Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems. Before posting: Read these tips for dealing with incivility If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page Try dispute resolution Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly. Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight. When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough. You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so. Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)
Start a new discussion

User:E-960

Problematic POV pushing. Page blanking against WP:Consensus at Blue Army (Poland). 7&6=thirteen (☎) 21:10, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Article has been fully protected. This'll give the users involved an opportunity to discuss everything fully on the article's talk page and work things out. I see back-and-fourth reverting that goes back at least a few days, so this appears to be the right and fair way to stop the disruption at this time. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:17, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

@Oshwah: - there is a longer term pattern of abuse here. E-960 has been attempting, against consensus, to excise coverage (in the lede and body) of anti-Semitic attacks by the Blue Army (which reliable academic sources treat at depth, often as the primary subject of their coverage of the Blue Army (or Haller's Army)) for years - e.g. 17:51, 24 November 2015 (shifting blame to Ukrainians along the way), 06:31, 6 March 2017, 15:07, 25 May 2017 (an edit summary full of OR - referencing a PRIMARY contemporary source - which was composed in 1919 - 2 years prior to the peace of Riga in 1921), 15:30, 26 May 2017, 21:37, 20 October 2017, 08:26, 22 September 2018, .... 06:09, 8 October 2018, 17:17, 9 October 2018. All this - against talk page consensus and RfCs - e.g. Talk:Blue Army (Poland)/Archive 6#RFC: use of a reference source that was taken down by the encyclopedia from May 2017 which discussed the language used in the lede. They have engaged of canvassing of editors involved in WP:EEML - 13:25, 8 October 2018, 13:21, 8 October 2018 (this after - 07:56, 8 October 2018 a highly non-neutral stmt to NPOV/n apparently attracted the wrong sort of editorial attention). An editor that thinks that 200-300 casualties in 3 years of fighting and 200,000 soldiers, that's insignificant, and only confirms my concerns that some editors just want to stack this article with biased one sided statements (again - wrongly referring to Morgenthau's mid-1919 number (the Morgenthau commission did not have a crystal ball) which estimated 200-300 killed through 1919 (casualties - including wounded and abused - would be much larger of course). They have also misrepresented sources - 06:01, 9 October 2018 (not only is Lvov in the Morgenthau report, using David Engel (1987) to rebut a 2005 book is a tad odd - and in this case completely unsupported by Engel (who actually, in his footnote addressing Morgenthau , writesthe opposite). An editor acting against consensus (on the same issue) for years, and who considers widespread antisemitic attack by an organization to be "insignificant" (despite widespread coverage - to the point that some sources primarily cover the Blue Army in the context of antisemitism) - should not be editing the topic area. Icewhiz (talk) 05:11, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Right, where you have no arguments and are trying to deflect from your own disruptive behavior then... you bring up "EEML", a ArbCom case from freakin' ten years ago that has nothing to do with this article. You know that's just more evidence that you're not editing in good faith, right? Volunteer Marek 14:58, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

