorney-General Eric Holder. I also saw that he smeared an African-American activist Symone Sanders as a racist on the Unite the Right rally article[117]. RMS was extremely agitated both on the talk page and in edit summaries, and edit-warred considerably to cast the rally in a more favorable light. He, for example, mass-removed this fantastically sourced content with a deceptive edit summary.[118] On Symone Sanders, RMS added text claiming that comments by Sanders "resulted in Sanders' being referred to as a "racist" by many who were offended by the comments."[119] However, the cited sources do not at all support the text's claim that Sanders was being described as a racist. My Wikipedia powers are not strong, so I can't do a proper search and analysis, but I strongly suggest that admins and editors who are capable of looking into this editor's history on race-related (or where the subject is an African-American) articles do so. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:09, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

I have given a very firm and clear warning to {{U|Rms125a@hotmail.com)), who uses the signature "Quis separabit?". Their next BLP violation will lead to a lengthy block. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:50, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

{{U|Rms125a@hotmail.com)), I have a feeling that you are not unaware of what is problematic here. Please be more careful--I like to think that I have collaborated with you in many places for many years, but I agree with Cullen328. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 03:43, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Correcting my botched ping to Rms125a@hotmail.com. Thank you, Drmies. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:03, 13 December 2018 (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.

Nationalistic editors clearly obstructing addition of perfectly sourced content just because they don´t like 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.

---

Editors User:Resnjari, User:Calthinus and User:Ktrimi991 (pinged, thus notified) have ben for some time behaving as if they Wikipedia:OWN all ALbanian-related articles. They have been acting coordiantelly in a way to control the conent in the articles and expell any one they dislike. Their method is to revert and then make endless discusions at talk-pages knowing time runs on their favour. At Skanderbeg I have been trying to expand some aspects they have been preventing me for doing it, despite me having almost 10 sources. Can someone please come and assist? FkpCascais (talk) 22:46, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

For more information, please see: Talk:Skanderbeg#Skanderbeg_origin,_sources. FkpCascais (talk) 22:49, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

I've only had a quick look at this, but if you want your sources to be accepted as possible evidence of Skanderbeg's Serbian ancestry, you will need to accept words like "possible", which you seem to have flatly refused to do so far. It is not true that you can't use primary sources, but they need to be weighed up against the overall body of evidence. Deb (talk) 22:55, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Thank you Deb. I am still gathering sources, there are quite many, and lets see what they say so we add the most corectly as possible in the article the information. FkpCascais (talk) 23:08, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

@Deb, within the article Skanderbeg, origins is a thorny issue. The article is covered under WP:MOSMAC which also covers other Balkan related topics. In situations like this wp:secondary is best to avoid POV, edits wars and other complications.Resnjari (talk) 23:20, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

"Nationalistic" editors is a personal attack. And it is not the first. FkpCascais has been running a one-man show against the opposition of not only myself, but also Ktrimi, Resnjari, Jingiby and occasionally others as well. The only person to agree with him that tons of text about Skanderbeg's alleged Serbian origin was a banned sock puppet and an IP, possibly the same person, who recently impersonated myself, and posted death threats to me, Ktrimi and Resnjari. Sanguine isn't it? --Calthinus (talk) 22:57, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

FkpCascais, you should not notify just with pings. You should notify via the talk page. Anyways, I have already filed a report [120]. An admin fully-protected the article a few days ago and warned FkpCascais with a block in case he reverted again [121]. Since the full-protection expired, FkpCascais has made 3 other reverts within a few hours. Ktrimi991 (talk) 23:00, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Seems it was you who was wanrned not to revert anymore. Why you lie it was me? FkpCascais (talk) 23:14, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

FkpCascais, please enough of the personal attacks. At least withdraw them through a strikethrough and show good faith toward other editors.Resnjari (talk) 23:24, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Let's not get bogged down with the issue of reverting. FkpCascais will get blocked if he breaks the rules, and likewise if he makes personal attacks, so he needs to practise self-control. But there is a deeper issue, which is whether his edits have any basis in fact. It may be worth including the fact that some contemporary writers said there was Serbian ancestry, and setting it against the sources that say differently. Deb (talk) 23:17, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Thank you Dab. I admit I am heated because I am alone facing a group of editors clearly wanting to dismiss my concerns. FkpCascais (talk) 23:20, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Deb, the writers of sources used by FkpCascais were not contemporaries of Skanderbeg. Additions by the editor are wp:undue. Resnjari (talk) 23:23, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

My understanding was that the objection to the use of one particular source was "Spandouginos is wp:primary and ... some 500 years old." That makes it very close to the subject's lifetime. I would recommend FkpCascais, rather than continuing this argument, to go away and draft some better wording and leave the article itself alone for a few days. Then he can come back with his proposed wording and get your input. It's possible a compromise can be reached, which is always preferable. Deb (talk) 23:33, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Deb, the objection is to multiple sources bought by the editor and its outlined in the talkpage. In the article over the years editors have refrained from using primary sources and used secondary sources to avoid this kind of thing. Otherwise it becomes a free for all and editing warring left, right and centre, something which the article has manged to overall avoid for some years until now.Resnjari (talk) 23:44, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

@Deb: Thanks for your suggestions. I hope the content dispute is solved as soon as possible. FkpCascais reverted 4 times and

an admin fully-protected the article a few days ago and warned FkpCascais with a block in case he reverted again [122]. Since the full-protection expired, FkpCascais has made 3 other reverts within a few hours. Is FkpCascais allowed to do so? If yes, only him or all editors? Thanks, Ktrimi991 (talk) 23:41, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Stop lying that I was warned. Please present the diff where I was allegedly warned by an admin or apologise for missinforming intentionally at ANI report. FkpCascais (talk) 09:24, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Sure, they will be so happy with that, but the problem is that the version they are reverting to, is unsourced, and disregards totally the ammount of sources backing the claim of Serbian origin. Would you agree with me that unsourced claims shoudlnt be aded in the article, and that each claim should stick to their own sources? FkpCascais (talk) 23:43, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Also, Deb, please, could you just see the sources I provided and make a fair suggestion for an edit to be made? FkpCascais (talk) 23:48, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Deb i understand where your coming from. It shows your good character that you are assuming good faith here, and it is a trait I admire. But the problem is not that simple. To better understand the situation, read what FkpCascais says: [123]. You can see the whole claim where he goes on to say that just as Albania's creation was a plot to block Serbia from the sea, he says that "Slavic" Romania was "latinized" in order to prevent Slavic unity. For example, he says that

The then totally absurd creation of Albania was supported by Vatican and Austria and done in order to prevent an Slavic-Orthodox by then pro-Russian country as Serbia to access sea right in Italy back... Western world seing the danger of Russian naval bases in the Adriatic is their nighmare... This move not only prevented Serbia from accessing the sea and clearing the area of Muslims, but created a Muslim country Albania... Vatican lobbied all around in order to prevent Serbia to expand naturally to West and absorve Bosia but rather giving it to Catholic Austria.

This is clear Islamophobic, anti-Catholic and anti-Albanian. Ktrimi991 (talk) 00:28, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

The edits at the Skanderbeg article are just part of a wider pattern of WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS by the editor through WP:BATTLEGROUND behavoir and this thread here by them is WP:BOOMERANG. To @FkpCascais, these comments of yours are just disappointing and gross.Resnjari (talk) 00:50, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Comment I find the sandbox rant that Ktrimi discovered extremely disturbing (especially the part about how Serbia would have "cleared the area of Muslims".... see also : Ethnic cleansing) and I don't want to draw attention away from that. At the same time, I must report that FkpCascais is now casting WP:ASPERSIONs against BLDM [calling him a "clear sock"] who was "just" created for somehow simultaneously myself, Resnjari and Ktrimi991. This is incredibly obviously false -- I have not had any interaction with BLDM, and he has a long edit history before now [[124]]. Additionally, he referred to Resnjari, myself and Ktrimi991 as "mosqueteers" -- I am not Muslim, but this is incredibly obvious religious baiting. --Calthinus (talk) 00:53, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Stating that a different opinion is "anti this and that" is a great example of manipulative use of universal human right to freedom of speech and a way to present the user who made the report in a bad light, as if that would change the stated facts. If FkpCascais has the sources for his edits (and he does have them), it is up to administrators to guarantee his respected edits, despite emotional and heated reactions from several users who simply refuse to offer Wikipedia's readers other insights into Skenderbeg's origin. I am assured that such edits and editors are against the core foundations i.e. values of Wiki. Mm.srb (talk) 01:17, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Mm.srb, since you refer to freedom of speech here do you mean the personal attacks like "mosqueteers" and so on by @FkpCascais? Regarding the edits, editors have ad nausuem outlined their concerns with the sources on the talkpage.Resnjari (talk) 01:28, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Um, no, Mm.Srb, FkpCascais stigmatizing users based on their (percieved) Muslim faith by calling them "mosqueteers" accomplishes absolutely nothing, and worse, it is religious baiting. Please explain to me how this is conducive to being here to build an encyclopedia in a collegial manner?--Calthinus (talk) 06:18, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

ALL I have made an effort to suggest options for settling this amicably. However, it appears that none of those involved want to attempt a compromise. If other admins want to chip in with alternatives, they are welcome to do so. Otherwise, it's back to the article's Talk page for all of you. Deb (talk) 08:59, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Since when are mosqueteers Muslim? I didn´t even knew that. I call mosqueteers groups of editors that act together. So stop playing the racism card. FkpCascais (talk) 12:37, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

• This needs to lead to a boomerang sanction against the filer, User:FkpCascais. There's rampant edit-warring, breaking 3RR just today on Skanderbeg, resuming an edit-war right after the article came off protection. The battleground attitude in this thread here and the lawyering over whether it was him or the other party that was warned by the previous protecting admin (when the warning was quite obviously directed at both) is also quite worrisome. There's a history of disruption, with blocks and discretionary sanctions going back at least to 2010. Finally, the user draft rant pointed out above (User:FkpCascais/Sandbox48) is really so bad we shouldn't have this person editing in this topic area at all. Unless I hear some good objections from fellow admins, I intend to impose a wide-ranging topic ban under WP:ARBMAC. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:49, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
  • I didnt touch the article and I ask for advice. Would you be kind andallow me to make a draft to present to the community as suggested by Deb? PS: My sandbox is somehting personal and has nothing to do with Wikipedia ediitng. FkpCascais (talk) 09:55, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
  • I pretend to gather sources at the talk-page and then, along with the communty, see what a proper edit would be. I will not edit the article meantime. I am an over decade long editor, will you please be kind to give me this last chance? I know I got upset because I made a majo effort to gather sources and they weer ignored and my edits are ruthlesly erased. I promise to be calm and to keep myself gathering sources and proposing solutions at talk-page only. If they get dismissed, I will walk away. Can you Fut.Perf. give me this chance please? FkpCascais (talk) 10:11, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
    • You "didn't touch the article"? You were breaking 3RR just 12 hours ago: [125][126][127][128], the second time since a few days ago [129][130][131][132]. You have had a years-long presence on the same article, always feuding over the same tired and WP:LAME ethnic trivia. And as for your userspace sandbox, if it has "nothing to do with Wikipedia editing", then why did you create it? (You know, we're not a free web host here). But whatever it was meant for, in that draft you have outed yourself as a person who sees ethnic cleansing as the natural right of your own ethnic group, complaining about how your nation was unfairly prevented from expanding throughout present-day Albania and "clearing the area of Muslims". I have as little tolerance for people who advocate ethnic cleansing as I have for racists and holocaust deniers; they all get instant bans as far as I'm concerned. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:39, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
      • That same text receved prises fom Albanians themselves, and it doesn´t show "my POV" but it is a text removed from somewhere else. Anyway, can you allow me please to focus on content, see sources I can still bring, and let the community decide. Whatever decide, I am OK, and I will movee on, cause I have other areas I want to expand. FkpCascais (talk) 12:33, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
        • You said you want to "let the community decide", and have been saying this for a long time. As you said earlier today, you think that "walking away giving them a victory doesn´t sound a good solution at all" [133]. I do not want to make assumptions about you, but it seems to me that you continue to divide editors in line with their perceived nationality, and see Wikipedia as a game to win. This is very wrong. During the warring you misused your rollback rights twice [134] [135]. IMO, this should conclude with you sanctioned at least for massive edit warring and rollback rights removed. The Balkans need editors but editors should calm down and stop making personal attacks, get involved in warring etc. Thanks, Ktrimi991 (talk) 13:04, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
          • • OK, I accept I was wrong with my attitude. I will limit to post at talk-page whenever I feel I have somehting. Otherwise, I was planning to give it a reast as Deb suggested anyway, cause hollydays are comming. FPS, would you give me a benefit of a doubt? FkpCascais (talk) 13:11, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Discretionary sanction imposed

Taking into account this thread and FkpCascais's prior editing and blocks, I conclude that FkpCascais is editing primarily to promote a particular nationalist point of view on Wikipedia, in violation of WP:NPOV's conduct aspect ("Editors, while naturally having their own points of view, should strive in good faith to provide complete information, and not to promote one particular point of view over another."); in addition to several related conduct problems. Such a pattern of editing is not compatible with the mission of Wikipedia. FkpCascais was previously notified about the possibility of discretionary sanctions. In response to their conduct, and in application of WP:AC/DS, FkpCascais is topic-banned (WP:TBAN) from everything related to the Balkans. I'm ready to consider lifting this ban after six months of productive, problem-free editing in other topic areas. This matches the recommendation by Fut.Perf. above. Sandstein 13:19, 14 December 2018 (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.

Date changer

• Template:Mike Newell (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• 152.0.11.127 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 148.0.5.56 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

There's an IP editor in the Dominican Republic who's going around changing dates on a large scale. This is most apparent on {{Mike Newell}}, where you can see the IP edit warring to change a date: [136], [137], [138], [139], [140], [141]. Other articles where this is happening include (but are not limited to!) Don Juan DeMarco ([142], [143]), Sugar Hill (1994 film) ([144], [145]), {{Leon Ichaso}} ([146], [147]), Terence Blanchard ([148], [149]), etc. Can someone please block 148.0.5.56 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)? NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:32, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Blocked. Galobtter (pingó mió) 06:01, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

• NinjaRobotPirate, is this solved now, or do you think the other IP should be blocked as well? Also, in terms of {{Mike Newell}}, wouldn't semi-protection be a good/better idea? IPs don't need to edit templates, so the semi-protection can be longterm. You can even implement that yourself without crossing any lines. I guess what I'm asking is, can this thread be closed? I'm not sure. Softlavender (talk) 23:08, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
  • I'd suggest leaving it open. Then nobody has to start a new thread in 12 hours when this starts up again. The other IP seems to be stale and unused now, so semi-protection is probably overkill when we could just block the current IP address being used. But if people think I'm being too cautious by bringing this here, I can deal with it myself. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:34, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
    • If you have the tools, then use them, by god!!!! No seriously, repeated obvious vandalism doesn't need a check-in before blocking. Just ask all those admins that get constant nasty notes on their talkpages. Like our friend Oshwah. Softlavender (talk) 00:48, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
      • I think this is more likely to be a case of disruptive editing than vandalism. The date changes are plausible but unsourced. The IP editor could be making it up or could be working from a comprehensive encylopedia of film releases. Hopefully, the IP editor will start citing sources now, but, in my experience, this is usually not how it ends. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:15, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
• @Galobtter: the IP is changing dates again: [150], [151], [152]. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:29, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

  Blocked for a week.. Galobtter (pingó mió) 04:44, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Continued disruptive editing

FallenAngel246 (talk · contribs)

Continued disruptive editing/genre warring across Eagles related articles. Obviously a SPA to change album/song articles to their preferred version, without references and/or consensus. - FlightTime (open channel) 15:16, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

• They've been ignoring all the warnings on their talk page, so blocked for 31 hours to encourage paying attention. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:30, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

I've upped the block to indef - it's a sock.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 16:53, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

IP-hopping gibberish vandal, also possibly a bot?

• 185.133.225.117 (talk · contribs)
• 89.140.169.24 (talk · contribs)

There's an anon who I'm pretty sure is the same person (bot?) rapidly making nonsense edits to articles. When they're blocked, they rotate IPs with a short break. I swear I've seen this same one while patrolling recent changes a few days ago, but I can't remember the IP and I've kind of been on a recent changes patrolling spree lately. Not too experienced with IP hoppers, but I figured I'd ping here. Also still waiting on the 89 one to be blocked, been sitting at AIV for a bit. Cheers, cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 02:34, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Also, ping for Materialscientist as blocking admin for 185. cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 02:35, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Edit (A) triggers watchlist item (B), causing undo (C) and revert notification (D), leading admin (E) to fly off the handle, tilting talkpage balance of power (F), causing diffs to be dumped on ANI (H). ANI thread (I) opens Pandora's Box (J), leading to fireworks (K) at Arbcom. Boomerang (L) gives editor WP:ROPE (M), ending in 12-hour block and smack with trout-infused napkin.

-EEng

• It's someone posting gibberished sneers at editors. Kind of sad, really--there spending a lot of time writing up shit, to then have some machine garble and post it. It's kind of like--what do you call those machines that are all over the movie version of Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are dead, the complicated machines that do very little? There's a fancy name for em. Drmies (talk) 02:37, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Rube Goldberg machines? I haven't seen that movie, but that's my guess based on your description. Natureium (talk) 02:49, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
    • Difference is, those are fun. This is just shit garbled as shit, with someone wasting their life on doing it. Drmies (talk) 03:12, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
      • (Off-topic) I don't "machines that do very little" is an accurate description of those scenes in the film. They recapitulate several great inventions: Archimedes' "Eureka" moment, Galileo's laws of gravity, Newton's laws of motion, the steam engine, powered aircraft, and the sandwich. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:44, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
• This is our old friend the refdesk vandal. Rollback/revert on sight, block, and ignore, please. Vanamonde (talk) 02:47, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
  • @Vanamonde93: Ooh, did not realize. Wilco! cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 02:51, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
    • You may wish to see WP:LTA/REF for more information. funplussmart (talk) 02:53, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
    • And yeah I thought he was gone for good for a while but he has come back. I hate to see pages get protected just because it is the only way to stop him. funplussmart (talk) 02:55, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
      • @Cymru.lass: No worries; everyone can't be expected to know of them, but now you do. It's also worth saying that if you come across older contributions (older than 48 hours) that look like one of theirs, which you can still see, it's worth emailing the oversight team. Best, Vanamonde (talk) 03:08, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
        • Materialscientist, mind suppressing after blocking? There's a mass revdel-suppression tool available. Drmies (talk) 04:22, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Potential IP Disruptive Editor (and sock)

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 in question @73.106.73.5: has been spamming reports towards a user that has been banned since 2016. The IP's recent edit was making a claim in the banned user's talk page. I think the IP is making disruptive edits. INeedSupport^{(Care free to give me support?)} 04:56, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Given the edit they made it's likely they are also a sock of that blocked user (who the original account is I don't know) and the page they created probably could be deleted under G5. On an unrelated note, I've heard that pings don't work with anons. Sakura Cartelet^Talk 05:46, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Yep, they don't. And yep this is a regular customer and sock of the sock. So blocked, deleted, etc. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 10:10, 15 December 2018 (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.

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates

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

---

We could probably use some more eyes over here for voting. There's traditionally a lot of failure-to-reach-quorum issues in December, since people are doing other things. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.8% of all FPs} 07:31, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

And this is an urgent incident or chronic, intractable behavioral problem how? ‑ Iridescent 07:40, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

This page may have changed or clarified its scope in my two-year wikibreak. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.8% of all FPs} 07:54, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

I'm no expert, but I think perhaps you meant to go to WP:AN? Tamwin (talk) 08:25, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Always thought it was Incidents for smallscale, time-limited requests (e.g. "Have a look at this page, if you can), AN for the things that need long discussion. If that's not true, then definitely yes. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.8% of all FPs} 08:46, 15 December 2018 (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.

Protect Page

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 you Please protect this page as IP users keep editing it without using the summary and writing wrong things. Breakroute (talk) 12:22, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Can someone please protect the page or transfer this this onto requests for page protection (I don't know where this is). Breakroute (talk) 12:29, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Try here WP:RFPP. Shellwood (talk) 12:33, 15 December 2018 (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:GiantSnowman bot-assisted rollback of good-faith edits

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 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 came across this while patrolling RC.

GiantSnowman (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) reverted 416 edits] earlier today. The reverts all bear the same time stamp to the nearest minute leading me to conclude that an automated tool must have been used. Each of the reverted edits had been made over the course of the preceding few days by Veryproicelandic (talk · contribs). GS then left a uw-vandalism3 template on Veryproicelandic's talk page, has not made any explanation (or any other further edits)) in the ensuing several hours. There was no discussion that I could find, of any kind, prior to the mass revert.

Veryproicelandic's edits appear to me to have been good-faith edits, made manually, at considerable effort, to articles on a wide variety of topics. I am frankly baffled as to the substance of the underlying content dispute.

GS has previously made large numbers of reversions that also appear to be bot assisted as in each case, dozens of contributions (albeit fewer than 416) of a single user are reverted within a one-minute period. See, for example, this instance where 100 edits by an IP were reverted. There was a prior incident where over 300 edits by a group of related IPs were reverted over the course of several minutes; subsequently, GS asked for assistance here at ANI to place a range block citing the addition of unsourced material.

I am concerned about this at five levels:

1. WP:BOTP, a policy, covers the operation of bots and has specific requirements for: prior approval, rate throttling, flagging, and communication. The policy makes it clear that high-speed, bot-like edits require prior approval, even if they involve manual steps.
2. WP:ROLL, a guideline, discourages the use of rollback for reversion of good-faith edits, and requires explanation on a suitable talk page in those instances where good-faith edits are rolled back.
3. There is a pattern of a lack of discussion before and after these rollbacks are performed. For example, GS archived these questions without answering them after reverting over 100 good faith edits for which he had offfered only a generic explanation.
4. The reverts are indiscriminate and are not limited to removal of unsourced information. Some of the reverted edits are ones that made mechanical or formatting changes only where sourcing cannot possibly be a factor. Some reverts do not result in removal of the unsourced material but rather reversion to old statistics.
5. GS's own very similar edits to the same subject material typically do not include sources, again leaving me baffled as to the real motive.

This conduct appears to have been going on for quite some time, for example a year ago, after reverting a good-faith edit, GS characterized the edit as vandalism.

I would like to ask for the community's assistance in reviewing the matter, clarifying policy as appropriate, and providing a proper welcome and show of support to the editors who have been on the receiving end of this.

Respectfully, The Uninvited Co., Inc. 23:58, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

I think I know the tool used. If you have a look at User:GiantSnowman/common.js, User:Writ Keeper/Scripts/massRollback.js is installed for GS. That will be the tool used to make these edits, and it is very useful for dealing with bona-fide vandals (so useful, I forked it). I need more time to make a judgement on the edits at hand, but an accidental misuse of this tool will revert all edits by the user where their revision is the current version (to some limit, of which I'm not entirely sure). So clearly, using this on an established editor can produce the disastrous results above. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 00:09, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. It looks like the tool is only limited by the number of edits that can be displayed on a contributions page, which is limited to 500 if you use the UI, and (I believe) 1000 if you modify the URL. Has there been any discussion specific to the use of the "mass rollback" tool and how it fits in with WP:BOTP? The Uninvited Co., Inc. 00:17, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

You can hotwire the url to get up to 5000 entries on a user contributions page or page history. EEng 02:42, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Does the tool also automatically leave a vandalism warning on the user's talk page? Because GiantSnowman did that too. Unless this is an unintended side effect of using the tool, it makes it harder to believe that the mass reversion was accidental. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:19, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

David Eppstein, I took a quick look at the code at User:Writ Keeper/Scripts/massRollback.js, and no - it does not appear to leave vandalism warnings. SQL^{Query me!} 01:34, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

this warning template is most likely manually placed, based on the edit summary.--DBigXrayᗙ 07:34, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

He has reverted my good faith edits as well, including correcting "men's" to "women's" under "women's competition" here: [153], and a researched change to Fuad Ibrahim, which he realized was correct... [154] ater reverting three times and telling me I would be banned from Wikipedia because of vandalism: [155]. It's awful "administrators" like him that give Wikipedia a bad name. Thank you! 70.21.191.151 (talk) 00:10, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

I was hoping that we wouldn't have to escalate this here, but I agree with Uninvited's report. I noticed this today when GiantSnowman mass-reverted 50-100 edits of Veryproicelandic (talk · contribs), with a generic edit summary typical of rollbacks against vandalism. All of the edits I spot-checked (including the specific one that was warned) were not vandalism — they were good faith attempts to clean up {{underlinked}} banners by adding more wikilinks and undertaking other minor improvements of prose, or in some cases removing inappropriate underlinked banners when there was no opportunity to add more links. I wouldn't necessarily have made quite so many new links myself, and there were some minor style issues (e.g. capitaization) with the edits, but that's beside the point. Veryproicelandic is understandably upset, and despite much of a day having passed, GiantSnowman has yet to apologize or respond (despite being required to per WP:ADMINACCT). I thought at first that this was a case of an inexperienced editor misusing rollback privileges and having to be told how to use rollback (or if continuing to not get it to have rollback privileges removed) but with Uninvited's investigation above I see now that GiantSnowman is actually an admin who should definitely know better, and that this is part of a much bigger problematic pattern of edits. I think we should give GiantSnowman some more time to respond, but (as I already said on VPI's talk page) I think an apology and a reversal of these reversions is called for. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:17, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

This isn't the first time I've heard (or seen) mass reversions of an editor's edits (though never nearing 416 edits!) and I've wondered how to address this situation when I've had questions about the rationale. Labeling an editor's work "vandalism" when they are good faith edits can only lead to trouble when you have powerful scripts that can do mass reverts which clearly means that each edit isn't being evaluated as to whether it is damaging or helpful. I look forward to hearing from GiantSnowman and, frankly, any admin who makes use of these scripts to do mass rollbacks on what the threshold is for reverting all of an editor's work. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:06, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

This is a nuclear weapon - treat it with care. The warning on my script's documentation page

I use my user group highlighting script, which naturally limits the damage a misapplication could cause, I cannot see myself reverting an extended confirmed user like that. I'd absolutely say that these scripts should only be used in the case of obvious vandalism, but would oppose any move to ban them as against BOT policy. If used correctly, these scripts are an invaluable tool against vandals, especially sophisticated vandals making automated edits. WP:IAR is clearly applicable to their existence. For example, my script fork effectively is a form of non-admin block, in that it reverts a user's edits almost as soon as they are made. Automatically. In theory, a user could start making good faith edits and I would be responsible for any resulting 3RR violations. I have reverted a good faith edit with it due to a dynamic IP, where a former user was good faith, the current a vandal. Anybody using these scripts must understand that they are powerful tools, which deserve respect. I will check contributions with this script if there's an older edit that's been reverted, and restore good faith edits caught in the crossfire. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 01:28, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

• It's a pretty dry-cut case of semi-automatic editing. Tools never need to be approved and the user using the tools are 100% responsible for the edits made on their behalf. Of course obvious bugs to the tools should to be addressed by the author(s), but no one is obligated to use the tools.—CYBERPOWER (Merry Christmas) 01:33, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

  Cyberpower678, I would respectfully disagree based on testing the script just now. This is functionally identical to a bot. I was able to revert a few changes my test account made rapidly, with no intervention or human judgement for each edit. In a semi-automated editing scenario, I would picture it as in AWB, where you must confirm each edit. SQL^{Query me!} 01:46, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

• @SQL: This is basically WP:MEATBOT, which is quite clear that a short burst of fast editing is not itself disruptive. If these tools were used for their purpose, we wouldn't be here. I'd persoanlly stick witb 100% operator accountability, rather than restricting the scripts themselves. My script is particularly interesting wrt to the bot question. It makes a succession of very rapid edits, which a human has effectively signed off on. Then it starts making automated edits at a far more sedate pace (unless the target account is running a bot). ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 02:08, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

  Bellezzasolo, I may have phrased that poorly. The point I was making was that the script I tested can't be described as semi-automated editing. SQL^{Query me!} 02:18, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

• I don't know that I've had dealings with either GiantSnowman or Veryproicelandic. But if this happened to me, I'd be seriously upset about it. According to his user page, Veryproicelandic edited under a previous name (which he identified on his user page). His edit history goes back to 2006, and no blocks under either. Unless there is more to this than immediately has been mentioned here, I think some accountability and editorial recompense is due here. GiantSnowman has some explaining to do. — Maile (talk) 01:34, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) When I see a mass edit, I expect to see a link to the relevant discussion. If I don't see one, then the editor making the changes should expect to have the edits mass-reverted per WP:BRD. I will normally post an appropriate warning. Mass changes like those made by Keizaal are absolutely and completely unacceptable and stretch good faith to breaking point. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:36, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

@Hawkeye7: The least courtesy that could be extended in that situation is an edit summary. The script offers that facility, when reverting non-vandalism there's no excuse for not using an edit summary, certainly with a change of that scale. If an edit summary is used, a rollback is treated as an undo, wheras plain rollback is not meant to be used for good faith edits. Again, the facility to leave an edit summary is offerred. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 01:53, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

I'm wondering if Giant Snowman's account got hacked and somebody else used it to make all of those rollbacks? Sakura Cartelet^Talk 01:55, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

This is an Admin making mass edits that make no sense. Best to block them until there is an explanation on their talkpage. This could get seriously out of hand. Legacypac (talk) 02:15, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

The best explanation I can find is that this was a mistake; should the reverts be mass-unreverted? power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:17, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

I agree I'm more inclined to believe this was a miss click of some tool or mass rollback script. Hopefully when Giant Snowman is back they will be able to confirm as such. As far as the issue of the account being compromised; it doesn't seem likely. I'd expect to see more damage from a compromised account. --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 02:20, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

For the record, my script does prompt for confirmation before performing a mass rollback. Not that click-through syndrome isn't a thing. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 02:38, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

• Just noting GiantSnowman also mass-rollbacked 500 of my edits a couple months ago. He then tried to self mass-revert, but this didn't really work and he ended up re-instating vandalism in countless pages. L293D (☎ • ✎) 02:45, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

• A couple of things:
  • If there's consensus that these edits weren't vandalism or vandalism-adjacent - which it looks to me like there probably is - someone can just mass rollback them all back to veryproicelandic's version (with an edit summary!) But be careful, as L293D notes, it's easy to mess up. The only edits that you can display on the contribs page are the ones you actually want to revert.
  • It makes no sense to claim GS is somehow "violating ADMINACCT" by not replying, when he has not been online since doing the rollback and vandalism warning. We are not required to be online 24 hours a day. He hasn't even seen all this yet.
  • To answer Liz, I've used the mass rollback function a few times, always either with a clear consensus, or because it was clear vandalism. It's use isn't rare. I would never have used it in a case like this.
  • I have a few ideas about how this could have happened, varying from 100% good faith mistake to 100% bad judgement, with a couple of possibilities in between too. The thing to do is wait until GS logs back in.
  • Whether a mistake or a bad decision or somewhere in between, an apology is in order. But we need to be patient and wait for GS to actual log in before he can give one.
  • Suggestions about blocking his account without waiting for an explanation is a perfect example of people who shouldn't be editing ANI.

--Floquenbeam (talk) 02:54, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

417 incorrect rollbacks => no evidence there was a reason for this => possible compromised acct. Given we have had 4 Admins compromised recently it is not an unreasonable possibility. Maybe Flo should not be editing ANi? How much damage could an Admin account do with automated tools while we ponder. Flo would likely block a regular account first and ask questions later. Legacypac (talk) 03:04, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

• (following from notice at WP:BOTN): User driven scripts are outside the purview of WP:BAG to review, and the closest part of the Bot Policy I see is in affect would be Wikipedia:Bot_policy#Bot-like_editing - which says that disruptive edits are just that. As such, WP:DISRUPT applies more than anything in the bot policy so far as the 'edits' go, as well as the rollback guidelines. User scripts themselves require no approval, however the effects of using such a script (including the possibly of disruption due to flooding of RC or WL's) is the responsibility of the editor executing such a script. In this case, the script appears to have legitimate uses for administrators in specific situations. — xaosflux ^Talk 03:07, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

• I remember the incident L293D is referring to, though I don't recall where the relevant discussions took place. But IIRC, L293D was using AWB to make very minor changes (U.S. to US) in line with updated MOS guidance, and pursuant to a local Wikiproject consensus, rather than a community consensus? I think that's what it was. And it caused a bit of unnecessary drama, but the situation was under community scrutiny and there was never any consensus that his changes should be reverted. It was a minor thing, and the standout moment of the whole situation was GiantSnowman inexplicably executing a mass rollback on L293D, which resulted in actual damage to the project. So, this isn't a one-off situation, and I'm utterly shocked that they haven't learned from that debacle. Mass rollback is one of the most drastic measures you can ever employ on this project, and it should only be used in extreme situations and with extreme caution. I don't think GS is demonstrating the judgment/competence required to use this tool properly, and the issue can and should be easily rectified by deleting the script.  Swarm  talk  03:14, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
  • most drastic? Special:Nuke would like a word... Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 03:22, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

• Having had the chance to go out, eat dinner, and play trivia... I've had the opportunity to ruminate on things. I still submit I did nothing wrong. I know I've been pure in my intentions, which, in the worst case, should've merited a "here's what you're doing wrong, Veryproicelandic." Nope, I instead got the Order of the Up Yours (the message), with "You Schmuck" clusters (the reversions). For no reason... and I read the vandalism section carefully. Twice. If I vandalized this site, then Michelangelo vandalized the Sistine Chapel. Now, I -do- appreciate the support I've gotten from all of you in these comments, I should like to say...

As it stands, I'm going to withhold my goodwill from the site (I call myself a Wiki angel, or whatever it's termed when someone comes here in an attempt to make small changes for the common good). I'm not going to be angelic when some mod with an issue says to desist. But please know: this is me refusing as a matter of principle and mild retribution. I wasn't banned. This is my choice to stop helping. I don't like being called an asshole, whether that term be rendered as vandal, saboteur, miscreant, or whatever...

What would I like to return to my angelic ways? An apology in nice big bold letters from Snowman (bold, not normal typeface), and reversion of -all- my edits, all 400+ he screwed with, less any he or anyone else can show are demonstrably improper. Which shouldn't be any.

I'm interested in seeing how this all plays out. I have no financial or other stake in this, save for my reputation here. Let's thus see how Mr. Snowman replies. And I invite him to do so forthwith. I'm listening. Tell me why I'm a vandal, amigo. I'm waiting... Veryproicelandic (talk) 06:35, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Inspot checked the rollbacks and you are no vandal User:Veryproicelandic. All the ones I checked were good improvement. I suspect this was a stupid error or a compromised acct. Either way all your edits need restoring amd you are more than free to revert GiantSnowman on every edit that someone else has not already restored. It will be good for your edit count. Keep up the good work. It is users like you doing linking, fixes and deorphaning work that make articles more useful to readers. Legacypac (talk) 07:04, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

• Thank you, Legacy. I appreciate the affirmation. I say again: if I'd wanted to do malevolent things on here, I would have years ago, and to historic levels. I'm not like that. I'm about being positive in my influence. I will not screw with a resource of the world. My things are linking, stubbing, and making stuff readable, for those who care. Deorphaning is a more time-consuming thing- I want to create change that can be seen and felt quickly. One day I might go back and fix titles, etc, that are lacking in sources. I do what I like to do and can do easily. Lots of work to be done on matters like that. I'm not too good at creating infoboxes and charts on here, so I let the next guy handle those. And I continue to wait to know why I'm a vandal... Veryproicelandic (talk) 07:51, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

GS is in the UK so I imagine will see this fairly soon, please be patient and remember not all editors are in the same time zone as you. Fish+Karate 08:24, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Gosh, what a thing to wake up to. No I have not been hacked or compromised. No I am not using a bot. I used the 'mass rollback' tool. I then went to bed. No it does not add a vandalism warning automatically - I did that manually. I mass reverted Veryproicelandic's edits because I noticed them (amongst other things) deleting valid infoboxes from numerous articles (see eg here and here) and using inaccurate/misleading edit summaries in the process (what 'flag' was removed?!) Having read the above thread, I apologise unreservedly to Veryproicelandic for the misunderstanding, and have self-reverted my edits. I'll also be more careful about use of 'mass rollback' in future. GiantSnowman 08:47, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

The 'flag' being removed is the {{underlinked}} template, as I suspect you know perfectly well. ‑ Iridescent 09:33, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Nope, I've only ever called them 'maintenance tags'. In the area I edit, 'flag' refers to literal flags. Nice to see you AGFing though, particularly given that the editor in question has accepted my apology. GiantSnowman 09:37, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

I don't want to get into this mess except to say if I saw that that edit summary I would probably have asked the same thing, 'what flag'? I've heard of people talking about 'flagging' an article for attention and understand the meaning, but I don't recall I've ever heard someone refer to such a template as a 'flag' before. Again, I make no comment on any other aspects of the case like how to respond given such confusion. Nil Einne (talk) 09:56, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

It seems you did the same yesterday to User:Jamieroot11, reverting 32 edits in one minute, with a vandalism warning, only to have to remove your warning and apologise, while still blaming the editor because they didn't use a good enough edit summary[156]. In reality, they were updating stats in the infobox with the edit summary "Updating bio stats"[157], so it seems strange to blame thee edit summary for any confusion.

On 2 December you reverted some 40 edits by User:Footballinbelgium and gave them a final warning for adding unsourced content. Too bad that the things they added were to the infobox (where everything or nearly everything is unsourced) and were correct, e.g. Sam Valcke[158] really is 1m88cm according to Soccerway, and Marius Noubissi really is 1m80cm according to The final ball, in both cases sources already present in the article.

The same day you rollbacked 11 edits by User:Statements2019. You left a much nicer statement at his talk page, and they have since been blocked as socks, ut the use of rollback for non-vandal edits like this one, which was improving the article (replacing outdated unsourced content with up-to-date unsourced but correct content), is again an incorrect use of rollback.

At first sight, your batch of 30 rollbacks in 1 minute to edits by User:Davidstockholm also was incorrect, the editor genuinely was improving articles with updated statistics (e.g. here) and you rollbacked him with a final warning anyway.

With this editor, I see you giving them warning after warning, going back for months, even though they made correct edits all the time. These football articles are sourced to soccerway and the like, as you well know, and there is no need to add a new source to change the match statistics, nor to reflect a new club if that is updated in soccerway as well. I mean, it's not as if you add sources for your changes[159][160][161].

Getting it wrong once (even if it with 400+ edits) is not a problem. Getting it wrong all the time is seriously worrying. I don't know for how long this has been going on, but it is a big problem. Fram (talk) 10:13, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Yep, I've used rollback to "to revert widespread edits (by a misguided editor or malfunctioning bot) which are judged to be unhelpful to the encyclopedia" (as allowed by rollback!) when it appears that edits are not constructive or vandalism. In the area I edit (football/soccer), we have a major problem of editors adding incorrect statistics to infoboxes. I review a small sample of edits, and if they appear dodgy, I mass rollback. If I'm wrong, then I'll revert and apologise. I've already said I'll be more careful in my use of it. GiantSnowman 10:20, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

I think given the wealth of evidence above about your use of mass rollback, it might be better to check all the edits you are going to rollback before you roll them back. Or stop using the tool entirely. Fish+Karate 10:29, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Yep, I'll definitely be using it far more carefully/sparingly. GiantSnowman 10:32, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Super Mario Effect at play. If he was not an Admin his rollbacker flag would he gone and sanctions would be imposed. What was done to Veryproiceland is pretty serious, leading to assumptions it had to be a misclick or compromised account. To roll back over 400 gnoming edits as vandalism based on a misunderstood edit summary and no spot checks is pretty crazy. Legacypac (talk) 10:42, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Err As I've said, I did do a brief sample before rollbacking... GiantSnowman 10:44, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Agreed with Legacypac here. I was looking further back, and the pattern is the same over and over.

28 November; you rollback 5 edits by User:Caitlinwebb3 and then block her. The reason? While the editor is updating the stats (correctly), they don't simultaneously update the "club-update" parameter (which indicates the last time the infobox numbers have been updated). Slightly annoying, perhaps. Rollbackable vandalism, no. Blockable, certainly not. What you do is revert the editor, and then readd the same info 8 hours later, with the proper formatting.

On 27 november, you rollback 50 or so edits by User:Cipow, including stuff like this? This, again an editor adding correct info according to already present source Soccerbase[162] (and who does update the date parameter in the infobox)? Like the editor said to you: "It's very simple - You saw one or two articles with no references and reverted 20 odd perfectly referenced articles."