I would like to make a critical statement, thought not in an effort to point fingers at anyone and not in bad faith, however a frank dialogue needs to take place. There is a persistent bias on topics related to Polish history, how can any one that is truly for Wikipedia neutraliry say that an article is balanced when it contains 3,100 words 900 (30%) are devoted to just one issue and this also happens to be a contriversial topic. When a few days ago I opened a disscussion on Neutral Point of View Noticeboard to see if the disputed text can be condenced, cynically user Icewhiz responded by adding two more paragraphs to disputed section (also pls see user Icewhiz history, as he has been accused of POV pushing on topics related to Polish-Jewish history in the past). Also, the disputed text is almost all exclusivley the work of one editor user Faustian, who over the years blocked any attempt to make the section more neutral or balanced. Now, Wikipedia guidlines clearly state that undue weight can include depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of text and article structue. So, how can anyone argue that one issue taking up 30% of the article is ok. In no other Wikipedia article would that be allowed. Instead you have artificial "consensus" where the same few editors jump in to support each other, and establish "consensus which clearly violates Wikipedia guidelines. I as that sevral admins to actually look at the Blue Army article and say that the text meets Wikipedias neutrality standards, when the article focuses on just one ethnic group which sustained the least casulties in the war as a result of the army's actions (around 500), while other ethnic groups count their casulties in the THOUSANDS and there is just one passing statement devoted to them. --E-960 (talk) 06:40, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. It would seem neutral, reliable, secondary academic sources treat the Blue Army's antisemitic atrocities against civilians (abuse, cutting of beards, pillaging and robbing, maiming, and killing) at great length in comparison to their performance on the field of battle. We follow sources - not editorial opinion that such atrocities are "insignificant"(diff - 10:33, 8 October 2018). Icewhiz (talk) 07:00, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for making that statement user Icewhiz because it unmasks your POV pushing, since there are pleanty of sources which say the Blue Army turned the tide of the war and that is the center of their material. However, the sources you champion just focus the the abuse, besides this is not the first article you are trying to impose your POV to the objectin of other editors, no sure what the point of that link was since we are talking about UNDUEWEIGHT.--E-960 (talk) 09:00, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Icewhiz, it's pretty clear that if anyone is trying to use Wikipedia to "RIGHTGREATWRONGS", it's not E-960 but you. E-960 is making a straight forward policy based argument about DUE WEIGHT. You can disagree with that (the real question is whether this article should spend 1/3 of its space on this issue even though the subject is notable for other reasons, or whether that info belongs in a different article), but there's no need to attack them or insult them or falsely misrepresent their actions, like you're doing by accusing them of RGW (I don't see ANYTHING in their comment which would suggest that). On the other hand, pretty much everyone familiar with your editing history has a pretty good sense of your WP:ADVOCACY and pattern of POV pushing in this and other topic areas. Volunteer Marek 16:36, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

I think that if E-960 really was concerned about undue weight, he would have taken all that time he spent trying to get this information about atrocities against Jews removed, and instead applied it towards building up other aspects of the history of the Blue Army. Instead he has, for years, just tried to get this information removed. So his actual motive is to remove information he doesn't like, and not make the article weighted as he sees fit. The percentage of the article devoted to these atrocities would have been much smaller had E-960 spent a couple hours in the library doing research and adding other information to the article, rather than spending hours trying to remove information. So let's not pretend that he cares about undue weight. He just wants to remove referenced information that he doesn't like and engages in edit warring and blanking (see here: [1]) while doing so.Faustian (talk) 13:56, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Faustian, what you are doing is Wikipedia:Status quo stonewalling, literally no changes have been made to the disputed section in YEARS, because you sit on top of that article and revert all attempts to change the text or even seek a compromise solution (that's not even an exaggeration, the text has been frozen for YEARS due to your stonewalling). --E-960 (talk) 18:34, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

By "no changed" in the disputed section you mean, your repeated attempts to remove information without consensus. If you are concerned about undue weight, why not build other sections rather than remove reliably sourced info from this one? I doubt you really care about undue weight. You just want information that you don't like to be removed.Faustian (talk) 20:00, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

This article does indeed have severe undue weight issues. Interestingly I have also checked the sources used and for example Prusin-he doesn't say anything about rapes and burning books by Blue Army soldiers and explanations of the situation have been cut out by the editors adding the information about killings.I compared this article with the article about West Ukrainian People's Republic that exised in the same time and area which engaged in mass opression of Polish population, up to setting up internment camps for Polish population. It is quite interesting to compare the two articles.While here we have almost half of the page devoted to these events, the mass persecution of Poles in WUPR is passed over and blamed on "Polish sabotage". I can't help but notice the radically different treatement the two articles about similiar events in the same time and area and conflict receive.So to summarize-I do believe there is undue weight here and comparing this to other articles on the conflict with similar events there seems to be bias involved.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 19:44, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

And what matters is not what our articles say, but what RS say. So if there is an imbalance maybe this is due to an imbalance in reliable sources saying something. Again if there is information left out of an article that is relevant and can be sourced add it, do not remove sources material from another article in the name of balance.Slatersteven (talk) 08:37, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

• We are back to the theme of trouble in articles on the subject of Polish-Jewish relations. As far as I’m aware there are three editors banned from the area at the moment, and E-960 was editing with them, on the same articles. Whether or not one agrees with this editor on article content, what we're required to do here at ANI is consider conduct. This particular case comes within a context, which I'll start to show some of here.
• For the record, at WP:AE the administrator NeilN has already advised E-960 “to be more careful when reverting” in the conclusion to a WP:AE revert-warring case: [2]
• This came after another WP:AE revert-war case where administrator NeilN asked E-960 to voluntarily abstain from the page in question for 72 hours, in light of E-960’s assurance that they will be more careful in future: [3]
• MyMoloboaccount has recently asked E-960 to “chill out”. [4] .
• Slatersteven messaged E-960 in May to say their conduct was starting look like WP:TE: [5]
• K.e.coffman messaged E-960 last month to say: Hi, I am leaving a quick note to let you know that I did not find these Talk page comments to be helpful: [6]. Talk pages are for discussion of content, not contributors. I would appreciate it if you did not unnecessarily personalised disputes. This could potentially drive off other editors if they find the atmosphere too unpleasant. Thank you. [7]
• I myself disengaged from editing and discussion with E-960 around 15 months ago, at the Poland article here: [8]
• In December, E-960 by their own account alleged a "Planned POV attack on the Poland article" which goes a long way to explain the perception issue here, which seems to motivate the behavior. User:BytEfLUSh responded by saying "I fail to see how someone saying that they intend to improve the article could be viewed as POV-pushing. Also, regarding 3RR, you might want to check the article history and look at the timestamps of your reverts... " Unable to leave alone an editor who had swam away from the WP:BAIT, E-960 added: "This reminds me of several incidents in the past where an editors/suck-puppet dumped information on unusual topics/minutia (normally not covered in other country articles) such as traffic fatalities in the country." I am the editor who had added road deaths to the Poland article (because no matter how embarrassing to the country, they are notable in reliable sources - including Polish news coverage and political discussion - because they are the highest total in the EU), before leaving it per WP:DISENGAGE. E-960 produced no evidence that I am a "suck-puppet". [9]
• Since then I have suspended work on an article subject to discretionary sanctions authorized by active arbitration remedies (see WP:ARBEE), named Collaboration in German-occupied Poland, in response to an edit by E-960 there. To my mind in breach of the spirit of these sanctions, E-960 reverted [10] my addition of sourced content [11] which I had discussed my rationale for on the Talk page first, and part of which François Robere had endorsed with a public thanks, meaning E-960 was pointedly disregarding consensus. As you’ll see from the Talk page, the aim of my addition had been to establish article stability by at least having a definition of controversial terms that in my view was causing editors to argue at cross -purposes; E-960’s edit summary shows their own definition of the term Polish “collaboration” rules out Polish “anti-semitism”, as if E-960’s knows the universal truth.
• At times E-960's Talk page discussion has been misleading. For example, at the same article subject to discretionary sanctions authorized by active arbitration remedies, their "I agree with Chumchum7... Unfortunately, user François Robere wants to..." is not an agreement at all but a case of putting words into someone else's mouth, because I had made a general statement about how we might be able to build consensus and stability, and I had not taken sides against the editor E-960 happened to disagree with: [12] Similarly misleading communication has been witnessed by Paul Siebert: [13]
• The common theme with all these articles is that E-960 has an axe to grind about Poland’s reputation and Polish-Jewish relations in particular, but they do this with the appearance of trying to intimidate, win and control, and often with projections of bad faith and a personally disrespectful tone, which is at odds with the ethos of our community. While I happen to agree that the allegation of Polish antisemitism is sometimes exaggerated and has led to stereotyping and is an aspect of prejudice against Poles, it is equally true that Polish antisemitism is sometimes downplayed, denied, justified or whitewashed. The solution in Wikipedia is to try to find a consensus solution which represents the sources fairly, because it is a fight which will never be won: those who insist on fighting about it will be stopped.
• This has gone on too long. It’s stealing our time and warnings are not being heeded by the user in question; it may even be that our tolerance is feeding their conduct. This ANI needs to be seen in the wider context. Similar sanctions as those applied to User:Icewhiz, etc, may be worth considering. As far as I recall, veteran administrators on issues such as this are Sandstein and User:EdJohnston, who might be available for consultation as well as NeilN .Best luck, -Chumchum7 (talk) 20:11, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