Please stop using rollback completely (certainly the mass rollback tool), and don't block editors for what are basically formatting errors but in any case good faith edits. A next ANI discussion about these issues, if they would continue, is unlikely to end without sanctions. Fram (talk) 10:47, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

I don't know how many more times I can say "sorry, I'll be more careful in future" before people start listening. GiantSnowman 11:08, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Well, you could start by going over your batches of rollback use, vandalism and block warnings, and actual blocks, and self-revert and/or apologize to those where no vandalism happened. Fram (talk) 11:30, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

I've already self-reverted and apologised to editors in question. GiantSnowman 11:36, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Really? User talk:Caitlinwebb3, User talk:Cipow, User talk:Davidstockholm, User talk:Footballinbelgium, ... LikeI said above, you issued a non-apology at User talk:Jamieroot11, blaming the rollback on his incorrect edit summaries, even though these were quite accurate and clear. You didn't apologise to the other four I identified. I have seen no evidence of self-reverting either. And that doesn't even take into account that you should check your many other cases of mass rollbacking as well, as it seems unlikely that these problems only started a week ago or that I found all instances in this short time. Fram (talk) 11:55, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict)On the topic of "club-update" / "pc-update", this has been discussed quite recently at WT:Footy here and User:GiantSnowman isn't the only admin who takes the view of reverting if the timestamp isn't updated. There is reliance on WP:BURDEN to support this, and there is a tendency to WP:BITE or worse. It would be much better for the reverter to correct the information, or as a minimum include a helpful edit summary and talk page notification if reverting these WP:AGF edits. Cheers, Gricehead (talk) 11:37, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

The Super Mario thing is specious - that refers to an admin being desysopped back to a regular editor instead of being blocked/banned, much like big Mario gets reduced to little Mario instead of dying. None of the rollbacking carried out by GS involves use of administrative tools, and his sysop status isn't really relevant. If a common or garden editor was making errors in the use of the mass rollback tool, in this way, they would be given clear instructions to either stop using it, or at least stop making errors using it, and if they failed to understand why what they were doing was unhelpful and/or carried on doing it, they'd be formally barred from using the tool. I don't see why we would need to change that approach here. GS has been given a clear message that he needs to take far more care. He has agreed with this, and has apologised, and he will be well aware that people will be 'checking his work'. I think that's sufficient for now. Fish+Karate 11:45, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

• This is the second time in a week that I've come across a example of questionable judgement by GiantSnowman and I don't find his responses so far to be satisfactory. Fram's suggestion that he stop using mass rollback seems prudent under the circumstances. GiantSnowman would you agree to voluntarily stop using mass rollback and to carefully check each edit before applying standard rollback from now on? In other words, stop using rollback to simply revert edits that you personally disagree with.- MrX 🖋 12:14, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

For the umpteenth time, I've already said I will. However, your insinuation that I have misused rollback on 'edits I don't like' is false. All my reverts have been good faith, "to revert widespread edits (by a misguided editor or malfunctioning bot) which are judged to be unhelpful to the encyclopedia" as is allowed. GiantSnowman 12:53, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Not sure that inadvertent misuse is any different to repeated incompetent use. Either applies. Leaky Caldron 13:01, 5 December 2018 (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.

Question re the rollback tool

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.

---

To my memory, I've never used the tool, because I never figured out what it was for. Well .. at least I now know what it does. Any article history where I compare revisions gives me 3 Rollback options (Rollback AGF/Rollback/Rollback Vandal). So, obviously it's an admin tool, because I certainly would not have loaded a script for something I know nothing about.

Given what has happened here, and given that this seems to not be the first for this editor, in light of what Fram has listed, could we eliminate the Rollback as part of the admin bundle of tools? It would be optional based on request. If mis-used, the tool could be taken away from an admin without eliminating the other tools. We could grandfather in the tool for those admins who already have it, and proceed forward with the rest. This seems to be a dangerous tool to automatically include in a set of tools. — Maile (talk) 12:19, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

@Maile66: What you see is not an admin tool. ——SerialNumber54129 12:58, 5 December 2018 (UTC) See------------------->

I have rollback pretty much from the moment it was available, and I have extended experience with the flag, but to be honest, I never used (consciously) these three options you mention (which appear above the edit summary), I only use the rollback button which is right of the edit summary, next to the undo button. This one is harmless as it only can roll back one edit. (I still sometimes misclick, and just today I accidentally rolled back several edits on an ArbCom Case page, but this is easy to notice and to repair). If the rollback vandal button performs mass rollback without a prompt, it is dangerous and must not be shown, but I do not believe this is the case. (I wanted to test it in my sandbox, but was just scared). I guess mass rollback comes from a script. If this is the case, mass rollback must in any case come with a prompt, and can not be accepted if the edit summary is not filled in manually. But I guess this is a different problem, not what you mention.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:48, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

The mass rollback tool is not an admin function, it's a bit of javascript. The only "rollback" that 'comes with' the admin bit is the same one everyone else with rollback permissions has, and I do not think that this needs to be unbundled from admin rights. WP:NUKE is an admin function, but that's not what GS used. Fish+Karate 12:59, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Indeed. A usual (non-admin) rollbacker can only roll back all edits of the same user on one page at a time without a prompt.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:11, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Exactly - (rightfully) slap my wrists for being overzealous with my reverts, but do not say I have been abusing admin tools or anything like that. That is not the case. GiantSnowman 13:26, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

GiantSnowman's voluntary restriction

The discussion above should not have been closed so abruptly, and certainly not with so much vagueness. I understand GiantSnowman has agreed not to use mass rollback in the future and that he will carefully check each edit before applying standard rollback from now ("For the umpteenth time, I've already said I will."). If I have misinterpreted his intent, please say so.- MrX 🖋 13:31, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

To clarify - I'll continue to use mass rollback against clear vandalism/socks etc. However, I'll be far more careful about using it in greyer areas (such as this incident and some others highlighted by other users). GiantSnowman 13:54, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

I'm glad I asked. I don't think that's satisfactory in light of the previous discussion. I'm not at all confident in your judgement to use mass rollback in the rare circumstances that it's actually called for.- MrX 🖋 14:00, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Why does GS not simply require the user who has made the "defective" edits to change them / rollback themselves? That way there is no room for error. There is no rush. Leaky Caldron

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.

• It should be clear that this report documents an admin engaging in the repeated abuse of mass rollback. They have not given a response that suggests that they appreciate the gravity of the situation, and they have not provided a convincing resolution, and have only vaguely stated that they "will be more careful". In this context, a unilateral close of ongoing discussion, with a declaration that the issue has been resolved voluntarily, is concerning, and reeks of the admin corps protecting itself. Mind you, I'm a believer in admin solidarity, but not if one of us is repeatedly behaving like an idiot and then completely dismissing the community's outrage. I would simply like to make my dissent to the closing statements known for the record.  Swarm  talk  08:32, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
  • "Abuse" implies deliberate malice; I don't think that's the case here. Better descriptions would be "inadvertent misuse", or "worrying incompetence". Fish+Karate 10:28, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
    • The former and not the latter! GiantSnowman 15:30, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Ironically, when I raised that same concern, the discussion was closed and I was threatened with a block. You're an admin, so your YMMV.- MrX 🖋 15:30, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
    • I threatened you with a block because you weren't trying to address the issue, you were just chasing GiantSnowman around demanding they do what you say. That's not appropriate. As an example of what you should have done instead, see Fram's post below. @Swarm: please strike/retract/modify/(whatever) your "behaving like an idiot" comment, it is a clear personal attack, and there's already a lot of hostility here about admins getting away with things that non-admins would be sanctioned for. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:48, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
      • That's a blatant lie. GS followed me to Bbb23's talk page and I simply asked him to clarify his ambiguous statement. It was entirely appropriate and all you did was inflame the issue as you seem to be trying to do now. Please stop.- MrX 🖋 15:57, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
        • No, I didn't follow you anywhere - I was pinged by @Ivanvector: in this edit. Please can people start AGFing and stop accusing me of things?! GiantSnowman 16:01, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
          • "Followed", not in the perjorative sense; "followed" as in, you arrived there after me. Ivanvector fabricated the narrative that I chased you around.- MrX 🖋 16:04, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
        • (edit conflict × 2) This is you demanding (not asking or suggesting) that GiantSnowman comply with your demand. This is you saying their response was "not good enough", implying that you were going to continue hounding them about it until you deemed their response worthy. This, well, really I just didn't appreciate this. These were all after you were asked twice to stop. If I've misinterpreted your motive then I apologize, but I would appreciate if you would retract your "blatant lie" comment. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:07, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
          • No, it was not demanding. It was clarifying what was asked, explaining my understanding of his answer, and commented that I didn't think the answer was sufficient. I'll be happy to retract my "blatant lie" comment if you will retract your comment about chasing GS around. Fair?- MrX 🖋 16:12, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
            • No, I don't agree to that. When the first discussion was closed because GS had already answered the questions to everyone's satisfaction (other than yours), you started a new discussion below to continue your pursuit. When that one was closed, you went to the closing admin's page and demanded it be reopened so you could continue your hounding again, and when that admin didn't respond you just kept right on going on their talk page. If you don't see what's wrong with this, you are heading for a block. You might disagree with my interpretation of your actions but there is no fabrication involved here. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:21, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
              • MrX, enough already, please. Drmies (talk) 16:30, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
              • Apparently neither of us agree with the other's interpretation of the facts. I'm fine with leaving it at that.- MrX 🖋 16:47, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Time for a formal restriction?

The voluntary restriction from yesterday seems to be worthless. Today, we get things like [163], where an editor changes an unsourced old kit for a club (used in 2014 and thereabouts) to an equally unsourced kit, which is the kit used last year (home kit in both cases, I haven't checked the away kit). This is not clear vandalism by any stretch of the imagination, and no indication that it is a sock either. Not a rollback candidate at all. The same here, where again it looks as if the rollbacked edit was better than the one reverted to (see the current kit e.g. [164][165]. We can't take away rollback from an admin, but we can impose a topic ban. Other solutions are welcome as well. Fram (talk) 15:19, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

It'd be nice if you notified an editor when you propose an editing restriction about them - good job I happened to see this post on my watchlist, isn't it. It was the rollback of a new editor who has repeatedly added unsourced and unexplained content to articles. Those rollbacks are allowed as they "revert widespread edits (by a misguided editor or malfunctioning bot) which are judged to be unhelpful to the encyclopedia". GiantSnowman 15:27, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

It's a continuation of a section about you, not a new section. And your definition of when rollback is allowed has been shown to be defective just yesterday, and you said you would be much more careful, not "I will continue to use my own rules like before". Like I just explained and showed, the editor was replcaing outdated unsourced content (the kits) with more up-to-date, correct, but still unsourced content. That's no reason to rollback (or to threaten with blocks), and these are not edits which are "unhelpful to the encyclopedia" (or, for that matter, "widespread"). Fram (talk) 15:38, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

It's a section that was closed (twice) and which I had presumed was done with. I have not said "I will continue to use my own rules like before", do not try and put words in my mouth or misrepresent my stance here. Have you even bothered to look what I did with the editor's other edits? I'll give you a clue - I didn't rollback them. I reviewed them and undid them as unsourced and left a warning. Trying to claim that I'm rollbacking editors willy-nilly is absolutely false. GiantSnowman 15:41, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

So these abuses of rollback are allowed because you didn't rollback his other edits? That's a novel excuse. As for putting words in your mouth, I said "you said X, not "Y"". I literally said that you did not say that... My claim is that you are rollbacking edits where there is no justification at all for the use of rollback, and this a day after you were brought here because you did the exact same thing time and again with many editors recently. You made a clear statement that "I'll continue to use mass rollback against clear vandalism/socks etc. However, I'll be far more careful about using it in greyer areas", but there is no evidence at all that you are more careful at all, since you still use rollback where it is not allowed at all. Fram (talk) 15:50, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

It's not abuse at all - and as previously stated the rollback is allowed. I've directly quoted from WP:ROLLBACK to show that it is. I have taken on board everything that was said in the previous discussion. PS I'm still awaiting an apology for not informing me of this discussion :) GiantSnowman 15:54, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, obviously two edits that improve the encyclopedia are the same as widespread edits that are unhelpful to the encyclopedia. Quoting policies is very good, understanding them (and applying them correctly) would be even better though. Fram (talk) 15:56, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

How were those edits, made by an new editor with a short history of only making disruptive edits (adding unsourced and/or nationalistic content), "improving the encyclopaedia"?! I've lost count of the number of vandals I have encountered over the past 12 years who have messed with kits in infoboxes. GiantSnowman 16:04, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

I have explained enough times how these edits which you rollbacked were clearly improving the encyclopedia, in the same way that your "unsourced" edits updating the number of games people have played improve the encyclopedia. Looking at their other edits, I don't see the disruption you claim, I see a new editor who needs guidance on the replacement of "English" with "Cornish", and who should get our thanks for their other changes. this is their first edit: birth date is correct and sourced[166], place of birth is correct and sourced, youth club is correct as well. The only "disruption" is changing English to Cornish, which is something we don't do but which isn't vandalism. When they made the change again, but without the Cornish aspect, you again blindly reverted, and then readded 90% of the same information in your own name[167] using the sources already in the article; you could just as easily have just formatted the edit by the "disruptive" editor instead, instead of bombarding them with warnings of increasing severity. Here as well you removed a clear improvement, adding the correct name of the manager to the infobox. Yes, it was unsourced, just like everything else in that infobox, but that's no reason to remove it. Using their "disruptiveness" as an excuse for your rollbacking of other edits they made only shows that you seem to have developed an "all new editors to football articles are vandals" attitude which is not how we are supposed to treat newbies. You need to check if their edits are improvements or if they are inserting false information, and only then should you treat them as disruptive or as vandals. Having this as the default approach is not acceptable. Fram (talk) 07:19, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

• Support (suspended comment since GiantSnowman is going to be away for a few days; see below) ban on the use of rollback, whether by UX or by script. Sorry, GiantSnowman, these are clearly inappropriate uses of rollback, and we just went through this yesterday. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:01, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Actually, suggest this should be a ban on the use of rollback without an edit summary, as that does seem to be the problem with the latest rollbacks. These were not obviously vandalism, and while reverting might have been appropriate, doing so without saying why (which implies vandalism as a rationale) was what was actually inappropriate. As far as using Twinkle's green or blue rollbacks or the massrollback scripts (which all allow entering an edit summary) there doesn't seem to be a problem there as long as GS describes what they're doing. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:12, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Which I've already started doing, before this thread kicked off, see here. If that's all that is required (and yes, I probably should have been doing it earlier!) then that's easily solved and I'll do it for all. GiantSnowman 16:24, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I'd like to believe that this is an issue that could be resolved through discussion, and in light of your comment below I've struck part of mine above; hopefully we can discuss more after your weekend. The problem I see here is that you're interpreting as clear vandalism edits which are not so clearly vandalism to those of us who don't edit in these topics, and really the bigger problem is that you're rolling back new-ish editors who probably don't know that what they believe to be a good-faith contribution is problematic: you haven't given any indication as to why, just, they made an edit and now it's gone for no specified reason. That's why nobody should ever make a revert of any kind without an edit summary giving a reason, other than cases where it's obvious that the editor clearly knows that what they're doing is wrong. Any not-obviously-disruptive edit is exempt from standard rollback, and that includes unsourced edits, editing tests, content with glaring English problems, and even in cases where you're reverting a banned editor you should probably say so in the edit summary (the policy says you don't have to but also warns to be prepared to explain). And for widespread unhelpful edits the policy says you must provide an explanation somewhere - why not in the edit summary? massrollback allows this, unless you're using some script that doesn't in which case you should stop using it. Please consider this, but do enjoy your weekend. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:39, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

WP:ROLLBACK allows the rollback of edits "judged to be unhelpful to the encyclopedia". Therefore I'm simply using my judgment and experience in those areas. In 99% of cases (and the 1% will have been oversight) I have always left a talk page template message explaining why. I acknowledge I should have used the massrollback (which btw is the only script I use here) edit summary function as well, something which I started today prior to Fram raising further concerns. GiantSnowman 16:44, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

The policy allows that iff you provide an explanation somewhere. I would suggest, and I'm going to suggest it as a change to the policy, that you should use an edit summary in those cases, for accountability, even if that edit summary is along the lines of "please see <page where you've provided an explanation>". You're already using the script so it should not be difficult. Otherwise, I'm satisfied. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:56, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

FWIW I'd support (and obviously follow) such a policy wording change. GiantSnowman 16:59, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Comment - I'm logging off in about an hour for the weekend (nowadays I'm busy most long weekends, as you'll see from my editing history/user page updates, before my 'fans' accuse me of running from this) and likely won't be back till Sunday/Monday. This means I won't have chance (for better or worse) to respond to any comments. All I will say is this - I know I've been overzealous at times with rollback, but never maliciously or abusively. It's always been to revert clear vandalism, socks, or edits which I have "judged to be unhelpful to the encyclopedia" (as is allowed). I'll note Fram, while trawling through my contribs for these 'latest indiscretions' (which, for reasons I have already explained, I don't think are - otherwise I wouldn't have used ) has conveniently ignored my rollbacks exercised at this AN request. You'll note that for those edits I provided a bespoke edit summary explaining what I was doing and why I was rollbacking. That's something I should have done before, I know. I apologised for my edits the other night (accepted by the editor in question and a decent number of others) and have genuinely committed to being more careful, given that my reverts have sometimes caught up valid edits. Whenever that has happened I've apologised and self-reverted. If that's not enough and you still want my blood, then fine. I'll come back to the outcome in a few days. If it's as I fear then, given how I've felt over the past 24 hours, I probably won't return to editing at all tbh. I've been an editor for nearly 13 years and an admin for nearly 7, with no blemishes. It genuinely feels like I'm being harassed hounded out and it's deeply unpleasant. GiantSnowman 16:23, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) The problem is he wants to use rollback in grey areas - with grey seemingly covering hundreds of useful edits. I was unconvinced yesterday that he actually took responsibility for his abuse of rollback and that was confirmed today. Cries of harassment are misplaced - if he was not an admin he would have been blocked or sanctioned by an Admin already. Legacypac (talk) 16:37, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

• Again, rollback is allowed for edits "judged to be unhelpful to the encyclopedia". I judged these edits to be unhelpful, as they were unsourced and unexplained and in an area that has been ripe for vandalism in the past. Again, that is allowed per WP:ROLLBACK. So are you saying that I am not allowed to use rollback for edits even though WP:ROLLBACK says I am? GiantSnowman 16:40, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
• The edits by MrMo4 (talk · contribs) are all unsourced, and unexplained, and they include BLP material. Rolling them back, and warning for it, is not wrong, even if they replaced equally unsourced material. If unsourced material has been in the article for a long time, and if we have no reason to suspect it's somehow false or contaminated, we typically don't remove it, unless it's otherwise troubling. But if an editor keeps making unsourced and unexplained changes, after being warned a few times, what reason does the average admin/editor/reader have to trust the information? And what are Template:Uw-unsourced2, Template:Uw-ucblock, etc. for if not that? Given the pattern of MrMo4's editing, these reverts and warnings are par for the course. Drmies (talk) 16:42, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Question, since we're being pedantic about policies: a good-faith replacement of unsourced material seems as though it invokes the "challenged or likely to be challenged" clause of the verifiability policy (see WP:MINREF), even if what it's replaced with is also unsourced. How does reverting such an edit interact with the WP:BURDEN section of the same policy? Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:01, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
    • Ivanvector, my point is rather that in this case, that of MrMo4 there could have been legitimate doubt about the good faith of the editor. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 17:51, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
      • Not if you actually looked at their edits. What are their mistakes? They added unsourced content (mainly to unsourced infoboxes), but all their added content was correct, and all their added content was a real improvement bar the replacement of English with Cornish (the player is Cornish, but we use the official football countries, not some regionalistic indicators). With some guidance on this latter part, this good-faith, helpful newbie could well have turned out to be a good new editor. Now, we have one editor less. This is a rather severe example of WP:BITE, coupled with misuse of rollback. Fram (talk) 07:19, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

• GS, no one doubts your good intentions, but if you "judged these edits to be unhelpful" when they were actually helpful, and if you've done that repeatedly, that means your judgment has been poor. You should either improve it or stop doing those reverts. 173.228.123.166 (talk) 08:53, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

• Also, GiantSnowman, please don't describe this as your being harassed. As an editor for nearly 13 years and an admin for nearly 7, you should know that you're expected to be able to account for your editing and/or use of the tools to which you have access. Being asked to do so is not tantamount to harassment and nobody is trying to hound you out. The concerns, I think, at this point, are the fact that you apologized and said you would be far more careful about the use of rollback, and then promptly resumed doing the same things. That's exactly why WP:IDHT was written. You say this is deeply unpleasant for you, but how do you think those well-meaning editors you're mass reverting without explanation feel? That's exactly why WP:BITE was written, addressing the fact that some behaviours drive potentially productive new editors off the project rather than helping them. Fish+Karate 11:57, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

• Popping back briefly - though the discussion looks to have naturally ended and moved onto the RFC? If anybody wants anything further from me here then just ping me please. But two quick points - @173, unfortunately many people have doubted my good intentions, accusing me of abuse etc. @Fish and karate: fair point. I fully accept that I need to account - and thought I had. Wiser and better admins than I had reviewed the thread and closed it (twice) after I had explained myself and apologised; a day later it was raised again and I was accused of abuse again, hence why I described it as harassment (perhaps a strong word, on reflection) and unpleasant (which it was - I have tried so hard to genuinely improve this encyclopedia with every single edit of mine, and for people to start doubting that after so long was hurtful). GiantSnowman 11:39, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

• It was "raised again" because you continued with the same kind of wrong rollbacks after the section had been closed, based on the false promise you made then. If that is harassment, then you have done the same countless times, when you are reverting or rollbacking the same editors again and again, with ever stronger warnings. This is normal, when you (or someone else) notices a problem with the editing of someone, you keep an eye on their next edits to see if the problem reappears. Calling this "harassment" is still not accepting that you did anything wrong (even though you apologised in one instance, and claimed to change you behaviour). That is is unpleasant may well be so, but that's hardly a reason to turn a blind eye to your rollback problems and general problems with your ABF approach to new (or even established) editors. The discussion has not "naturally ended and moved onto the RfC", the RfC has no bearing on your actions and possible sanctions. Perhaps you could start with looking at the analysis of the edits you claimed were so unhelpful that they warranted multiple warnings, blind reversal and rollbacking? That would be more helpful than defending yourself by pointing out that you have tried to improve the encyclopedia. Without any indication that you have learned anything from this section (pre- and post-close), you complaints about others and compliments for yourself are meaningless. Fram (talk) 16:45, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Time for policy adjustments?

Shouldn't we modify all the policies saying that rolling back of edits which are not vandalism (obvious blatant clear vandalism as per WP:VANDALISM) must contain a custom edit summary (which only applies if the roll back is performed by script, usual rollback may not be used for anything different from vandalism) and must be preceded by a message at the talk page of the user who is affected?--Ymblanter (talk) 17:21, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

I'd agree, but would say vandalism and reverting socks are the exceptions (you wouldn't post at a sock's talk page per DENY). Everything else needs a manual edit summary and talk page post. GiantSnowman 17:27, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Possibly serious BLP violations as well, though I have difficulties imagining a real situation when the problem of massive BLP violations could be solved by rollback.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:31, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

I'm all for checks & balances. - FlightTime (open channel) 17:37, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Yes. Rollback is frequently troubling enough already in the hands of Recent change patrollers. Only yesterday I talked to someone who had simply rolled back (with Twinkle, maybe, I don't know) an IP edit without explanation. That this is done without explanation is the norm, these days. But mass rollback, which is a magnificent tool, is a bit different. Above, someone said "there's no rush"--IMO mass rollback is precisely also for those cases where there is a rush, where a boatload of unhelpful edits need to be reverted before subsequent edits, including those by SineBot etc., make the edits inaccessible to rollback. But I'm straying from Ymblanter's point a bit--of course rollback edits, vandalism or not, should be accompanied by an edit summary (Twinkle can now add "good faith" or "vandalism", right?) And a mass rollback should be enacted with a decent edit summary. Now before some archeologist dives in to find me mass-rollbacking without explanation: if I run into a sock of some LTA, I'm going to hit mass rollback as fast as a I can and click right through--but in such a case the subsequent block will make that motivation clear. And Ymblanter, frequently that does involve massive BLP violations, including outing and harassment. Drmies (talk) 17:52, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

• Have a gander at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Proposal: changes to the Rollback policy. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:46, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

I think we need the flexibility to allow some room for judgment and discretion -- both qualities that admins are expected to possess.

The goal of the policy for rollback and vandalism is that people using rollback have to judge the intent of an edit. There are dozens (if not hundreds) of rollbacks every day where the edit being rolled back was the addition of the word "poop" somewhere in the article. I guess we were all 9 years old at one time or another. Similarly there are dozens (if not hundreds) of edits being rolled back where random chunks of articles were blanked, "John Doe is a great minecraft player" is added, or dates are changed to clearly implausible ones. There's no point in discussing any of these edits with their perpetrators because they already know what was wrong with their edit. We have the "Your test worked! Use the sandbox in future" template for these which puts the very best possible construction on the editor's intent. The use of that template is optional.

Where the subjective intent of a change is unclear, it is incumbent upon admins to slow down, check the facts, check history, check other contributions, and determine how to proceed. It is appropriate to treat edits as vandalism when it becomes clear that the individual who made it was working in bad faith -- they weren't making an effort to contribute useful information, or were deliberately and knowingly ignoring our way of doing things. Otherwise, it is important to communicate, and to take the time to make clear to the other contributor why their change is being reverted, with specificity. This is settled policy and is the foundation of how we build articles. Any edit that is a good-faith attempt to improve the encyclopedia is not vandalism and, if reverted, requires an explanation. Where and when this explanation must be provided is a matter more open to interpretation and judgment. The less clear the situation, the greater the requirement to discuss in advance rather than notify post hoc. Where a good-faith edit is a combination of the useful and the problematic, it is broadly incumbent upon Wikipedians deciding what to do with the edit to allow the useful portions to stand.

Anyone who has done much RC patrolling will realize that admins are going to make the occasional mistake due to the sheer volume of questionable edits. I get that. But as a general rule, admins are expected to make the right call the vast majority of the time, slow down, explain what they are doing, explain policy, welcome people, etc. UninvitedCompany 18:08, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Don't need more policy creep. Do need more willingness to call out crappy reverting and to shut it down through restrictions or technical means if it doesn't stop after gentle feedback and guidance is attempted. 173.228.123.166 (talk) 21:02, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

480 more edits rolled back on December 9, 2018

GS is back today and has just used the mass rollback tool to revert 480 good-faith edits by an IP, with no explanation beyond subst-ing a uw-unsourced2 on the IP's talk page and an edit summary of "reverting mass addition of unsourced content." The IP had made the edits, apparently manually, over a period of about a week. Some of these edits appear to be perfectly good and sufficiently sourced by references already present in the articles. For example, this change is supported by the existing source listed in the article.

I can't find any way to see these rollbacks in a good light. It appears to me that GS is mass-reverting mixtures of good and bad edits without individually reviewing each one. Aside from exceptional cases that don't apply here -- like high-speed vandalism or bots run amok -- we are expected to review each and every edit before rolling it back. There is also a requirement to explain and discuss. Rolling back a week's worth of work deserves a higher level of engagement than one sentence and a template. If there are Wikiproject requirements specific to the subject matter, those should be linked, for example. If various edits are problematic but for different reasons, that has to be pointed out.

GS, I would ask you to:

1. Undo your recent reversions and engage in discussion with the IP to address any problems you believe exist.
2. Stop using the mass-reversion tool for purposes other than dealing with high-speed vandalism.
3. Stop reverting football-related edits that you have not individually reviewed.
4. Provide an individualized explanation for any reversions you make, that demonstrates respect for good-faith efforts made by new contributors.

UninvitedCompany 19:12, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Again, these reverts are allowed by WP:ROLLBACKUSE - "To revert widespread edits (by a misguided editor or malfunctioning bot) unhelpful to the encyclopedia, provided that you supply an explanation in an appropriate location, such as at the relevant talk page". I came across an IP making a large number of unexplained and unsourced edits (a majority of which involved BLPs) in an area where this type of editing is a major problem. I used - as previously requested - a bespoke edit summary and then left a template message on the talk page. What would you have done differently? GiantSnowman 19:20, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

The edit summary was misleading. You reverted both additions and deletions not just additions. I don't know if the edits were all correct or not but they look pretty uncomtroversial adding missing player numbers, adding amd deleting players from squads etc. The ones I spot checked were surrounded by otherwise completely unsourced text. I saw nothing that looked like vandalism.

You rolled back over 400 good faith edits representing a weeks worth of work because you THINK that is what rollback is for, while a discussion about doing exactly the same thing is still open. Sorry but rollback rights would have been removed already if you were not an Admin. Legacypac (talk) 20:29, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

GS, you're on extremely thin ice, and invoking WP:CRYBLP for something as inoffensive as an athlete's jersey number isn't going to help. Much as it pains me to agree with Legacypac on anything, this is the kind of thing that at minimum would get rollback revoked in a non-admin; there's no possible way you could have manually checked 400+ reverts to make sure you weren't making any incorrect reverts in the minute or so it took you to perform them. ‑ Iridescent 20:36, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

User:GiantSnowman, I agree with Iridescent (much as it pains me, haha!--no, it doesn't pain me). Look, I know very well that "your" area, that soccer stuff, suffers from those editors who make tons of these unverified and unexplained changes, and I dislike such edits as much as you do, but you really are on thin ice here. Drmies (talk) 22:15, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

I also concur with above, and want to add that I would have thought that, having had a huge section of AN/I dedicated to this issue, apologies and promises, you would have stayed clear of any rollbacks/reverts, let alone 480 of them. This is inexcusable, and it's only because you're an admin that the rollback right has not yet been revoked. Aiken D 22:58, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

I've self-reverted and will no longer use mass rollback in these kind of circumstances. GiantSnowman 09:50, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

@User:GiantSnowman, it appears to me that you have undone many of your reverts but have also left many in place (example). Was this deliberate? Also, you do not appear to have contacted the IP to work things out. Are you still working on these things, or have you completed what you planned to do? UninvitedCompany 18:08, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

@UninvitedCompany: I went through my contribs and reverted all edits that appeared, how strange that some have been missed? Let me try again. I'll also leave a message for the IP. GiantSnowman 18:36, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

I can't see any more I have missed on my contribs list? GiantSnowman 18:40, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

@GiantSnowman:It may help to take a look at the IP's contributions. That's how I found it. There were others. The number of self-reverts you made seemed quite a bit fewer than 480, just by looking at the list, which is why I checked. ::shrug:: UninvitedCompany 18:44, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Really? [168][169][170][171][172][173]... There are dozens of these ... Fram (talk) 21:21, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

User:Ymblanter and User:Bbb23 have both shut down earlier versions this discussion with closes that have been proven wrong. The only admin action so far has been to threaten an editor questioning GS and several attempt to stop the discussion. What is the solution here? Obviously GS has no infention of stopping their mass reverts of constructive edits. Legacypac (talk) 05:48, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

I am perturbed by this whole thing, we are very much into I didn't hear that territory at this point. If GiantSnowman is not listening, and clearly he is not, his admin status should not preclude him from being treated the same as any other editor. Therefore I suggest a topic ban from use of rollback for three months. No "except when doing X", no "other than when Y happens", all rollback. Fish+Karate 09:50, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

You've clearly just missed me say "I won't do it again". GiantSnowman 09:55, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

No, you said "I won't use mass rollback in these kind of circumstances". That is not the same thing, at all. Fish+Karate 10:02, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

OK then, let me clarify. I will no longer use rollback for #5 of WP:ROLLBACKUSE, which is the area where the issue lies. Instead I will reveiew individual edits and use the manual 'undo' if appropriate. GiantSnowman 10:07, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Others may disagree, and I always want to assume good faith, but I am not sure how many more of these pledges I can believe.

After the initial concerns were raised on 4 December by Uninvited Company at the top of this thread:

• "I'll also be more careful about use of 'mass rollback' in future" (5 Dec)
• "I've already said I'll be more careful in my use of it" (5 Dec)
• "I'll definitely be using it far more carefully/sparingly" (5 Dec)
• "I don't know how many more times I can say "sorry, I'll be more careful in future" before people start listening" (5 Dec)
• "I'll be far more careful about using (mass rollback) in "greyer" areas" (5 Dec)

The next day, 6 December, Fram raises concerns about further misuse of rollback (link)

• "Trying to claim that I'm rollbacking editors willy-nilly is absolutely false" (6 Dec)
• "I have taken on board everything that was said in the previous discussion" (6 Dec)
• "genuinely committed to being more careful, given that my reverts have sometimes caught up valid edits" (6 Dec)

Three days later, 9 December, it happens again, with Uninvited Company raising concerns about further misuse of rollback (link).

I'm really sorry, GS, but how many more times is this cycle of issue raised/apology/pledge to change/issue raised going to occur? At what point does good faith run out? I really want to believe you have taken this all on board, I still think a topic ban may, sadly, be necessary. Fish+Karate 10:28, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Or to summarise this whole debacle - I used mass rollback, it was highlighted to me it was wrong, I reverted and said I would be more careful. A few days later I used mass rollback again, thinking it was in-line with WP:ROLLBACKUSE (obviously not), it was highlighted to me I was wrong, I reverted and said I would stop full stop. If my word isn't good enough and you want/need a formal topic ban then fine, but either way there won't be any more mass rollback for 'good faith' edits. GiantSnowman 10:35, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

No, that's not what happened. I've added the missing bits in italics. "I used mass rollback, it was highlighted to me it was wrong, I reverted and said I would be more careful. Many other instances of the same issue over the preceding days were shown, but I did nothing about these. The next day, I used rollback again, it was again shown to be incorrect, but I maintained that I was right against all evidence, and started playing the victim card. A few days later I used mass rollback again, thinking it was in-line with WP:ROLLBACKUSE (obviously not), it was highlighted to me I was wrong, I reverted and said I would stop full stop." This was not the second time you used mass rollback incorrectly, or the first time since the problems were explained to you at length. Fram (talk) 10:49, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Every non-admin would have had their rollback rights removed by now, indefinitely, with the requirement to come back here after at least six months if they want the right back. I see no reason to treat someone differently just because they are an admin. The only difference is that we can't remove the right technically (without deadminning), so we have to make it a formal topic ban instead. Promises of voluntary better behaviour have been broken again and again. So I propose an indefinite topic ban on the use of rollback, with a right to appeal the topic ban here (or at AN) no sooner than 6 months from now. Fram (talk) 10:25, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

"I misused mass rollback, it was highlighted to me it was wrong, I said I would be more careful, the next day I misused mass rollback again, it was highlighted to me I was wrong, I said I would be more careful, three days later I misused mass rollback again, it was highlighted to me I was wrong, so I will stop now and I really really mean it this time". Enough. Support topic ban. Fish+Karate 10:46, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Clearly a case of WP:NOTGETTINGIT. Not uncommon in the wiki-world of soccer. Leaky Caldron 10:58, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Me: "I'll stop"

"He's not listening"

"No, I said I'll stop"

"He's not listening"

"Look I've even removed the script"

"I still can't believe he's not listening"... GiantSnowman 11:09, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

You said you would take more care on at least eight different occasions (as linked above) and have not done so, I'm sure you can understand why people will raise a collective eyebrow. Finally removing the tool is a positive step, thank you for doing so. Fish+Karate 12:22, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

But there haven't been 8 'cycles' of this though - there was the initial mass rollback which started the original discussion, the 2 disputed ones raised by Fram on 6th, and then this on 9th. (Unless I'm missing any?) Again, all of which seemsed to me at the time to be covered by WP:ROLLBACKUSE (though, clearly, not). GiantSnowman 12:59, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

^^^Would be appealing a block by now if not an Admin. Legacypac (talk) 13:56, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Is there a precedent (does it fall under topic bans?) for asking administrators not to use rollback for a set period of time? Vermont (talk) 12:33, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Support 6 month ban on Any use of Rollback. How many times have they abused rollback before they were caught? Very clearly don't understand what it is for but like rollback so much they built imported a tool for it. Legacypac (talk) 13:56, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Err I didn't "build a tool for it" - it was an existing script created by somebody else. But don't let the truth get in your way, it hasn't stopped you so far! GiantSnowman 14:05, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

You might want to remove your personal attack - that is a blockable offence. Does the script not have your name on it? I recall it did but if I'm incorrect on that, sorry. Legacypac (talk) 14:11, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

@Legacypac: No personal attack has been made, calm down, this thread is addressing GiantSnowman's use of rollback. I can understand GS's frustration with your comment, he did not create the tool, and so your saying "like rollback so much they built a tool for it" is not a truth. Pointing this out is not a personal attack. If anything needs to be removed, it is your incorrect assertion. Fish+Karate 14:14, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Nope it's a script by @Writ Keeper:. As F&K said, it's not a personal attack and certainly not blockable. I'll also invite your retraction first. GiantSnowman 14:16, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Everybody calm down, please. There have been no personal attacks here, only confusion and emotion, both understandable. Being "out for blood" is unbecoming. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:18, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Yes, thank you. I've struck. It's hard to remain calm given the amount of misinformation/misinterpretation in this thread. 14:26, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

As far as I see, the incorrect claim by Legacypac was the only bit of "misinformation/misinterpretation" not by you. You have been consistently misinterpreting or misapplying policy, and misrepresenting good-faith, constructive editors as unconstructive near-vandals or vandals. And misinforming us about your intentions to change your behaviour. Fram (talk) 14:29, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Some have said this happened 8 times. It hasn't. Some said it is abuse. It isn't. Yes my historical view and use of #5 of WP:ROLLBACKUSE was clearly wrong; I realise that now, hence why I've said I'll just stop (given my attempt to be better at it didn't work). I have not misinformed anybody - and that is yet another example of "misinformation/misinterpretation" from you. GiantSnowman 14:33, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

The "8 times" was the number of times you promised to change your approach. And your many and continued mass rollbacks, and accompanying warnings and blocks, were an abuse of the tool and your position. And you have misinformed people here, multiple times, e.g. in your "summary" of what happened so far, which I had to correct, or in your claims that the edits you reverted were unconstructive, or in your claims that you would change your approach, where no one but you sees any change in your use of rollback after your first batch of promises, or after your second batch of promises. Fram (talk) 14:40, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

But the implication is that I have promised and then broken that and re-promised 8 times. That is clearly not the case. Put them in batches, yes - so you agree on two? So why keep hammering about 8, other than to try and make me look worse than I am? Hmm? GiantSnowman 14:45, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

I have used "8 times" one time, in the above reply after you brought it up. I am not "hammering about", and have no need to make you look worse than you are. Fram (talk) 14:48, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

• Comment - given the clear feeling here I'm more than happy for a voluntary topic ban for 3/6 months rollback on all edits covered by #5 of WP:ROLLBACKUSE (as that is the issue here). I've already removed the mass rollback tool regardless. I'd oppose any topic ban on rollbacks related to sock/clear vandalism (as that, as far as I am aware, not an issue). GiantSnowman 14:18, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Since you are clearly incapable of making the distinction between constructive and unconstructive edits, even after it has been pointed out to you repeatedly, I see little reason to let you continue to use rollback for "clear vandalism" either. Your previous promises and voluntary restrictions were worth nothing at all, you had plenty of chances to convince us that you could be trusted with such, but enough is enough. Fram (talk) 14:23, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
    • I am not "clearly incapable". Unless you also have issue with eg this? Some of my reverts that you have an issue with have been supported by other admins above. I said I'd be more careful, I thought I was, other disagreed, so I'm voluntarily stepping out of it. GiantSnowman 14:29, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
      • That you also revert unconstructive edits is hardly evidence that you are capable of the distinction. You certainly haven't applied the distinction recently, or we wouldn't be here. You may be "voluntary" stepping out of whatever you want, this won't stop the well deserved involuntary topic ban though. As far as I can tell, the "supported by other admins above" is actually reverts which have been condemned by all editors, admins and non-admins alike, apart from Drmies, whose judgment or impartiality I seriously doubt. Fram (talk) 14:35, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
        • Not sure how I can prove a negative (ie that I have aplied the distinction by not mass rollbacking edits...). Also going to @Drmies: to let him come defend himself. GiantSnowman 14:39, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

You already proved you can't tell the difference, or can't be bothered to check, between good faith edits and unconstructive ones with the 480 rollbacks highlighted in this section. I have no issue with Drimes, whose statement has been taken out of context here. I suggest readimg to the end of the rollback policy. Legacypac (talk) 14:47, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

• I would entirely support a topic ban. Super Mario effect: if GS were not an admin, they would be blocked by now. L293D (☎ • ✎) 14:58, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
• GS is not a newbie. They are expected to know when and how rollback is meant to be used. A new or inexperienced editor - certainly a non-admin - would have had their ability to rollback edits removed at the *start* of the above dicussion. I cannot see from all of the above they actually do understand that its for vandalism and if they are unwilling to manually check it is vandalism (absent any obvious indicators like identical edits etc), that they cant use rollback to do it. Only in death does duty end (talk) 18:43, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Actually there are 5 uses allowed at WP:ROLLBACKUSE, not just vandalism... GiantSnowman 18:46, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Have you read beyond the 5 uses to "Use of standard rollback for any other purposes ... is likely to be considered misuse of the tool." or "Administrators may revoke the rollback privilege or issue a block in response to a persistent failure to explain reverts, regardless of the means used." Legacypac (talk) 19:12, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Yes, and as I've explained multiple times, I (mistakenly) thought these edits were covered by #5. GiantSnowman 19:14, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Everyone. Let's keep this in perspective. I note that GS has removed the subject script from his CSS, and self-reverted, and is contacting the IP to smooth things over. We're all here to build a better encyclopedia. I would like to see GS adjust his understanding of some of our policies, and I believe he has taken concrete steps in that direction. By all means, let's continue the discussion, but I believe any discussion of formal sanctions may be premature given that he's making a good-faith effort to get it right. UninvitedCompany 19:10, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Agreed, a topic ban from using mass rollback at this point would not prevent anything, as the tool has been removed (I would expect, and hope, for good). A topic ban from using regular rollback would not be appropriate, as there’s been no evidence of incompetence with that. I am sure GS is aware people will be keeping an eye on his future use of common or garden rollback. Fish+Karate 19:17, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Many thanks both for some sanity in this discussion. GiantSnowman 19:22, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

The topic ban is not "from using mass rollback", it is from using any form of rollback. The only sanity needed here is the sanity to treat admins like we would treat anyone else, isntead of giving them preferential treatment (well, to be fair, giving out a second and third chance already was preferential treatment...). The edits from the "Time for a formal restriction?" section were, as far as I can tell, normal rollback, not mass rollback. They should have been aware that "people will be keeping an eye on his future use of common or garden rollback." was true the last few days already, and that didn't help one bit. The circling of the wagons to defend a fellow admin against applying perfectly normal, nah lenient restrictions is not "keeping things in perspective" or "some sanity" (indicating that they still don't get the problem with their edits, apparently the remainder of the discussion and the proposed topic ban was 'not sanity???), it is the kind of behaviour that disgusts many non-admins and others who don't like double standards. Fram (talk) 20:56, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

I don't know about everyone else, but I've always been a pretty big fan of applying interaction strategies like forbearance, understanding, and appreciation for incremental improvement with non-admins, too. Yesterday, I was concerned that GS didn't get it. Today, I believe he does get it. Tomorrow (and in future), I will be watching, and I am confident many others will be as well. I hope (and expect) that there will be nothing interesting to see. UninvitedCompany 21:26, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

There has been no incremental improvement, they consider this whole topic ban discussion as a lack of sanity and nothing but misinformation and misrepresentation on behalf of those proposing or supporting it apparently, instead of showing any indication that they were at fault here. They have consistently minimalized their problems, going so far as to drop whole episodes from their summary of what happened; they try to keep it contained to "mass rollback" now, when their regulare rollback has the exact same problems (but of course doesn't do 480 edits per minute or so). They show no understanding that what they claim are disruptive edits are actually helpful edits. They have not done anything to correct the situation with most editors identified as being the victim of their rollabck campaigns, they can't even be trusted to accurately revert their own edits in this latest installment as they can't find any unreverted ones in their edits apparently. Instead of "good boy, don't do it again, off you go!", we should be looking at a total lack of competency or trustworthiness by now. If your attitude prevails, it won't be long until we are here again, with more newbies scared off and more time wasted. Fram (talk) 21:36, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

When a non-Admin screws up once [174] Legacypac (talk) 01:15, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

• That's ... actually a good point. To be fair, the admin who removed the page mover right in that thread has been advocating for more robust action here than many others. Similarly, I imagine if Uninvited Company, who has been suggesting forbearance here, had closed that thread, it would have been with a warning rather than a permission removal. But yes, the difference in approach is jarring. --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:42, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

  The difference in approach matters far less than fundamental facts and the end results, which are very similar ..