@Chumchum7 - I'm sorry but comparable "evidence of misconduct" could be constructed against anyone who edits Wikipedia. I will highlight that you spent over 3 hours (from 5AM until 8AM [14] - [15] [16]) on scanning for and picking anything that may appear to look perhaps actionable, causing otherwise a standard editor look bad.GizzyCatBella (talk) 11:36, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

GizzyCatBella, you're one of the three aforementioned editors topic-banned from the same subject area of Polish-Jewish relations in WWII (in your case for misrepresenting sources) where E-960 has been editing. This includes the article subject to discretionary sanctions authorized by active arbitration remedies (see WP:ARBEE) on Collaboration in German-occupied Poland, mentioned above. You're very much involved. Please bear in mind the possibility of appealing your ban in December. Your position that the same things here could be said about 'anyone who edits Wikipedia', and your allegation that my use of diffs is 'causing otherwise a standard editor look bad' is understood. -Chumchum7 (talk) 15:00, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

The debate here and the topics are E-960, WW1, and Blue Army Chumchum7 and thank you for recognizing that similar data could be found in most editors edit history not only E-960. Nothing extraordinary there.GizzyCatBella (talk) 17:05, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

No, I did not recognize that similar data could be found in most editors' edit history. I said I understood your position, which is a different thing. For the record, that position and your subsequent misrepresentation of what I said indicates that you are not learning from your topic ban, which will be dealt with elsewhere. -Chumchum7 (talk) 17:46, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for the explanation Chumchum7 Now I understand what you meant by saying " my position is understood" I would also suggest to assume good faith and restrain yourself from issuing threats.GizzyCatBella (talk) 19:39, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

I didn't want to get involved, but well... I agree with what Faustian, Slatersteven and Chumchum said, and regret the latter's decision to stop contributing to said article. I just have two things to add:
1) As you can see, this discussion already pulled in a user previously topic-banned from "history of Poland during WWII" for anti-Semitic comments and edits using a single-purpose account dedicated solely to editing articles about the World War II history of Poland with a view to... making them more sympathetic to right-wing Poles - [a form of] tendentious editing [that] is, in and of itself, incompatible with the fundamental conduct aspect of WP:NPOV [17] (the other admins had more harsh words on the matter, but that's the gist of it). The ban, I'm afraid, was ill-defined: The user should've been banned not from "history of Poland during WWII" but from "history of the Jews in Poland", which would've included both world wars. A ban that allows a user to join in on exactly the same kind of discussion because the events took place 25 years earlier is flawed.
2) E-960 tends to assume others have hidden agendas, and too often for my tastes "casts aspersions" (see admin's comment here), and blocks benign changes because they fear they're intended to malign the Polish nation. Some recent examples:

1. [18] A simple CE blocked because it looked like material was removed.
2. [19] A simple CE - accusation of "massive change" and trying to "sanitize" text.
3. [20] A list of reversals with accusations of "POV pushing" and the like. Notice that despite the length of the discussion, little is actually discussed - most of the changes are just blocked without further explanation. They're later joined by two other editors, but those two don't offer explanations (in fact, one of their comments is so out of place it refers to something that wasn't even discussed). Despite further "stonewalling", 3/7 changes were eventually accepted when other editors became involved, and I suspect others will pass in the future.