  Seraphim System misused the page mover right. A thread was started on AN about it. Seraphim System initially showed a failure to understand they had done anything wrong. Seraphim System no longer has the page user right.

  GiantSnowman misused the mass rollback script. A thread was started on ANI about it. GiantSnowman initially showed a failure to understand they had done anything wrong. GiantSnowman no longer has the mass rollback script.

  @Fram: If you can show me a smidgen of evidence that GS has misused regular rollback in the same way I will change my views on this, but at present all the diffs that have been presented concerned GS's poor use of the mass rollback script, so I don't see what non-punitive benefits a full restriction on rollback would achieve. Fish+Karate 09:44, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Wrong User:Fish and karate uninstalling a script that makes rollback easier does not solve the problem that GS is abusing editors with rollback, whicj remains available to them in Twinkle. Maybe this needs to go to ArbComm because the Admin team can't seem to deal with one of their own the same way they would deal with any other editor. Legacypac (talk) 18:23, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

• How can one tell if edits like this one, mentioned above, have been made using regular or mass rollback? When hundreds of edits have been made in a minute, it's obviously mass rollback, but otherwise? And these individual rollbacks are not less problematic of course. Fram (talk) 10:54, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

  All that being said, @GiantSnowman:, you said you had undone all 480 of the last wave of inappropriate mass reversions, but Fram has provided a number of instances where you have not done so. Please address these and any others that you must have missed by accident. [175][176][177][178][179][180] Fish+Karate 09:56, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

  As I said above, I went through my contribs and rollbacked eveyrhting in there. I am unsure why some would not appear. I'll try again for the third time. GiantSnowman 10:13, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

  • Right, what I think happened is that wgen I reverted 50 edits, and then clicked 'next 50' on my contribs paged, it took those 50 reverts into account and then bypassed the next 50 contribs (so basically I was reverting every other 50). I've got around that by viewing 500 at a time and refreshing the browser before moving on. Think I've got them all now? (famous last words). PS nice to see Fram AGFing as per usual... GiantSnowman 10:27, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Looking back at the edits of the 6th (whether one can see the difference between regular and mass rollback), I noticed this edit. Giantsnowman again reverts an edit (regular undo, not rollback, which is why I didn't check it until now), making the article actively worse again, and goes on to block the editor for three months. This is a helpful editor, adding correct information, but not in the way GS would like it, so it's revert and block. He previously warned the editor for vandalism for this edit, where he updated the page with correct information, but while doing this changed an inline ref to an external link. Wow, truly blockworthy vandalism! When the editor added his info back, but now kept the inline ref[181], GS reverted them again (not noticing it as such in the edit summary though), removing good information[182]. They then readded the same information in their next two edits. Basically, a series of useless edits, coupled with reversions and a seriously over the top vandal warning.

It looks as if the main problem is not the use of rollback (mass or otherwise), although that was the most obvious symptom. The main problem is the extreme protectiveness and heavy-handedness which Giant Snowman uses to defend his project, WP:FOOTBALL, against every edit which isn't exactly the way he likes it, using all available tools (rollback, vandal warnings, blocks, ...) to get the upper hand. Fram (talk) 10:54, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

You have an issue with me blocking an editor with an exceptionally long history of adding unsourced content to BLPs, after he had been warned multiple times, and after he had adding unsourced content again to a BLP? OK... @Vanjagenije: reviewed the block and said it was good. Fram, what is your actual problem with me? All of your last 20-30 edits have been about me. I'd be flattered if I wasn't disturbed. GiantSnowman 11:08, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

My issue with you? I hoped that would be clear from the above. The more I look at your edits and editor interactions, the more problems I encounter. The one you blocked? Look at his edits before your block: Sourced, unreverted. Sourced, unreverted. Sourced, unreverted. Sourced, unreverted... Now, in the one you blocked him for, he did the exact same thing as in the others, with the same edit summary, but he forgot to add the source (a source which he indicated in his edit summary, just like in those other edits where he did include that source). That's the text book example of a good faith small mistake by a good faith, constructive editor who tries to edit in the way you want. But that one small mistake is enough for you to go back to using the banhammer. This is a terrible block, and I have no idea why another admin saw fit to upheld it (the unblock request was snot really worded in the best way, but the reviewing admin should have looked at the context as well...). Fram (talk) 11:27, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

I'll repeat - this was an editor with a long history of adding unsourced content to BLPs, who had been blocked before and warned multiple times but continued to add unsourced content. The fact that some of his other edits were sourced is irrelevant. The block was reviewed and upheld. GiantSnowman 11:33, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

"The fact that some of his other edits were sourced is irrelevant." The fact that the edits (as Fram has pointed out) that preceded your block bar one were sourced is irrelevant? What fucking planet are you on? That is a disgraceful attitude for an admin. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:47, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Gotta go with Fram here, terrible block no matter how you spin it. I'm happy to see user like him doing the little (dirty) work, updating lesser known player and keeping it up to date as much as possible. He added the WorldFootball template as source, which is fine. Blocking him the moment he forgot it once is not a good way... Fodbold-fan (talk · contribs) was another one, updating per given source in the article or adding new ones, forgotten that and blocked. If i missed anything in the process i'm sorry... Kante4 (talk) 13:27, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Popping back briefly while I have 10 mins...my wording was poor, apoloigies. They were editors with a poor track record of adding unsourced content to BLPs who continued to add unsourced content, despite warnings. The blocks were merited. GiantSnowman 09:58, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

From what I can see, the "unsourced content added to BLPs" is entirely made up from standard football statistics. They all appear to be true, but not presented in the way you like (some debates about inline cites versus external links), or sometimes without making the source explict. BLP seems a complete non-issue here, and using that to defend your block just makes you look silly in my view. —Kusma (t·c) 10:04, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

If (as Kusma says) that stuff was uncontentious football statistics that appear to be correct, then calling it adding unsourced content to BLP's sounds like the incident with Kww and movie actor awards a while back. And we know how that turned out. BLP's don't create carte blanche for you to revert and block people because you feel like it. I think we're past the point of wikilawyering (trying to justify your actions in terms of wiki policy) being relevant. Your judgment is looking poor regardless of what policy says. So imho it's better if you stop talking about policy and instead focus on outcomes. Reverting valid edits is a bad outcome. 173.228.123.166 (talk) 11:00, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Maybe we need to restrict not nust rollback but "undo". It has become very clear GS can't tell a constructive controbution from an unconstructive one. Legacypac (talk) 18:23, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

If that's really the case it's better to restrict reversions in general. I haven't examined enough of these to say we are there yet, but it doesn't sound good. 173.228.123.166 (talk) 11:00, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Anything topic-specific that we should be aware of e.g. Wikipedia:WikiProject Football

I know very little about football and even less about any conventions or expectations in this topic area in Wikipedia. Could someone knowledgable comment on whether there is any sort of topic-specific expectations or community norms that might help contextualize this discussion? UninvitedCompany 22:15, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

? I've worked a fair bit with WikiProject Football, I have monitored this whole chat against GS, but I am not sure what you're looking for, there is a lot of good and bad, but I do agree that GS has gone pretty Dark Side for a while. However I feel you need to give up on this witch hunt. Govvy (talk) 22:47, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

You agree that GS is doing something wrong (to the point of saying he's on the "Dark Side"), but you would like UninvitedCompany to stop trying to get him to stop? I don't follow your logic. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 09:44, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

@Premeditated Chaos: I actually wanted to say more stuff but at times I have felt admins look out for admins. I feel GS is good for wikipedia, however he needs to get back to basics, create articles, work on the projects and improve articles. He has been very helpful for the Football project, however I don't think he needs admin privileges for that. Being an admin requires a strong mental balance in my opinion and at present, I am not sure GS has that. There seems be a big lack of judgement, very often I see an edit get reverted, when really, it it requires is a simple fix to improve on the edit instead of reverting. Lack of ettiequte to other users and wikipedia, instead of removing huge chucks of articles, instead use the {{cn}} and give others a chance to source the content. Well, that my opinion anyway. Govvy (talk) 11:49, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

WP:BLP - "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. Users who persistently or egregiously violate this policy may be blocked from editing". GiantSnowman 12:34, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

There we go again, using your Vulcan logic, and 90% of the time it's hardly contentious material that you remove. Simple etiquette if you had any would be to cn tag, and wait two weeks and then remove if its not improved. Quite often I wonder why you don't bother getting the source yourself. You have gotten lazy my friend, and using that automated script, that's being a lazy admin. Govvy (talk) 13:16, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

(ec)Just like "unhelpful to the encyclopedia", it seems that "contentious" is also something you interpret completely different to nearly every other editor here. The material you removed (rollbacked, reverted, ...) was not questionable or contentious, it was an editor adding well-sourced information to many articles, and forgetting to add the source in one edit, but without any problem with the contents of the edit otherwise. But apparently it is sufficient to add the source in the edit summary for some people[183], but for others this is blockworthy behaviour? Some animals are more equal than the others? Fram (talk) 13:23, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict × 2) I agree with Govvy. There's a reason for the word contentious appearing in BLP. Simple updating of statistics is hardly a contentious edit. If the statistics are already in the article, it's a reasonable assumption that the source for the previous statistic is the source for the current statistic, unless verification fails. Again, WP:BLPSOURCE only requires inline citations for contentious edits. A table of statistics is unlikely to require that treatment, in my opinion. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 13:26, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

My spot checks of rolled back edits found uncontroversial things like additions of missing jersey numbers, additions and deletions of players from current squad lists, and similar minor incremental efforts. Should every edit be sourced? Yes, but sources on the page might support the edit, and this is not what BLP policy is supposed to protect against. If an IP is found adding false info deal with them, but we WP:AGF until proven otherwise. We don't nuke 480 good edits for no valid reason and block the other editor. Legacypac (talk) 18:26, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Solution time -- and a question about GS's blocks

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

---

I think it's time we get focused on whether adequate solutions are in place vis-a-vis GiantSnowman. Clearly the mass reverts were way out of bounds, and he has deleted that script. In terms of regular Rollback, is his use of it currently or foreseeably problematic? If so, do we need a sanction/restriction? More important, in my mind, are the egregious blocks that have accompanied many of these instances, many if not most of which were unwarranted and an abuse of admin tools. What can be done to prevent this in the future? Normally we require admins to bring even remotely tenuous or WP:INVOLVED cases to ANI or AIV rather than allowing them to block the editor themselves. Should we put in place a formal requirement that GS report to ANI or AIV, rather than block editors he has reverted? I think this would be a good idea. Softlavender (talk) 22:49, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Frankly, I'm in favor of flat out desysopping. There are plenty of administrators who have shown they're capable of working without abusing tools and their powers. Jtrainor (talk) 03:38, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Well, an ArbCom case has just been opened: WP:Arbitration/Requests/Case#GiantSnowman. -- Softlavender (talk) 13:51, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

• I've been watching this unfold from the sidelines, and I think it's possible we're being too hasty. The mass-rollback use was clearly problematic, but GS has undertaken not to use that script any longer (and I wouldn't be opposed to formalizing that distinction). It's not yet clear to me that GS has abused regular rollback, but even if he has, I don't think we should be looking to restrict it, for the following reason. It's actually fairly easy to misuse mass rollback; all it requires is for someone not to check all contributions after finding a few that are problematic. If (and that's a genuine if: I'm not yet certain) GS's uses of regular rollback are an issue, then what we're seeing is not tool misuse or carelessness but an inability to judge the difference between vandalism, cluelessness, and genuinely helpful but badly executed editing. And if that is the case, ARBCOM is the way to go, because that judgement is a pretty fundamental part of being an admin. I, personally, would like to allow GS some time to reflect on the feedback they have received here, before dragging them to ARBCOM; but requesting arbitration does not require consensus here, so obviously anyone is free to do that. For the reasons above, I would oppose a restriction of the sort you, Softlavender are, proposing. Vanamonde (talk) 03:52, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
  • I don't think you've understood or addressed the issue, Vanamonde. It's the blocks, not the rollback. Softlavender (talk) 11:26, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
    • @Softlavender: I may not have mentioned the blocks, but I was well aware of them, and the same reasoning applies. Anti-vandalism blocks are the simplest of admin tasks. If GS no longer has the judgement to perform those properly (which includes judging when not to block), then they need to be desysopped, and no restriction is good enough. If, on the other hand, the blocks were non-problematic or GS recognizes that they were problematic, I would again recommend probation, not restriction. Vanamonde (talk) 15:26, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
      • These blocks were not anti-vandalism blocks, yet GS still insists they were merited. Softlavender (talk) 15:36, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
• I do not feel I was INVOLVED - if I was then I wouldn't have acted. See "an administrator who has interacted with an editor or topic area purely in an administrative role, or whose prior involvements are minor or obvious edits which do not show bias, is not involved and is not prevented from acting in an administrative capacity in relation to that editor or topic area. This is because one of the roles of administrators is precisely to deal with such matters, at length if necessary. Warnings, calm and reasonable discussion and explanation of those warnings, advice about community norms, and suggestions on possible wordings and approaches do not make an administrator 'involved". These were not me abusing tools as part of a content dispute or anything like that. This was me noticing an editor(s) adding unsourced content to articles mainly (BLPs) (given these articles are on my watchlist) and then reverting, warning, and blocking when they continued. If people disagree and feel that I was INVOLVED then I will happily take a step back in future and raise at AIV/ANI etc if required. GiantSnowman 10:01, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Fram and others (Fram, Kante4, Kusma) have expressed concerns that the blocks discussed in this thread were unwarranted, that the editors were acting in good faith and improving the articles in question, and that you were blocking good contributors and good-faith editors (in addition to rolling back dozens or hundreds of their helpful edits). We absolutely cannot allow that to continue -- we have enough problems with editor retention already. Since you apparently have trouble discerning good-faith from bad-faith editors, and good-faith from bad-faith edits, and improvements from vandalism, and indeed have trouble identifying what vandalism actually is, I feel there probably need to be safeguards in place to prevent your blocking good-faith editors. In particular, if it is merely a case of someone adding unsourced content, even to BLPs, and even repeatedly, you should bring the case to ANI rather than blocking the person yourself. It's OK to notify and warn, it's not OK to to be judge, jury, and executioner, unless it is a case of clear-cut VOA. That is my sense in any case, especially since several editors have agreed that the various blocks discussed in this overall thread (many of which were not even about BLPs) were not warranted. Softlavender (talk) 11:26, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
    • Based on this discussion I acknowledge that I might have a stricter interpretation of BLP (quoted in above sub-section) than is needed. If that's the general feeling then I'm happy to (after reverting and warning) raise persistent violators at ANI rather than block them myself. GiantSnowman 12:33, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
      • It's not just so-called BLP-violators. It's any editor you have reverted. Many of those you blocked noted by Fram (and others) had nothing to do with BLPs. Softlavender (talk) 13:13, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
      • No, that's not sufficient at all. Things you need to do include: going over all problems raised here (the individual cases, and similar cases you may have done in the past few months), recheck your actions against the feedback you have received here, and act upon it: revert yourself if your rollback was too harsh, explain to people why you rollbacked and why you reverted, unblock editors still blocked, and so on. And for future similar cases, you should not be "reverting and warning", you should improve the constructive edits other make. The only things that need reverting and warning are actual errors (or actual socking or vandalism of course), not good faith improvements where e.g. the source is only included in the edit summary (like here). Most of the cases raised here didn't need "reverting and warning", they needed encouragement, perhaps some tips, but nothing else. Fram (talk) 13:28, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Since several Admins have tried to shut this effort to have an WP:ADMINACCT by closing sections or posting excuses under the Super Mario Effect I have posted Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#GiantSnowman. Sad to have to do this but if any normal user was pulling these stunts they would be blocked by now. Legacypac (talk) 13:51, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Seems premature to do that while this thread is still open though.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:59, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

ANi can't remove Admin tools (a possible outcome) and the circle the wagons for an Admin that has been happening here make a case necessary. Legacypac (talk) 14:01, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

References

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.

Procedural question about ANI, Arbcom, and closing discussions

I do not want to reopen any discussion about GS, but rather wish to discuss a purely procedural question.

It is common practice to close any ANI report about an admin as soon as it is sent to Arbcom. On the face of it, this seems like an obvious choice, but is it really?

If Arbcom is in the habit of [A] issuing blocks without desysopping (for actions which would get any ordinary user blocked) [B] issuing desysops without blocks (for actions that only involve misuse of tools and thus are prevented by the desysopping) and [C] issuing blocks along with desysopping (for actions that fit A and B), then yes, the ANI case should be closed. I don't watch most arbcom cases, but my impression is that they mostly do B, never A, and seldom C.

If my impression is correct, then closing the ANI case would appear to lead to the WP:Super Mario Effect. Assuming that at least some participants in the discussion think a block is justified (see B above), two possible alternatives to closing the ANI case come to mind: [1] (my first choice) put the ANI case on hold until Arbcom closes their case and then continue discussing the possible block, or [2] Continuing the block discussion while Arbcom has their desysop discussion. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:42, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Statement by Beyond My Ken is one example of the (quite reasonable) assumption that Arbcom only deals with desysopping and leaves any blocks for the same behavior to ANI. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:13, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

I don't think that was the intended purpose of my comment. I was (and am) concerned with understanding exactly what GS is being accused of. Folks seem to be discussing misuse of admin tools, but I wasn't (and still amn't) seeing any explicit evidence of that, so I asked for more information, which -- so far, at least -- hasn't been provided. If there is no actual evidence of the misuse of admin tools, then I probably will have more to say about the Request for Arbitration, but, in any case, I'm aware that ArbCom can do everything from "reminding" through "admonishing" and de-sysopping and/or blocking. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:02, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

I opened the arb case because only Arbcomm can romove tools (which may or may not be required but is under discussion) and it is exceedingly hard to get Admins to issue blocks/topic bans/sanctions against another Admin. The discussion includes a number of votes to prohibit use of rollback but several Admins have dismissed that emerging consensus. I do not agree that the ANi should be closed down, especially since zero Arbs have accepted the case. Legacypac (talk) 01:18, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Good point. Another possible alternative: keep the ANI case open until the arbs actually accept a case, and don't allow the fact that it has been brought to arbcom for desysopping be used as a reason to prevent any ANI discussion regarding blocking or topic bans.

Re: admins dismissing an emerging consensus, I think that is best dealt with in a separate discussion. Perhaps Arbcom will address it. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:28, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

I'd rather we close the ANI threads while the arb request is pending. If the request is declined, or if there's still something to do after a case is opened and completed, we can open a new ANI or AN thread. That is just the traditional principle of centralizing drama. I'm in favor of a case opening so that GS's alleged long history of bad reverts can (if it exists) be examined in a structured evidence section. That examination will provide a clearer perspective about what to do next than we can reach here at ANI. 173.228.123.166 (talk) 06:16, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Saying "if there's still something to do after a case is opened and completed, we can open a new ANI or AN thread" sounds good in theory, but if you actually try it after arbcom desysops someone the Super Mario Effect will kick in and the attempt will be closed quicker than a politician decides that whatever the other team likes is evil. Some here are not satisfied with expressing the opinion that recently desysopped admins have "suffered enough" and should not be blocked even temporarily; they insist on shutting down any discussion that might end up with a consensus they don't like. (Oddly enough, those who have recently failed RfA don't get the same treatment, even though they also were just denied adminship and even though their "suffering" is far worse). If something is blockworthy it should still be blockworthy after abcom is done (with the obvious exception of situations where arbcom makes it impossible to re-offend, such as an admin who misused his tools but otherwise did nothing blockworthy and had the tools removed.) --Guy Macon (talk) 14:45, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

I don't think anyone has suggested blocking SG. Discussion has been about desysopping, restricting his use of rollback/undo, or (my preference) ignoring the technical means and restricting reverts per se. It looks like the arb case is heading towards acceptance. If a case opens we're at least a month away from it being completed. I'm not worried about Super Mario. 173.228.123.166 (talk) 21:25, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

SG = Snowman Gigantesque? EEng 21:33, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Taking a cue from Mario, could we just change his username to LittleSnowman and take no further action for now? Alephb (talk) 16:25, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Snowman Diminutif? EEng 16:52, 15 December 2018 (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.

Markvs88 at Connecticut Transit fleet

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.

---

Simple question: is this edit acceptable? Removing the entire contents of an article seems to me to be a step too far in overzealousness. And edit warring to remove it again while discussion is ongoing seems to be entirely uncollaborative. So I wanted wider thoughts about the behavior, as it's not the first time I've seen this from Markvs88. oknazevad (talk) 17:00, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

It's not edit warring on my part as I notified you of my POV on your talk page, and we've been through this before on Talk:Acela Express. Simply put: uncited is unverified, and per Wikipedia:References dos and don'ts no one is supposed to add uncited information. As I keep saying: if you want X content to stay, just add it back with a valid citation. Markvs88 (talk) 19:19, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

It's edit warring when you keep reverting to your preferred version after you've been reverted. It's BRD, not bold, revert, revert back, then discuss.oknazevad (talk) 20:59, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

I think there's need for a broader discussion within transport-related projects about fleet rosters. They're an attractive nuisance, inasmuch as they encourage the addition of uncited fancruft. Mackensen (talk) 19:45, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

oknazevad & Markvs88 you were in the middle of an edit war and it's good that this ANI put a hold on your reverts. I agree with Mackensen that you need to extend the discussion of this dispute to the article talk page or one for a WikiProject or we'll all be back here again in 24 hours when the reverts could resume. Right now, the dispute between you two doesn't seem reconcilable so you need to get more participants involved in a discussion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:19, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia:Verifiability : "In Wikipedia, verifiability means that other people using the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source. Wikipedia does not publish original research. Its content is determined by previously published information rather than the beliefs or experiences of its editors. Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it.... Any material that needs a source but does not have one may be removed."

I do not see how this can be debated. Markvs88 (talk) 23:01, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

@Markvs88: While I agree that fleet rosters are probably bad, you're making an error in conflating verifiable with verified. Fleet rosters may be verifiable. That they are not currently verified, in that they are cited to a reliable source, doesn't change that. Most editors wouldn't interpret WP:V as a license to remove all uncited information an article. Best, Mackensen (talk) 00:19, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

That's all I'm saying. Completely a blanking an article is just not a good idea. oknazevad (talk) 00:25, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

This is a wholly inaccurate description. I deleted only the 66% of the article with no attribution whatsoever, which WP:V clearly states is the right thing to do. I could see the "May be verifiable" argument if it was a new addition... but that's not what happened here. I waited over 2 months between tagging and deleting and so it is LONG past any conceivably reasonable amount of time to allow for the addition of citations, particularly since this original research was never cited when the article created over a year ago. I also can't help but notice that in this case as well as on Acela Express Oknazevad just reverted my valid edits -- but has put zero work into actually adding valid sources to retain the "information". Holding on to unsourced content is against all Wikipedia conventions. Markvs88 (talk) 01:59, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

• I've run into these fleet lists before. Their rank stupidity defies belief. "427 was re-numbered to A20 and is currently leased to DATTCO... 1101 was originally delivered as 1081... 1500s have a newer headlight design." This grotesque fancruft belongs on Wikia. EEng 01:36, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

• Simple Answer: Yes - Removing unsourced, unverifiable content is appropriate, even if it means blanking the entire article. The only inappropriate behavior is Oknazevad's edit warring and uncivil comments such as Might as well just delete the fucking article then! (which I actually happen to agree with). –dlthewave ☎ 03:44, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
• I've taken it to AFD. –dlthewave ☎ 03:45, 16 December 2018 (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.

We have a problem

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)

BMK is out of control. His apparent "Nazi-phobic" mentality is causing disruption. Please see this discussion and my recent 'tribs and edit summaries. BMK's battleground and OWN" editing style has to stop. - FlightTime (open channel) 17:40, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

What I'm seeing here is you edit-warring wildly across a large number of articles. I sense a boomerang coming your way. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:46, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Then you're not seeing the whole picture. - wolf 17:50, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Fine. As long as BMK"s Nazi picture issues is dealt with, I'm fine. - FlightTime (open channel) 17:52, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Recommend opening up an Rfc on what size images should be in articles. This is a content dispute. GoodDay (talk) 17:55, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

To be fair, this also sounds like a conduct dispute, considering that FlightTime is noting Beyond My Ken's battleground mentality. SemiHypercube 17:58, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

It is not Wikipedia's function to glorify Nazis by presenting large images of them in our articles. This is an encyclopedia. How is having a standard photo of the subject in the infobox glorifying them? Natureium (talk) 17:59, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

See Josef Mengele with "standard" photo size (which is not actually in any way "standard", just unspecified as to size), and Josef Mengele with a reasonable image size, large enough to identify the subject, but not overwhelming the page. We have the "Image_upright" parameter for a reason. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:33, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

• I'm on the same page as Fut.Perf. Self-reporting yourself for edit warring while suggesting your opponent is the only one in the wrong is a textbook boomerang situation that you're walking right into. So BMK wants to regulate the size of images of Nazis, and you don't. That's a content dispute. There's nothing inherently wrong with saying "hey, Nazis are bad, let's put a limit on how large we're gonna plaster their images on articles". That's a subjective opinion, that should be discussed and resolved through consensus building in a centralized location, just like any other content dispute. Yes, BMK is edit warring and battlegrounding...so are you. Repeatedly edit warring across multiple articles is bad news. We can certainly block BMK for his conduct here, but given the fact that this isn't a one-sided offense, I don't think you actually want that outcome.  Swarm  {talk}  18:04, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
• @GoodDay: Why "recommend" an RfC? Why not just do it? And this isn't just a "content dispute", there are behaviourl issues here as well. - wolf 18:05, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
• "There's nothing inherently wrong with saying "hey, Nazis are bad, let's put a limit on how large we're gonna plaster their images on articles"." Resptfully disagree. There is no need to accuse people of glorifying Nazis just because of a dispute over an image size. And why should there be an arbitrary limit of sizes of images of "people we don't like"? This is an encyclopaedia, all subjects should be treated the same. - wolf 18:20, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

  @Swarm: Honestly, if there is edit warring, battleground-mentality on both sides, in conduct and content disputes, then both sides should probably be blocked or have some other restriction. SemiHypercube 18:27, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

• @Thewolfchild: That's a perfectly valid stance to take regarding the dispute itself, but when I say "inherently wrong", I mean in terms of policy violations. Nothing prevents BMK from taking the position he's taking, in regards to any potentially-offensive image. That doesn't make him automatically right, that just means it's a content dispute that should be handled with dispute resolution. The violation itself is the edit warring, and as we all know, we don't factor in the merits of a content dispute when assessing edit wars. SemiHypercube, yes, both sides should be blocked, if we're going to issue blocks, which we can do. But I'm fairly confident that we can achieve the same result by simply calling them out. This is a particularly lame edit war, with minimal disruption beyond the slight tweaking of image sizes, involving two highly prominent editors who know they're walking themselves into a block over a stupid edit war. I think, in the grand scheme of the project, blocking highly established contributors for petty violations may not always be the best course of action.  Swarm  {talk}  18:57, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

If it helps, WP:IMGSIZE states: "Except with very good reason, do not use px (e.g. thumb|300px), which forces a fixed image width." Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 19:01, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

• To clarify as I stated on Talk:Eduard Dietl, That was my only concern, as I left in my edit summary Deprecated infobox parameter per Special:Diff/816362689. Display size can be adjusted in user preferences. BMK brought in the Nazi thing. - FlightTime (open channel) 19:21, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

• However, after User:Hohum replaced "image_size" with "image_upright", you mass-deleted those as well. "Image_upright" is not a deprecated parameter. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:38, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

I didn't say | upright- was depreciated, I removed the parameter's value, to let the infobox scripting "default" set the sizing as mentioned at Talk:Eduard Dietl by some users. - FlightTime (open channel) 20:03, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

• Not seeing a valid complaint here. Go worry about something more consequential. Legacypac (talk) 20:41, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
• Don't make me turn this car around!--RAF910 (talk) 20:55, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
• Discussion of the best biography photograph size was started today, 15 December, at Talk:Eduard Dietl. While that discussion was underway, FlightTime should not have edited in a parameter forcing photograph size; doing so circumvented the debate and was premature. And Beyond My Ken should not have reverted until a consensus for any particular size emerged at the discussion; as he created the discussion, doing so seemed OWNy. Finally, FlightTime's speculation about motives is unhelpful and frankly he knows better: As long as BMK"s Nazi picture issues is [sic] dealt with. AGK ■ 21:22, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Speculation? BMK said that the reason they object to making the images larger because it would glorify Nazis [184]. Tornado chaser (talk)

@Tornado chaser: Clearly, but there is a world of difference between quoting BMK's case for reducing the profile size (that we ought to not show huge photographs of Nazis) and suggesting that makes him unable to think clearly about the question. AGK ■ 21:30, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict)x2 Hardly speculation, read the discussion and edit summaries. - FlightTime (open channel) 21:33, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Reading Talk:Eduard Dietl#Image size it seems like the consensus in the discussion is to leave the photo size alone and up to each reader's browser preferences. I'm not sure why this issue then escalated to edit wars and ANI. AGK hits the mark with his assessment. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:57, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

@Tornado chaser: so in your view glorifying Nazis is OK? Guy (Help!) 22:00, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

JzG - that comment is unhelpful and casts aspersions on Tornado chaser's motives - it borders on a personal attack.Nigel Ish (talk) 22:07, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

It was an honest question. Tornado chaser has a long history of defending antivaxers and charlatans. I was wondering if he is now extending this to Nazis. Guy (Help!) 22:10, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

If it's unhelpful for FlightTime to speculate about BMK's motives, it is doubly unhelpful to speculate about Tornado chaser's motives, as they aren't involved in the original dispute.Nigel Ish (talk) 22:18, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

All i'm trying to say is that image sizes should be standard and I don't think anyone here is trying to glorify nazies, in fact, I don't know of any (non-blocked) user who has ever tried to glorify nazis. Of course I don't think glorifying nazies is OK. Tornado chaser (talk) 23:00, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Why should image sizes be "standard" when images are not standard?

Images are made in different aspect ratios, they're cropped in different ways, some are head shots, some are 3/4s, some are full body shots. Each of these images presented at the same size will look very different on the rendered page.

It so happens that many of the Nazi official portraits are cropped very closely to the face, so when presented at the same size as a normal head shop, the visage appears very large and imposing on the screen. This is one of the reasons that we have image sizing options, so that each individual image can be presented at approximately the same apparent size, to have the same neutral visual impact, because it takes different sizes to achieve neutrality. This is not any kind of revolutionary information, it's well known to photographers and publishers.

We have an obligation, I believe, to not present objectionable people -- and Nazis are without a doubt objectionable people -- in a way that promotes them. As I said above, and elsewhere, infobox images should be large enough to easily identify the subject, and no larger. What the appropriate size is will vary greatly depending on the photograph involved, how it is framed, and what its aspect ratio is.

Using the same size for all photos certainly sounds like a fair and equal thing to do, but, in fact, it acts to enhance the power of certain images, sometimes in ways that are offensive. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:42, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

I do see your point that images vary too much to have a standard size for them all, but the sizing should not depend on whether the person is good or bad, nazi pics should be the same size as other closely cropped portraits. Tornado chaser (talk) 23:52, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

As it happens, I have done precisely that on many occasions to many articles, but the only times I ever get any pushback is when I do it to pictures of Nazis. What conclusion would you expect me to draw from that? Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:16, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Done precisely what? If you mean basing image sizes off how good or bad a person is, then you violated NPOV. If people only enforce NPOV on nazi articles that is unfortunate, but means that editors must be more aware of NPOV on other articles, not that we can start breaking NPOV on nazi articles too! Tornado chaser (talk) 01:46, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

@Beyond My Ken: fixing ping. Tornado chaser (talk) 01:46, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

"Done precisely the same thing" means that I have changed the image size on many articles from overly large to reasonably sized, based entirely on what size image is large enough for the subject to be easily identified, but no larger, but the only time I get pushback about it is when the pictures are of Nazis. Given that, I think it's quite understandable that, after many instances of this, I should come to the conclusion that some people like pictures of Nazis to be very large. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:00, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

• @Swarm: "when I say "inherently wrong", I mean in terms of policy violations. Nothing prevents BMK from taking the position he's taking," - Again, respectfully disagree. BMK accusing others of "glorifying Nazis" is a violation of our policy against personal attacks. Conversely, calling BMK a "Nazi-phobe" may or may not be considered an attack as well, but if not, it's still certainly not helpful. Without all the Nazi stuff, this would just be a minor, (and still silly), dispute over image size. - wolf 23:14, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

• All I know is that there's nothing wrong with having an aversion to Nazis -- which is what "Nazi-phobic" means; especially now. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:49, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

• @BMK: All I know is that there's nothing wrong with having an aversion to Nazis" - And I agree with you 100%, as I have an aversion to Nazis myself. But I haven't, and wouldn't, allow that to affect my editing. And to clarify my point above; accusations that editors have some kind of pro or anti-Nazi motivation affecting their editing is counter-productive to say the least, if not an out-right PA (unless you can show a pattern of edits that reveal such a slant, then that should be reported as an npov-vio). Without the Nazi comments, this dispute would have simply been about image size and likely resolved in short-order. But instead we have edit-warring on several pages, disruption, locked pages, ill-will among peers and this ANI with all kinds of... pagefill. Meh, hopefully something good can come from all this. - wolf 06:47, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

• To see the issue, open these links in adjacent tabs then switch between them: BMK version + FTP version. BMK is correct that the large image unduly dominates the page. While ANI does not rule on content issues, a discussion at WP:AN appears to be banning someone for promotion of racist views; similarly, ANI should take a stance on undue glorification of Nazis. Johnuniq (talk) 00:10, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Obviously "undue glorification of Nazis" is grounds for sanctions (as a violation of NPOV), but I looked at the images and it is ridiculous to think that the bigger image is pro-nazi in any way, I like to err on the side of larger images in general, and I don't think it dominates the page, the smaller one has a lot of whitespace around it. That said, I am not here to take a side on what the ideal image size is, but I will say it is absurd to accuse anyone involved of glorifying nazis. A small change in an image size is completely different from the racist rant being discussed at AN. Tornado chaser (talk) 00:18, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

You're confusing "glorification of Nazis" with being "pro-Nazi". The two are not at all the same thing -- and I don't believe I've ever accused any experienced Wikipedia editor (as opposed to drive-by IPs and unconfirmed accounts) of being "pro-Nazi". Such a accusation would be a heinous thing to say unless there was voluminous incontrovertible evidence to support it.

No, glorification can come from a simple fannish fascination with a subject one spends a lot of time on, without necessarily ascribing to their ideology. The second image in the example above is simply too large. From any reasonable point of view, it unnecessarily dominates the page. Once we can identify the subject, any additional size is gratuitous. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:38, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification, I did think you were making accusations of racism, but your explanation makes sense, I still don't think the larger image is excessive, it makes it easier to identify the subject clearly, but there is not that much difference between the 2 images. I do believe that image sizing should not be based on how good or bad the person was. Tornado chaser (talk) 00:46, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

• It occurs to me that, to a certain extent, I'm being portrayed here as a fanatical anti-Nazi who can't control his anti-Nazi impulses, and that this is where this dispute stems from. I don't believe that's the case. I think I'm a rational and reasonable anti-Nazi, and as evidence let me point to a recent article which I wrote about 65% of [185] (User:Obenritter wrote the vast majority of the rest). The article is Reich Plenipotentiary for Total War. I think anyone reading this shortish article will see a balanced, sober, well-sourced, non-fanatical presentation of a subject concerning Nazi Germany. I am no fanatic. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:53, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

• (edit conflict)I don't think the larger image is excessive, as I noted on the talk page in question. It is still under 200px, and images only start distorting infoboxes around 250px in my experience. The whole "glorification" thing is wrong-headed in my view. What's next, getting rid of pictures of Nazis because they show them wearing Nazi medals, or getting rid of images where the subjects are shown in a "heroic" pose? I've used larger images in FAs on heinous Nazis and have never been even queried about it. The purpose of the image is to show what the person looked like. There will be editorial differences about what that size is, depending on which infobox is being used, but 15px is hardly going to reduce the non-existent "glorification" effect. This whole thing seems like a storm in a teacup (and unencyclopaedic) to me. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:03, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

• We are discussing tastefulness in nonverbal communication. In my perception there are two sides to this issue. On the one hand large and detailed images convey more information than images of poor visual quality that might also be smaller. But image size is evaluated in relation to other elements of a page containing text. In this sense an image can be too large. This is a matter of taste which has to be weighed against an overall page consisting of other elements especially text. In this instance one question we would be asking ourselves is what information is being conveyed by the image and whether or not we are getting significantly more information by enlarging the image. This would be a matter of judgement. Bus stop (talk) 01:14, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

• I agree, editorial judgment. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:21, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

• Accusing anyone of being a problem simply for a difference of opinions on something so petty seems very unproductive to the Wiki project to me. Having edited extensively on subjects related to WW2 and Nazi Germany for many years now (including working collaboratively with BMK), I do not concur with the position that Beyond My Ken (talk · contribs) is not an objective editor and take exception with any statement which suggests otherwise.--Obenritter (talk) 01:20, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

• I wouldn't want to treat pictures of Nazis differently from pictures of anyone else. It's enough that the articles say they were Nazis. I'd rather leave explicit size specifications out of pictures so people's browsers/display devices/custom CSS/whatever can do their own sizing. I looked at BMK's two Josef Mengele pictures and I can see that one is bigger, but I probably wouldn't have noticed the difference if it hadn't been explicitly mentioned. If the software needs a parameter to know that a given picture is in vertical format, by all means that should be supplied, but I'd leave out any px=whatever. Specifying a size means substituting our preference for the user's, which we shouldn't do in most situations. 173.228.123.166 (talk) 02:41, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

220 (default) [see "Note" below]

160 (preferred) [see "Note" below]

• I'm sorry, I have a great deal of difficulty understanding why you see no difference between the two sizes of the Mengele image, as shown on the right., but, then again, I have difficulty understanding why people don't see the left picture as being grossly too large for an infobox. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:54, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

• (e/c) BMK, pbviously I can see the difference when viewing those pics side by side. But if I view the article today and again tomorrow, and someone switches the images between the two viewings, I probably would not notice the change. It barely registered earlier when I looked at the two versions of the article a few moments apart from each other. I'm more about textual content than images, so I look mostly at the words. With no px=whatever, you can set the image size you want to see in your account preferences. And if there is consensus that the default size is too big, then the obvious next step is to change the default, not override it in a bazillion individual pictures. 173.228.123.166 (talk) 03:38, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
• I agree with BMK on this specific point; the Mengele picture looks awful at the default size, and in addition something in the formatting of that infobox is making it unusually wide. I've started a discussion on Talk:Josef Mengele. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:44, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

• I don't think there is any benefit in the larger image, concerning the two images above. In this case the larger image is the equivalent of "shouting", a common term applied to typing in all caps. Bus stop (talk) 03:46, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

• "Shouting." An analogy which I had not thought of, but with which I heartily agree. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:20, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

• INFOBOXES This is a content dispute over infoboxes. The fact that biographies of Nazis are involved just makes the shouting louder. There are very very few site-wide guidelines about infoboxes; ordinarily a consensus at the talk page should make the determination here. Without such a discussion, it seems to me that a 220px image (the default size of "thumb") should be used in an infobox. That is FlightTime's position here. For almost all biographies, be it Spike Milligan, Andy Roddick, Joe Biden, or Emeril Lagasse, we have 220px images. Unless/until there's a local consensus otherwise, I don't see a reason not to use a 220px image. If a few editors feel that the standard image size somehow "glorifies Nazis", that's a rhetorical tactic that will be given its due weight by the uninvolved editor who closes that discussion. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:30, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
  • An additional point: This situation is exactly why there is no policy specifically banning Nazis (or racists, or whoever else) and there never should be. Most of the time, actual editors of that sort are trolling, making disruptive edits, and/or threatening other members of the community. That behavior is what gets them blocked, not their beliefs. We must never allow the syllogism "this person has made a minor technical change I don't like; that minor technical change glorifies Nazis; people who glorify Nazis should be banned; therefore that person must be banned" to be a valid argument to ban users. (As the change was to restore the default behavior, it must be considered a minor technical change.) I expect this comment may get me into far more trouble than I need or want, but it's too important to not say. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:30, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

• I have not seen any claims that people are intentionally glorifying Nazism. Who cares what their intentions are? The point is that the images are glorifying Nazism and the articles in question are curated by enthusiasts with an interest in such things. Talk page discussions are not capable of dealing with an issue like this. Johnuniq (talk) 04:03, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

• Precisely. Thank you for saying it more clearly than I've apparently been able to. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:18, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

I don't see any glorification of Nazism if the Mengele picture is the exact same size as the Trump or Obama picture. If the Mengele picture is bigger, there is a problem. If it's smaller, then we're still editorializing through these picture sizes so next we can argue about whether Trump's picture should be bigger than Obama's or vice versa. If the default size of 220px is too large and 160px is better, then change the default to 160px, in the infobox template if you must. Or maybe, add a parameter that says what kind of picture it is (headshot, regular portrait, etc.) that the software can turn into a sizing hint. There should not be a special parameter saying the person is a Nazi. 173.228.123.166 (talk) 04:47, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Hmm, I see now that the Mengele picture is bigger in total area than the pictures of Spike Milligan, Joe Biden etc. despite them all being 220px, probably because of differing aspect ratios. Yeah if it's not pictorially ok to crop the pictures to have more similar ratios, then maybe tweaking the sizes so the pics have equal area could help. Perhaps some suitable template hacking (Lua module?) could do that automatically. 173.228.123.166 (talk) 05:09, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

I;m glad you brought up Trump and Obama, because it's a good example of what I'm talking about. All three images are at the default size, but the effect is very different because of their aspect ratios. It well represents why images need to be sized, and not simply displayed at the default. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:31, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Trump image at default size

Obama image at default size

Mengele image at default size [see "Note" below]

My suggestion for a reasonable Mengele image size [see "Note" below]

Would it be possible just have some kind of max-height restriction in the template to restrict tall images in the vertical direction? This would solve the problem across the board, not just for Nazi articles. CThomas³ (talk) 05:35, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Yep, the Obama pic is 220x275 px, and Mengele is 220x377, or 37% bigger. Scaling Mengele to equal area would be 188px. Let's see how that looks:

Obama image at default size

Mengele at equal-area scaling [see "Note" below]

Reasonable I think. Making the heights equal (BMK's version does that approximately) is also ok. 173.228.123.166 (talk) 05:40, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Except you're not taking into account that the Obama picture is a 3/4's body shot, while the Mengele picture is a head shot. That means presenting them at equal areas means that Mengele's head is approximately 3 to 4 times larger than Obama's. Because of this, his visage would loom over the page. But thanks for looking at other possibilities.

But, look, we're now talking about specifics, can we agree now that not all images are created equal and leaving them all at the default size is not appropriate, and therefore that sizing of some images is necessary in order that they don't overwhelm the pages they're on? This is what I was doing, and this is why I was brought here for my "Nazi-phobic" behavior. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:48, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

I can see that you are right that there is a visually significant difference in the pic sizes, mostly because of the aspect ratio but also because of the composition. Your 4-shot gallery did a good job showing this. If you start scaling the pictures so the faces come out the same size though, you get a tiny picture of Mengele or a huge one of Obama. Your version with the equal heights looks good to me at this point. Best I can say is that the article talk page is the best place to figure this out after all. So I guess that's full circle. 173.228.123.166 (talk) 06:17, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Yep, and since I was the one who started the discussion on Talk:Eduard Dietl about the size of the image that the OP presented in their complaint here as the problem... Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:14, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

FYI: per Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Civility in infobox discussions: "Standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for all discussions about infoboxes and to edits adding, deleting, collapsing, or removing verifiable information from infoboxes." Cinderella157 (talk) 06:27, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Heh, does that mean I get Godwin'd for calling Mengele a Nazi? But he was one! And his buddy Adolf was literally Hitler!! Anyway, Help:Pictures shows a bunch of parameters like "upright" that advise the renderer what to do after figuring out the aspect ratio, and you can also specify both width and height (like , which chooses whichever measurement makes the picture smaller, like 220x275. I'd go with that for the pics in question. I think we all understand the pic size issues better now, which hopefully turns it back into a content rather than behavioural question, so it can go to the relevant talk pages (either the individual articles', or the infobox template's). (183.83.100.9 (talk) 07:19, 16 December 2018 (UTC)) 173.228.123.166 (talk) 06:37, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Obama image at default size

Mengele at approximately same face-size scaling [see "Note" below]

I am sure that this will add more oil to this, but hey. This is for identification of the subject. That means that we look at the face and body of the subject. Scaling this at approx 83 scales both faces in the image to roughly the same size when displayed. Is that not the size that we should decide on (and probably codify that through an RfC and put it in MOS)? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 07:23, 16 December 2018 (UTC) (183.83.100.9 (talk) 07:46, 16 December 2018 (UTC))

• Note - I obviously didn't know that the Mengele image was non-free, I just assumed it was a Commons image. Because it was correctly replaced with a "non-free place-holder", and because that place-holder had a different aspect ratio from the Mengele image, I have replaced the place-holder with the sihouette of a man's head that has the same aspect ratio, and the same size of the head as the Mengele image. With this, readers can follow the discussion above. Anyone interested can see the non-free image at File:Josef Mengele.jpg and see that the silhouette properly represents that image. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:04, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

I would not want to try to codify this through MOS. I'm satisfied (after seeing the multi-picture displays) that the Mengele 220px pic is subjectively too big in comparison with the Obama 220px pic, but that's because unique characteristics of the two pics cause scaling oddities. Further up I suggested trying to parametrize the pic composition and have the software automatically scale the images, but on further reflection I think that's technocratic overkill. So I'd mostly leave stuff alone unless someone has an issue with a particular pic, in which case decide case by case on the talk page what to do. I don't think this issue has come up often enough to support trying to generalize it into a MOS rule. I'm not bothered by the mere existence of some variability between articles in how prominent the picture is. There might be some specific cases like Mengele that warrant some talkpage discussion, which is fine, just take it as it comes. 173.228.123.166 (talk) 08:50, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

• I don't think there is anything actually requiring administrator action here? If BMK thinks that nazis in general should have as small images as possible to avoid any "glorification", then he probably should make RfC proposing such addition to MOS:IMAGES. Having checked Dietl page which seems to have sparked this discussion, I personally didn't see any serious problems with auto-size version there.--Staberinde (talk) 12:02, 16 December 2018 (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:Ridiceo

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.

---

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

This editor began editing roughly one month ago focused almost entirely on the Gab (social network) article. The thrust of their editing has been downplaying the association of the site with its far-right userbase. They're a very high content, high effort editor, and have filled sections and sections on the talk page with their opinions. From what I understand, they believe that the sources we are using are inherently opinion based if they describe something as 'far-right' e.g. 'For example, if a reliable source posts that "Far-right social network Gab", we don't include that Gab is "Far-right" simply because the author *thinks* it's far-right.' for several sources which describe Gab's user base as far-right. I don't generally agree with what they say, and I'd say most of the editors on the page don't either. Most recently, myself and two other editors who are perhaps similarly exhausted have each linked Ridiceo to the WP:DEADHORSE essay. This has not dissuaded them, and they continue to insist that what they would like to be done on the article be done, and continue to revert to their preferred version. PeterTheFourth (talk) 07:28, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

@PeterTheFourth: I was just composing my ANEW report. Shall I go ahead and file it or copy the diffs I composed here? Tsumikiria (T/C) 07:34, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

@Tsumikiria: Uh, I'm not sure what the protocol is here. Like, I genuinely have no clue - I think it's generally frowned upon to pursue these things in multiple avenues though, so copying here may be best. PeterTheFourth (talk) 07:36, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

• I interacted with them only briefly on that page, but they do at least clearly seem to be a WP:SPA dedicated to how Gab is portrayed. Something else that struck me: Their account made its first edit mere hours after Poolofthought was banned - and one of Poolofthought's final flurry of edits was to remove the same "known for its far-right userbase" verbage that Ridiceo has devoted most of their time here to objecting to. That, combined with the fact that Ridiceo seems fairly familiar with policies and editing for a new account, means it might be worth raising the issue at WP:SPI. It is hard to say for certain, though, since that article has seen a flurry of new or returning accounts focused on that general topic, which makes me suspect it was linked to somewhere or has otherwise attracted attention. --Aquillion (talk) 09:36, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Aquillion, I see no connection to Poolofthought--even their very language and edits seem different. Having said that, it is abundantly clear that a. this is not a new editor b. they are an SPA c. the smell of sea lions is overwhelming. Drmies (talk) 16:26, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
• I believe sufficient evidence suggests that the user Ridiceo is a single-purpose, agenda-driven, civil POV pusher. I'm the one interacted with this user most, so where do I even begin. Since Nov. 5, the user is entirely focused on Gab (social network) and Talk:Gab (social network). The user had relentlessly filibustered for the removal of below warred over content, and replacing them with soapbox "free speech aspect", starting from here: [186].

• Over the course of the month, more than half a dozen users had explained to him. But the user just kept posting edit requests and claimed that they had been ignored. When they finally got autocomfirmed, they engage in edit war. Whenever explaining to this user that their proposed content are OR or not supported by the dozens of URLs they listed, or just any criticism of the subject being in the article, they immediately turns up long comment citing NPOV, AGF, NPA, UNCENSORED, etc. They scrutinize on reasonable summary as not appearing in sources verbatim, accused the article of minimizing their POV, claimed well-supported content unsupported, and failed to quote any source that actually supported their proposed content. They deny posted/acted what they did, misrepresent policies and guidelines, and refused to concede when consensus was clearly not in his favor. It was excruciatingly frustrating to deal with this editor, so I was emotional at times.

• After a botched RfC failed to go their way [187], they immediately compiled a "list of my great wrongs", cherrypicking from all of my past postings on the page out of context to try to mischaracterize me as "POV railroading" and BATTLEGROUND, and prepared to level them against me all at once "just in case". Then they tried to turn this into a issue of my conduct on my talk page. After telling them NOTUNANIMITY, they warred again, and then we're here. I'm going off to sleep now. I can almost expect their response to be "These are all unsubstantiated!". Tsumikiria (T/C) 10:06, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

The following was my draft for ANEW containing diffs of the user's edit warring over the last week. Peter was a little faster in filing ANI. Tsumikiria (T/C) 08:09, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Oh right, If you don't like how a user thinks, just report them on the ANI. And don't bother to mention that Here I seeked a dispute resolution process, and dont bother to mention that No time after that was the phrase i was calling to question ever mentioned again, nor was there any edit on it. Why? because I had conceded. But alas, it's being brought up in ANI. To scare me off of Wikipedia by constantly attacking me? By misrepresenting what i said.

You said "This editor began editing roughly one month ago focused almost entirely on the Gab (social network) article. The thrust of their editing has been downplaying the association of the site with its far-right userbase."

However, this isn't an accurate statement. I contested whether or not the association between Gab, and their far-right user base was supported/accepted. You provide no evidence of downplaying.

You said "From what I understand, they believe that the sources we are using are inherently opinion based if they describe something as 'far-right'"

This isn't an accurate representation of what I had stated, nor is your out-of-context quote showing any resemblance of that either. I was arguing that, just because an author says it, It doesn't mean it's a fact. Nothing about that statement implies that the sources are "inherently opinion based". This is simply an egregious accusation.

Not only after all of this, after I moved onto another subject. That subject was whether saying Gab was a "favorite" of the alt-right was appropriate language or even supported by the sources given. That discussion was started here, on December 5th: here. Weirdly, just barely a day later, I was told by another user to Drop the stick despite the discussion being started barely a day ago. How a discussion ends in 1 day is beyond me. And despite only being 4 days later, I've supposedly "beat the horse dead with the stick". And then I'm supposed to simply shut up? Less than a day, supposedly "consensus is against me" according to this user, then accused of manipulating the reliability of sources and POV pushing here, then consensus was made again (supposedly) here, and then accused of ignoring another user's argument, (whilst ironically, ignoring mine), then accusing me of interpreting factual reporting as opinion (i was not), then, (hyperlinked), you accuse me of stonewalling, (again, without evidence), then accuse me (hyperlinked) of gaslighting, again, without evidence. All in one post here. After back-to-back contradictions, you got sick of not being able to refute my points, so you accused me of beating a dead horse and told me to drop the stick on a discussion that started only 4 days ago. All whilst breaking Wikipedia Talk page guidelines, more specifically "Keep the discussions focused on the topic of the talk page, rather than on the editors participating." and WP:ASPERSIONS. I tried talking with you about it on your own talk page, but that resulted in you trying to [flip the discussion into a discussion about me] rather than agreeing to not engage in the behavior.

This behavior of yours, accusing others of misbehaving without evidence on an article talk page dates back. Here are some examples. On Talk:Gab_(social_network)/Archive_3

Unsubstantiated claims accusing another user of violating WP:OR. Tsumikiria states,

Oh! Gardening! Just because someone buys groceries doesn't alleviate their positions. not necessarily a goal of Gab but a side effect of free speech This is pure WP:OR. If you have no published, reliable, secondary sources to back this, there is no place for it on Wikipedia. Free speech does not mean someone can just spew their racist rant without taking consequences. The reports on Arxiv are quantitative study backed by data of real gab posts, and that's what we're going to use.

The message that this is in response to does not violate WP:OR. The message didn't encourage editing the article with original research, and it was in the talk page. WP:OR refers to content in the Wikipedia article, not necessarily the opinions of another Wikipedia editor.

Strawman, irrelevant discussion. Sensitive material means many users has reported the user in question. This is part of twitter's quality filter. Stop painting things unders misleading light.

Belittling another user by implying that they might want to white-wash the article.

If by there you mean we have to erase any mention of white supremacist membership and state up front that Gab is a completely innocent angel of free speech human rights etc, please, no.

On Talk:Gab_(social_network)/Archive_4 The message that this is in response to does not violate WP:OR. The message didn't encourage editing the article with original research, and it was in the talk page. WP:OR refers to content in the Wikipedia article, not necessarily the opinions of another Wikipedia editor.

Accusing another editor of blaming them for a shooting, and accusing them of straw manning, as well as shaming them for being a new user. Tsumikiria states in response to another user,

Oh you blame me for the shooting When did I say I endorse them Good job constructing a straw man, and congrats that this is your 5th ever edit on Wikipedia.

Implies a possible act of whitewashing, simply because another user was discussing Gab's possible new logo.

Whether or not is this a blatant whitewashing and cashing in attempt aside, it is pretty likely that this tragedy-inspired change will be temporary. And Wikipedia is not a place to document marketing stunts. Looks like Torba deleted the tweet introducing this logo after getting widely condemned. Maybe the event could be included in text if a reliable source wrote about this.

Implied that I wanted to mass remove sections.

The site's far-right users are the primary if not sole reason why it is notable. The whole article could be well removed if there is no mention to its users because it is a UGC and who care about some marketing languages. And it's not like the user section is the foremost section with 90% weight or something. We don't mass remove things like this.

Writes off discussion as Meaningless

This discussion is meaningless. We could as well write Twitter as antisemitic, if only they advertise to, align themselves to, and uses the same rhetoric as antisemites just like what Gab does.

And then further,

Insinuates that Gab is my favorite gathering place. Belittles me by saying that my opinion doesn't matter, and accuses me of calling into question the legitimacy of a quote by another article, and implies that I might be here to defend repugnant views.

It is understandable that you think your favorite gathering place is not getting good treatments, but your own opinion matters nothing to Wikipedia. And seeing you using quotation marks aroud the term antisemetic, if you are here to defend repugnant views that advocated for genocidal violence against Jewish people, or to question the classification of it as anti-Semitic, you might not be here to build an encyclopedia.

Accuses me of ignoring wikipedia guidelines, accuses me presenting opinions as facts, and accuses me of asserting that deplatforming is censorship.

This conversation can serve no further purpose if you continue to ignore basic Wikipedia guidelines on not presenting your own interpretations as facts. Your assertion that deplatforming is censorship is also not supported. We don't write something as facts because you think they are in line with definitions on Wikipedia. Reliable, authoritative sources have no overwheming support for such assertions. And yes, your further edit requests will be ignored and archived, if they are clear violations of Wikipedia guidelines.

Implying that I want to mass delete and doctor valid content, accuses me of creating a false balance, accuses me of filibustering, accuses me of white-washing, and again insinuates that Gab is my favorite website. The user also tells me I've contributed nothing, and am wasting everyone's time.

Impressive 11,000 text wall you've composed. No, we will not mass delete and doctor valid content and replace them with fig leaf free speech aspect that no reliable source treats seriously. You cannot create false balance out of thin air. Wikipedia policies does not back your filibustering that suggests a motive of whitewashing your favorite website. You have contributed nothing of value to the article or anywhere else on Wikipedia and please stop further wasting everyone's time

Accuses me of gaming the system, and accuses me of expecting people to reply to every single sentence I made.

The specific thing is that you are relentlessly gaming the system. You listed everything that doesn't submit to your own viewpoint and do you expect us to reply to every single sentence you listed Of course you're going to declare But you didn't respond to my points! Stop wasting time.

Again accuses me of filibustering in attempt to change the article, accuses me of soapboxing, and advocates that I be topic banned based on the allegation that I'm disruptive, and accuses me of bad faith editing.

absolutely overwhelming number of sources report Gab because of its far-right users. Phrase should be duly included in the first sentence. SPA RfC proposer has relentlessly filibustered to make the article submit to his free speech perspective soapboxing, as you can see in his latest 10-page essay above. Per Jorm, editor should be topic banned for being frustratingly disruptive and WP:NOTHERE.

Unfortunately, I don't have the time to include everything. However this is a very obvious and egregious violation of basic Talk page guidelines. Ridiceo (talk) 10:24, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

The Ridiceo account was created on November 5th, 2018. Within a few weeks, it's quoting obscure policies like WP:NOTHERE, WP:TPYES, and WP:ASPERSIONS (this one in particular is a dead giveaway that it's someone who's been to drama boards before). Per WP:DUCK, obviously not a new editor.Volunteer Marek (talk) 10:51, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps I just get around alot? Or maybe I reviewed the Wikipedia guidelines before I made account.

Spreading unsubstantiated allegations that I'm "not a new user" because I quoted policy you dont like. Check.

Im done with Wikipedia. Being dogpiled and accused left and right like this because of wrongthink isnt for me. This is my last edit, and I could care less what happens to my account. See ya. I might hop in another time to see what crazy new allegations you've made against me, but I wont respond. Ridiceo (talk) 11:07, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

• The above wall of sea-lioning text is a pretty solid example of how this user operates: throwing out thousand page screeds of lawyering, never hearing other people, and demanding others do work for them. Followed by the "I quit" message, i think they're going to be back under a different name.--Jorm (talk) 18:06, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

• I'm glad that they finally published this list. The fact that this user kept a creepy attack page on me and hoped this could turn the tide whenever concerns against them are brought up, and attempted to block policy-based resolution by accusing everyone of thought policing on them followed by announcing rage quit just further illustrate how this user is inconceivably disruptive and not here to build an encyclopedia. I endorse a block, at the very least. Tsumikiria (T/C) 20:49, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Proposal: Indef block

Based on the above, I'm proposing an indef block, per WP:NOTHERE. The editor said they were leaving anyway, so we might as well make it official. --K.e.coffman (talk) 06:02, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

• Support: as proposer. --K.e.coffman (talk) 06:02, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
• Support: User is not here for anything of value.--Jorm (talk) 07:04, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
• Support: So the posterity can be freed from sockpuppets of this user. They earned it. Account was used solely for disruptive purpose and was gaming hard to drive off productive editors. Tsumikiria (T/C) 07:32, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
• Support. It's reasonably clear that they're WP:NOTHERE per above. But, more importantly, given that it seems to have become a bit of a flashpoint for new editors drawn to it by Gab's controversies, it might be worthwhile for some experienced uninvolved editors to pay a bit more attention to Gab (social network) for a while. --Aquillion (talk) 07:34, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
• Support As the dude who got annoyed enough by him to make an entire section about it at ANI. PeterTheFourth (talk) 08:36, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose. Too harsh. Follow the standard procedure of escalating blocks. I'll also note that there are conduct issues all around here. The page needs more admin attention rather than a disruptive majority ganging up on a disruptive minority. R2 (bleep) 18:31, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
• Support. This is essentially a topic ban, which is necessary here per WP:IDHT. I'm not convinced that there is any sockpuppetry going on, purely because Ridiceo did not try to get the autoconfirmed user right before coming to this contentious subject. I'm surprised that they weren't already sanctioned since the Gab article is under APDS, and Ridiceo has been warned about APDS quite early on [188]. I'm not happy about the wiki-lawyering by some users above, but I don't support sanctioning anyone else for the time being (although I'm not watching or editing the Gab article, and I'm just commenting here because I've had previous conflict with this user). wumbolo ^^^ 19:49, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose. The article needs improvement. There are effectively 3 very active editors there: Ridiceo, Tsumikiria and PeterTheFourth. I've participated but much less. It may not come as a shock that Tsumikiria and PeterTheFourth have been on the opposite side of edits from Ridiceo and now !vote to ban him. Ridiceo hasn't broken any rules and has a clean block log. We don't go from no warnings and no blocks straight to an indef for "too many talk page posts." For comparison Tsumikiria broke 3RR, which I warned him about but didn't report. Ridiceo is new and should be helped, like this. Consensus means balancing interests per policy not bullying opponents off the site. D.Creish (talk) 22:01, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

• D.Creish, let's not talk about your series of underexplained reverts that changed content to what Ridiceo warred about and removed sourced paraphrase and copyedits. All I did was to stop both of you. I note that you have not tried to reach a consensus and discuss with the rest of us, until just now, for your joint operation with Ridiceo. Now that you reverted again. You're putting yourself in a dangerous position. Tsumikiria (T/C) 22:46, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

I complain the article is a WP:BATTLEGROUND and your response is All I did was to stop both of you and You're putting yourself in a dangerous position. Not encouraging. D.Creish (talk) 22:54, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

I could not have summed it up better than D.Creish did here. Well, no. Ridiceo did break the rules by repeatedly failing to drop the stick when consensus was against them. But I agree with the rest of D.Creish's assessment. R2 (bleep) 21:14, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

• Support per proposer and Jorm. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:12, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
• Support. Definitely WP:NOTHERE; only here to relentlessly push a very skewed and idiosyncratic POV. Far too much exhausting DE. Softlavender (talk) 22:53, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
• Support per WP:NOTHERE. Binksternet (talk) 20:41, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
• Support. NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia. Here to push far-right POV BS. oknazevad (talk) 20:48, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Note: Ridiceo has apparently not quit as they said they would so this still needs dealing with.--Jorm (talk) 20:22, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

I'm shocked, he made an edit to close an rfc after someone requested that they do it! This user definitely needs a block because they might disrupt our echo chamber by making a single rudimentary edit to a talk page! /s

Imagine how childish you have to be to have this thought process, not to mention accusing me of sockpuppetry, accusing me of not being a new user, and accusing me of colluding with D.Creish, And saying i'll "come back under another name"

Yeah, and dont mention that in that single edit, I openly admitted to the consensus being "known for it's far-right user base"

It's specifically users like you that repeatedly accuse others of wrongdoing, even for such unimportant edits like the one you cited, which is why I'm no longer going to edit on Wikipedia. I'm done. Kiss my ass. Ridiceo (talk) 21:56, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

User:Ridiceo reported by User:Tsumikiria (Result: )

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.

---

Page: Gab (social network) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Ridiceo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: diff

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. diff 2018-11-30T11:18:45
2. diff 2018-11-30T12:49:42
3. diff 2018-11-30T13:02:18
4. diff 2018-12-05T08:18:55
5. diff 2018-12-05T09:10:15
6. diff 2018-12-05T09:40:56
7. diff 2018-12-05T09:41:50
8. diff 2018-12-05T13:59:22
9. diff 2018-12-05T16:25:30
10. diff 2018-12-05T16:51:41
11. diff 2018-12-06T00:49:42
12. diff 2018-12-06T00:58:40
13. diff 2018-12-06T01:00:57
14. diff 2018-12-06T01:03:43
15. diff 2018-12-06T01:07:01
16. diff 2018-12-09T01:37:51
17. diff 2018-12-09T01:44:48

1. Repeatedly removed well sourced, consensus content: "known for its far-right user base"
2. Repeatedly removed well sourced, consensus content: "The platform itself has engaged in antisemitic commentary."
3. Repeatedly replaced well sourced, verified content "The site is a favorite of far right" into "The site has become increasingly more popular with far right"
4. Repeatedly inserted {CN} tag to unwarrantedly undermine well-sourced content
5. Repeatedly unwarrantedly replaced or removed due weight content from verified sources to confrom with POV "softer tone"

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [189] [190]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: diff No, actually, the entire talk page. All of us have been in conversation and trying to resolve this issue with the user for weeks, to no avail.

Comments:

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.

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.

Omairosmani

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.

---

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

User has stated they operate a website; their only purpose here seems to be to introduce that site to medical articles [191][192][193][194][195], in these examples also reverting other editors. Warned about COI, continues. Concern also expressed that they may be operating another account (created the same day) that seems to follow them like this and this. ☆ Bri (talk) 15:39, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Since you have explained about the Conflict of interest or COI. I have added the reference from the news article The Indian Express for Vultures are long-lived and slow to breed. It starts breeding only at the age of 6-year and only 50% of them survive. I hope you will not have any problem now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Omairosmani (talk • contribs) 16:02, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Now he's removing "his" content because it isn't attached to the website anymore and essentially accusing the community (me?) of plagiarizing it [196]. This doesn't look like it's going to end well. ☆ Bri (talk) 01:58, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

He may be simply blowing off steam -- common when editors receive a restriction. I recommend simply keeping an eye on him, since he hasn't edited article space in a few days. Softlavender (talk) 02:07, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. I'd appreciate it if somebody else would engage on his talkpage, I'm losing interest. ☆ Bri (talk) 16:59, 15 December 2018 (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.

Hostility toward other editors from User:Thewolfchild

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 user has a very, very long history of making personal attacks and picking fights instead of sticking to the issues. The failure to assume good faith has been a very-long term problem. His hostility to other editors can be seen nearly everywhere he edits, such as in Talk:War with ""Again, the onus is..." blah, blah, blobbity-blah, blah, blaahhh.... Says who? You?" and "Were any of those edit summaries directed at you? No? Then wtf are you babbling about?"...among other numerous recent cases of assuming bad faith, sourness, personal attacks, etc. He has been repeatedly encouraged to strike out some of his ruder comments, such as on Talk:Natalya Meklin he was told "balance of your response is largely unhelpful and personalises the dispute". I am fully aware that I am not the only user who would support such preventative actions - I am sure that users such as @Bones Jones:, @Kges1901:, and many others would support it. A sockpuppet investigation would be a good idea too.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 17:32, 13 December 2018 (UTC)--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 18:28, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Regardless of the merits of your claims above, I've deleted your redirect from Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/thewolfchild to this AN/I report.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 18:34, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Where is the evidence of sockpuppeting? Unsubstantiated allegations are not helpful (and could be considered a personal attack).Nigel Ish (talk) 18:42, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Sockpuppet check request - I just wanted to make sure that there were no sock puppets participating in this discussion. I thought there was a small change Cinderella157 might be a sockpuppet, but that was based purely on the lack of hostility and obstructionism directed towards Cinderella157 compared to the extreme hostility towards 99.9% of other users. The sockpuppet investigation is not a main priority here, though.

Perhaps the blatant canvassing in the OP can be addressed as well? - wolf 18:55, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Oh, and just noticed... there isn't a single mention of the Talk:Natalya Meklin page, which is where all these complaints stem from (it's the only article that PsA320 and I have interacted on). The page speaks for itself, and if indeed we're allowed to ping other editors to this report, then I'd suggest notifying all the editors that participated on that page. That page is also where, on October 30, I both posted my last reply to PsA320 and indicated that I would no longer be replying to them, as it is pointless to do so. I still haven't posted any comments to them (with the single exception of addressing their harrassment on my talk page). - wolf 19:22, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

How about this from about 24 hours ago, thewolfchild? Do you think maybe you should apologize to Eli355? Or would an apology be uncalled-for? Bus stop (talk) 19:28, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

@Thewolfchild: Not all complaints about you stem from Natalya Meklin - in fact, most do not. A look at your block log and recent contributions is rather telling. It is clear from some of your edit summaries that you are VERY hostile to most Wikipedia users. I only regret that I did not investigate your contributions earlier. Comments from you like some of the ones linked seem to be very common across various articles. And I have to say that the fact that you constantly want to restart the drama at Natalya Meklin (which does not put you in a very positive light) and use it as an opportunity to sling mud is quite unproductive, not to mention shameful. I am not asking for an apology, but I do think you should apologize to many other users.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 22:12, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Wolf also claims that ever October he has stopped posting comments to me, but that he a little misleading. He still does not hesitate to ramble on bashing me in comments directed towards other editors on the talkpage of Natalya Meklin, and has done so quite recently. Such comments, in addition to various other comments from wolf, along with the lack of productive content-producing work (like the lack of articles written) certainly don't help his case - every day he seems more and more like a comments section troll than a Wikipedian. Such behaviors have been very detrimental to the project as a whole. And the hostility in this discussion here certainly isn't helping his case.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 22:29, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

• The suggestion wrt my being a sock by PlanespotterA320 is absurd, made on the flimsiest of grounds and per Nigel Ish, totally inappropriate. Cinderella157 (talk) 23:11, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

• I would strongly encourage PlanespotterA320 to strike her comments about Cinderella157 being a sock, as the accusation merely damages her case. Kges1901 (talk) 23:14, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

• @Kges1901: If you don't think it's a sock, I don't think it's a sock. (I trust you) I was admittedly a little overly suspicious about the unusual lack of hostility towards Cinderella from wolf, relative to everyone else. @Cinderella157: I am sorry for offending you. I should have had more to go on before bringing it up.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 23:40, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

• Comment I have not looked into it, but I doubt TWC would sock.

About the manner of TWC, PlanespotterA320 is not imagining this. Snarky, hostile, and aggressive posts by TWC have been going on for years.

TWC, please do not say how this is about others. You are the common factor here. I've asked you to dial it back before, and you have remained right near the line.

Your mainspace edits make Wikipedia a better encyclopedia, but your back page edits make it a worse place to be. It repels other contributors and that costs Wikipedia valuable edits. That sort of behaviour is something the entire community is strongly against.

Please enter the zone where almost all others dwell: the friendly and collegial zone. You will wear out your welcome if you continue. Thank you in advance for your new and improved manner. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:32, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Okay Anna. - wolf 12:55, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

I have found from a fairly recent previous experience ironing out a dispute between Thewolfchild and another editor on Talk:Seven (1995 film) that TWC is perfectly capable of editing intelligently, collaboratively and politely. TWC the lesson perhaps yet to be learned is when you keep a lid on your temper and edit collegiately, you get better results and less stress. Fish+Karate 13:00, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

TWC sometimes strays from the collegial style in his responses but I often see him involved in prolonged discussions where one or two editors are trying to frustrate any change by stonewalling and resting on the letter of policies with the basic position of I like it as it is rather than looking beyond the policy wording to appreciate what the policy is trying to achieve. In those circumstances I can understand TWC getting exasperated and being blunt in his responses. Most of us would let the other editor get away with his trying to overwhelm the thread with his views and trust the closing admin to see through this behaviour, TWC chooses not to - sometimes in a well structured way, sometimes especially when the other other party is being obtuse not so well. Given that the block log is rather old and considering the volume of work TWC does on trying to make the encyclopedia better I think all that is called for at most is that he is reminded of the provisions of WP:CIVILITY Lyndaship (talk) 16:00, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

But considering the high frequency of civility violations in the very recent past, and the sheer amount of hostility, I think more than a reminder about civility is needed. Considering many previous attempts to remind of civility have been made but merely ignored or responded to in a very hostile manner.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 21:15, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Based on the sheer number of conflicts this user has resulted in, is it really worth it to give a slap on the wrist to one user sometimes-productive who drives away, and has the potential to, drive away many more productive users? It would be a net benefit to be down one hostile use but keep everyone else instead of keeping one user and losing many more. Many, many analysises of Wikipedia have described the project as a hostile environment (just search "Wikipedia hostile", including Harvard. I'm sure we are all familiar with headlines like Editors depart as Wikipedia becomes hostile, The Dark Side of Wikipedia and many others. What TWC has engaged in is not an occasional angry remark or joke in poor taste - there is a very long history of this person ranting, bashing, and rambling on against many, many other users, despite repeated warnings to calm down. I think it would be for the best of the project to give this user a Wikibreak, and if they are to be permitted to return, their comments to other users should be monitered. It's hard enough recruiting people to Wikipedia as it is right now, but TWC is more off-putting and detering to Wikipedia editing than any long-winded notability policy or scary-looking Wikitext. As soon as you are done explaining to a potential recruit the crash-course of article writing, (writing out wikitext on a whiteboard for practice, policy quizes, etc) they are immediately less excited (and usually give up soon) whenever you get to the nessesary warning part of your speech that's "Oh, by the way, there are a few people who like to "haze" on the new writers a little, or pick fights sometimes. If somebody, probably -----------, ------, -------------, ------------, or that person we were using an example of what not to do earlier does, just let me know and I will take care of it." It is absolutely in the long-term intersts of the project to stop this behavior for real this time - It's fine to give people a second chance and even a third, fourth, and fifth chance...but giving 10th chances isn't good for anybody.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 21:40, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

If, by "something more", you mean a block, I don't think that is going to happen this time. However, ANI posts and blocks add up. If he returns to his old manner, ANI him again (yes, ANI, sans forward slash, is a perfectly good verb because I say so ).

And, we've all seen this before. Editors who behave in a hostile manner for too long, wear out their welcome. How many more blockable or ANIable (yes, it's an adjective too!) edits will bring an indef? The next may be his last. But he is smart, can see what is happening, and wants to stay. Plus, TWC's edits have been gradually getting less hostile.