Bottom line: When simple CEs are blocked because someone, somehow feels they're driven by ideology, they're showing "battleground mentality" that isn't helpful for Wikipedia. François Robere (talk) 14:59, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

@François Robere - I'm assuming good faith, and I will accept that you are unfamiliar with the judgment and why I was topic banned [21] - could you then kindly cross out this false story composed by you above? --> topic-banned from the history of Poland during WWII for anti-Semitic comments and edits. Thank you.GizzyCatBella (talk) 16:53, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

I feel unease about Chumchum7 using my comment to E-960. To be frank I said to E-960 to chill out, because I have feeling other users are provoking him into making statements that will be used to push for sanctions. Seriously at this moment some users are doing what can only be described as spamming numerous articles with every exaggerated detail about alleged atrocities by Poles, leading to situation where 30-40% of the article lenght is being dedicated to every claim that can be found, no matter how outlandish.I don't mind covering these topics at all, but at the moment it is getting out of hand and seriously is getting non-neutral.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 21:57, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Article was protected. E-960's proposed changes and opinion of the article were discussed here: [22] Two editors supported him, six editors disagreed. So consensus was 3:6 in favor of not implementing E-960's proposed changes. Protection was lifted. E-960 immediately made the changes that were rejected by most editors. I restored it (talk here: [23]). So it goes.Faustian (talk) 03:31, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

In E-960's revert, not only did he defy consensus, he also introduced WP:OR -- The Jewish Yearbook of 1920 does not support In an effort to curb the abuses- the source says JULY 2. Warsaw: Anti-Jewish riot; fifteen Jews wounded, and one killed.—Warsaw: General Haller publishes proclamation in the Poranna, signed by Polish, English, and French representatives, ordering his troops to stop the cutting of beards of Jews.. - Haller order his troops to stop (before foreign representatives), however nothing in the source says this was an actual effort to effect a stop. Even, worse Soldiers involved in confirmed acts of antisemitism did receive punishment for their abusive actions. To counter some of the false or exaggerated claims of antisemitism that were reported by the press is not supported at all, and is in fact contradicted, by the cited source - page 227 in Carole Fink's book (who scare quotes "immediate investigation" on the Polish government response to reports of violence by the Blue Army, and then describes a Polish publicity/propaganda campaign). Beyond source falsification, attributing such a statement to Fink (via citation) is a rather serious WP:BLP issue vs. Fink. The issue of misrepresentation was clearly conveyed on the talk page and in the edits that modified content attributed to Fink. Icewhiz (talk) 10:12, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

• Faustian this text was added by Icewhiz on 05:26, 9 OCTOBER 2018 [24] and 05:59, 9 OCTOBER 2018 [25] in the middle of the edit war, there was NO CONSENSUS on the talk page to include this NEW text in the article — this is NOT long standing material, see last stable article version form 02:19, 9 SEPTEMBER 2018 [26]. --E-960 (talk) 06:54, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

• Incorrect - both on lack of consensus, and regarding the claim of addition. In both cases - as evident in the diffs - [27][28] - this was content that was long standing in the article but which cherrypicked/ORed (the Jewish Yearbook) or grossly misrepresented to the point of being defamatory to the cited author (Carole Fink) - which was corrected to faithfully represent what is actually written in the cited source. I will note that the gross misrepresentation was retorted by E-960 in a blanket revert on 21:31, 13 October 2018. WP:Verifying sources is important.Icewhiz (talk) 07:18, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