I trust TWC will speed up his transition into the 'zone' where the smart cookies dwell. Once there, he will realize and enjoy, increased influence over articles. After all, we in the zone already know that honey and compromise beats vinegar and dug-in heels. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 21:59, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Comment: Lyndaship has made some pertinent and incisive observations that are quite relevant (IMO) to the interaction between TWC and PlanespotterA320 that should not be lost to either of them. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 23:50, 14 December 2018 (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.

systematic erasure of "External links" section from multiple articles without discussion

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:Ronz has been systematically erasing the entire "External Links" section from major articles. it started with his erasure on Military history saying that list of 11 items violated WP:EL. This led to a long discussion on the talk page Talk:Military history where I strongly opposed his actions, I was supported by two other editors but no one supported Ronz. He admitted he had not actually looked at any of the external links. He claimed that ":The bottom line is that such articles such broad topics generally don't have much in the way of an External links section beyond a link to a directory site." to demonstrate he was wrong, I produced a list of major articles that in fact did have "external links" of comparable length, including * Military history has eleven; Economic History has 24 external links; Historiography has eleven; etc etc. his response is to go through my list of articles begin to erase its entire external links section. see [197] that includes [198], and [199] Is that edit warring or it plain vandalism? Rjensen (talk) 03:24, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

User_talk:Rjensen#I_think_there_are_better_ways_to_address_this --Ronz (talk) 03:27, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

I never could 'really' tell the difference between an External Links section & a Reference section. Some articles have both, some only the former & some have only the latter. GoodDay (talk) 03:32, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

You're kidding, right? Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:51, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

No he's still at it. Ronz just now erased ALL the external links to History of medicine with no reason. Rjensen (talk) 04:57, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Per WP:INDENT, I believe BMK was responding to 'my' post. GoodDay (talk) 05:08, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Yes, that is the case. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:47, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

GoodDay, imagine a web before the internet existed, where the integrity of facts is built on references. External links are to information we cannot provide for whatever reason, copyright and … perhaps someone who has read the linked guidance can provide another exception. This is my rule of thumb, I hope this provides some clarity to the difference. Have a good day, if that needs to be said. cygnis insignis 10:54, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

External link bloat is a major issue with many articles here. A well developed article should have very few external links as most of the information contained in them should already be presented in the article. Exceptions may be for long list or other interesting content that is impractical to present. Either way this is a content issue and it should be decided at the talk pages what links should stay or go. AIRcorn (talk) 08:22, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

• Are we an encyclopedia or are we a link farm? --Guy Macon (talk) 11:31, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
• WP:ELNO. GiantSnowman 11:42, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

A better way to phrase the question is are we the last stop for learning history or a guide to further learning. In history articles, information includes both details on a past event and ways to find out more about these and other past events, and how different perspectives and sources can be used. Rjensen (talk) 12:59, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

I want to echo the above sentiments of Rjensen. I would say that we are not the "last stop for learning" anything. We should think of ourselves as merely a stepping stone to the next source of information. External links are one means of allowing a reader to explore other related sources of information. There is a whole lot of hubris involved in thinking our articles are the end of a reader's journey to becoming educated on a given topic. Our articles have to meet difficult-to-attain standards but one of them is not to be the only source a reader needs to see on a given topic. (If I am not accurately echoing sentiments expressed by Rjensen I hope they will correct me.) Bus stop (talk) 15:45, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

• The external links on History of medicine should be removed. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 15:14, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Why?? Wikipedia, like other encyclopedias, provides overviews of a topic and indicates sources of more extensive information. You want to omit these links because their external links not because they're not relevant? last thing we need is people going around deleting whole sections especially when they just flying by the article and deleting on mass.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Moxy (talk • contribs) 15:56, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

This discussion is about Ronz's POINTy actions, not the disputed content, right? —[AlanM1(talk)]— 15:18, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

This is outright unacceptable. Rjensen, you need to explain why you should not immediately be blocked for restoring large numbers of links that fail WP:ELNO. Three examples: [200] discussion forums (link 4), sites that do not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a featured article (most or all), and sites that are only indirectly related to the article's subject (all the organizations' websites); [201] sub-topics that wouldn't belong in a featured article, and sites that are only indirectly related to the article's subject (all but penultimate); [202] many websites of organizations either mentioned in the article or too minor to mention in the article, i.e. indirectly related. Compound that with edit-warring at military history at the minimum (I've not looked elsewhere), and you've been spamming, edit-warring, and attempting to get sanctions for someone because he's enforcing policy. Nyttend (talk) 22:12, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

So what should be happening (and what administrators should be directing to do) is if the bold blanking of every extern link over many articles by someone who's admitted not looking at the sites is disputed a talk should take place.... identifying any problem links or those that deserve merit of inclusion. Compiling bibliographies (including online resources) for research for our readers is a major activity of historians and scholars here on Wikipedia. Outright blanking without consultation is not acceptable when a concern has been raised. Scolding one of our long term resident historians over something they see as disruptive is not what we're looking for from our administrators. Proper analysis of the dispute with guidance towards a resolution is what we're looking for.--Moxy (talk) 01:12, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

I'd echo that, and would ask Nyttend to tone down the "Ima gonna block ya right quick" rhetoric here. The editor has expressed an entirely good faith concern with what they perceived to be undiscussed and uncritical section blanking; you don't stomp on someone for that. Most of these sections are deserving of at least some discussion. E.g., I fail to see why the links to museum collections (more specialized and deeper than what is covered in the article) in History of medicine are out of scope. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 11:44, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

I third that. The discussion about the content is at Talk:Military history#External links section removed. (ed.) —[AlanM1(talk)]— 14:33, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Wait, what? Nyttend is threatening to block Rjensen? They have this backwards and need to hold of on any quick-draw blocks until they have the complete picture. - wolf 17:54, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

I'm attempting to corral this into the article talk space for now, since this is essentially a content dispute. I do note that some less than civil behavior has come out, but I think thats mostly due to the removal an ex post facto justification route as opposed to the find consensus and then implement it route we've taken here. TomStar81 (Talk) 18:40, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

• There's nothing wrong with "systematic erasure ... without discussion". Editors are generally free to add or remove content without prior discussion, and objections based solely on "you didn't gain consensus first" are quite unproductive. The commonly-accepted BRD cycle puts the discussion after the objection.

Quickly looking over the links removed by Ronz and restored by Rjensen, there is a wide variation in quality. I would suggest steering the discussion toward individual links instead of wholesale inclusion or removal. A central discussion at MILHIST (the project has no special authority over links, but it is a convenient venue) may lead toward a general consensus of what types of links are appropriate. –dlthewave ☎ 00:04, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

I want to apologize for the wholesale removal of all the links in those few articles. I realize that BOLD edits like those can be very upsetting for some editors. --Ronz (talk) 05:41, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

• Since Ronz has apologized for his behaviour and is participating in good faith in discussions at Talk:Military history with several other editors, to work on resolving what is basically a content dispute, there really is no need for this to continue. If there are no objections from Rjensen or anyone else that participated, then any admin reading this, that can accept there won't be any further disruption or behavioural issues, can probably close this. - wolf 06:18, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

I have no objection to closure here. Rjensen (talk) 08:54, 16 December 2018 (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.

140.213.5.50

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.

---

140.213.5.50 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

03:58, 14 December 2018 diff hist -10‎ Persija Jakarta ‎ Tags: Mobile edit, Mobile web edit, possible vandalism 03:44, 14 December 2018 diff hist -28‎ Persija Jakarta ‎ →‎Coaching Staff Tags: Mobile edit, Mobile web edit 03:43, 14 December 2018 diff hist -455‎ Persija Jakarta ‎ →‎Current Squad Tags: Mobile edit, Mobile web edit 03:38, 14 December 2018 diff hist -3,994‎ Persija Jakarta ‎ Tags: Mobile edit, Mobile web edit, section blanking 03:34, 14 December 2018 diff hist -9‎ Persija Jakarta ‎ Tags: Mobile edit, Mobile web edit, possible vandalism

This IP address continue to deleting contect on that article. Please pay attention to this IP or user to avoid vandalism.

Thanks a lot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zoso627 (talk • contribs) 04:28, December 14, 2018 (UTC)

I left edit warring notices for both users. Perhaps they can work out their differences at Talk:Persija Jakarta. Bradv🍁 04:35, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Looks like they're removing unencyclopedic content.  Swarm  {talk}  14:57, 16 December 2018 (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:Mister what

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.

---

Mister what (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I believe this user is WP:NOTHERE, as they are consistently adding their own opinions and beliefs to certain statements on Marvel Cinematic Universe-related film articles. These edits did result in them being blocked in May 2017, and that obviously did not help them understand what they are doing needs to be supported by reliable sources.

Specific edits to examine include their edits on Avengers: Infinity War (all seen here, all of which are mainly some variant of this regarding the character of Drax), Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2 (all seen here, all of which mainly sum down to a variant of this regarding the actor Dave Bautista), and Spider-Man: Homecoming (all seen here, all of which are like this, centered on the actor Jacob Batalon). - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:20, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

I assumed that this was a new editor, but they have been editing off and on since 2010! They hardly ever leave edit summaries, and don't ever seem to have commented on any talkpage except (once) their own. Then it wasn't in response to any of the many messages left there by other editors, but a request for help to make the several times already reverted Bautista edits; advice was given which got no response, then they tried to edit war it back in a few days later.

I think the Ani may have scared them off; they haven't edited since. Not sure what you can do about someone who refuses to either discuss or listen. Curdle (talk) 02:25, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

You spoke too soon, they continued edit warring after you wrote that! Unfortunately, there's only one thing we can do here, which is an indef block. This user has a long history of warnings and has previously been blocked for a month for this same behavior. I don't get the impression that they're editing in bad faith, but if they refuse to respond to anything there's not much that can be done.  Swarm  {talk}  15:14, 16 December 2018 (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.

Pleae block following disruptive accounts

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/wiki/Special:Contributions/Brazilinha2 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Brazilinha5 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Brazilinha6

• Nsmutte socks ―Abelmoschus Esculentus ^{talk / contribs} 07:21, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion confirms these three are socks of nsmutte

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RRArchive375#User:Brazilinha_reported_by_User:Banzoo_(Result:_Blocked)

 Done Someone already took care of this. UninvitedCompany 13:59, 16 December 2018 (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: Totoagosto

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.

---

Totoagosto (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is quickly becoming a problematic editor that is not here for the right reasons. Their edits related to franchise series The Voice continue to be problematic, as they are not founded by source, and/or defy multiple MOS set up by Wikipedia. Despite multiple warnings on their talk page and reverts to the pages, they continue to provide these edits. Clearly, they have no desire to co-edit constructively with the encyclopedia, and, instead, would rather add unsourced claims of their own fictitious creation. Also, user seems to like making personal comments on editors on their talk pages, as well. Clearly, this kind of behaviour is not acceptable by Wikipedia standards.

@Livelikemusic: I see templated warnings, but little attempt to engage with the editor to explain the issues.S Philbrick(Talk) 15:05, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

@Sphilbrick: While edit summaries are not exactly discussions, each time it is explained why it is being reverted, and they are continued to be added. Plus, this explained the very first instance why they were reverted, after which, this user was left a personal attack on their own page by the abusive editor and their edit continue on. livelikemusic talk! 15:21, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Livelikemusic, I am a big fan of the use of informative edit summaries, but they should be viewed as supplementary to discussions, not as a replacement. Through my work as an OTRS agent, I can tell you that many new editors have not noticed edit summaries. They are necessary, but not sufficient.

You may be absolutely right that this editor is problematic, but I think an ANI discussion is premature. Can you please try a non-templated, neutral comment on their talk page, and see how they respond? S Philbrick(Talk) 15:59, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

@Sphilbrick: I left one after your last message. Am hoping they might respond to it. livelikemusic talk! 16:00, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

@Sphilbrick: Since leaving the question asking why they are making the edits they're making — sans verifiability and anti-MOS style, in an attempt to open dialogue, their first edit is to immediately resume their behaviour. Their failure to respond to multiple good faith comments and warnings is a clear sign their editing patterns are likely not to end anytime soon. livelikemusic talk! 01:49, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Livelikemusic, I have a number of things on my plate and I'm under the weather so I'm going to leave this to you and others to sort out. S Philbrick(Talk) 15:33, 15 December 2018 (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.

Disruptive editing by Rockallnight5

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.

---

Rockallnight5 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I have reported this editor for using multiple accounts to restore their unsourced recording dates in album-related articles last month [203]. This editor has been blocked for 72 hours for sockpuppetry and they have been blocked again for one week for adding unsourced content in articles not too long ago by Ymblanter [204] [205]. Recently, while the editor is not using multiple accounts anymore, the editor is still being disruptive by reverting other editors edits to restore the recording dates that is not supported by sources in album-related articles as before [206] [207] [208] [209]. The editor also made a little nice comment at Ymblanter's talk page [210], but have second thoughts about it [211]. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 06:35, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

I took a look and don't believe that the recent edits for which you provided diffs are anything that can be usefully addressed here at AN/I. How to handle recording dates for an album, and the minimum appropriate level of sourcing for such information, is a content matter best addressed on the article's talk page. Am I missing something? UninvitedCompany 13:48, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

@UninvitedCompany: You seem to not understand album-related articles, the recording dates needs to be supported by a source actually support the claimed recording dates, which they don't. Unsourced content is still unsourced content. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 08:23, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Makes sense, but it's still a content dispute. UninvitedCompany 14:31, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

@UninvitedCompany: I don't see this a content dispute when this editor reverting other editors reverts to restore the unsourced recording dates in several articles, such as Dan56's edits [212] [213] [214] [215]. This editor have been blocked for same reason last time. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 08:53, 16 December 2018 (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.

Help:Reverting

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.

---

Dear Administrators, please help me. Some Indonesia's fans had tried to change page Miss World and Beauty with a Purpose. They changed placements of theirs country. There was only one winner of 2018 Beauty with a Purpose Competition confirmed in Miss World's sources. If you see history of these pages, you can see it. I tried to stop but did not succeed. They are 1Infinityking (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), 27.34.68.74 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and others. I'm so sorry because my English language skills is limited. Please help me to prevent them and consider blocking them for a long time. Nguyenquochieu2107 (talk) 5:05 , 15 December 2018 (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.

Racist IP-hopper leaving vile edits on articles and user-talk pages

• Special:Contributions/117.136.79.51
• Special:Contributions/117.136.79.53
• Special:Contributions/47.185.142.148

See also this edit left on User:Myasuda's talk page.

Multiple warnings were left on two talk pages,[216][217] and possibly others I don't know about. Fortunatestars (talk) 04:08, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Blocked the range for the first two since that's definitely the same person. 47.185 seems to be someone else, since they just engaged in petty vandalism instead of racist vandalism. Ian.thomson (talk) 04:12, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. At first glance they looked like the same person. Fortunatestars (talk) 04:15, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Proving once again you can't really be a racist unless you're dumb. Thank you Ian.thomson. Drmies (talk) 04:21, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

No, the assumption that racists are automatically dumb can be dangerously complacent - racism is, unfortunately, not the preserve of low intellects, and we should not disregard it that way. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:33, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

William Shockley. EEng 00:44, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

• It's not racist to hate a people who have committed horrible atrocities against your own people. The Left hurls the "racist" slur against everyone they don't like, and as a result the term has become rather meaningless. For, example the Left would probably accuse me of being racist because I am Jewish and harbor considerable hatred for Germans and Arabs, but don't consider them racially inferior. Therefore, there is no racism involved. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pigmysusie (talk • contribs) 01:27, 14 December 2018 (UTC) — Pigmysusie (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

  Then you don't understand what racism is. Also, your capitalization needs work. EEng 02:11, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Pigmysusie, you convinced me you are a racist with one post. The awful acts of Germans 80 years ago are not a good reason to hate Germans today. Legacypac (talk) 02:26, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

So is a collateral boomerang coming for that Pigmysusie if so? ^Semi_Hypercube ✎ 02:31, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Whack! ^Semi_Hypercube ✎ 12:24, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Apparently at it again: 113.119.48.246 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). Now blocked, but this IP may also be worth monitoring.—Myasuda (talk) 04:20, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Calling someone a "Nazi" over a dispute?

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'm relatively new here, so not sure if this is the right place to ask, but came across an edit summary where an editor called another editor a "Nazi" over some dispute. I would not like it if someone said this to me, so I wonder what happens in such circumstances? Barca (talk) 15:12, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Diffs to the dispute would help a lot.

We used to have a WP:CIVIL policy here, but it seems no longer. IMHO if we now accept telling people to F off (per recent discussion here), we can hardly single out calling them a Nazi as being any different. Also, they may actually be Nazis. We do have a few. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:25, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply, though it's a bit worrying to hear that telling people to F off is seen as ok on Wikipedia. Here is the diff: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Linda_Sarsour&diff=874137594&oldid=874137100 Barca (talk) 15:38, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

I agree it's troubling, but it is MShabazz and he does have a habit of being nasty to everyone who disagrees with him. I would be in favor of a TBAN on BLP or the IP conflict, it would do the WP good. We could do without his nastiness. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 15:40, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

For that example I'd say it's unenforceable. It's regrettable that they used that term (what consequences are there where that is ever going to work out better than not doing it?) but they have the easy excuse that they weren't calling anyone a nazi, merely comparing a contested addition to being as nonsensical as if they'd called the poster a nazi. But then we're also (ANI recently) allowed to describe editors as "leaving dog shit everywhere" on articles, provided that it's not targetted at a single editor (i.e. a personal attack). None of this is good and we ought to be a lot stronger on CIVIL.

BTW - I've pinged the editor concerned, as being mentioned at ANI. You should always do this, because if you don't, you're now yourself guilty of Provable Wikicrime and (being easier to prove) that's always a far more serious offence against the magisterium. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:45, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Years ago, I was called a fascist (on my own talkpage) for describing England, Scotland, Northern Ireland & Wales as constituent countries, rather then countries. It happens. GoodDay (talk) 15:54, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

• Context please folks MShabazz is not calling anyone a Nazi - he's giving an example "I call X a Nazi, but he denies it" of what he says is happening in the article - in this case, that some people are trying to insert the text that "some have called Sarsour a supporter of Hamas, but she has denied it". It would probably have been best if MS hadn't used a particular editor's name, but that was the editor that included that text, and this is a BLP. It's fairly obvious from the editing of both parties that MS does not actually believe that the other editor is a Nazi, but the use of hyperbole isn't massively helpful here. Black Kite (talk) 16:10, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
• Yeah, what Black Kite said. Malik isn't calling anyone a Nazi; he's making a rhetorical point. He could have made it in a way less likely to raise hackles, but he's not actually attacking anyone. Vanamonde (talk) 16:50, 17 December 2018 (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.

The Capitals00 sock and meat-puppetry SPI

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 opened a pretty detailed SPI into suspicions that Capitals00, a previously convicted sockmaster, is at the centre of a sock and meat-puppet ensemble here. Four hours later, my submission was reverted by Bbb23 with the edit summary, not going to happen.

To me, the case for Capitals00 and Raymond3023 being closely related looks open and shut based solely on these edits. Quoting from the SPI,

* On February 6 2018, Capitals00 manually creates a delete nomination for Prabhloch Singh using a mobile edit.

(Note that Anmolbhat aka My Lord (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) participated in this afd on the same day as soon as a couple of keep votes come in. Capitals00 did not participate any further. My Lord also participated in the related Middle Finger Protests afd also created by Capitals00.)

The afd is closed as delete on Feb 13.

• On May 5, Raymond3023 creates a delete nomination for David G. McAfee. Just like Capitals, this delete nomination is created manually via a mobile. But if you look at the "View log" link in his edit, you will see that it links to the Prabhloch Singh log.

(IOW, Raymond3023 used an old Capitals00 Afd (that he didn't participate in) as a template to create his new Afd for an unrelated subject.)

The evidence provided against Qualitist and Rzvas is not as clear as the above, but, IMO, warrants a very close look. The other cited case of meat-puppetry also relies on circumstantial evidence but is presented in the context of the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David G. McAfee (2nd nomination) smoking gun referenced above.

I believe that these are significant allegations made with supporting evidence against an editor with a chequered history and they should be treated seriously. The case should be dealt with accordingly and closed properly. It should certainly not be rubbished away and reverted as Bbb23 has done. And frankly, Wikipedia's lackadaisical attitude towards sock and meat-puppetry needs to end.—Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 09:35, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

• Bbb23 was absolutely correct. I am not sure what else I need to say when Cpt.a.haddock himself knows that "(IOW, Raymond3023 used an old Capitals00 Afd (that he didn't participate in) as a template to create his new Afd for an unrelated subject.)" Yes I always copy other's AfD to create any of my own AfD and at that time I was looking at that AfD when I copied it. What you yourself consider as "circumstantial evidence" won't take you anywhere when you need strong evidence to get others checkusered, let alone blocking when users are thoroughly unrelated to each other and you yourself admit it. Not everyone who disagrees with your non-policy based arguments is socking and you shouldn't be surprised if people are agreeing on pages which they have edited earlier or they are regularly participating in such discussions (like AfD). ANI has never been a place for evaluating SPI so you are just WP:FORUMSHOPPING. You should now consider reading WP:STICK because this WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality is toxic. P.S. I only logged in weeks because I got notified.[218] Raymond3023 (talk) 10:26, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

• If you disagree with Bbb23's decision, is there some reason you didn't try asking them about it first? Nil Einne (talk) 13:30, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

This wasn't a case of declining my request for an investigation or simply closing the case on the SPI page with an appropriate reason. This is about reverting it altogether and doing so with a terse non-explanation. IMO, this should never happen and I'd much rather deal with it here rather than "petitioning" Bbb23 to take up the case on his talk page. Thanks.—Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 14:33, 17 December 2018 (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.

injustice

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 feel I have to take action now. Two provocateurs have arrived at the page of Origin of the Romanians recently and started endless debates, content disputes on anything. We have an enthusiast and very experienced editor, User:Borsoka, who made LOADS of contributions to history-related articles (I guess she/he belongs to the academic community). Actually she/he should have been chosen to be an admin a long time ago. This user has maintained and improved this article I mentioned above for years in a professional manner. It seems that no one cares that she/he has been unjustly blocked for 48 hours. The Arbitration Committee has authorized uninvolved administrators to impose discretionary sanctions on users who edit this article but the sanctions are a bit misused IMHO. 1, Borsoka did nothing wrong. 2, The sanctions should hit the provocateurs and not the always polite and experienced users. Could you please take a look at this matter --> User_talk:Borsoka#December_2018. Thank you! Fakirbakir (talk) 18:56, 16 December 2018 (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:Maxwenwen Single Purpose Account

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.

---

Firstly excuse my langugage as english is not my first one. I write to administrator here to see if action can be taken on User:Maxwenwen whose editing history show is a single purpose account putting highly pov material from just one highly problem source ([219]) that is so extreme i think there may be legitimate case to be made about a conflict of interest (namely the eitrod is paid to write this). at the minimum it is form of advocacy which i do not believe is allowed in wikipedia. I did think about discusing the issue direct with user max but given the nature of high tendencious edits i have gone directly to athe administrators here to get this resovlved. I have also pinged another user (@Wildcursive: as he has been reverting the pov pushing attempt saying in one edit summary about how this can be a SPA [220] and just in case anybody try to do a whataboutery of why I take Maxwenwen to the ANI but not Wildcursive when both user show editing from a strong views. (edits by the latter user conform to wikipedia editing standards, using reliable sources AND proper attribution. Any problem edits by the user are currently being discusssed on talk page.) Waskerton (talk) 10:27, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Coincidentally, I just finished talking about User:Waskerton's "talk" here. Wakari07 (talk) 10:39, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

• Of User:Maxwenwen's ten edits, three are on the own page. Their seven mainspace edits are—in my view correctly—documenting one side's point of view in a dispute concerning two sides: the 2018 China–United States trade war. That seems to me in line with WP:NPOV. The Chinese state media are—again, in my view—generally WP:RS for the position of the Chinese (PRC) state. Wakari07 (talk) 10:59, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

• Reply to Waskerton:

Most Americans or Westerners don't understand how things function in communist China or what Chinese do from or for P.R.C. The 2 sources this single-purpose account uses are (no need to click or your information collected by Chinese communist party and their hackers) 'cgtn.com' and 'chinadaily.com.cn'. The first China Global Television Network has been ordered by the U.S. Justice Department in 2018 to register as foreign agents to combat that party's propaganda operations among other activities (yes, espionage) . The second China Daily is one of the propaganda machines owned by the Publicity Department of the Communist Party of China.

In fact, there is no private or independent media in China and propaganda is heavily controlled by the party. No double check to confirm, to challenge, or to publish is allowed. So even regular Chinese laugh at and not believe those lies (many of them are fake news or disinformation). The party can say or publish anything they want no matter it's not exist or 99.99% wrong against the truth as no one can counter them. Do they believe what themselves say? Of course not. That's why U.S. Presidents, from Nixon to Obama, are fooled by China for several decades. They are thus far from reliable sources that Wikipedia accepts or recognizes, not mentioned dumping 13,500 bytes on the article. However, I still kindly edit one paragraph for that and another paragraph with one acceptable source and it's enough.

--Wildcursive (talk) 12:05, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

References

@Wildcursive: the source you add is behind paywall. Notwithstanding that, from what I can read it's simply the "US-side" PoV. We need a neutral point of view, accurately, verifiably describing ALL points of view—the American, the PRC Chinese, and all other points of view—that are relevant to the scope of the article. The planet is even bigger than "only" China and the U.S. The opinion that "U.S. is good and China is bad" (or, by extension, the other way around) is what it is: just an opinion. This is the kind of articles that deserves tertiary, academic sources. The title and first paragraph of the Wall Street Journal article you cite are no more than a secondary source and spin for their government's point of view. Also, I realize (again) that this is not the right place to solve content issues: we need more, better talk, less talking past each other. Wakari07 (talk) 13:02, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

It sure looks to me like there is a problem as reported. I'm not sure what to do to address it. UninvitedCompany 13:54, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

@UninvitedCompany: I'm disappointed that, with your role as a "God" on this project, you're choosing sides without presenting any arguments. Suggesting what you yourself wrote here only last week: [221] ... applying interaction strategies like forbearance, understanding, and appreciation for incremental improvement with non-admins, too. Wakari07 (talk) 14:54, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

@Wakari07: Could you explain the God reference? I'm trying without success to see it as anything but offensive.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:54, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Since admin is god (an "old" saying that you must surely know), a bureaucrat must be God. It's a figurative image, not meant at all to be offensive: I'm simply disappointed, despite what I believe is my good faith. Wakari07 (talk) 17:41, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

I am mortal, not particularly powerful, and frequently wrong. And not offended. I strive to be meatball:FirstServant in situations where I am perceived to have power. UninvitedCompany 18:54, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

I'm confused. I was agreeing with the initial report that is the subject of the section, that is, that User:Maxwenwen shows a pattern of being a single-purpose account and could be editing in violation of WP:COI. I don't have an opinion on the underlying content dispute and am not choosing, and will not choose sides on that. I was also trying to make the point, perhaps too obliquely, that there isn't much that can be done at AN/I about any of this. The purpose of AN/I is to get uninvolved administrators to take a look at conduct problems that are outside their area of subject matter expertise. UninvitedCompany 15:17, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Has anyone tried to engage them? Their talk page has nothing but a notification of this discussion. Wouldn't it have made more sense to try to get them to engage on the articles's talk page? As far as sourcing goes - has there been a discussion at RSN or something? It just seems like there are less confrontational ways that could be tried before ANI. Guettarda (talk) 14:59, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

• Yeah, it looks like they're copy-pasting the text, but like Wakari suggests, I don't see anything that indicates that they're acting in bad faith, and there's nothing unreasonable about trying to present the Chinese government's position. Textbook WP:BITE situation; the user has not even gotten the courtesy of a welcome template and you're already trying to have them blocked without even trying to give them the benefit of the doubt? Communication is required. No way we're blocking them unless efforts to reach out in good faith are exhausted.  Swarm  {talk}  18:17, 16 December 2018 (UTC)g

• @User:Wakari07 might be the best one to do that, since they seem to have a shared vision for the article they are editing. UninvitedCompany 18:54, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for the suggestion, I put a welcome template on their page. Wakari07 (talk) 19:38, 16 December 2018 (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.

ZaneGlaze talk page personal attack

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.

---

.

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

This is so bizarre that I'm reporting it. User ZaneGlaze left a comment on my talk page "F U C K Y O U F A G G O T" [222]. I don't know who this user is, I've never interacted with them, it doesn't look like an SPA. Normally the anti-vandal bot would pick it up. Anyway, posting it here, do what y'all feel. --LaserLegs (talk) 17:08, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Given the recent hacking attacks, I wonder if it's a compromised account? (I haven't blocked just yet as there doesn't seem to be anything ongoing). Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:12, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Agree with Boing! said Zebedee. Looks like a compromised account. Mackensen (talk) 18:16, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Their previous edit on 11-18 looks to be vandalism as well. Everything prior to that comes across as highly constructive and competent. I agree that this looks like a compromised account. Going to block.  Swarm  {talk}  18:35, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

I think the Nov 18 one might have just been an incorrect revert of an edit that could have looked like vandalism. But yes, block was needed. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:59, 16 December 2018 (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 personal attacks by User:Tagishsimon

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.

---

Repeated personal attacks by User:Tagishsimon Diffs: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/John_Francis_Reuel_Tolkien&oldid=873847762 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Tolkien_family&oldid=873846802 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/John_Francis_Reuel_Tolkien&oldid=873799589 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Tolkien_family&oldid=873799188

Tonyinman (talk) 15:38, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

I'm sorry that Tonyinman is suffering butthurt, but his conduct has been appalling, as the record shows. --Tagishsimon (talk) 15:46, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

And that's not how you do diffs, Tonyinman. Try [223], [224] [225] [226]. These are all very strongly critical of you. They fall far short of a personal attack. --Tagishsimon (talk) 15:52, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

• Further diff here: [227] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tonyinman (talk • contribs) 15:55, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) @Tagishsimon: why, at these Tolkein threads, are you persistently talking in incendiary tones of overdone outrage? Please expand on his conduct has been appalling.
  @Tonyinman: I don't see many clear 'personal attacks'. AGK ■ 15:59, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Examples of uncivil language from the diffs above: "obnoxious", "shitty", "disgusting", "You don't get to say "Please keep comments civil", "excresence","I have nothing civil to say to someone who would stoop so low as you have done & "butthurt". Tonyinman (talk) 16:07, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Alleged uncivil languge != personal attacks. The casus belli is Tonyinman's decision to allege that a user had a conflict of interest w.r.t. child sexual abuse, in furtherance of Tonyinman's desire to see an article deleted, because said user had made edits to three articles (out of the many thousands the user has edited) connected with child sexual abuse. It doesn't take more than a moments thought to be appalled at such an accusation, and it is deserving of the strongest condemnation. There are only two short threads here - the foot of talk tolkein family and the AfD, if anyone cares to get the full context. I'm not very sure what this ANI is about, beyond some form of dull retaliation for feelings hurt. My view about the despicable nature of Tonyinman's raising COI is unlikely to be changed, and I am not persuaded by Tonyinman's fallacious tone policing. --Tagishsimon (talk) 16:25, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

To correct the misrepresentation above, the edits related to cases involving the same lawyer, thus this was a reasonable query re COI. This response by the user above was unreasonable. Tonyinman (talk) 16:42, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

• I think it's relevant that the comments being referenced are specifically responding to the OP personally attacking someone, stating without evidence that they have a COI. That said, I too don't understand why Tagishsimon is this offended by it, Tony didn't actually say or imply the user had a COI regarding child sex abuse specifically, but even if he did, I'm pretty sure we all have some degree of COI in such a sensitive topic area, so I'm not sure why that accusation would be so offensive.  Swarm  {talk}  17:05, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

I reviewed the diffs. While I have no opinion regarding the substance of the underlying sourcing and content dispute, I believe it is unhelpful for Tagishsimon to engage in discussion in the fashion shown in the diffs and hope they will stop. UninvitedCompany 14:18, 16 December 2018 (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.

Disruption at WP:3RRNB

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.

---

[228] Not entirely sure what is going on but Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring is being disrupted - apparently by KimverlynMaeRAMOS. Could an admin drop by and talk a look? WCM_email 10:30, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

• I have blocked both of the editors involved in that. They've both been posting copies of the same enforcement request all over Wikipedia, not to mention their massive edit war across multiple beauty pageant articles. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:15, 17 December 2018 (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.

Kenanga.Phethai

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.

---

• Kenanga.Phethai (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This editor has been warned not one, two, but three times, by myself and Iune (talk · contribs), to not insert incorrect information (specifically, unsourced changes to storm intensities in tropical cyclone articles). The reason why I bring it up here is that the editor is simply not communicating about it, making it impossible to convey my concerns to them. A block might not be a bad idea since in my opinion, this is a rather clear-cut WP:IDHT case.--Jasper Deng (talk) 19:59, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

I gave them a 24 hour block and a notice on their talk page that they need to provide a reliable source for any change they want to make to the details of a storm. I hope this can slow them down and get them talking to their fellow editors. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:21, 17 December 2018 (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.

Help

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.

---

Dear Administrators, please help me. Once again, some Indonesia's fans had tried to change page Miss International 1976 and Indonesia at major beauty pageants. They changed placements of theirs country. If you see history of these pages, you can see it. I tried to stop but did not succeed. They are KimverlynMaeRAMOS (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), 125.164.40.163 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and others. They changed placements of theirs country. They robbed achivements of some countries and replaced with theirs contestants. If you see history of these pages in 2017, 2016, you can see it. I tried to stop but did not succeed. Last time user GorillaWarfare helped me to prevent them but now they change again. I'm so sorry because my English language skills is limited. Please help me to prevent them and consider blocking them for a long time. Nguyenquochieu2107 (talk) 6:16 , 17 December 2018 (UTC)

I've added semi-protection for three months on each article listed due to the previous sock puppetry that was confirmed to multiple users that edited these articles. A report (or follow-up report) should be filed at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations if these accounts and users are also being accused of sock puppetry as the accounts confirmed previously. I see that a report has been filed at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring; I'll head there next, examine the report and comments, and go from there as necessary... ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 10:48, 17 December 2018 (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.

Legal threat at Talk:Brian Evans (singer)

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

---

Need admin eyes on Talk:Brian Evans (singer) for a WP:NLT violation. Thanks. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 15:26, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

The threat seems clear to me, so I have issued a block. 331dot (talk) 15:32, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

It looks like the person evaded the block as 2806:10B7:1:38F0:1031:771:172:E93D (talk · contribs · WHOIS) Sakura Cartelet^Talk 19:50, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

I've blocked the /64 range. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:59, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

I also blocked the IP that was disrupting the article which seems to have prompted the legal threat in the first place. Will an admin with a better understanding of copyright please take a look at this? There appears to be a legitimate concern about the copyright status of a photo being used in the article. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 20:07, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

It's a Commons image which has been verified by a commons OTRS member. Contesting copyright on Commons-hosted images needs to be handled on Commons. --Jayron32 13:41, 18 December 2018 (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.

Need help

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 found this page after I requested a permission, and found a (new to me) link there, to what I am guessing is a MediaWiki project that I have no idea about. Apparently, 2 years ago someone was able to edit under my name at that page. It may be because I don't have a registered account at that project, but I am unsettled by finding it there. Here is the link [[229]] Thanks, in advance. Hamster Sandwich (talk) 00:48, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

May I assume that the last two edits I see at

https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Hamster_Sandwich

are from you but the first one isn't?

I see that a meta admin reverted you:

https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Grants:IdeaLab/Arbitration_Tribunal&action=history

I have alerted him to this thread:

https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ABillinghurst&type=revision&diff=18716853&oldid=18711245

Let's see what he has to say. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:13, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

TY very much! Hamster Sandwich (talk) 01:20, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

• Issue at metawiki, resolved there — billinghurst sDrewth 01:48, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

• 1) the complainant removed a user comment to a proposal in their name, that was reverted. Subsequently it would appear that the complainant had issues in a comment in their original submission. How they put it their during their submission I can only reflect is the complainant's issue. What happened to the user's account in 2016 is beyond comment and investigation. — billinghurst sDrewth 01:29, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

• (ec) Addendum. User has been advised to change their password. First step that anyone should do when they believe that there is a chance that your account has been compromised is to firstly check the email address for your account, then change your password. Use a unique, complex password, preferably of minimum of 10 characters. — billinghurst sDrewth 01:41, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

I apologize for removing the comment by another editor. I inadvertently removed that comment when I found what I thought was a vexatious comment left by a red-link "Hamster Sandwich" at the foot of an infobox of some kind. I thank billingshurst for fixing all of that up, at any rate. I can't explain the addition of material to MadiaWiki in 2016 in my "red-link" name, other to state I myself did not make it/ them. Hamster Sandwich (talk) 01:38, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Maybe a weird glitch in the software? It is plausible that someone else registered that name (who knows how long ago) and made one edit in 2016, and somehow the system didn't realize that you had already registered it in 2005. By all means change your password, in case he somehow has the same one.

In 2005 all Wikimedia sites had separate user accounts and passwords, but starting in February 2013 (completed in April 2015) the WMF forcibly renamed all clashing user accounts so that every user now had a single unified login across all Wikimedia sites. Maybe they missed one?

The fact that you could edit on meta tells me that you have unified login. Could you please check

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:CentralAuth?target=Hamster+Sandwich

And look for anything else on another wiki that you didn't post?

Finally, I don't see anything here that needs an English Wikipedia admin. Would you be so kind as to cut and paste this to your talk page and we can continue this discussion there? Just replace this entire thread with a link to where it was moved to. Or ask me and I can move it for you. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:05, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

I copied this thread and am moving it to my talk page, if anyone wants to comment there, please do so. Hamster Sandwich (talk) 05:27, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Compromised account?

A glitch in the WMF software? Maybe. But, considering the fact that a number of accounts have been compromised recently, some of them admin accounts, and considering the manner in which Hamster Sandwich returned to editing (i.e. casually asking for "The Hammer" back at WP:BN), and their very odd response to being turned down (Abrupt messages concludng with "End communication"), has anyone actually looked into the possibility that this is a compromised account? Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:20, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Let's just say I think there would be some discomfort if the banhammer was returned. However there's no red flags in relation to a compromise as far as I can see. I note that the same account made some credibly related edits on this wiki just minutes after the edit on meta. It seems to me like some issues with memory or other confusion. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 10:26, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

• It's worth noting that Hamster Sandwich was the subject of multiple impersonator accounts [1][2][3], so it's not implausible that someone may have created an impersonator account on Meta but never edited with it. Strangely, there's no account creation log entries, so it's hard to tell when exactly that would have happened. Anyways, here's another strange thing: according to SUL, Hamster Sandwich on Meta was attached to the global account way back in 2009, because it was already "confirmed by password". This would seem to suggest that Hamster Sandwich (or someone else) had already logged in to Meta using their actual enwiki username and password at some point prior to that, as opposed to it being an unconnected local account that got merged by mistake. I find it too hard to believe that an unrelated person tried to log in to a Meta account by the same name that they created a decade earlier and never used, and was able to successfully log in post-SUL centralization due to a technical error. And digging back into their old school contributions, I do get the distinct impression that we're talking to the same eccentric individual who's always been behind the account. Perhaps they just forgot, or perhaps it was the "skeevy hacker kid" who hacked their account in 2016 just to do something esoteric at Meta, as they speculate on their talk page. Either way, unless their account has been compromised for the better part of the past decade, their assertion that they have never been aware of Meta seems unlikely.  Swarm  {talk}  17:43, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

• And this editor used to be an admin? Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:43, 16 December 2018 (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.

edit delete request

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 edit of Oregon Trail made by Alskdjfalksjdfklajskl today probably needs to be deleted. The edit made the article so large that my browser was unable to load the diff, forcing me to make a blank edit of the previous version in order to restore the article. I imagine that anyone else trying to view that diff will run into similar technical difficulties. Sario528 (talk) 18:13, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Yea,  Done. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 18:32, 18 December 2018 (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.

Urgent WP:USERNAME violation

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

---

The user thekikekillerlmao (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was recently created, which is blatantly offensive, needs to be blocked. IWI (chat) 19:15, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

User:ImprovedWikiImprovment Please post on Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention Hasn't made any vandalism so far, only edit is gibberish post on his own talk page. --DBigXrayᗙ 19:19, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

It's already been blocked now, the fact that you would support this account not being blocked is in fact ridiculous. For the record, I did but that name is very offensive and so was urgent. IWI (chat) 19:21, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Facepalm where did I support this account not being blocked Just pointed that UAA is the right venue and there is no real urgency for ANI here. regards. --DBigXrayᗙ 19:23, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Okay. Let's not waste any more time on a closed matter :). IWI (chat) 19:24, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

• Cheers User:ImprovedWikiImprovment ! --DBigXrayᗙ 19:25, 18 December 2018 (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.

Operation Storm

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Storm User Peacemaker67 write falsehoods, in other battles in wikipedias in the score "results" does not write such nonsense. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Operation_Storm&action=history — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.1.163.218 (talk) 02:35, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

• World War I rages on, apparently. EEng 02:41, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

• Sadly, yes it does... Along with WWII and the Yugoslav Wars. This from the editor that wrote in an edit summary "Peacemaker67 is Serbian for Australia he writes falsehoods block him", who was edit-warring to change the language template from Serbo-Croat to Croatian, despite both Serbs and Croats being affected by the offensive, and also deleting information in the infobox regarding the exodus of Serb refugees and massacres of Serbs. Over the years I've regularly been "accused" of being a Croat by Serbs, and a Serb by Croats. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:49, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Like the Bible says: bludgeoned are the peacemakers. EEng 15:13, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

• I blocked the IP for a week. No need to spend any more time on this user's disruptive editing. NW (Talk) 03:08, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Look at any battle on the wikipedia and "results" do not write such nonsense than what is Serbian propaganda.Block Peacemaker67 and clear Serbian propaganda and return it properly — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.1.163.218 (talk) 03:00, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

The takeaway message from this thread is that we are very fortunate to have such an outstanding editor as Peacemaker67 working on the topic area of warfare in the Balkans. This editor is well-informed, neutral, highly experienced and fully committed to this encyclopedia and its policies and guidelines. Thank you. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:05, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

You are very kind. I try. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:07, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

@Peacemaker67: I want to give a note here. The IP comes from Croatia, which has a history of right-wing and anti-Serbian bias. Croatian Wikipedia will give more information about it. INeedSupport^{(Care free to give me support?)} 05:28, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

@INeedSupport:This is something of a generalisation. What are you suggesting should be done? Deb (talk) 08:37, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

@Deb: The situation involving Croatian IP making disruptive edits are usually rare. However, in situations that it does happen, like 1991 protest in Split and 1991 riot in Zadar, I would recommend semi-protecting the articles. Semi-protecting articles is sufficient to stop disruptive edits for an decent period of time. It would appear that any events relating to the Croatian War of Independence would have situations like those. INeedSupport^{(Care free to give me support?)} 17:43, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Putting my admin hat on for a sec, I don't think the disruption on these articles justifies long-term semi-protection. There can be short bursts of higher-level disruption, but they are generally best dealt with by short periods of semi IMO. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:47, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Long-term abuse and reversions without cause by User:Nightscream

• Unfulfilled (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Nightscream (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• SanAnMan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User:Nightscream continues as he has demonstrated in the past to abuse me in comments and treat me like my edits are worthless. He has blindly reverted constant revisions which I have made in good faith in an effort to remove repeated wikilinks as per WP:DUPLINK as well as remove identical verbatim language in the top and body of the article Unfulfilled. He has clearly stated on his talk page that he believes any edit I perform is "writing grammatically incoherent sentences or employing redundant wording as you seem to be doing" and "All you're doing by fighting me ensuring the same illiterate, incoherently written gibberish of hit-or-miss clarity that tends to pass for content". His reverts on this article in question are definitely a violation of WP:3RR at the least and even borderline on ownership, but the warnings I left him on his talk page were dismissed with the rude comment: "You have jack shit in the way of authority to give "sole warnings" for anything.". This is just the tip of the iceberg. As a matter of full disclosure, these abuse comments were to the ANI board but with no actions taken. Nightscream is an editor that is, quite frankly, a cancer on this site. Nightscream has incident after incident after incident after incident (and there are more) of personal attacks, ownership of pages, and that most recent incident was even noted that Nightscream was on "final warning basis". I honestly believe that the fact that this user was at one time an administrator has given him a very long leash, but there has to be a line finally drawn here. Nightscream has shown over a long period of time that he continues to attack people who he feels cannot stand up to him, and the fact that he continues to repeat time and time again the same habit patterns proves he is no longer an asset to the community. - SanAnMan (talk) 03:01, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Because there is an ongoing discussion at Talk:Unfulfilled, which involved a number of false claims and questionable behavior by SanAnMan, and since I hadn't responded to the last message that I wanted to, I will compose my response there, hopefully on Dec 10 (daytime), and then see if I can post a note here after I've done so. Nightscream (talk) 05:39, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

SanAndMan has continued to revert unsourced and poorly sourced material back into the article. To be fair, it'as not all his fault: the MoS for plot items encourages original research, which is a bit of an issue. Guy (Help!) 23:05, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Discussion moved from Talk:Unfulfilled

I have moved the entirety of an inappropriate discussion from Talk:Unfulfilled, below. The discussion is about editor behavior, not really about improving the article. Softlavender (talk) 02:56, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi.