• This sequence - beginning with 10:17, 3 March 2018 is symptomatic of E-960's editing - with the false edit summary of "moved training company photos down" E-960 modified the section title from the long-standing Anti-Jewish violence to Reports of anti-Jewish violence. Subsequent consensus on the article talk page section - is clearly against this title (raising of false doubt and NPOV issue - and one should note - no credible source disputes the Blue Army's widespread violence against Jews - at best some marginal sources dispute the scale). Subsequently, and against consensus - 07:22, 15 October 2018 and mis-marked as a WP:MINOR edit (a personal attack? Seems to be insinuating vandalism) - E-960 restores the title he previously sneaked in with a false edit summary. Icewhiz (talk) 07:38, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Although Icewhiz has a history of conflict with E-960, if their allegations above prove to be accurate, for what it's worth I would support a 3-month topic ban for E-960, based on the precedent of the simultaneous ban for Icewhiz and Volunteer Marek [29]. This is now a matter of (i) helping a disruptive editor to learn, (ii) fairness to previously-banned users, (iii) restoring discipline as well as (iv) the ongoing credibility of the process. If for bureaucratic reasons a filing needs to be done at WP:AE, I would support whoever does it. But I would urge administrators to finish this here and now. If as MyMoloboaccount points out, it is true that E-960 is being goaded, the tormentors need to be rooted out and assessed themselves. But they provide the disruptive editor here with no excuse. Responsibly for behavior is held by the individual who conducts the behavior. One always has the option of WP:BAIT and WP:DENY instead of allowing oneself to be provoked. -Chumchum7 (talk) 05:16, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

To the extent that it takes two to tango, and considering that E-90 is not the only one with a "history" here, and that as has been pointed out, users like Icewhiz are goading him, a similar sanction on Icewhiz - basically an extension of his previous topic ban from Polish-Jewish issues during WW2 to ALL Polish-Jewish issues - would also be in order. Volunteer Marek 06:34, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

No evidence has been presented for any such "goading". Ample evidence has been shown for edit warring (over a period of years) by E-960 against consensus, canvassing (e.g. [30]), misrepresenting sources, and using misleading edit summaries. I will also note this personal attack by Volunteer Marek against @Winged Blades of Godric:, and VM's very long "history" in this topic - harking back to WP:EEML and his recent ban as well. Icewhiz (talk) 06:45, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

I have no remote interest in the topic area but I'm all for assuming good faith and that VM, certainly did not intend it to be a personal attack against me.∯WBG^converse 07:13, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

To be precise, I would recommend the said topic ban apply to all Poland-related content, not just Polish-Jewish relations. After all the problem appears to be extreme personal attachment to Poland's reputation in general, rather than anti-Semitism or a particular obsession with Jewish matters. This would also be to avert what François Robere identified above: that if the topic ban covers too small an area, the flow of trouble just redirects elsewhere and we all have to go through all this time-wasting again. -Chumchum7 (talk) 08:05, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

I agree completely. François Robere (talk) 15:37, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

This isn't kindergarten, boys. You don't get cookie points for being "goaded", and you risk getting your cookies taken for falsely accusing someone of being a goad. François Robere (talk) 15:48, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

I didn't think much of this discussion, but read through - one of the editors is pointing out a pattern of modifying maps on Wikipedia such that they under-represent German presence or influence (though at least on that occasion it wasn't without merit). You'll notice this bears some similarity to another discussion from some weeks ago. François Robere (talk) 16:26, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Uh... removing an WP:OR map created by a indef banned user [31] - who was indef banned for extensive sock puppetry, long term abuse, and pro-Nazi edits - ... and you, have a problem with this Francois? Care to explain why? Volunteer Marek 05:36, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Not at all, which is why I wrote that at least on that occasion it wasn't without merit. "On that occasion", as later in the thread another case is mentioned which isn't so justified. What bothers me is what's in common for both discussions: the emphasis on ethnicity, misunderstanding census data, and disregarding conflicting sources. François Robere (talk) 15:02, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

I am starting to wonder whether the essay WP:NOTTHERAPY could be helpful reading. Perhaps troublesome editors in the WP:ARBEE area could all get together and agree that they love their grandparents very much, wherever they came from (it could even be an entrance requirement). And that it is high time to get out more [32]. -Chumchum7 (talk) 18:57, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