Yesterday, Dec 5, about five and a half hours before the premiere of this episode, I began the preliminary article for that episode, which I've observed for some time is standard practice among those editors here who edit the South Park episode articles. The basic plot was supported by a press release, and more citations always follow after an episode airs.

Four hours later (just an hour and a half before the episode aired), User:SanAnMan, reverted it back to the redirect to the Season article that it was before I did this, using the rationale that that the episode "has not aired."

This would mean that User:SanAnMan is not only unfamiliar with standard episode article practices among the editing community here, as with WP:CRYSTAL, which states that articles on future events can be created if the event "is notable and almost certain to take place." It also would mean that User:SanAnMan has never come across an article for a future film, novel, album, television episode, etc. If he were a newbie, this would not have caught much of my attention, but User:SanAnMan has been editing here since 2011. Have you never come across articles on future subjects, SanAnMan?

This may suggest that he simply wanted to blank what I wrote out of spite, which is merely tendentious editing. The evidence for this lies in the fact that himself has in the past changed redirects into preliminary episode articles. In this edit, for example, he did this with the article for the episode "White People Renovating Houses", with the edit summary "add preliminary details for the episode based on press release", which is the exact same thing I did. Ditto for the prelim article for "Hummels & Heroin", which he created on the basis of the press release.

For other articles, like the one for "Franchise Prequel", he made edits to the prelim article, a consistent indication that he had no problem with them.

I would like to address SanAnMan directly by asking him why he did this. RationalAndLiterate (talk) 17:28, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

@RationalAndLiterate: Simple. I, and other editors on this project, have agreed that one press release is no longer sufficient information for the basis of a full article creation. It's just not enough details. This has been our process now since this season began, so yes, it may have been done differently in the past, but just because that's the way it always was doesn't mean that's the way it always should be. There was no spite in the reversion, just an agreement between myself and the other editors who regularly create/edit these episode articles to not actually create the article itself until it actually airs. I would appreciate it if you assume good faith rather than claiming that I was editing out of spite. Thank you. - SanAnMan (talk) 17:51, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Okay. Please show me the talk page where this discussion took place, and/ which other editors agreed to this. RationalAndLiterate (talk) 20:23, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

It's in the edit summaries of previous articles done this season. In addition, WP:CRYSTAL which you referenced states "It is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur, if discussion is properly referenced." One press release does not meet that requirement. Also, MOS:TV states "Articles should be verifiable and establish notability", and one press release does not meet notability requirements as it fails WP:DEPTH. See also WP:DELAY also for further discussion on this. I appreciate your view on this matter, but this is how myself, User:Nightscream, User:SNUGGUMS, and the other regular editors of these articles have been doing the process. Don't be so offended that your edit was reverted. - SanAnMan (talk) 21:01, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

I looked through the edit histories of the early season episodes, and in addition to not seeing any talk page discussions on the topic you mention, I see no edit summaries pertaining to this either. Can you please point them out to me? Thanks. RationalAndLiterate (talk) 21:29, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

A press release indeed isn't enough on its own for a page. WP:GNG states that subjects need to be covered by multiple independent sources (not closely affiliated with it) to warrant one. This means nothing from Matt Stone, Trey Parker, Comedy Central, or anyone/anything else with known connections to the show. I'm not saying you can't use their comments within the article at all, only that you need more than them for an article to be worth keeping around. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 21:19, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Presentation of evidence by Nightscream

Wow, SanAnMan. I mean really…WOW.

Lot to unpack here. But man, I can’t believe you just fabricated a discussion that never took place, and even falsely claimed that I was somehow in agreement with you on this imaginary discussion of yours. I’ll give you this: You have gall. Let me see if I can address the simplest points, and then move onto the more nuanced ones that require more depth.

• No, there was no "process" that I was party to regarding your senseless revert, so your attempt to name me when citing this “process” is simply a lie on your part.
• No, discussions do not take place in edit summaries. They take place on talk pages, and as was mentioned above, there was no discussion on the talk pages of any early season episode, nor on the season talk page, nor on the series talk page. Indeed, how would such a discussion occur in edit summaries? This claim by you is patently absurd, and you know it. Even if we were to be generous and grant for this possibility, there are no edit summaries in any of the early season episode articles that indicate that any consensus was reached not to begin preliminary articles a day before an episode airs, much less an hour two, with a press release, or even with no citations at all. How do you explain this? You were asked above about this, and you went silent. Why is that? Please, by all means, tell me.
• No, you did not revert the article because of the reliability of press releases, or any "process" to that effect. You reverted it, according to your edit summary, because the episode hadn't aired yet. When you consider:

-that you did this about an hour an half before the episode before the episode premiered

-the fact that others like myself have begun preliminary episode articles shortly before airtime before, all without a peep from you

-and the fact that Wikipedia is filled with articles on future, films, novels, television shows, Olympics, etc.,

...this makes the mendacious nature of this rationale of yours all the more transparent.

Even if you suddenly believed that articles on not-yet-premiered episodes could not be created on the basis of press releases, this ignores the fact that you yourself created the first redirect of the page by citing in your edit summary---You guessed it---the press release. Granted, this was a redirect, not the article proper. But why would you even bother citing the press release, when redirects generally do not require citations at all? The fact that you decided that it did need a citation, and that you cited the press release, is yet another nail in the coffin of your excuse-making.

Press releases, and deletion/blanking

Since we're on the subject, let's address the claim by you and SNUGGUMS "A press release indeed isn't enough on its own for a page." All things being equal, I agree. But here is where the nuance of the general practices of the editing community, including those of the editors of the South Park articles, and Wikipedia's leanings come in:

Wikipedia leans toward inclusion. Outside of obvious vandalism or defamation, it tends to dislike blanking substantial content, even uncited content (and that includes entire articles that are uncited), without giving some opportunity for sources to be found for material. This is why some prescribe the use of fact tags, or citation tags, to be placed at the end of uncited material, especially if it appears that the material may be of value, in order to give the editing community time to find sources, and/or the move of that material to article's talk page. I just recently did this with large swaths of material in the Bill Gaines talk page.

With respect to article that lack citations entirely, a good clue for Wikipedia's attitudes is its deletion policy. Aside from those articles that are speedily deleted (again, for a narrow range of rationales like obvious nonsense, vandalism, defamation), Wikipedia prescribes that when all other alternatives are not viable, that the following tag {{subst:proposed deletion|REASON}} be used to propose deletion, and that if no one opposes it, the article is deleted after a week. If someone does oppose deletion and removes the tag, then the article can be nominated for deletion. All of this indicates that articles with content in them are generally not deleted/removed even if they lack sources entirely.

Moreover, WP:PSTS and WP:SELFPUB, which are the relevant policies/guidelines that make a press release less desired than a secondary source, do not say that primary sources or self-published sources cannot be used. They merely say that in those instances in which they are used, they must be used with care, and that articles should not be supported primarily by them. Indeed, the most recent time I myself created the preliminary article (albeit post-airing) was for the article on "Buddha Box", the episode just prior to this, which also was initially supported solely by the press release.

We know that reviews for episodes begin appearing on the Web within a day or two of an episode's airing, and I was one of the editors who in 2011 and 2012, began adding multiple reviews to articles right after they were published, beginning with episodes like "The Poor Kid" ([230],[231]) and "Reverse Cowgirl" ([232]), an initiative we began after some in the editing community had begun expressing (including Jimmy Wales himself) that episodes did not have automatic notability without secondary sources.

Thus, for an article on an episode of South Park, supported by the press release for that episode, to be reverted back to a redirect an hour and a half before it premieres, using the rationale that "Oh, it hasn't aired yet", by someone who not only knows that secondary sources tend to be added to the article a day or two after it premieres, but who has himself added those very sources is, to put it mildly, wildly absurd.

And no, WP:DELAY offers nothing to bolster your rationale. The language of that guideline clearly indicates that it pertains solely to subjects whose future notability is unclear. Again, this obviously does not apply to these episode articles, which always generate secondary sources in the form of reviews and other production info, which are always added to the articles as part of standard practice. Do you deny this?

Thus, it is reasonable to conclude form this evidence/reasoning that your revert was exactly what it appeared to be: An completely arbitrary act on your part more likely to have been motivated by WP:OWN-type tendencies, rather than careful adherence to policy, or general practices among the editing community. How do we know this? Because you do it all the time.

SanAnMan's history of problematic edits

For example, you removed an Oxford comma from the "Buddha Box", claiming MOS:COMMA as your rationale. But as it was pointed out to you when it was restored, MOS:COMMA says nothing about removing Oxford commas. In fact, it says the exact opposite: That they may indeed be used, as long as they are used consistently. Since I wrote that synopsis, and since I do indeed use them consistently, in what way does MOS:COMMA justify you’re removing it? You then removed it again, and in your edit summary, rather than explaining how MOS:COMMA actually supported your position, you abandoned that rationale, and leap-frogged onto a new one, explaining "But we are not using oxford commas in these or any other South Park article."

Oh really?

Excuse me, SanAnMan, but who are exactly are you to decide whether the entire editing community uses Oxford commas in that article or any other one, especially given the fact that you’re not the one who typically writes the episode synopses? I've been editing the South Park articles for several years, and neither I nor any other of the editors I've collaborated with here have ever formed any resolution about Oxford commas and keep in mind that I'm largely responsible for much of the standard format exhibit of these articles, from the regular creation of the Critical reception that was crucial to establishing notability for the episode articles, ([233],[234],[235]) to the banner at the top of the talk pages that I wrote. Despite this, you claim unilateral authority to tell others which types of commas we use, even on synopses that you did not write yourself?

This is textbook WP:OWN-type behavior.

This was not the first example of this behavior, or the last. I’ve been reverting arbitrary edits by you ever since you started regularly editing South Park articles. The most recent edits of this nature have been to this article. The utter inanity of the reasoning you employ to justify these edits is astounding, as it the sheer frequency with which you employ it. Here are some samples:

1. You removed the South Park Studios press release that establishes the basic plot of the episode from the Lead to the External links section. By itself, this is not a huge problem, but you explain this edit by saying, "Per WP:EL biased sites with conflicts of interest should not be used as cites". But WP:EL doesn’t say anything about conflicts of interest, or biases, or for that matter, which sources should be used as citations! That's because WP:EL doesn't deal with citations. It deals with links in the External links section. Moreover, there is no "conflict of interest". A conflict of interest is one in which the aims or interests of the source threaten the objectivity or accuracy of the information in question. The idea that South Park Studios cannot provide accurate info about one of their own episodes is ridiculous. While the eventual move of the press release from the Lead to EL is not a problem, the fact you provide these rationales for it shows that you lack ability to form coherent reasoning, or sound judgment.

1. In the next edit, you changed the location of the word “however” in a sentence. You offered no explanation for why this was necessary. It was simply arbitrary. And in the same edit, you also removed expositional material from an article explaining that a character is a child. Wikipedia is not a fan site. It is written for the general reader, which means it must be written with the assumption that a reader is among the uninitiated, and may not be familiar with these characters. This why we have something called exposition. Do you understand what that is?
2. You then removed material on one of the major points of parody in the episode from the Lead, saying in your summary, "fine, if you want it listed in the top, then it doesn't need to be repeated, word-for-word, with identical wikilinks (not needed per WP:OVERLINK), in the bod". But WP:OVERLINK only pertains to repeated wikilinks. Not to the wording of the Lead summary. I explained to you in my revert "Yes, the Lead DOES repeat some material from the article body. This because the purpose of the Lead is to summarize the salient points of the article, which by necessity, involves repetition, and which makes obscuring the point of parody in the body inane." I did not revert the wikilink, since I didn't disagree with your citation of OVERLINK for that, but you then you reverted it yet again, now stating "WP:OVERLINK and MOS guides clearly state to avoid repeating details." This is false. Both the Lead and the Infobox necessarily repeat information in the article body by definition. There is no MOS guideline that says otherwise. If there had been, you would've cited it explicitly in the edit summary, but you didn't.
3. You then began split hairs over the fact that Jeff Bezos is depicted in the episode as one of the alien Talosians from the Star Trek pilot "The Cage," by arguing that he has a cleft in the back of his head that even reviews mention. So what? This is trivia. It does not have to be included in order for the description to be generally true, which it is. Articles do not have to mention every trivial detail. They only have summarize the salient information on the subject. The fact that the show depicted him as a Talosian is salient, because it's one of the major pop culture references in the story. His occipital cleft is not. If there were a naturalistic part of the article where it bore mentioning, that would be fine. But nothing about these passages requires it, and shoe-horning it in there is just officious, tendentious hair-splitting that results in bad writing. And yet, you continue to engage in arbitrary edits and without any consistency: with your next revert, you removed the point of parody from the Synopsis entirely. Why ON EARTH would you do that? You removed a point of parody from the synopsis of a parody TV episode? Even though you previously said that were you okay with it being in both the Lead and the Synopsis? This is not different "wording". This is you harming a Wikipedia article by removing content without a valid rationale, and pretending in your edit summary that somehow it's the other guy who's displaying WP:OWN-type behavior. After you changed the article to state that Bezos' depiction was merely "similar" to the Talosians, another editor, JzG, reverted that, saying he viewed your insistence on mere "similarity" as OR on your part. So now two editors disagreed with your edits, yet you continued to revert, again emphasizing whether the two passages repeated "word-for-word", when nothing in Wikipedia policy, guidelines or MOS precludes this. So you are now reverting two other editors who disagree with you, which is clearly grounds for blocking, yet you're accusing others of WP:OWN behavior?
4. You then claimed in your next revert that "WP:3RR and ownership clearly demonstrated" on my part. And yet somehow, you exempt yourself from that charge, even though you were reverting yourself. Why is this?

I have no problem with edits made to my work, or even reverts, when they are done competently, by people who understand not only Wikipedia policy, but the essentials of good writing. Your own writing, from your vocabulary to your overall skills at composition, SanAnMan, ranges from subpar to awful. When an robot accidentally injures an employee in a warehouse you express by saying that the worker got "caught up in the automated mechanics of the plant." Caught up in the automated mechanics? This makes it sound as if he was engrossed in a technical manual. When describing how the establishment of a fulfillment center destroys local jobs or leads to business closures, you describe this by saying, "The new center is quickly taking over the jobs of many people in town". When one business displaces others, it does not "take over" jobs. There are lots of ways to express this, from "destroying jobs" or "leads to businesses closing", etc. When you added critical reception info to the article, half of what you wrote about John Hugar of The A.V. Club's reaction was simply a restatement of the plot. You're not the first person with a lower level of literacy than I to make edits to Wikipedia. But you take the prize for being the first one who insists upon his edits as if they are equal to or somehow superior to those of people who write well.

Despite all this, you reported me to ANI. Not surprisingly, your complaint consisted almost entirely of complaining about past incidents. I find it particularly amusing that you were so indiscriminate with the links you provided to these flaps, even going so far as to include my conflict with serial policy violator Alan Sohn, whose rap sheet at ANI is longer than the Great Wall of China. You also lied when you made the false claim, "He has clearly stated on his talk page that he believes any edit I perform is 'writing grammatically incoherent sentences or employing redundant wording." In fact, not only have I never said that "any" of your edits amounted to this, not only have I gone on record as saying that many editors, including yourself, make many positive edits to articles, but I did this in the very comment you linked to, when I said, "Why don't you try letting someone who knows how to write a sentence, and for that matter, a decent story synopsis, just do his thing, and make those little tweaks that you do pretty well?"

You are not admin, yet you presume to tells others that this is their "only" warning for this or that. Newsflash: You're not an admin, and have zero authority to tell anyone that you're giving them "only" one waring for anything.

Please falsify this

If you can falsify any of what I've presented here, then please answer the following:

1. What is your basis for the claim that editor consensus can occur in edit summaries, as opposed to talk pages?
2. Where are the edit summaries that you claimed resolved to exclude press releases for even preliminary articles in the beginning of the season?
3. Why did you not provide these edit summaries when you asked for them earlier?
4. Why did you claim that I was part of the "process" that arrived at this resolution?
5. Why did you cite the press release when you created the redirect for this episode, which was not an episode from early in the season?
6. Why did you offer no objection when JE98 created the preliminary article for "Time to Get Cereal", PRIOR to that episode’s airing, also supported solely by the press release?
7. Are you aware that articles lacking sources for notability can stay up for a week after a nomination being nominated, and if so, why would you think it so imperative to blank/revert a preliminary article for a South Park episode just hours before it airs, when you know that secondary sources will be added within a day or two?
8. Given that you’ve been editing South Park articles for less time than I have, and that I’m responsible for much of the standard formatting and practices governing their editing, what is your basis for your claim "But we are not using oxford commas in these or any other South Park article."
9. Please tell me why your preferred placement of the word “however” in this edit is superior to the way I wrote it. What policy, guideline or principle of good writing do you cite for this?
10. Why did you claim that 3RR and WP:OWN behavior were established on my part, but not your own, given that you performed the same reverts?
11. Do you really believe non-admins have the authority to issue “sole” warnings for anything?

Summary

So what do we have here?

• You don't write well, and you constantly make arbitrary changes that are not supported by policy or by basics of good writing, and reject correction by others.
• You often don't cite any rationale for these edits, and when you do, you frequently misrepresent the various policies and guidelines that you cite. You even fabricate "agreements" with other editors that never took place. When called on this lie, you double down on that lie with another lie, claiming that it took place in edit summaries (which you are unable to provide), and even cite as one of the other editors who "agrees" with you someone who has never discussed the matter with you, and most certainly does not agree with you.
• When told the policies or MOS guidelines you cite do not support your claims, you revert anyway, fabricating more false rationales.
• You revert even after multiple editors revert your edits, which is not permitted by Wikipedia policy, and is a blockable offense.
• You display clear WP:OWN-type behavior, by claiming unilateral authority "we" are not doing this or "we" are not doing that, but you instead accuse your opponent of this.
• You accuse your opponent of 3RR violation, but exempt yourself, despite revering yourself.
• You are not admin, yet you presume to portray yourself as having the powers of one.

Going forward

Prior to your complaint and ANI, your "only warning" nonsense and the reverts you made to the article around the same time, I was hoping I could reach you. Contrary to what you may think, I really have nothing against you, and I dislike this sort of conflict. A couple of years ago I made a point of trying to reduce my interaction with others here because of such conflict, but when someone who routinely violates policy, who shows lack of basic writing skills, and seems to exhibit a malignant narcissism by rejecting the judgement of others out of hand starts insisting on editing the same articles as me this is no longer possible. A few years ago, an editor named Asgardian terrorized the editors on comics-related articles for about two and a half years. Since no one else would draw a line in the sand with him, it fell to me to spearhead the initiative to get him banned from Wikipedia. It didn't end well for him. I'll be alerting others to the evidence I've laid out on this page, and request their comment.

In the meantime, I implore you to consider what I've said here, and take a good look at the behavior you've exhibited in the edits and diffs shown here. If you really want to collaborate with me and others here, I urge you to reconsider the course that you're on. Doing so will go a long way to impress those who may come here to evaluate this matter. I want to believe that it's possible for anyone who really wants to be a good editor to learn to adhere to the policies and guidelines the community on this site has prescribed for improving it, but you've been here for seven years, and given your conduct, I don't know if I'm being naive. Nightscream (talk) 02:07, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

I’m going out of town for a few days. I’ll address this steaming pile when I return. - SanAnMan (talk) 02:46, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Holy wall of text, Batman! Way to guarantee nothing happens with this complaint. 207.38.146.86 (talk) 11:32, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, especially if you're too lazy to read all the relevant evidence. I know sometimes these evidence presentations and discussions can be a slog, but honestly, I will never understand why those who aren't willing to roll up their sleeves and do the work set themselves up here as the arbiters of such problems. If you're not willing to look at the evidence, then why come here to ANI??

If it helps, the behavior is summarized at the bottom of my evidence. Look for the text that reads "So what do we have here?" You can then read the explanations and diffs in the upper sections if you like. Nightscream (talk) 16:18, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) We may be willing to "roll up our sleeves", but you sure could make it easier by trimming it down. We're all volunteers here, none of us particularly desire to read 10 pages of text. WP:WALLOFTEXT might be a worthy read. -A lad insane (Channel 2) 17:25, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

There certainly is a lot going on here. I would want to see a response from SanAnMan before commenting. BOZ (talk) 14:55, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

 Administrator note @Nightscream and SanAnMan: Please keep comments concise. Walls of text are disruptive. An appropriate format would be:

• Brief description of problem (e.g. User:X is exhibiting OWNership behaviors)
• Violation 1: [diff][diff] (i.e. specific points of policy violation, with diffs for immediate proof)
• Violation 2: [diff][diff][diff][diff]
• Violation 3: [diff][diff][diff]
• Proposed remedy, sanction, or specific request for admin action.

That's it. That's literally all we need. I actually did take the time to read Nightscream's massive wall of text, and I'm not sure what to do with it or why I read it. None of the complaints laid out are immediately actionable. Nightscream, you can't just dump all that out and say "deal with this". The only thing you should have written out is the summary section, with diffs attached, and a requested solution from administrators or the community. SanAnMan, do not respond with an equal wall of text. We get it, you two do not get along; we do not need to see another massive wall of text refuting everything Nightscream said point-by-point. What you both need to do is start over. Fundamentally, you're both accusing each other of reverting without cause, which is primarily an WP:OWN issue. Bold editing is encouraged as a matter of policy, and obstructing it without sufficient policy reasoning is a serious offense. Edit warring gets handled at WP:AN3, not here and from what I can tell, all the other specific accusations are fairly minor in comparison. We don't need essays on why a revert is wrong, if it's actually inappropriate, the diff will speak for itself. Lastly, avoid personal commentary, terms like "cancer" or "steaming pile" are inappropriate and will be met with blocks if they continue. Talk to the third parties who will be reviewing these issues, not each other.  Swarm  {talk}  13:46, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Okay. That may work for some of the offenses in question. But how I would establish that he made deliberately deceptive statements without the evidence that illustrates the deception? Nightscream (talk) 16:44, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Concise summary

Per Swarm's suggestion above, I'll try to compose a concise, itemized list of the offenses in question, at least the ones that can be so summarized. Nightscream (talk) 23:10, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Rebuttal by SanAnMan

First of all, I would like to express appreciation for those following this for the delay in my response. As I briefly stated earlier, I was out of town on a planned family trip, and had hardly any time to properly compose a response to this conversation. In addition, I felt that a cool down time would benefit all involved. I would also like to apologize for my improper language used in the original complaint and my response of my delay, I realize this was inappropriate, and I can only chalk it up to frustration with this situation.

Secondly, as User:207.38.146.86 so vividly stated, holy wall of text, Batman! This is a lot to read through. It's almost as if User:Nightscream is trying to defend his position using whatever methods he can in this case.

I was going to respond point-by-point to Nightscream's accusations here, but since User:Swarm has asked that I not do so, I will comply with his wishes and do my best to keep this as short and sweet as possible and hit the high points of Nightsceam's issues. I completely agree that there is no need to answer or address all of his point-by-point minutia nor do I feel the need to answer his questionnaire, especially since, as Swarm has stated, "None of the complaints laid out are immediately actionable."

• Description of problem: Nightscream is exhibiting WP:OWN, WP:WikiBullying, WP:AAEW and WP:THREATENs.
  

• Example 1: WP:WikiBullying as exhibited above by Nightscream's statements:

"I have no problem with edits made to my work, or even reverts, when they are done competently, by people who understand not only Wikipedia policy, but the essentials of good writing. Your own writing, from your vocabulary to your overall skills at composition, SanAnMan, ranges from subpar to awful."

"You're not the first person with a lower level of literacy than I to make edits to Wikipedia. But you take the prize for being the first one who insists upon his edits as if they are equal to or somehow superior to those of people who write well."

"You don't write well, and you constantly make arbitrary changes that are not supported by policy or by basics of good writing"

"but when someone who routinely violates policy, who shows lack of basic writing skills, and seems to exhibit a malignant narcissism by rejecting the judgement of others out of hand starts insisting on editing the same articles as me this is no longer possible."

"In fact, not only have I never said that "any" of your edits amounted to this, not only have I gone on record as saying that many editors, including yourself, make many positive edits to articles, but I did this in the very comment you linked to, when I said, "Why don't you try letting someone who knows how to write a sentence, and for that matter, a decent story synopsis, just do his thing, and make those little tweaks that you do pretty well?""

Not only are these statements a violation of the WikiBullying policy, but they are also examples of just about every section listed in WP:AAEW including WP:ACCUSE, WP:IMADEIT, WP:EMPOWER, WP:MOREX and many others.

• Example 2: WP:THREATEN as exhibited above by Nightscream's statement:

"A few years ago, an editor named Asgardian terrorized the editors on comics-related articles for about two and a half years. Since no one else would draw a line in the sand with him, it fell to me to spearhead the initiative to get him banned from Wikipedia. It didn't end well for him. I'll be alerting others to the evidence I've laid out on this page, and request their comment."

In my opinion, this is a thinly-veiled statement that basically says "I am going to get you blocked or banned", and I consider this yet another personal attack.

• Example 3: WP:OWN by constant reversion of edits that re-added WP:DUPLINKs on the article Unfulfilled: [236] [237] [238]. Nightscream has claimed in his statement above "I did not revert the wikilink, since I didn't disagree with your citation of OVERLINK for that", but this is clearly false.

• Example 4: WP:NPA by way of multiple false accusations as exhibited above by Nighscream's statements. I do not feel the need to re-quote these again, the evidence is laid out in the wall of text.

• Proposed: Sanctions of Nightscream to be determined by administrators.

Nightscream has an extremely long block log not to mention the fact that his admin rights were revoked due to misuse of admin tools, content dispute, ownership and 3RR violations. He has had multiple discussions regarding him on the ANI boards about his tone, his edit warring and his attacks on other editors. His most recent block (just one month ago, I might add) included the following statement by User:Oshwah: "The user is on a final warning basis, and any further behavior that violates Wikipedia's civility policies or Wikipedia's policy disallowing personal attacks will be met with a block. Given Nightscream's history and their block record over this issue, a final warning basis is appropriate and fair, and should not come as a surprise to Nightscream should problems continue and administrative action is taken."

In my opinion, I have clearly demonstrated that Nightscream is an editor with long-term and ongoing issues with other editors and is now attacking me. His attempts at WikiBullying and use of personal attacks should be treated with the highest regard. - SanAnMan (talk) 21:04, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

• So, that's your concise reply? I think you neglected to mention that time Nightscream was warned for spitting on the sidewalk. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:53, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Persistent IP vandal

• 219.153.241.123 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 219.153.240.104 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 113.249.18.0 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 113.249.16.54 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 106.88.215.58 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 106.91.106.225 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 113.249.16.254 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 14.106.223.74 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 106.81.33.219 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 106.80.109.183 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 106.80.104.141 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 106.88.214.248 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 113.249.22.246 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 113.249.17.152 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 14.110.208.81 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

For months there have been a slew of vandalizing IPs targeting articles such as Bria Vinaite, Katherine Langford, and Thomas Quasthoff. Apparently everyone is a circus performer and has phocomelia according to them. They are all coming from Chongqing and reappear like whack-a-mole even if blocked or as soon as the protection is lifted. Is a range block an option here? Or can we at least semi-protect the targeted pages for, say, six months? (Semi-protection has proven effective but only for that period.) Not sure what the protocol is for this kind of attack but it's been getting tiresome to revert one after another. (cc @Luk, Alexf, and Callanecc: who have blocked some of the most recent IPs.) Nardog (talk) 00:57, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

@Nardog: Probably best posting at WP:AIV or WP:SPI as well. IWI (chat) 13:55, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Here's another one already: 123.147.246.87 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

@ImprovedWikiImprovment: Thanks, I did report the then-latest IP at WP:AIV, but that page doesn't seem fit for long-term abuses like this. Will try WP:SPI. Nardog (talk) 19:59, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

This probably is the right place. The problem being these are some huge and varied ranges. It's possible an edit filter might be able to target them, in which case, WP:EFR. In cases like this it's always best to collect together as many examples as possible (whether SPI, LTA, a user subpage or elsewhere). -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 20:05, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

I'm not good with edit filters, I tried playing a bit with

!("confirmed" in user_groups) &
article_namespace == 0 &
action == 'edit' &
(new_wikitext rlike "Category:American circus performers" |
new_wikitext rlike "Category:People with dwarfism" |
new_wikitext rlike "Category:Category:People with gigantism" |
new_wikitext rlike "Category:Circus performers" |
new_wikitext rlike "Category:People with phocomelia")

but I fear it might be a bit too broad. What do you think @Zzuuzz:? -- Luk ^talk 18:10, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi Luk :) I blocked 219.153.240.104/23 earlier today for a week. (I notice you blocked some a bit a wider and longer which should also be fine). I was thinking we could probably target the addition of the particular categories by particular IP ranges. In my experience these ranges are typically like /13 in size and there can be a few of them, which is something the edit filter can handle quite nicely if we can get together a list of them. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 19:17, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Ok, I think Special:AbuseFilter/950 would do the job. Can someone double check if I did correctly and set it to disallow? -- Luk ^talk 22:34, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

I've had a tweak, and we should be good to go for log-only for now. I do note there seems to be some other vandalism coming from this user and these ranges, but certainly the category stuff is what I've been seeing more recently. Depending on how it goes I fear we might need to mix in a few more rangeblocks. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 23:44, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Reporting a disruptive 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.

---

I would like to report Ronz for consistently reverting edits on Art_of_Living_Foundation. They have made 6.63% of the edits on : https://tools.wmflabs.org/sigma/usersearch.py?name=Ronz&page=Art_of_Living_Foundation&server=enwiki&max=, where the user has mostly reverted other's contributions. While Ronz has spent a lot of time and effort adding and fixing the criticisms section on the article, no effort has been made to improve the main sections of the article. These edits reflect an unconscious bias and/or agenda. These actions have consistently blocked other editors and deterring contribution, resulting in a very poor quality article. I would encourage the administrators to review the edits made by the user since 2009, despite suggestions otherwise from other members on the talk page Talk:Art_of_Living_Foundation. Ronz has even blocked my simple edits such as moving the sections to better highlight the relevant portions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.212.127.68 (talk) 01:27, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Over 50% of your edits are to the article so please do not use statistics try to an indicate anything. You have presented no evidence to support any kind of bias. Also you have not informed Ronz of this thread. MarnetteD|Talk 01:32, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Please see continued discussion about why certain information must be added to the page - Talk:Art_of_Living_Foundation. The User talk:Ronz has consistently blocked these changes since 2009. User has in fact made counter-allegations that the article is being used for publicity / promotion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.245.186.73 (talk) 02:40, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

I saw this and informed Ronz of the discussion since the anon seems to have forgotten (or not noticed) to give Ronz a notice. Sakura Cartelet^Talk 01:34, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

• ANI is not for resolving content disputes. शिव साहिल/Shiv Sahil (talk) 03:01, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
• Please consider this issue for Wikipedia:Tendentious editing by User talk:Ronz 71.245.186.73 (talk) 03:32, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
• I don't see any problems with a single edit Ronz has made to the article, on the contrary, most of the "improvements" to the article made by the above two IP editors, the main complainants here, are highly promotional in nature and sourced only to highly promotional and unreliable sources. Furthermore, it isn't even Ronz who is doing most of the reverting, I can see many reversions by a number of editors dating back to September or earlier, Ronz is merely one of those people. This discussion seems to have been started in a vexatious manner, and the proposed changes to the article should be discussed and explained on the article talk page. I see no reason to keep this discussion open any longer, as its premise is verifiably not true. --Jayron32 13:39, 18 December 2018 (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:DONTGETIT at Kenshō

A new account, User:Karma Dechen Lhamo, is adding controversial "ionformation" at Kenshō. Despite Talk:Kenshō#Jiyu-Kennett and Dzogchen Edits and multiple warnings, they continue to push their preferred edits. See especially their last edit, which negates the existence of duplicate info, negates WP:RS, negates WP:UNDUE, re-inserts unsourced info, restores WP:SYNTHESIS, and removes source-tags. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:26, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
Forgot to mention the repeated blanking of their own talkpage, removing my warnings out of sight... Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:27, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

It's obvious that the IP user have created this new account for the sole purpose of reverting edit, which by itself is not in violation of any policies (neither is removing warnings/blanking their talk page). This is likely a COI editor (which is very common for Western practitioners of Japanese arts or their followers). Since you have been watching the article for years, WP:COIN might be a better venue if you suspect there are some connections; if no red flags have been raised, perhaps explain more precisely where the problem with their edits are rather than throwing a bunch of acronyms, which is not really helpful for anyone to act without some prior research in cases like this where it isn't immediately obvious. Alex Shih (talk) 09:27, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Karma Dechen Lhamo may be related to User:Suchawato Mare, who also pushed views on Jiyu-Kennett; see Talk:Kenshō#Reverted? and subsequent threads.

The problem with KDL is that the "info" they want to add is WP:UNDUE, and that Karma Dechen Lhamo's attitude is WP:DISRUPTIVE:

• They added the views of one particular teacher, Jiyu-Kennett, which are not representative for Soto in general. Her views are based on visions, and, according to WP:RS, are generally rejected by the Soto-tradition. See Talk:Kenshō#Jiyu-Kennett and Dzogchen Edits. To add this info, and insist on keeping it, is WP:UNDUE.
• I separated the views of Warner and Jiyu-Kennett, attributing them both; KDL reverted this.
• The info was added twice; I merged the duplicate info, and removed unsourced info; KDL undid this merger with the same revert, restoring unspourced info, des[ite a request to source it.
• I also removed their NPOV-tag; their rationale was that "Several edits seemed to be removed without cause." Their info is still there, so this tag is not needed. Nevertheless, this tag was re-inserted too with the same revert.

Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 09:59, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

• Western practitioners of Japanese arts engaged in COI editing? You don't say ... Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:25, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Possible hoax on Syed Soleman Shah

Editors are adding different languages and calendars to the article, completely inappropriate. LivTheAlpaca (talk) 22:54, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

A speedy deletion may be needed here, not sure what makes this person WP:NOTABLE. IWI (chat) 23:00, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

I’ve tried to remove some of the nonsense but Innocentbadshah (talk · contribs) is now edit warring. IWI (chat) 23:28, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

If a book written in foreign language and can not be translated yet to English and also not available online,,, so how should be cote that where we need it??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Innocentbadshah (talk • contribs) 23:34, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

The sources are questionable; I think this page may be a hoax. Could I have some input from more experienced editors? IWI (chat) 00:09, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) (Non-administrator comment) It's fine to use non-English sources, although English sources are preferred if they exist. This isn't nonsense, ImprovedWikiImprovment; it is the ancestors of the article subject. Whether it's worth mentioning in the article is a content dispute, and should be discussed at the article's talk page, not edit-warred over... —{{u|Goldenshimmer}}｜✝️｜they/their｜😹｜T/C｜☮️｜John 15:12｜🍂 00:12, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

I've struck part of the above comment as it sounded like IWI needed to go to the talk page, which they already had. Sorry, ImprovedWikiImprovment. —{{u|Goldenshimmer}}｜✝️｜they/their｜😹｜T/C｜☮️｜John 15:12｜🍂 06:57, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

I also had a conversation about it on their talk page. A haven’t reverted again so just by looking at the article you’ll see the major issue with it. And I’m nearly certain that it’s either a hoax or not notable. IWI (chat) 09:15, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

I don't see anything that's not in English in the article other than citations. I also don't agree that being in Hijri calendar is a good reason to remove a date; instead it would be better to add the CE equivalent: "Other era systems may be appropriate in an article. In such cases, dates should be followed by a conversion to Dionysian (or vice versa) and the first instance should be linked" (MOS:ERA). In terms of being a hoax, maybe so, but at least the books linked are real (I haven't been able to check their contents, though). By the way, what is the agreement mentioned here? Also, why on earth is this inappropriate?! —{{u|Goldenshimmer}}｜✝️｜they/their｜😹｜T/C｜☮️｜John 15:12｜🍂 12:27, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

The removal of the speedy deletion tag was an obvious thing to do; the user placed it there out of rage. The "rage agreement" was on the user's talk page and is visible. IWI (chat) 14:07, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

@Goldenshimmer:The text was non-English (including a different calendars), not just the sources. I can’t find anything in the subject, I think it’s a hoax. IWI (chat) 00:17, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

The main concern was not the decendents section but the family section. His date of birth was given in a foreign language and I can’t find anything about this person. I don’t think they existed. IWI (chat) 00:24, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

The 'owner' of the article having the same last name as the article subject makes me think this is a hoax article, probably with the same name as our hoaxster. I can't find any of the sources, but given the article has been around for a while I don't think speedy deletion is the way to go as it's not a 'blatant' hoax, so it needs to go to AFD, for failing WP:V. Fish+Karate 12:23, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Now at AFD, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Syed Soleman Shah. Fish+Karate 12:28, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

It’s terrible that this article has been here since 2011. The author appears to have made other articles that are hoaxes in the past. On the basis of WP:NOTHERE, I suggest an indefinite block. IWI (chat) 13:58, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

@Fish and karate, Goldenshimmer, and LivTheAlpaca: I’m concerned that all articles they have created may either be hoaxes or not notable, such as Syed Muhammad Masood. IWI (chat) 14:10, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

I would like to not jump to conclusions. One article is at AFD, where it will have 7 days to be discussed and the veracity or lack thereof of these sources can be reviewed. If that's proven to be ropey then other articles can be addressed. I have asked the relevant Wikiproject for the language (Pashto) to see if the scanty sources which are provided are in any way relevant. Fish+Karate 14:32, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Here is the list of page creations, ignoring any they may have created using IP addresses. IWI (chat) 14:19, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

• I suppose it is possible this is a hoax; Google translate says this is Urdu (or maybe F&K is right and it's Pashto, I don't even know that), and I don't speak it any more than F&K or IWI. More investigation is needed. But User:ImprovedWikiImprovment is making a serious rush to judgement, and suggesting an indefinite block at this stage, before we really know what is going on, is exactly the kind of behavior I think should be prevented at ANI with liberal application of topic bans. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:36, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

  What he said. The sources are a mix of languages including Urdu, Pashto, and Arabic and mostly PDFs so not really translatable for non-speakers (as Google Translate, which isn't great but can at least give you a sense of what something says, can't do PDFs). We have to be careful not to expect perfect English sources for every article, and we should try to encourage articles on non-English topics, to try and address cultural bias. I hope this is not a hoax. Fish+Karate 14:37, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Fair enough, allow me to rephrase: if this is a hoax we should A. Indef the user and B. Check the other articles they have created. IWI (chat) 14:56, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Consider what a user said on the page’s talk page back in 2016; doesn’t prove anything but just shows this isn’t the first time an editor has had a concern about the article. IWI (chat) 15:04, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Just be careful and destroy all my articles and contributions to Wikipedia!!! What the non-sense is going here with me! Delete my user page and my contributions. No need to waste my energy on a platform reviewed and administrate by such group of people who even not aware of a language and using abusive language about other peoples living in world with different lifestyles then their! Thanks and bye bye! Syed Saqib Imad — Preceding unsigned comment added by Innocentbadshah (talk • contribs) 02:40, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

• So we do or don't need to review this editor's other creations? EEng 05:50, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

@EEng: Yes, we do; it has been confirmed on the deletion discussion that none of the references discuss it's subject, it’s therefore probably a hoax. We need to check all of them, as well as articles the same person as clearly created on IP addresses and other accounts. IWI (chat) 20:24, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Per WP:NOTHERE ("Little or no interest in working collaboratively", "Long-term agenda inconsistent with building an encyclopedia", "Having a long-term or "extreme" history that suggests a marked lack of value for the project's actual aims and methods"), I suggest, but DO NOT insist on an indefinite block. Creating several fake pages (if it turns out to be the case) that have stayed here for seven years is exactly the kind of behaviour that damages the overall reliability of the encyclopedia. IWI (chat) 21:59, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

• An Arabic speaker has now checked the sources within Syed Soleman Shah and confirmed they don't mention the subject. Copied over from the AFD: the other articles, all of which look at first glance to have the same issues:
  • Gesudaraz I
  • Syed Adam Banuri
  • Syed Ali ibn Ismail
  • Syed Jafar al-Qa’im
  • Syed Muhammad Masood
  • Ali ibn Ismail
  • Syed Muhammad Tayyab Shah
  • Sheikh Isa Mashwani
  • Syed Muhammad Ahmad Shah
  • Syed Faateh
  • Syed Qaaf

A couple of these have had speedies / prods declined in the past. @EEng:, I say thee yes, these need to be reviewed. Fish+Karate 10:23, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

I'm afraid I was just raising the question lest the thread get prematurely archived. Someone else will need to pursue it. Lazy today. EEng 15:57, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

I have a theory: they may be the user's ancestors, which would explain why they have the same name. IWI (chat) 18:08, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

• So, indef the editor and nuke all of the creations? If indeed they turn out to be hoaxes/relatives? Softlavender (talk) 03:24, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Definitely, this kind of behaviour is blatantly unencyclopedic and extremely disruptive; just look at how much time and how many editors are involved. They knew what they were doing, they are, undoubtedly more than any editor can be, WP:NOTHERE. IWI (chat) 19:03, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

I have closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Syed Soleman Shah as "delete" and indef-blocked the main contributors Ssimad (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Innocentbadshah (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for hoaxing. I leave it up to other editors to determine which of their other contributions need deleting. Sandstein 15:06, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Okay, that's great but we need those Arabic/Pashto speakers again to check those sources on all of those articles. Man this guy has disrupted, this will be extremely time consuming. IWI (chat) 00:40, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Has everyone forgotten? This is now the oldest discussion here and needs a lot of editors' help before it can be closed. IWI (chat) 22:29, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Why don't you ask at Wikipedia:Translators_available for someone who can help? EEng 23:04, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

@EEng: Done. Shall I wait to put them at AFD. IWI (chat) 23:50, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

AfD them as probable hoaxes and relist until we get a good faith editor that can confirm what the deal is. These are hardly high importance pages anyway. Legacypac (talk) 23:57, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

The discussion for all of the above listed articles' deletions is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gesudaraz I; if there are any that I have missed, add them. IWI (chat) 11:51, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Plagairism

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

---

Please give me the due credit for my music template that you used on your latest album "Lorde." The sound on "Hard Feelings" was not made by Jack Antonoff. [239] 2601:581:8080:325B:907:4CF6:E621:7CAA (talk) 03:20, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

The page Melodrama (Lorde album) is not protected, so anyone can edit it. You can also explain your edit and discuss it on the talk page. Bradv🍁 04:36, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

I think the IP is under the impression that they can contact the artist through this page; the artist gives credit for various production aspects to Jack Antonoff in the media notes accompanying her release of the album Melodrama. The IP is mistaken; if they think that their intellectual property has been used without credit, they will need to find another way to contact the artist or her management (and no, they cannot edit the article here to give themselves credit). General Ization ^Talk 04:41, 20 December 2018 (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 needed

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.

---

Special:Contributions/2A01:CB04:493:C300:61CC:77B5:64FA:707F/64. Quite a problematic set of edits with IP hopping within the range. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 16:34, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

 Done --Kinu ^t/_c 16:39, 20 December 2018 (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.

Legal threat at Talk:Sarkar (2018 film)

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 need to respond to my request or i will take this to court" Pajeet 💩 06:50, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Blocked. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 07:19, 21 December 2018 (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:Robcon26 claims own account compromised

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 these two edits this user claims their own account was compromised. IME such admissions are typically followed by a block, so I'm mentioning here. Pinkbeast (talk) 02:43, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Blocked. Thank you, Pinkbeast. Bishonen | talk 12:31, 21 December 2018 (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.

Quick block needed for IP

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.

---

• 96.51.238.112 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Still going for around 20 minutes and no action taken yet. Please quickly block. Thanks. theinstantmatrix (talk) 06:33, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

 Done. Materialscientist (talk) 06:36, 21 December 2018 (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:Royalty34

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:Royalty34 is likely the same person as User:Alec Smithson. Royalty34 shows exactly the same edit behavior as Alex Smithson as outlined in Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Alec Smithson. In particular, the user creates articles/Wikiadata items/Commons files about real people but with patently false information and is heavily interested in Italian nobel families. 130.92.255.36 (talk) 10:10, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

​Please report at WP:SPI. -- Scott (talk) 21:47, 20 December 2018 (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.

List of FIFA World Cup stadiums for AfD.

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 want to send this to AfD, Admin Metropolitan90 says I am free to do so to send the article to AfD again. Yet Admin, Fenix down has reverted me with some new rules that don't seem to exist. I feel I have every right to nominate the article for AfD again with expressing my views on why it should be nominated. However Fenix Down is threatening me with a ban which I think is way out of order and he is abusing his privilege as an admin in doing so, can I get some oversight to have a second round at AfD for this article thank you. Govvy (talk) 17:14, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

@Govvy: Yes, you were free to renominate; however, Fenix down closed the nomination with a result of speedy keep. The second AfD is closed; you cannot just reopen it yourself. (Opening a third AfD would also be a bad idea.) Your next recourse is to discuss the closure with Fenix down and, if you cannot reach a satisfactory conclusion, request a review of Fenix down's closure of the AfD at WP:Deletion review. —C.Fred (talk) 17:19, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

This should be overturned and re-opened (though I do agree it's very likely to be kept). The first one could have been a SNOW keep, but wasn't a Speedy Keep, and was closed by Fenix down, who also closed this one. I don't see any of the WP:SKCRIT criteria being met. power~enwiki (π, ν) 17:23, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure I'm aware of all the concerns, but much of the article could use the magic of transclusion to directly include the stadium information from the articles on individual World Cups. power~enwiki (π, ν) 17:39, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

@C.Fred: However his close was not impartial, due to the fact he closed the previous AfD, I am of the opinion that can represent a bias view. One shouldn't rule twice and really should let someone else close it. You can revert an AfD decision when it's been incorrectly closed as I believe the case is here. Govvy (talk) 17:35, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

I closed it because the previous AfD was only 5 months ago and there was overwhelming consensus that this was a notable list. Nothing has changed in that time and so to my mind 2c of SKCRIT is applicable in spirit and there is no need for the bureaucracy of a second AfD when the previous one was essentially a unanimous keep. I'm not sure why we would have a third has immediately opened rather than deletion review. Fenix down (talk) 17:44, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

@Fenix down: Really... you don't want to give a second chance? Wikipedia is not a dictatorship, you can't dictate, I am ashamed at your response, you let the admin team down, you threatened me with a ban because I have an opinion. That's just sick and you don't have the decency to let it run to see some keep votes, I wanted to see if peoples opinions have changed in the five months. But you are afraid to let wikipedia be wikipedia, some admins have been really failing wikipedia of late! Govvy (talk) 17:56, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Well that's you told, Fenix. Hope you will be able to scrape your scorched puddle off the floor, you pariah. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 18:01, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

The previous AfD was essentially unanimous and involved a reasonably large number of editors clearly stating that it was a valid list. You were threatened with a block if you continued to revert closed AfDs, nothing to do with your nomination. You've been around long enough to know the correct course of action if you disagreed with me was to engage with me directly and if that did not resolve anything to take it to DRV. Fenix down (talk) 18:05, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

No I take it here, because you threatened me with a ban for simply reverting you once. Govvy (talk) 18:36, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

You reverted an admin action, not an edit, but a formal AfD close. You don't get to do that, nobody does, not even an admin should revert another admins action in AfD. I repeat: You have been around here long enough to know the proper process is talk page engagement and then DRV. You are expected to follow that process. Fenix down (talk) 19:05, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

I will revert who ever I want if I see it as wrong, now you're displaying arrogance! Admins are the online police force and other than being an admin you have no true power over wikipedia. If you can't apologise to me you don't deserve to be admin. Govvy (talk) 19:11, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

I would suggest that the first part of your statement, you decide NOT to do. Reverting an Admin's action in the closure of an AfD, is not something you should do. This is a discussion for DRV in this regard if you feel the AfD was prematurely closed. Let me also add from the Deletion Process page it states: "Closures may only be reopened by the closer themselves, an uninvolved administrator in their individual capacity, giving their reasoning, or by consensus at deletion review". RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:19, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

I just want to put the article to AfD and got threatened with a ban. How am I suppose to put the article to AfD if Fenix wants to ban me for doing that. This is all about being threatened with a ban, if Fenix didn't do that, things would be different for sure. Govvy (talk) 19:48, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

You were not threatened with a ban for listing it at AfD. You never were threatened with a ban, but a block, which is a big difference for one. Secondly, Fenix's comment on your page was about UNCLOSING an AfD, not listing it. If you felt the closure was incorrect, you should take it to DRV to have it looked at there, not reopen it. RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:52, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Ban or a block, it's all the same to me, admins do lack etiquette on explaining themselves. Govvy (talk) 20:04, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

• This is now at deletion review, where it should have been all along, and I think it can be closed as moot. SportingFlyer talk 04:26, 21 December 2018 (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:Dude Master 2 - unsourced/fabricated statistics, doesn't respond to multiple warnings

• Dude Master 2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User continues to add unsourced or fabricated population statistics, and change sourced ones so that they no longer agree with the source. Multiple levels of warnings from several other editors have been given since the account was created in August, for not adhering to NPOV, addition of unsourced material, and deliberately introducing incorrect information, by DBigXray, LiberatorG, etc. The user has deleted the warnings from their talk page without any response, and continues the behavior, in some cases edit warring. They have never commented on any talk page, and have never used an edit summary. It doesn't appear to be vandalism per se, but mostly arbitrary changes to statistics to suit their own point of view.

Examples include:

• Kaifeng Jews - reduced the population in Israel from 3,000 to 30 without explanation, and edit warred:
• Special:Diff/865326108/869898804, Special:Diff/871760309/872147222, Special:Diff/873403685/874019345
• Economy of India:
• Special:Diff/871808323/871813500 - replaced sourced statistics with fabricated ones more favorable to India.
• Special:Diff/871641041/871808323 - changed negative 7.1% growth rate of India to positive 7.1%.
• Moroccan Jews:
• Special:Diff/871852699/873318020 - increased sourced statistic of 578,400 to 1,578,400, and 486,000 to 1,000,000, contradicting the source.
• Overseas Chinese: Special:Diff/860574843/prev - increased statistic from 9,349,900 to 10,349,900, contradicting the source.
• Arab diaspora: similar arbitrary and fabricated changes of sourced statistics (now rev deleted due to an unrelated copyright issue).
• Chinese Canadians: Special:Diff/868426795/872785866 - unsourced change in statistic.
• Asian Americans: Special:Diff/861274581/861335284 - change in statistic contradicts sources.
• Brazilian diaspora: Special:Diff/868331588/872863330 - unsourced change in statistic.
• Income in India: Special:Diff/868331588/872863330 - change contradicts the source.
• Standard of living in India: Special:Diff/870889616/872330686 - deletion of sourced statistics, not adhering to NPOV.

There are numerous other examples. In some cases a statistic was replaced with a correct number, but without giving the source, and leaving the old now-contradicted source, for example: Mexican Canadians: Special:Diff/849681735/856363358 --IamNotU (talk) 21:02, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

• Thanks for the ping, I myself had contemplated bringing this user to ANI, but had left it for later as I had doubts that some of the edits may be constructive, may be this new user will learn in due course of time. I have patrolled this users edits couple of times and reverted some of deliberate factual errors and spared some, that I wasn't very sure about. He does not explain his edits in edit summary, and his only edits on Talk pages [240] are to clean up the warnings, I would support an WP:IDHT block for Dude master 2. --DBigXrayᗙ 21:16, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

DBigXray, thanks for responding. You're probably right that some of their edits may be constructive, but it's difficult to tell which ones. It looks to me like the majority are unsourced and/or obviously fudged numbers. Whatever positive contributions there may be aren't worth the damage being done, or the amount of effort needed to figure out which is which. That, combined with the total lack of communication, calls for a block, if it continues. Let's see whether they respond here. So far they haven't edited since being reported... --IamNotU (talk) 13:01, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

PS, I noticed that in the Kaifeng Jews article, it was actually them who added the 3000 number, then changed it to 30. When you reverted it, you didn't go back far enough - neither number was sourced. I found and added a source that puts it at 19. In any case, they should have explained instead of repeatedly making the same edit without a summary or discussion. --IamNotU (talk) 15:09, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Legal threat by user Sammartinlai/BlueD954

• Sammartinlai (talk · contribs)
• BlueD954 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

(This user was renamed from Sammartinlai to BlueD954 on 19 December)

First I was accused of "stalking" by this editor who is obviously not aware of watchlists. When I tried to discuss this with him, I was not only dismissed with rudeness, but he then posted an accusation on my page that I (was either operating, or just was) "a bot". When I tried to address the bot comment, as well as his general hostility, I was again dismissed with a blatant personal attack, (not to mention a BLP vio). I tried again to engage with this editor, but again was dismissed, this time with another "stalking" accusation accompanied by a legal threat. - wolf 05:36, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

This thread was brought to my attention by Thewolfchild, because we are working together with a struggling new editor in the British Army space. I've warned Sammartinlai for the personal attacks, but before proceeding further, per WP:NLT, it would be useful if Sammartinlai would clarify if this is a real threat of legal action against Thewolfchild, or whether they would like to withdraw what they said in that edit summary. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:25, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Sammartinlai has withdrawn their legal threat per this. I have recommended they also withdraw to Thewolfchild directly, and they should be conscious that any further personal attacks may result in a block. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:00, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

For completeness, and in case they didn't get this message in the move, I'll just note that Sammartinlai has just been renamed BlueD954. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:14, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

I have to also register my concern about NPA and WP:Civil by this user. For example, a relatively innocent error by a new anon user, amending the number of battalions of the Royal Gurkha Rifles in the British Forces Brunei article from two to three, was met with the first message on the new user's talkpage of 'Get your facts right' [241]. No welcome to a new user, no intro, no explanation of the fact that the regiment had been reduced from three battalions to two some years before, but simply the blunt and rather unfriendly message.

I would strongly encourage Sammartinlai/BlueD954 to remain calm, civil, and to WP:Assume Good Faith, for the benefit of us all around here.

In addition, archiving admonitions/warnings at lightning speed from his talkpage rather gives the appearance that the user is trying to hide something. Buckshot06 (talk) 11:44, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

I'm skeptical on this user's "withdraw" of their legal threat. While it seems too broad to me, as it simply says, "I withdraw" in the section header and followed by "and don't want to hear anymore" - I'll assume good faith here and assume that this message was the user's intent to withdraw the threat. On another note, I'll also state that BlueD954's continued conduct and behavior toward other editors is absolutely unacceptable. This user has repeatedly violated Wikipedia's civility policies and their edit summaries are full of numerous personal attacks and remarks that we really should not be tolerating. We've been more than fair in regards to warning the user about this and asking for them to stop. This is a final warning for BlueD954 in regards to civility - This behavior is not appropriate or acceptable on Wikipedia, and it is expected to continue no longer. If BlueD954 engages in any further incivility or makes another personal attack or disrespectful remark or statement in any of their edits, they will be blocked from editing. No more of this... ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 11:50, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

As noted above by User:Peacemaker67, per this change, Sammartinlai (talk · contribs) has been renamed to BlueD954 (talk · contribs). EdJohnston (talk) 16:57, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

• This is a new one (for me at least), on the same day that an ANI is posted about a legal threat made by this person, I also posted to Pracemaker67's page a list of links that show beyond a doubt this same person is stalking a struggling new user and leaving some unpleasant summaries in the process (a new user that PM67 and Buckshot06 are trying to help), and not only does this person refuse to respond to ANI... he suddenly changes his name? Ok then.

  Well, both Peacemaker67 and Buckshot06 are now well aware of... "BlueD954"s behaviour, and they're both admins. Oshwah has given a stern warning here, and like Oshwah, I will also AGF that the legal threat has been withdrawn. (That darn Oshwah's good faith is infectious, he's always so... happy) I guess there isn't anything left to done here. (But a quick note for EdJ; "BlueD954 is the new name for Sam. "Blue954" is a different user, albeit one who has not been active since 2012 - fyi). Thanks for the reposnses guys. - wolf 18:02, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Armand Cucciniello

• Armand Cucciniello (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

In January 2016 this page was created by a sockpuppet of the editor Armand Cucciniello (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). In April of that year an SPI was opened. Three accounts were indeffed and user Armand Cucciniello was blocked for 2 weeks. Three of the four accounts had been used to make extensive edits to the page Armand Cucciniello. While the user account Armand Cucciniello has been inactive since then, the page Armand Cucciniello has been built out almost exclusively by a steady stream of IP addresses. Most of the additions have been either unsourced or poorly sourced, and in general the article has taken on a self-promotional tone.

The IP addresses have tracked with Mr. Cucciniello's movements based on publicly available information. For instance, according to his LinkedIn profile, Mr. Cucciniello moved to Korea in February 2018, right around the time when Korean IP addresses started editing his Wikipedia page. Korean IPs continue to edit the page, most recently earlier today.

I don't know the best way to address this problem. I'd think long-term semi-protection would be effective. I considered making a request at WP:RFPP but then thought that perhaps this is more of an ANI issue. Please ping me if you need my attention. R2 (bleep) 22:10, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

@Ahrtoodeetoo: I have removed most of the unsourced material, I will leave whether to semi-protect the article up to the admins, but I think it was the right decision to bring this here rather than RFPP. Tornado chaser (talk) 22:18, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

My short summary of the article: "He's a diplomat and journalist. He went to Boston College. He then went to Iraq and served as a spokesman for the U.S. embassy. A reporter wrote a book that mentions him." My response: {{db-bio}}. Nyttend (talk) 01:45, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Nyttend I think that was excessively harsh and shouldn't have been done without community input. The guy had a pretty in-depth article written about him in NJ Monthly in addition to the other sources that were listed. Please bring the page back for further discussion. R2 (bleep) 05:28, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Not without some evidence of coverage in reliable sources: all I'm seeing are news reports and other primary sources. The story you give has no citations, it's from a periodical that writes soft-coverage stories about life, and its author's articles in that periodical primarily focus on golf. Nothing reliable whatsoever. Nyttend (talk) 12:52, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Say what? Are you really saying that New Jersey Monthly isn't a reputable publisher because its articles don't include citations? And that's something you get to decide unilaterally since you're holding a mop? Frankly it seems like an abuse of admin privileges. I'm going to deletion review. This thread should remain open so admins can come to a real solution once the article is restored. R2 (bleep) 18:32, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

• The page was temporarily restored by Cryptic pending deletion review. I'm still seeking admin support to add long-term semi-protection or take some other corrective action. R2 (bleep) 20:46, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Disruption at several gemstone articles

There is an editor using a range of IPs (2605:B100:F34F:0:0:0:0:0/32 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)) making disruptive edits at several pages involving gemstones. All of the edits involve adding unreferenced claims regarding the value or size of certain specific gemstones (e.g. "King of Canada Sean Robert Gehani Ruby") and/or removing referenced claims regarding the value of other gemstones. This looks to me like some kind of promotion for financial/business purposes. Most of the edits have been reverted by established users. Pages involved include:

• List of individual gemstones
• Emerald
• Ruby
• Liberty Bell Ruby
• Sunrise Ruby

Can admins please have a look and see if page protection(s) or a range block is appropriate here? Gnome de plume (talk) 18:48, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

• A more accurate range is 2605:b100:f348::/45 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)), and this does seem somewhat promotional. The King of Canada Sean Robert Gehani emerald is a real thing, according to this source, though it's highly suspicious that the world's certifiably largest emerald is not better documented than this one page. As for removing unsourced content, find a reference and add it back if it's verifiable. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 20:17, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

At the risk of digressing into discussing non-admin-related issues, I think you're naive to accept jewelrycult.com as evidence of something being "a real thing". Gnome de plume (talk) 20:29, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

That's fair, but I think you might more accurately have said I would be naive to believe any exceptional claim that's only repeated by a single source as being true, regardless of which single source it is. Upon looking deeper I've turned up Talk:Ruby#Semi-protected edit request on 7 January 2016 in which another IP editor requested adding the "King of Canada Sean Robert Gehani Ruby" to that article, based on two no-longer-extant sources. One of those sources appears to be the website of a communications company of which a cursory Google search reveals a Sean Robert Gehani is(/was) an "officer". That, plus the simple fact that the name is being claimed as both the world's largest emerald and the world's largest ruby, suggests a deliberate hoax. I'll wait to see what happens next but the range should probably be blocked. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 20:40, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

I thought this one was over with. There's an SPI from more than two years ago: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Freecomwireless The King of Canada gemstone garbage is certainly the same guy. In 2016 this was a truly bizarre mixture of bogus gemstones, overblown claims about great physics research (that turned out to be nothing but decades-old air conditioned science in breathless prose) and freeman on the land type rants. I never figured out if the freecomwireless.com subpage used as a ref had been hacked by someone, was being used by a former employee, or by a current employee who had lost his marbles. It was the weirdest stuff I have ever seen.. I don't know if it was intended to embarrass the company or to drive internet traffic for freeman on the land claims of being King of Canada, but someone was watching the traffic on the company page because I saw posts that identified my geographic location after I accessed the page. Meters (talk) 06:55, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Interesting, thanks for making that connection. I agree it's the same person, or as close to being the same person as matters to us. I don't think a freeman would be trying to claim to be the King of Canada, I don't think that would be compatible with their legal fiction of the person nonsense, claiming to be King would be an acknowledgement of the existence of a monarchy and assent to be bound by its laws, blah blah admiralty tin foil hat something. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 23:03, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

"Freeman on the land type" was my shorthand for "whack-job claims" in my notes. I shouldn't have used it here. If I remember correctly, in 2016 there were King of Canada cl;aims embedded in the background text on the supposed Freecomwiireless ref. If this stuff has come back but without the corporate page then I guess it's not an attempt to embarrass the company, just some nut job who somehow had access to the corporate subpage in 2016. It was a hoax then and I have no doubt it's a hoax now. (I mean really, the largest emerald in the world and the largest ruby in the world are both named "King of Canada Sean Robert Gehani" something?) I would nuke this on sight if it continues after the protections end. Meters (talk) 01:03, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

IP adding the same external link to dozens of articles

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.

---

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

This IP editor has been adding the same link to some Hong Kong Baptist University Website online speech collection to dozens of articles on various speeches and addresses. This is the only activity this IP has undertaken. It may be in good faith, but in most cases the link is entirely unhelpful and unnecessary, as it doesn't point directly to any specific speech and most of these articles already have external links to the texts of the speeches from much better resources, like U.S. presidential libraries. I've explained as much in the edit summary of two dozen or so reverts I made, and I posted an explanation on their talk page. Peaceray did the same before me. The IP has since continued to add the same link to more articles. Advice and assistance would be appreciated. -Indy beetle (talk) 06:31, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

• Rollback'd—but they seem to have gotten the point. El_C 08:42, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

That link they posted is in fact a very good resource - but not for the articles they posted it to. --bonadea contributions talk 11:47, 22 December 2018 (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.

Please block 189.155.194.146

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.

---

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

Hi, please block this IP editor for this personal attack on my friend Oshwah. Personal attacks are prohibited on Wikipedia. --EurovisionNim (talk to me)(see my edits) 10:24, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

Posting same ungrammatical misspelled message on multiple user talk pages here valereee (talk) 10:29, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

Already blocked by Euryalus--Ymblanter (talk) 12:31, 22 December 2018 (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.

Unblock me

I want my mobile phone ip address unblocked.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:BlockList?wpTarget=2600%3A387%3A2%3A813%3A0%3A0%3A0%3Aae&limit=50&wpFormIdentifier=blocklist

Nantucketnoon (talk) 06:21, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

• Question: your mobile phone address is only blocked to anonymous accounts (i.e. IP editors). Since you're editing from an account, why does this matter? Black Kite (talk) 07:07, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Continued disruptiveness by 68.193.153.95 / REDXSCORPION

• Archived discussion of the first ANI (17th October)
• And the repeated violation here (2nd Dec) (11 000 chars changed again)
• List of Nvidia graphics processing units (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• 68.193.153.95 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• REDXSCORPION (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Yada yada, 1 and 1/2 months later this guy is back and reverts everything again back to the state of 17th Oct without any discussion. In the process fucking up the tables again and undoing all the fixes and additions in the meantime ( Eg. re-adding unsourced, rumors, which another user had to remove again(. But now they also made an account, which they randomly decide to use. Same shtick, same tone in their commit messages, same misunderstood "freedom of speech" / "i like my version more" justification in the commit message of the violation.

I'm sure this is not a valid complaint from my side in this ANI board here, and I'm definitely not "formal" enough, but I just wanna let you know that I already wasted enough hours of my life dealing with this moron and if you care about the state of this project and the mix of people involved you should probably do something against these toxic elements. It was a mistake to just ban this guy for just 3 days, when it was clear they're not gonna change or are compatible with teamwork.

To revert their edits will be a long process again, as you can't easily revert multiple spaced-apart commits and it's all tables, so the editing will be a confusing pain of tabs and dashes. I did this work and had this pointless fight once, but if I need to constantly fight windmills here, then no thanks. It's actually amazing, you can look at basically any other article about GPUs or CPUs and all have nice tidy tables, just these 3 tables on the mentioned article are awful as they edit there. Seriously, do look it up, eg the List_of_AMD_graphics_processing_units or any tables in the respective product articles linked in the "lists of X".

For information, just read the cited 1st ANI, the IP's contribs (messages), especially the insane and insulting rants they left, and their and especially my talk page. I'm sure there's other stuff I forgot, because it was some time ago, but I just don't want to waste more time digging into this pitiful stuff again. There's also some more info in the history of the article's Talk page, but I later removed this section as per suggestion in the 1st ANI as it was too focused on this guy for an article talk page.

@Caknuck:, you wanted to be notified as noted in the first ANI. @TurboSonic:, maybe you care too. And maybe @Yamla:, as they semi-protected the page for a while.

Happy holidays.

-- IonPike (talk) 17:44, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Huh that's very interesting I would like to ask though why did you wait until now to tells us? But that's besides the point, if I was an admin I would just block him from editing List of Nvidia graphics processing units since it seems he only edits that page only, and if he continues on other Wikipedia pages I would just block his IP and/or account for either an extended period of time or forever, but that's just what I would do since I don't really what admins would actually do. TurboSonic (talk) 22:11, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

I was busy and just now noticed. IonPike (talk) 23:53, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

WP:CIR, WP:OWNERSHIP and disruptive editing issues

• Catalyszczowski (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Kante4 and I warned him not to put assist on club season articles per Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Football/Archive_100#Assist_Stats_on_Premier_League_Team_pages_(Arsenal_2015-16 via user talk page yesterday but this user still put again without any reason and any reply [242] [243] Hhkohh (talk) 14:32, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Just now user uses non-English to reply on user talk page, but I do not know what they said Hhkohh (talk) 15:03, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
    • Google translates the reply (from Indonesian) as "apus2 play just as good lo forehead, the cave if the data itself, the page caves created from 0 tired, playing lear wrote zzz". I'm not sure this helps. Argento Surfer (talk) 17:06, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
    • Hmm, when I did a Google translate, I got "just playing well as good as the forehead, I did the data myself, my page made from 0 tired, I just played zzz". Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:15, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
      • It sounds like he's blaming lack of sleep for the quality of his edits?--WaltCip (talk) 17:55, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
        • He also reverts the deletion of Top 10 attendances which was discussed also and agreed to remove. Not sure what to do, do now want to go into an edit war. Kante4 (talk) 20:35, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
          • Before we discussed top 10 attendances issue in WT:FOOTY. I also invited the user in Talk:2018 Liga 1. But after we discussed top 10 attendances issue in WT:FOOTY, they still put after I deleted. Hhkohh (talk) 09:21, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
            • I'll translate it for you all, he said that "You just delete the data as you please. I did that data myself. I made that page from scratch, it's tiring, and you just delete it. Zzz." Wira rhea (talk) 10:34, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
              • Thanks three editors for translating. Wira rhea is an Indonesian. So now we can close it after more than 3 hours no reply as we almost have dealt with these issues and thanks everyone again Hhkohh (talk) 10:48, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
                • Seems Catalyszczowski did not learn and undid again today against consensus while the case is still opening Hhkohh (talk) 07:14, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
• Is Catalyszczowski happy to go to edit warring and do disruptive edits against consensus? I am afraid of, so I proposed a WP:CIR block for Catalyszczowski Hhkohh (talk) 08:01, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Gaming for Extended confirmed userright

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.

---

See talk page history of this article: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=P._Susheela&action=history Accesscrawl (talk) 15:15, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

• A new editor who makes several dozen edits removing then re-adding a period is NOTHERE. Blocked accordingly. Katie^talk 15:36, 23 December 2018 (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.

Template:db-a7

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.

---

Template:db-a7 or something that it uses seems to have been vandalized: When the contest button is pressed, the preloaded text is:

This article should not be speedily deleted for lack of asserted importance because... (this can be redirected to Nicolas Notovitch)

—teb728 t c 10:27, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

I fixed it thus. —teb728 t c 10:39, 23 December 2018 (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.

Kenanga.Phethai again

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.

---

• Kenanga.Phethai (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

After I initially reported them here, resulting in a block by Liz (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), they have continued the same behavior less than a day after the block's expiration. They seem to be only editing on mobile, which is probably why they aren't really receiving talk page messages.--Jasper Deng (talk) 17:34, 19 December 2018 (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 think this is a clear case of WP:NOTHERE, as it is a vandalism only account. Not only the user added incorrect information at cyclone intensity, the user also changed names of tropical cyclones. INeedSupport^{(Care free to give me support?)} 18:48, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

@Scott Burley: What do you think about this? INeedSupport^{(Care free to give me support?)} 19:57, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

I disagree, I think the user is probably well-meaning but WP:CLUELESS. The first block was a bit short, so hopefully this gets their attention. I would support an indef block if this continues. -- Scott (talk) 20:45, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

I like to start with short, limited blocks. Sometimes all you have to do is stop the editor and get them to reconsider their editing strategy. If they continue with disruptive editing, they can always receive a longer block. I'm troubled by admins who go from 0>60 with a starting block of indefinite length and I do not have that philosophy about blocking. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:56, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

@Scott Burley: @Liz: It's fine. You know more than me. -INeedSupport- ^{(Time for Christmas!)} 15:05, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

User: RapGod2X

Disruptive editting at Camila Cabello. User RapGod2X keeps adding photo that does not appear to have the correct license. Even if it does, the previous photo is better quality, as the new photo was screen capped from YouTube. User does not appear to want to discuss issue and has re-instated their edits with warnings such as "you don't want to get into this". ^†Basilosauridae❯❯❯Talk 00:26, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

• Comment Just adding this for ease of other editors: RapGod2X (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) JZCL 00:38, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

You say the user "does not appear to want to discuss issue" (sic): have you made any effort to discuss with them? Seems like a mild content dispute from my viewpoint with neither side (so far as I can see) attempting to communicate with the other. As for the warning, it's not ideal but I'd leave it as it's a one-off and come back if it becomes more frequent or more threatening. With all of that said, RapGod has violated 3RR by replacing the other image 4 times in the last 24 hrs, so technically a block is in order. JZCL 00:44, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

• I gave them a copyvio warning, and I've nominated the image for deletion at Commons, as it's a screencap from a YouTube video that is a copyvio in itself... Black Kite (talk) 00:46, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Account blocked as a suspected sockpuppet of Fieryflames. I have filed a report at COM:AN/B (perm), given the history of multiple copyvios and questionable uploads there. theinstantmatrix (talk) 01:44, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

It's  Confirmed, for the record.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 18:47, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

IP makes bullshit speedy nominations

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

Has been previously blocked. I removed one of the nominations, they reverted me and warned me claiming I removed the template from the article I created (which I did not). [244] Could we urgently stop this activity please. Thank you.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:29, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Those articles were just way too short, so I had to tag them. If you disagree with my tags, you are supposed to bring it to the talkpage. 99.53.112.186 (talk) 20:31, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

I am just trying to help, so I do not appreciate these accusations of trolling which I saw in the edit summaries. 99.53.112.186 (talk) 20:33, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

You clearly don't understand WP:CSD#A1. Wayman, Missouri, being a ghost town in Missouri clearly has "sufficient context to identify the subject". Favonian (talk) 20:35, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

I've made a comment at your talk page. You're not using CSD/A1 correctly, so please stop. The correct way to nominate articles for deletion if you feel they have no notability is WP:PROD, but note that geographical settlements are almost always notable. Black Kite (talk) 20:36, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

I see what you all are saying, but articles that are as short as those that I tagged do not belong here. 99.53.112.186 (talk) 20:37, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

I really would have appreciated it if you all spoke to me on my talk page before brining this here, which will prove to be a waste of everyone's time. 99.53.112.186 (talk) 20:39, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

You have been previously blocked for disruptive editing, and I do not see any reason you should not be blocked again for a longer duration. In fact, I would already have blocked you if I were not involved.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:45, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Now we are talking about blocks? I am trying to help, there is no need to block. 2602:306:3357:BA0:7CE5:B281:9B7A:D029 (talk) 20:46, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

(ec) You may also want to check what our policies say about edit-warring over a CSD template with an administrator who declined the speedy.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:47, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

I don't think there's any need for blocks here as long as the IP editor (a) understands that they were doing wrong and (b) doesn't repeat what they were doing with the CSD tags. Preventative, not punitive. Black Kite (talk) 20:48, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Can we de-escalate this, please? The policy has been called to the IP's attention, and it's clear that they were editing in good faith, though incorrectly. If it continues, then we can worry about whether blocking is needed or not. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:49, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Well, we have some previous achievements like this, and two CU blocks on this IP, but if they stop I do not insist on a block.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:55, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Incident reported by M1nhm

I created hawza Najaf article. In other hands, there is some redirect(Najaf seminary, Hawza 'Ilmiyya Najaf) connected to hawza article but they are more appropriate to my articl. Please help me that redirects to be in hawza article would be linked to my one.M1nhm (talk) 18:29, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Someone needs to take a look at this user's contributions. While I see no reason to doubt good intent, the level of competence in the English language shown by M1nhm appears to me to be insufficient to contribute usefully to en.wp. See for example this paragraph from Network of agents (Wikalah): "The meaning of word wikalah that mean of ours is wikalah in Arabic means to let someone perform duties on behalf of someone especially when someone cannot accomplish his duties by himself. In the other hands, wikalah in terms of jurisprudence is someone choose someone else as his agent who that someone has the right to interfere in Decision making and approving a Duty or to be the second person who can interfere in His affairs. After the above definition, it can be seen that the wikalah are used when a person is unable to perform his duties by himself for reasons such as position and necessities and Imamas could not communicate with Shia by direct and usual ways." 86.147.97.63 (talk) 03:17, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

User:M1nhm writing incomprehensible articles

M1nhm (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has written several articles (Network of agents (Wikalah), Hawza Najaf, Abdol Hossein Dastgheib) which show an immense amount of hard work and thought. Unfortunately a lot of the writing is difficult, if not impossible, to understand. An excerpt from the former reads:

"The meaning of word wikalah that mean of ours is wikalah in Arabic means to let someone perform duties on behalf of someone especially when someone cannot accomplish his duties by himself. In the other hands, wikalah in terms of jurisprudence is someone choose someone else as his agent who that someone has the right to interfere in Decision making and approving a Duty or to be the second person who can interfere in His affairs. After the above definition, it can be seen that the wikalah are used when a person is unable to perform his duties by himself for reasons such as position and necessities and Imamas could not communicate with Shia by direct and usual ways."

I think these articles require some heavy copy-editing, and I'm sure the intention is good. I am just concerned that the user's level of English might not be up to standard to edit the en Wikipedia. JZCL 18:03, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

I started to copy edit the Network of agents (Wikalah) one. It does need some heavy copy-editing, preferably by someone familiar with Arabic culture. He seems to be trying to paraphrase this source, but the source is coherent where the article is not. I'm glad to see he's paraphrasing and not copying, but it's losing meaning in the process. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 19:07, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

They also made an incomprehensible post on here yesterday, asking for help with changing some redirects. I think. Not sure if admin intervention is appropriate here as the balance of their contributions appear to be positive. -- Scott (talk) 22:53, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Certainly what they are trying to add is a net positive... I only feel that if they keep contributing in the way that they are currently doing that a very large amount of editors' time may be spent copy-editing and essentially translating what has been written. As I said above, the work all appears to be in good faith. But that is not equivalent to being a "net positive", especially if we have no idea what they are trying to say in the first place. JZCL 00:25, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps the editor can be asked -- or required -- to create articles in Draftspace and not in Articlespace, and that they not be moved into Articlespace until someone --a mentor? -- has had a chance to go over them? Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:19, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

I think if we go that route whoever mentors them should be familiar with the topics they are editing in. They mostly seem to be writing about Islamic and Arabic culture, history, and religion. Perhaps a relevant WikiProject could help. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 13:59, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

I agree. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:25, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

• I agree that there is a clear issue with understanding of English language and mentorship would probably work if the user agrees to limit their editing for sometime. Shashank5988 (talk) 19:27, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

• It looks like this editor does not speak English and is using Google Translate to make edits. I doubt that he understands just how poorly written his edits are. Unfortunately, there are only two options: have someone volunteer to be his full time copy editor or block him. --RAF910 (talk) 20:37, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

• I'm afraid the user's knowledge of English is far too poor. While the contributions certainly point to important missing information (e.g. the Najaf Seminary, arguably the most important in Shiism, previously only covered in a short section here), the amount of copy-editing required is just not worth it (and more than we could ever handle, with the current speed). Many sentences are just incomprehensible, requiring me to read through all the sources. The sources given are often too "primary" (such as Shia religious institutions), in somewhat better English, but very biased (presenting a religious view or "traditional" history). It's significantly easier to just start from a google translate of the corresponding Arabic or Persian article. It seems to me we can only recommend the user to edit their native language version. Tokenzero (talk) 21:19, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

User:ClueBot NG is malfunctioning in the page R160

The photo shows that an unrefurbished R160 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iswjy1mcb (talk • contribs) 12:36, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

I don't know what triggered ClueBot, but your edit is clearly unsourced WP:OR, since nothing in the image's file information identifies it as being "unrefurbished", just "unusally empty". Beyond My Ken (talk) 14:12, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

BobiusPrime

• BobiusPrime (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Paul Joseph Watson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

BobiusPrime is an inexperienced editor who is clearly from the political right. He is trying to assert his preferred presentation of the Jim Acosta video farrago into Paul Joseph Watson. His edits are tendentious. I have tried to explain the problem but he does not seem to want to know. He has characterised my edits as vandalism. Could another admin please try to explain the issues to him? Thanks. Guy (Help!) 00:56, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Use of the term "farrago" is curious, since you have claimed that this issue lacks confusion.--BobiusPrime (talk) 04:39, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia does profound damage to itself when it assumes good faith on the part of a user who has told a provable lie. Anyone with even a passing familiarity with Alex Jones, supporter or not, knows that "I've not seen any 'fake' news distributed by [InfoWars]" is patently, bright-line false. This is one example of many from this user but instead of instantly getting the indefinite block such a statement deserves, we have to handhold them. This user is using plain lies to defend the media outlet owned by a man who once claimed tap water fluoridation turns frogs gay. BobiusPrime will never, ever contribute positively. Why try? 107.195.20.170 (talk) 01:31, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

I don't believe tap water makes frogs turn gay, but it is irrelevant to the article.--BobiusPrime (talk) 02:18, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

No, but gay frogs do make tap water fun! Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:14, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Okay. I have to agree with you there. --BobiusPrime (talk) 04:26, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Please be prepared to explain 1) explicit lies I have told, 2) what the "problem" is without condescension assuming knowledge you do not possess, and 3)non-circular proof the Acosta video was "doctored." My postings are there for all to read. Nothing said to me by this user can be remotely interpreted as positive tutelage. His comments associated to edits should demonstrate this. I have no intention of stalking this user to his other work, but I would suggest other administrators audit a cross-section of his work to determine if the negative interaction is systemic. --BobiusPrime (talk) 02:18, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

It's not. He does, however, have a fairly low tolerance for WP:FRINGE idiocy. So do I. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:16, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

So it's kept very localized? You may consider the subject of the article as "fringe," but that does not justify targeted perversion of an informational article. --BobiusPrime (talk) 04:26, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't about "proof" — it's about reliable sources. If there is a consensus among mainstream reliable sources that the video was doctored, then we say so — and if that consensus is so overwhelming as to be essentially unanimous, then we will state facts as facts. In this case, there is clear and overwhelming consensus among reliable sources that the video clip was doctored; that is to say, edited in a misleading way. That you or anyone else disagrees with that is irrelevant except insofar as it might be worthy of mention that someone disagrees with the fact. However, apparently, the only source you can find which disagrees is an opinion piece in a partisan right-wing news outlet; it might not have sufficient weight to merit mention. That's a question for the talk page, though. Bottom line: Your personal opinion that there is not "proof the video was doctored" is not a reason for us to change anything about the article. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:44, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

That is profound. It reminds me of Bush/Gore presidential race. One reporter described Cheney as having "gravitas." The description was parroted by nearly every news outlet. By the standard you described, Cheney absolutely has gravitas. I'm not sure I agree with that assessment, but apparently I am expected to in the Wikipedia you describe. In addition, I don't believe you read up on the citations. I don't believe NBC is generally considered a partisan right-wing news outlet. --BobiusPrime (talk) 05:05, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

The requirement that articles verifiably present what is published in reliable sources in a manner proportional to the prominence of each viewpoint in those source is foundational to what we do on the encyclopedia.

You have found one source which states that it may not have been intentionally doctored, but inadvertently modified in a misleading manner. That one source is interesting. It may have sufficient weight to justify including that as a dissenting view. However, there also appears to be an overwhelming number of sources that do view the modification as intentional, and that does appear to be the mainstream POV we have to give the most weight to. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:15, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

I truly appreciate your response. You seem interested in an actual discussion of the matter. As far as the overall article, I expected more of an academic standard to prevail. A "source" that purports to know as fact that which is in the mind of a person they do not know cannot reasonably be considered "reliable." Without any proof, the use of the subjective term "doctored" is inherently opinion, and I attempted to present it as such. Point and counterpoint were offered in the paragraph, leaving it to the reader (rather than an admittedly biased editor) to decide. I admit that is no longer a fashionable journalistic standard, but should be in a project such as Wikipedia that aims to establish a meaningful record of the human experience. Let me ask you this.. if you were personally and legally liable for the veracity of this article, would you allow "doctored" to be presented as truth or fact? Would you stake your professional reputation on it? If you were called to task and accused of libel, could you defend the use of "doctored?" This is hypothetical, so forget Wiki jargon. --BobiusPrime (talk) 06:36, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

We don't have to guess. Literally thousands of other outlets have published these statements. Has the person in question sued any of those outlets? (The answer, of course, is no.) NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 09:36, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

As has been pointed out, I am fairly new to Wikipedia. So, Guy, is there a protocol for random admins to appear and comment, or do I wait for a select few that you summon? I am hoping for a wide readership. --BobiusPrime (talk) 04:35, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Guy is not commenting here as a "random admin", BobiusPrime, since he's involved with the article (=he has edited it). Admins discuss a particular article, in this case Paul Joseph Watson, either as editors, as Guy and Doug Weller do, or as an admin, as I do. Guy and Doug won't take admin action against you, at least not in connection with that article. See WP:INVOLVED. Bishonen | talk 17:16, 22 December 2018 (UTC).

You do nothing to attract partisans of your point of view to this report, and neither does Guy. That would be a violation of WP:CANVASSING, which is not allowed. This page is highly trafficked and reports posted here frequently attract a great deal of attention, not only from admins, but from rank-and-file editors such as myself. So you're likely to get a "wide readership", but, you should be warned, it's extremely unlikely that you're going to get a great deal of support for your position. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:09, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, Ken. If the discussion is kept civil, I don't mind defending my position. I am first to admit that I do not know everything, but I try to be a learned gay frog ;-) --BobiusPrime (talk) 06:40, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Well, here's the problem with that: WP:ANI (i.e. this page) does not deal with content disputes, so if you're thinking that you will be defending your position about that here, you're mistaken. Discussions about content take place on the article talk page, as Bishonen told you earlier on your talk page. Because administrators have no special authority to deal with content, they do not settle content disputes. What this page is about is dealing with behavioral problems. Guy has noted what he believes to be some behavioral issues on your part, which is why he brought the problem here. In particular, he mentions WP:tendentious editing and your mischaracterization of his edits as WP:vandalism -- which I hope you now understand after Bishonen's note to you is not the case. So if you're "defending" anything, it'll be your editing behavior, not the content of it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:58, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Understood. I do believe my subsequent posting has heeded Bishonen's advice in that commentary has centered on content.--BobiusPrime (talk) 12:46, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Not so in your latest contribution to Talk:Paul Joseph Watson, [245] in which you refer to Guy's "open contempt for the subject matter" being "on full display." That's no personal attacks material. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:22, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

That is critical of content. Please don't try to needlessly inflame the discussion. --BobiusPrime (talk) 07:18, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

So, asking that an editor follow Wikipedia's poliicies and procedures is now to be considered to be "gaslighting" [246] and "needlessly inflaming the discussion." You've been told, repeatedly now, what is expected of you, and you continue to attempt to deflect any criticism of your behavior onto others. Apparently it was all Guy's fault, and now it's mine as well, and you are totally blameless.

Fortunately, other editors, including myself, seem to have been able to resolve the substantive issue via consensus discussion on the article talk page, without recourse to personal attacks and ad hominems. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:13, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

Disruptive tag team doing bulk section deletions against numerous other 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.

---

Can someone with a little more time to spare please take a look at these two:

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

We have two editors, overlapping to blank large and important sections of articles as unsourced. They are happily edit-warring over other editors. They have been warned repeatedly, by several editors, for some time. The content being blanked is largely stuff that has been there for years, unchallenged, and mostly unchallengeable. Yes, per the dogma of WP:V et al there is a case for this needing to be fixed, but behaviour here has gone way into the disruptive. As we all know only too well, it is far easier to bulk blank content like this than it is for anyone to work to fix it. Also, I see zero effort to fix anything from either of these editors (their contribs are one long sea of red).

For Morphenniel in particular, this has now crossed over into personal stalking and hounding. They've gone down a list of articles I happened to edit yesterday and started blanking sections from them, whether I edited that section or not.

• British Rail Class 15 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Severn Tunnel Junction railway station (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Precipitation hardening (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Chevaline (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Field's metal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

They also seem to hold some grudge against Belgians: "It must be deleted lest it be something that a teenager from Belgium added.", which is a little odd for someone editing some of these particular articles (where a particular teenager from Belgium did indeed work on them).

This disruption also passes the 'Blue Moon' test, when that rare planetary alignment takes place and Wtshymanski and I agree on anything.

This is sheer disruption, and it's block-worthy. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:47, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

A look at WP:Sockpuppet investigations/I B Wright/Archive / Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/I B Wright and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bhtpbank/Archive wouldn't go amiss either. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:50, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Also [247] (the Wikipedia section and their activity with SPIs) Andy Dingley (talk) 20:55, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

I've been noticing Morphenniel doing these disruptive edits as well - and their nasty responses when asked to stop. The disruption is taking some bizarre forms - see Silver Star (Amtrak train) where another editor removed an utterly preposterous claim, and Morphenniel reverted with the summary "Prove it." I agree with Andy that the focus on railway electrification - and a sudden change from polite to hostile - reminds me a lot of I B Wright and Bhtpbank. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 05:03, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

When the primary reason for a revert has become the opportunity to annoy another editor, rather than any objective improvement in the article, then that's time it was stopped. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:40, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Holding on to un-sourced content is against all Wikipedia conventions. I have provided edit summaries for every article for which I have deleted un-sourced content. I refer you to the very first sentence of WP:PROVEIT - "All content must be verifiable. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution." Morphenniel (talk) 11:13, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

I refer you to WP:DISRUPTIVE. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:23, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Please elaborate. I refer you to WP:DISRUPTSIGNS. I have not engaged in the deletion of reliable sources, nor have I added content (or re-added following deletion) that was un-sourced. Your argument appears to lack any basis, nor is it substantiated. You are upset, but that it not a reason to run crying to the admins like a child running to its mummy. Your behavior here is un-founded on any of Wikipedia Policies, and is rejected. Grow up and start behaving like a mature adult. We are here to build an encyclopedia, and that means that articles must be thorough and be well-sourced. Perhaps you are the problem here? Maybe the admins should investigate you and Wtshymanski instead for re-inserting content that was un-sourced.

Well I thought you'd only gone for WP:DISRUPTSIGNS #1, #3, #4, #5 & #6, but here you managed to score a #2 too, so well done, that's numberwang. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:49, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

I think it would be all too simple for me to find diff's that prove similar for you and Wtshymanski. let's be honest, Wtshymanski's normal editing behavior is typified by #4 and #5. - Morphenniel (talk) 12:36, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

@Morphenniel: I'm pretty close to blocking you for hounding - you've followed Andy to several articles that you've never edited before. Doug Weller talk 13:24, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

"Holding on to un-sourced content is against all Wikipedia conventions." Untrue. Why else do we have {{citation needed}}? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:42, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

You people really ought to read, inwardly digest and start to understand Wikipedia Policies. As a starter for ten, I refer you to WP:BURDEN - "Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source." - Morphenniel (talk) 20:20, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

WP:VERIFY says: "When tagging or removing material for lacking an inline citation, please state your concern that it may not be possible to find a published reliable source for the content, and therefore it may not be verifiable.[5] If you think the material is verifiable, you are encouraged to provide an inline citation yourself before considering whether to remove or tag it."

That is way different than removing content only because it is not sourced. Rzvas (talk) 21:11, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

• Comment - Some of these articles are on my watch list so I noticed this sudden eruption of what seem to be WP:POINTy edits consisting of (rapidly) deleting whole sections over many articles. Start seems to have been Alternator 13:04, 10 November 2018 and has gone on to TheVicarsCat and Morphenniel tag team deleting against Wtshymanski and Andy Dingley at that article, Railway electrification system, Lithium battery. Morphenniel's 21:02, 20 December 2018 to 00:25, 21 December 2018 edits (20 edits in a row) shows an obvious retaliation/HOUND where he/she executed rapid mass deletion edits (sometimes one a minute) in articles that seem to have no relation except every single one was previously edited by Wtshymanski or Andy Dingley. Looks like time to hand out some blocks. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 20:54, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

• Comment It does not matter if something has been on the 'pedia from day 1, if it's uncited it is deletable: to say otherwise goes against The Second Pillar.
  Looking at the examples above... in Chevaline, the deleted content had been tagged as an Unreferenced section since August 2008. That's over ten years. Likewise, Precipitation hardening has had a Refimprove tag since February 2010. If those aren't valid deletions, whatever would be?
  I can't speak to the alleged hounding or of the other actors involved in all of these accusations, but there should never be a challenge for removing unsourced content... no matter however long it has stood. Markvs88 (talk) 22:50, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

• I'm not claiming that this is related (and it's the weekend so I can't check) but I've just had two anon phone calls and a threat of physical violence. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:00, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

From my standpoint, this all started when an editor deleted a 'refimprove' tag, from the aticle Alternator despite the article being practically devoid of any referencing and without adding the references so requested. This was followed by a post on the article talk page where said editor referred to, what he called, 'shotgun tagging'. There followed a discussion (at Talk:Alternator#Shotgun tagging). Prior to this discussion, I have had no prior interaction with this editor. I also noticed that several other 'refimprove' tags at other articles were deleted by him/her as well without actually improving the referencing which is the reason for the articles that I targeted.

What became apparent from the discussion was that this editor dislikes all encompassing tags at the head of an article. On this point, I happen to concur as they rarely, if ever, precipitate any action. However, what also became apparent was that this editor somehow also believes that the text of the article should not contain in-line references either if there is a reference at the bottom of the article that covers the point (basically a 'shotgun reference' to hijack his allusion). He essentially said that: we don't need to tag every claim with 'a little blue number'. The problem with sections of articles devoid of in-line references is that it is quite impossible to determine what claims in the section are valid and referenced by which reference that happens to follow the article, or what is false and not referenced at all (which must fail the requirements of verifiability).

The sections deleted were sections wholly unsupported by references for lengthy periods of time so there is no evidence at all that they are even accurate. I regard them as legitimately deleted as other have noted above. They were not legitimately restored by others as WP:BURDEN unequivocally states that the restoring editor is responsible for providing the missing referencing. As I see it: the only way to remove unreferenced and inaccurate material (and there is a lot of it on Wikipedia) is to delete it. If the material is accurate then the restoring editor should have little difficulty providing the required supporting in-line reference. If a supporting reference is not forthcoming then it is reasonable to assume that it was inaccurate and correctly deleted. To provide context, the policy that I have been following clearly states:

All content must be verifiable. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution. (WP:BURDEN - the very first line)

and

Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source. (WP:BURDEN - first sentence, third para)

Some of what I have deleted has been restored by a couple of editors (including the OP) without supplying the required references (in violation of WP:BURDEN. I shall hold off deleting it again for a few days pending any development and (authoritative) feedback here, but as I see it, if folks are not happy then it is the policy that is at fault and not I.

I had noticed that Morphenniel was treading on my heels, but beyond that I cannot comment other than to observe that he clearly is of the same opinion. TheVicarsCat (talk) 15:02, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

How do you feel about WP:OUTING and threatening phone calls? Andy Dingley (talk) 15:38, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

That sounds very much like you are making an allegation without a shred of supporting evidence. I have no way of knowing who you are beyond the fact that your screen persona is 'Andy Dingley' (which may, or may not, be your real name). I even had no way of even knowing which particular part of the planet you inhabit, until I just checked your user page. Where exactly do you allege that I have attempted to out you?

Are you quite certain that you are not sleeping with someone else's wife/husband/girlfriend/boyfriend?

But the real point is: why would I pursue such a move given that I have only reverted a single reversion of yours which was in violation of the above cited policy anyway? TheVicarsCat (talk) 16:37, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

I don't believe that you have OUTed me, or threatened me. But Morphenniel did twice, and someone threatened me at home last night. I'm more interested in giving you a chance to either stand with Morphenniel over that, or to distance yourself from it. You seem to have chosen personal attacks and insinuation instead. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:54, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

If you don't believe it, then why did you make the allegation? I can't be held responsible for anything other editors do. I did not make any insinuation. I merely asked a question posing an explanation that is more likely than rather more serious allegation that you made, so this is just the pot calling the kettle black.

I also note that you resorted to allegations above of sock puppetry without providing a shred of evidence on that score either. Taken together that rather smacks of desperation. Checking up on policy on that matter: making sock allegations without evidence is considered to be a personal attack. But realistically, I'm not expecting a block for that any time soon. I further desperation, you have quoted several policies above. This is basically WP:WIKILAWYERING, because you have failed to comprehend both of them. TheVicarsCat (talk) 18:00, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

When it comes to personal attacks, given that my sole interaction with you was a single reversion of a revert that you had no right to make, it was you that fired the opening salvo (above). You can hardly complain when you get incoming in reply. TheVicarsCat (talk) 17:39, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

• Sockpuppetry. I haven't alleged this, as I consider it likely, but not as yet to a level where I would make such an allegation, mostly because I don't know who that sockmaster would be. If I get to such a point, I'll do so at the relevant SPI page. But would you please explain your indef block per WP:SCRUTINY - maybe @NeilN: could throw some light? As that's certainly an issue which overlaps into sockpuppeting. There's also the highly suspicious behaviour of Morphenniel, a newish editor who popped up editing the I B Wright SPI – it's always remarkable how such obscure pages are a magnet for (some) new editors. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:53, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

No. You alleged it, very unambiguously. As for the exchange with NeilN that you referred to, the history is fully available for you to read for yourself. In case, you hadn't figured it out, I don't have an indef block as this (and every other post) demonstrates. Editing from an IP address and then registering an account to do something an IP cannot do, does not even remotely count as sockpuppetry. After all, every IP is encouraged to register an account if they chose to hang around. Also my IP address at the time is a matter of record if you bother to check my history as I suggested (so no scrutiny evasion either).

But the one thing that you have still not done, is to explain how what I was doing (and apparently what Morphenniel was doing as well) is in any way in violation of the policies that I have quoted above (or don't you understand those either). TheVicarsCat (talk) 18:11, 22 December 2018 (UTC) TheVicarsCat (talk) 18:00, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

Can someone explain why TheVickersCat hasn't been blocked yet for the rather vile personal attack above - i.e. the insinuation of adultery? Such comments are completely unacceptable.Nigel Ish (talk) 17:11, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

But that standard, Andy Dingley should receive a longer block for the more serious allegation of making threats of violence. Or are you applying double standards here along with your inability to spell? TheVicarsCat (talk) 17:39, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

• I'm just going to block anyone in this thread who makes personal attacks or aspersions from this point onward. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:29, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
  • I think we are close to being finished here. Can we agree that the editor that initiated this thread is culpable, and should be blocked for severely disruptive behavior, and making claims that are not aligned with Wikipedia policies, but his wrongful interpretation of them. This same editor has also been un-civil and raised spurious (but unproven) claims about sock-puppetry. A short term block of six months would appear to be appropriate, and give this editor time to consider their future on this encyclopedia. Morphenniel (talk) 02:00, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
    • We certainly can't agree to that. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:07, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
    • No, Morphenniel. Put the shovel down and stop digging your hole deeper. Dubious information can be removed but inline citations (while good practice) are not strictly necessary. You should have a good faith basis to think information is dodgy before you remove it, something more than merely lacking an inline citation. You’ve been pointy and my block finger is getting itchy. Do you agree to take a hint? Jehochman ^Talk 02:17, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

After reviewing this discussion and the relevant talk pages, I have given Morphenniel a 72 hour block for disruptive editing. TheVicarsCat is warned to abandon similar behavior, which will allow them to avoid a block. Editors who engage in a spree of deleting unreferenced paragraphs without making any effort to search for references and improve the referencing of articles are not here to build the encyclopedia. This behavior is especially disruptive if it targets the work of specific other editors. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:55, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, that is very welcome. If someone wants to focus on improving a particular article they might study it and conclude that certain paragraphs should be removed. However, removing text because I can is disruptive. Johnuniq (talk) 06:15, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

You are welcome, Johnuniq. I took a look at one of the articles that had been gutted, Field's metal. This is a fascinating alloy and I was easily able to expand the article and add several references. Any editor more knowledgeable about metallurgy than I can easily expand this article much more. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 08:04, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

@Cullen328: As I indicated above, I will accept and abide by the guidance provided, even though it still is not clear how I have misinterpreted the policy elements that I quoted.

I would offer the observation that the article to which you added references (Field's metal), has now unarguably been improved. This would not have been the case had Morphenniel not initially deleted the material that he did. I would argue that he was at least instrumental in improving that article. This illustrates admirably, that deleting material and forcing restorers to cite it does ultimately result in an improvement which would appear to be the objective of the policies given (my €0.02 worth).

Can we also settle one issue. Is it therefore correct and acceptable to add a {{noreferences}} or {{refimprove}} tag to the head of any article that has either no references or whole sections with no in-line references (respectively). For my part, this is where this started, one editor removing such tags on under-referenced articles claiming they were unnecessary (though also claiming that references themselves were unnecessary). TheVicarsCat (talk) 13:10, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

It's open to any editor to work to improve articles by improving their sourcing. I see very little of this from either of you.

It's possible to work to improve articles (even by highlighting their shortcomings) without pissing off all other editors involved. In particular, it is highly discouraging for other editors to work to improve articles when they're being bulk reverted against. WP:POLICY edits can still be against WP:DISRUPTIVE. That is why this was raised here.

The NHS grew out of World War II. But that still doesn't excuse Pearl Harbour. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:56, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

1. I didn't ask you.
2. In view of your deplorable behaviour in this, you are the last person who should be handing out advice.
3. You talk about discouraging other editors to improve articles, but that was precisely what was not happening and certainly what you were not doing (improving the articles that is). TheVicarsCat (talk) 15:23, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Don’t just bumble around slapping warning templates on articles. This would be obnoxious. Try to improve the articles by looking for references. If you find through your work that the information is wrong, feel free to remove it. Explain so that other editors understand that you looked. If despite your good faith efforts you are having trouble finding the right references (but haven’t found the info is wrong) then you can add a reference needed template. Best practice is to explain what you did on the talk page. TLDR: try to fix it yourself and if this proves too difficult, Mark it and ask other editors for help. Jehochman ^Talk 15:07, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

This illustrates admirably, that deleting material and forcing restorers to cite it does ultimately result in an improvement which would appear to be the objective of the policies given (my €0.02 worth).

Ah, the classic "the wall was dirty, so we threw so much shit around someone had to come and clean it" defense. People have been saying this for over a decade. It's just as terrible an argument now as it was then. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:25, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

How can we possible tolerate the " sleeping with someone else's wife/husband/girlfriend/boyfriend" comment? It's so grossly uncivil I don't see how we can allow such an editor to continue. Jacona (talk) 17:56, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Just to close the loop on the other matter, I've filed a report at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bhtpbank regarding Morphenniel. The evidence is suggestive to me, if not conclusive. Mackensen (talk) 15:21, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

• TheVicarsCat is now indef blocked as a sock of I B Wright.

Merry Christmas, and so, as Tiny Tim observed, God bless Us, Every One! Andy Dingley (talk) 00:30, 25 December 2018 (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.

Chicago band genre warrior from Lakewood

At the Chicago band page there has been a recent spate of genre warring, with repeated insertions from IPs from Lakewood, California, and from a new user doing the same thing. Looks to me like a violation of WP:MULTIPLE.

A range of Lakewood IPs began editing the Chicago band topic in early Sepember: Special:Contributions/2606:6000:6602:AD00:0:0:0:0/64. The area of interest was twofold – the many lineup changes the band has seen, and the band's genre. This edit on September 8 added "adult contemporary" to the genre parameter in the infobox. (Adult contemporary is arguably a radio programming format more than it is a musical genre, with its definite origin in radio.)

That Lakewood IP was reverted, so another Lakewood IP, Special:Contributions/76.171.112.116, came to continue the war. The IP's very first edit was to add "adult contemporary". After being reverted, the person performed the same insertion without discussion.[248]

Communication from this person has been largely absent. The IP 76.171.112.116 has never used an edit summary or a talk page, and the IP6 range has only used an edit summary once.[249] The IP6 range was blocked for a month starting in mid-November, and 76.171.112.116 was blocked once later the same month.

A new user, JARCILLA, was registered on December 17. JARCILLA's contributions reflect an interest in Chicago's band lineups[250] and the band's genre. On the first day of editing, JARCILLA added "adult contemporary" to the genre parameter. JARCILLA is similarly uncommunicative.

What's the next step here? Binksternet (talk) 15:34, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Change the genre to ”Trailer Park Rock”? Roxy, the dog. wooF 15:39, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

I've re-blocked the IP range for three months, as they're continuing to disruptively edit after a one-month block. The IP4 hasn't been active in some time, so I'm gonna leave that one alone, but I've protected the article for three months in case they decide to return via that or another IP. I've also blocked JARCILLA indefinitely.  Swarm  {talk}  23:51, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Hello Swarm. I wanted to alert you that the "Chicago band genre warrior from Lakewood" from the user JARCILLA appears to be continuing under the new IP address (112.201.92.7). The party in question cannot edit the Chicago page due to protection, but has gone back and remade many of the exact same edits that user JARCILLA or one of his alias IP addresses did back in December 2018. The following pages were edited with the same exact edits by user 112.201.92.7 that user JARCILLA made:

1)New Edit: 11:40, 18 January 2019 diff hist +14‎ Matt Heafy ‎ Original edit: 17:18, 24 December 2018‎ JARCILLA (talk | contribs)‎.

2)New Edit: 11:40, 18 January 2019 diff hist +5‎ Corey Beaulieu Original edit: 17:17, 24 December 2018‎ JARCILLA (talk | contribs)‎.

3)New Edit: 11:42, 18 January 2019 diff hist +60‎ Raising Hell (Bullet for My Valentine song) ‎Original edit: 06:49, 14 December 2018‎ 76.171.112.116 (talk)‎ (used another IP address [76.171.112.116] instead of a User name but with the same edit).

4)New Edit: 11:44, 18 January 2019 diff hist +131‎ No Way Out (Bullet for My Valentine song) Original edits: 07:28, 7 December 2018‎ 76.171.112.116 (talk)‎ and 07:29, 7 December 2018‎ 76.171.112.116 (talk)‎ . . (1,820 bytes) +2‎ (used another IP address [76.171.112.116] instead of a User name but with the same edit).

5)New Edit: 11:45, 18 January 2019 diff hist +165‎ Word Up! (song) ‎ →‎Korn Original edit: 06:28, 21 December 2018‎ JARCILLA (talk | contribs)‎ . . (29,261 bytes) +179‎

6)New Edit: 11:46, 18 January 2019 diff hist +62‎ Here in My Heart (Chicago song) Original edit: 00:13, 23 December 2018‎ JARCILLA (talk | contribs)‎ . . (1,738 bytes) +62‎.

7)New Edit: 11:57, 18 January 2019 diff hist +137‎ Sulfur (song) ‎ Original edit: 23:05, 20 December 2018‎ JARCILLA (talk | contribs)‎ . . (7,220 bytes) +140‎

8) New Edit: 11:59, 18 January 2019 diff hist +49‎ Projekt Revolution ‎ →‎2004 Original edit: 06:34, 15 December 2018‎ 2606:6000:6602:ad00:e4f8:7a64:d51d:3b33 (talk)‎ . . (34,874 bytes) +55‎.(used another IP address [2606:6000:6602:ad00:e4f8:7a64:d51d:3b33] instead of a User name but with the same edit as before).

9) New Edit: 12:05, 18 January 2019 diff hist +204‎ Earth, Wind & Fire ‎ →‎1994–present: Neo-classic period current Original edit on the Chicago (Band) page: 04:15, 15 October 2018‎ 76.171.112.116 (talk)‎ . . (136,755 bytes) +61‎. It seems since he cannot add this to the Chicago (Band) page, he is now adding the same exact edit onto the EWF page.

10) New Edit: 18 January 2019 diff hist 0‎ Template:Chicago (band) Original Edit: 06:38, 17 December 2018‎ JARCILLA (talk | contribs)‎ . . (4,114 bytes) 0‎.

I really do not know the proper process for reporting this, so I figured it best to notify you. I am also going to post this on the pages for users Binksternet and Swarm since they were involved in the discussion on this user back in December. Regards, 209.212.21.197 (talk) 20:53, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

User:DevonSoc Appears to be Vandalism-Only.

Resolved

I came across DevonSoc (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) this afternoon and it appears that every edit the user has is vandalism - usually changing the heights of basketball players or their positions. Nothing of value. I've reverted all that I can. Not sure of a better venue, but they're clearly not here for anything positive.--Jorm (talk) 01:04, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Please report at WP:AIV. General Ization ^Talk 03:44, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Blocked for 1 week. Their article creations stopped me from indefblock. Materialscientist (talk) 05:51, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Block request of 86.190.161.152 (edit warring, block evasion, general disruption)

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

IP user 86.190.161.152 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) is MFIreland. (MFIreland an indef blocked LTA disruptive editor with multiple confirmed user socks, and many dozens of blocked IP socks. The latter mainly in the same range/ISP pool). Repeated warnings from a half-dozen different editors (to this latest incarnation) have all gone unheeded and blanked. Which is unsurprising to anyone familiar with the history. And the disruption continues. Also unsurprising. Take, just by way of example, this type of POV warring or this behaviour. Both of which were reverted by varying editors, prior to reinsertion/attempted reinsertion. This is very far from the first time one of this user's IPs has been blocked. And, unfortunately, won't be the last. But please block anyway. Thanks. Guliolopez (talk) 00:25, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

• I also support blocking the IP because they are continuously disrupting the pages and provides no edit summaries of their reversions of other editors. This is another example. Wikiman5676 (talk) 09:31, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

DynamoDegsy's use of AWB

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 recently noticed that DynamoDegsy had made four AWB edits which refactor user's comments and DYK archives: [251][252][253][254]. I reverted these and brought it up with the user. They left me a snarky reply: "I've made over 150,000 edits and you're "concerned to see these four edits you made with AWB", four easily rectified edits… mmm." Indeed the fact that the user has made over 150,000 edits is precisely my concern, because these four edits are part of a larger pattern. They reverted three of their own edits (123) but missed the vast majority of them; I started to undo them but there are too many for me to deal with ([255][256][257][258][259][260][261] etc.).

There could potentially be thousands of these violations; I only managed to get through some of the edits they made in a 10 minute period. The user shows no signs of regret or of wishing to fix their mistakes or discontinuing these actions in future. I notice that other issues with DynamoDegsy's AWB use (or repetitive bot-like edits) on their talk page in 2018 alone have been brought up by Theanonymousentry (here), Nthep (here), Jessicapierce (here and here), Mikeblas (here), Jonesey95 (here and here)

Hence, I am proposing that DynamoDegsy should have AWB access withdrawn. They should also be monitored in future for bot-like edits which violate obvious principles of the site e.g. don't alter what other users said. — Bilorv_(c)(talk) 12:37, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

What's this business of changing peoples' comments on talk pages? Shouldn't that be off limits in any case, with or without AWB? If that just "slipped through" while updating links on mainspace pages, it would indeed indicate that AWB is in unsafe hands here. If it was done deliberately, well... --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 12:56, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

When making the tens of thousands of of constructive edits within AWB, the changes are being made to citations, talk pages, etc. are not always immediately obvious, or it's too late, as I've inadvertently pressed the save button, but I believe that the non-preferable changes detailed above by Bilorv, have always been remedied by myself in a timely manner (hence the snark). However, could someone please point me towards a AWB setting that prevent these non-preferable changes? DynamoDegsy (talk) 12:59, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

This is nonsense, you have not been remedying the changes in a timely manner. I've found 42 instances of you refactoring other users' comments, or altering DYK archives, going back to 18 December alone (that's more than 10 bad edits per day and you've been editing for a decade!). I alerted you to this problem and you denied that there was one, implying the 4 edits were isolated incidents while sneakily undoing just 3 of the problem edits yourself. — Bilorv_(c)(talk) 13:06, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

If you press the save button accidentally then obviously, you need to go to your user contributions and undo the edit. The AWB setting that you're looking for is called "human oversight" and it's not possible to have it in use when you're making an edit every 3 seconds, such as 2:03 on 20 December (a minute in which you made 18 errors in 19 edits). — Bilorv_(c)(talk) 13:18, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

DynamoDegsy, please revert your errant edits, many of which are still current(1 2 – cosmetic AWB edit in violation of AWB rule 4, 3, 4. 5, 6, 7, etc.), and then post here when you have done so. That's what any reasonable editor should do when alerted to errors that he or she has made. Thank you in advance. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:39, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

"When making the tens of thousands of of constructive edits within AWB, the changes are being made to citations, talk pages, etc. are not always immediately obvious, or it's too late, as I've inadvertently pressed the save button" - Then I suggest you read WP:AWBRULES. Number 1 is quite clear - "You are responsible for every edit made". Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 13:41, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

• @DynamoDegsy: You are responsible for all edits you have made. Reading your explanations here, I would recommend that you should voluntarily agree to withdraw from AWB otherwise others would be too quick with putting you under a topic ban from entire semi-automated editing. Shivkarandholiya12 (talk) 14:55, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

• I've removed Dynamo's AWB access. This shows the problematic edits in non-mainspace (almost all not remedied by Dynamo). One-off mistakes that are corrected quickly is fine, but 20 edits in a row to talk namespaces and an unwillingness to recognize a problem or correct it after being asked is incompatible with AWB access. Not only that, their recent mainspace AWB edits in large part consists of either edits that are clearly not constructive (and these were done in en masse - they weren't one off), whitespace changes (both violations of WP:AWBRULES#4, which they've been warned before about). Per their talk page, in the past through AWB they've repeatedly broken pages through breaking references over months despite repeated warnings. Galobtter (pingó mió) 16:56, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

• Also, anyone more familiar with rugby want to check their edits to change "rugby player" to "professional rugby league footballer"? It is possible that the Danny McMaster in this edit was a professional rather than semi-professional or other footballer but I doubt DynamoDegsy is checking to see if the change is correct. Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:05, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

• I'm a rugby fan and I can tell you that rarely (if ever) are rugby players referred to as "footballers". This is an incorrect and irregular change which has not been agreed at either WP:RU or WP:RL so these should also be reverted. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 17:13, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

• Well, they've made hundreds to thousands of those edits so that's another issue; + introductions of awkward sentences and it seems that most of their AWB edits need reversion (and these edits made in the thousands also seem unecessary to me) Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:26, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

Good removal of tools. Clear case of WP:IDHT at best. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 17:54, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

Oohhh… I love a good pile-on… I am aware that i'm responsible for every edit made (all 150,000 of them), and as far as I'm aware I have always remedied the small number (0.00000125%) accidental edits I have made, whether AWB or manual, but not necessarily within a time-frame that is held only in someone's head. Rugby is a code of football, and hence the players of both codes are footballers, and this could not be agreed upon at WP:RL, as things are rarely agreed upon at WP:RL because there are so few active editors, none of whom seem to agree on much. Just because a rugby league footballer played for a country, e.g. Tonga, doesn't make him Tongan (because of Grandparent rule), and so to describe the "Tonga national rugby league team" as "His Country" is incorrect. Without understanding the individual footballers personal finances, it is impossible to know whether a rugby footballer is a professional, or a semi-professional, as even if the club itself is only a semi-professional. this may be the individuals only source of income, and from a rugby league perspective, being paid to play -the definition of professional sport - is/was a key differentiation between it and rugby union. Because it appears that no-one was able to identify the usage of the deprecated "Nickname" field in the "Rugby League infobox", I have been using AWB to reset the formatting of this field, and then look for alphanumeric entries in the field, manually transferring the resultant information to the main body of the article from where references can then be sought. I have prefixed Super League with European" as it is a European competition, yet there were a large number of instances where it had been prefixed with "English", "England's", "British", "United Kingdom's", "UK", "UK's", etc. and so I believe the prefix of "European" was accurate and would deter future mis-edits. Had the opening comment by Bilorv assumed "Good Faith", rather than being threatening (actually admitted to in the second paragraph), I may have been less "snarky", but it was always my intention remedy the accidental edits, and as far as I believe it is now completed. DynamoDegsy (talk) 18:48, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

I think you may have missed my point. Yes rugby may have come out of football but it is rarely called "rugby football" in common parlance. Indeed, if you watch any rugby broadcast you'll notice that the people who play rugby are always referred to as "rugby players" rather than "footballers". So it is fairly disingenuous to call them "footballers" on wikipedia. Besides just because it couldn't be agreed to change consensus at RL, that does not give you a licence to go against the established consensus and change it unilaterally using the tools. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 19:24, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) If you are aware that consensus does not exist and could not be obtained, but persist in making the edits anyway, you are exhibiting dangerous ownership of a subject area. I'm afraid that you have made more than 0.00000125% of accidental edits, as that number would be 0.001875 mistakes per 150,000 edits. Rather, the number I have is dozens of mistakes in the past week, and potentially thousands of mistaken edits that you have been making en masse for years. You exhibit WP:IDHT in seeking to deny that you have been making large-scale inappropriate edits. My first instinct when I saw hundreds of careless edits was to find an admin who could block you for 48 hours, and then work out what was going on; I did assume good faith by bringing the issue up with you first, but your reply made it clear that you did not want to change your behaviour.

Your nickname edits violate AWB rule 4, as many of them did not change the article's appearance, regardless of later intentions. Sentences such as "Sione Tongia is a Tongan rugby league player who represented Tonga national rugby league team" are redundant and grammatically incorrect—the diff pointed to says that the player is Tongan and hence it is his country, though I don't claim that this wording is ideal. I personally have no opinion on your "European Super League" changes. There are many other edits you have made which violate permitted use of AWB / bot-like editing e.g. the many hundreds of "rugby league football to rugby league football" (e.g. here) are inappropriate per the spirit of WP:NOTBROKEN.

Thank you for reverting some of your edits. However, the "footballer" issue is not yet resolved; I would suggest that a discussion at WP:RU/WP:RL should take place and if "footballer" is deemed to be misleading, you should revert these edits as well. — Bilorv_(c)(talk) 19:36, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

"European Super League" is wrong as well. It's simply not called that, because Super League is run by the RFL and is an English tournament that happens to allow teams from other countries to play. Last season Toronto Wolfpack were one point away from being promoted to the Super League - would DD then have AWB'd his way through every article changing it to "Northern Hemisphere Super League"? Or. as an example, would you go through every Premier League article renaming it the "British Premier League" because one Welsh club plays in it? No. Obviously not. Just Super League is perfectly fine. So all of those edits need to be rolled back. The "footballer" ones need to go back as well, and what's going on at Joe Lyman? (Joseph Lyman, also known by the nickname of "Joe"...) That's not a nickname, it's a diminutive. It should just be Joseph Lynam, known as "Joe", or even simply Joseph "Joe" Lynam. Indeed, a lot of articles with diminutive names don't even bother (see practically anyone called "Nick"). There are a lot of these, as well. There's a lot of rolling back to be done here. Black Kite (talk) 01:23, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Per MOS:HYPOCORISM, we don't list common diminuitive forms such as "Joe" for "Joseph", so yes these should be reverted. — Bilorv_(c)(talk) 02:23, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Rugby football didn't come out of (association) football (codified 1863), rugby football was codified first (codified 1859), and players of all codes of football are football players, or more simply footballers, and as an aside at the rugby (league) matches I attend I regularly hear a "player" referred to as "footballer". It is typical Wikipedia bureaucracy that would let valid information be lost rather than temporary resetting the formatting of the deprecated "Nickname" field of the infobox. There does not appear to be a reference indicating that, e.g Sione Tongia is Tongan, only that the played for Tonga, so (due to the grandparent rule) the opening paragraph would be better as… "Sione Tongia is a rugby league footballer who represented Tonga". I was changing "rugby league player" to "rugby league footballer" using only "rugby league" categories, and many of the (most of the British) rugby league articles already used the term "rugby league footballer", so I wasn't unilaterally changing articles, I was harmonising the terminology for consistency. I just checked… I never suggested prefixing "Premier League" with "British" to become "British Premier League", but thanks for the suggestion, and thankfully there are very few rugby league footballers called "Nick". Changing "rugby league footballer" to "rugby league player", removing the "European" prefix from "Super League" and removing, e.g. ", also known by the nickname of "Joe"", can all be easily accomplished with AWB, but as I no longer have access to AWB, I suggest one of you stops beautifying your "User page" and gets on with it. Merry Fucking Christmas. DynamoDegsy (talk)

No. You are responsible for fixing your own errors. If you can't be bothered to do that, the only alternative for us is to roll back all of your edits back to where you started making errors, which appears to be quite a while ago (which would also rollback any constructive edits you've made, which I'm sure is quite a lot). I'd strongly suggest you start getting on with it. Black Kite (talk) 19:06, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Mass roll-backing the nonconstructive edits would probably be the easiest way to do it. Galobtter (pingó mió) 08:43, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

It seems like you are best positioned to undo your own edits, which can be achieved by such features as Twinkle's rollback. I hope you have a good Christmas and can take a bit of a break from the stress of Wikipedia. @Black Kite: I don't understand how you think aggression is the right response here but your tone is making me uncomfortable so I can only imagine how DynamoDegsy feels. — Bilorv_(c)(talk) 20:52, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Really? Considering the user's response to being asked to fix their errors was "No, one of you lot can do it, Merry Fucking Xmas", I thought that was quite mild, personally. Black Kite (talk) 06:49, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

I was frustrated at the needless straw man arguments, and that, as I no longer have access to AWB, as far as I was aware I no longer had the means to undo the edits, but now that Bilorv has kindly pointed me towards Twinkle's rollback I will hopefully now have the capability to do so. Merry Christmas DynamoDegsy (talk) 11:27, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Fair enough. I'll close this now. Black Kite (talk) 14:40, 24 December 2018 (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.