The barnstar for a good sense of humor to you Chumchum7 (lol). GizzyCatBella (talk) 01:41, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

It seems that the issue of the map of German language use, pointed out above by Francois, on enwiki at Talk:German language#E-960's edits ceased after E-960 was blocked at commons on 17 August. Looking through their contributions (and record on various admin boards) at commons, it seems that much of their contributions there involve removing ethnic minorities from maps involving Poland - in the modern era (e.g. German - 1950, or various deletion requests (rejected as in use) - [33][34][35][36], Russian -[37]),, but also at 1 AD. Icewhiz (talk) 05:10, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

User:E-960 just blanked more info that he did not like here: [38]. Faustian (talk) 21:05, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

User Faustian, did you not read what I wrote on this false claim in an earlier comment when it was first raised above, and the talk page disscussion, or you just ignore all that? You are talking about text added by user Icewhiz in the middle of an edit war, inserted with NO CONSENSUS. Pls, pls read the relevant disscussions before throwing around accusations of blanking text. --E-960 (talk) 06:50, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

User Icewhiz, it just comes across as if you are tying to get me blocked, showing bad faith towards me in you comments, before you accuse me of "removing minorities" on WikiCommons map pls look at the history of the editor who created this original map user Michael Postmann, who was banned for, quote: "POV from doubtful sources, playing down Nazism. Harms Wikipedia (POV aus zweifelhaften Quellen, Verharmlosung des Nationalsozialismus. Schadet der Wikipedia)". So, I'm not sure what you are accusing me of, that I created a new map based of national census data from Poland, Czech Rep. and Slovakia, is this what you identify as removing minorities, using reliable reference sources to back up my material? --E-960 (talk) 06:23, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

This may be somewhat unrelated here (and I apologize if this strays too far off topic), but would perhaps imposing a 1RR restriction on Blue Army (Poland) be beneficial here? I'm seeing a lot of back-and-fourth reverting in the article's history, and perhaps this should be considered. Thoughts? ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 09:07, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Go for it, provided you don't avoid the wider problem and do objectively review E-960's diffs and Talk page comments. Otherwise the problem will arise elsewhere. Your 1RR could help distinguish (i) content disputes from (ii) behavioral issues, which still need to be resolved here. On that note, I happen to agree that there was a WP:OR map added showing German minorities in Poland that do not exist (Poland's only generally recognized German minority is in a small part of Silesia, not where it is dotted in turquoise all over that map of Poland), and that the allegations of E-960's anti-German sentiment (and support for ethnic cleansing of Germans) behind the removal were false if not actionable per WP:ARBEE. But that in no way justifies E-960's aggressive unilateralism and their failure to understand the basics of Wikipedia's civil and collegial consensus-building process, as evidenced above. The German-Polish map incident doesn't contradict E-960's need to change, in fact it provides further evidence of it, and I maintain that at this point they need to be sanctioned in order to learn. When you do the 1RR, please remember that revert-warring is not the article's fault, it's the user's. -Chumchum7 (talk) 09:49, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

User Chumchum, why not restrict user Icewhiz several users in the past complained the he puhes POV on Polish related topics. We opened a talk page discussion on how to condence the disputed section in the Blue Army article, and all of a sudden in comes user Icewhiz trying to add even more text. So, I do feel you are not objective when you just make arguments against me. --E-960 (talk) 13:12, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Complaints or aspersions? François Robere (talk) 16:26, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

For the record I don't see a huge difference between the editing behavior per se of Icewhiz and E-960. I do see a difference in their civility, in that E-960 tends to combine the aggressive reverting documented above with getting very personal in response to disagreement, as evidenced above. More importantly, and unless I'm mistaken, Icewhiz has already been banned from a large part of the topic area while E-960 has not, and therefore unlike Icewhiz has not yet been provided with the tangible communication of their wrongdoing from our community that is meant to encourage behavioral reform. This said, I have just seen that E-960 is already in fact under a very serious three-month block regardless of topic area at Wikipedia Commons [39] where the administrator Эlcobbola _talk declined their unblock request by stating very clearly, and I bold the last sentence:

"Blocks are preventative rather than punitive. Characterisation as "severe and harsh" suggests you've no understanding of this objective. Further, there is no prescribed block duration, or progression of block durations. Indeed, durations are to be "proportional to the time likely needed for the user to familiarize themselves with relevant policies and adjust their behaviour." (COM:BLOCK) You were previously blocked for edit-warring on 16 July 2018. As of at least 17 August 2018, more than a month later, you were still edit-warring (to say nothing of during that time). Clearly you've not familiarized yourself with our policies or adjusted your behaviour, but have rather demonstrated 1) having learned nothing from that previous block and 2) no improvement in more than a month. This supports at least a 3 month block. Being "right" ("I was informed that I can under WikiCommons rules create a new map since old maps no matter how incorrect should not be changed") is not an excuse. Jonny84's edits were wrong, but not vandalism. In such circumstances, you are to attempt to address the issues on the image talk page. If that fails, you may bring the issue to a notice board and wait for those discussions to produce a result. You do not get to edit war in the meantime. Further, as someone blocked for attacks and failures of good faith, to respond to this block with "This is extremely bias Sebari, it is clear that you have an anit-Polish agenda" [1] only supports the notion that you do not seem capable of adjusting your behaviour during shorter block durations. If the edit-warring and personal attacks continue after this block, the next will be indefinite."

It may be that for one reason or another E-960 is actually attracted to the idea of going out fighting like some mythological hero. Because this is either going to end up as an indefinite block or they immediately make amends, right now, with self-reverts and inviting difference of opinion by meeting their opponents such as Icewhiz on Talk pages to work at consensus in the name of WP:WIKILOVE. Real heroes have done it before [40] -Chumchum7 (talk) 05:54, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

The return of User:Daniel C. Boyer

Because of a pretty good edit filter we haven't had much trouble recently from frustrated unknown artist and LTA self-promoter Daniel C. Boyer, who was community banned last year [41]. But he's reappeared recently as Special:Contributions/2604:2000:E860:5500:30CE:29B1:3721:C3C9 with some edits that escape the filter [42] and insertion of a "work" of his own that resides at Commons [43].

We need a block (or range block -- experience shows he'll keep coming back once he's found away around the filter). If someone wants to tinker with the filer, take a look at User_talk:Daniel_C._Boyer#Oct_2018_socking. Pinging John from Idegon, Beyond My Ken. EEng 02:56, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Good grief, is he still about? He was spouting garbage right back at the very dawn of Wikipedia; you'd think he'd have got bored by now. ‑ Iridescent 03:17, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

I blocked the ip for a week. I guess for a range block we need an evidence that they have used more than one IP.--Ymblanter (talk) 03:17, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

My vague understanding is that there are some low-order bits that are almost always a block of addresses for a single customer or whathaveyou. Anyway, let's leave this thread open a few days to see if he comes back in another guise. Any edit filter wizard who has a minute might want to follow the link a gave earlier to get an idea of what's needed as far as extending the filter. EEng 04:02, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

My goodness, he's nothing if not persistent. Revert and block on sight, I think. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:49, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Didn't know I was dealing with a celebrity. Just thought it ludicrous that we are supposed to accept that there is a new form of surrealism that involves cutting holes in photographs without a source. John from Idegon (talk) 05:09, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Hmm, I see that thing has been marked {{cn}} since 2009, and the only "sources" I could find which defined it were just copies of what the Wikipedia article said. Nice to see it's finally been expunged, but it's a shame it's been there long enough to taint so many other sites. I also see it was added to Ted Joans in 2003 (where is has also always been unsourced) with the edit summary "(adding from outagraph)". Outagraph, which was deleted in 2005, was created by Daniel C. Boyer in 2003. I've also removed the claim from Ted Joans now. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:30, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

• Portraits of the artist as a pretentious dork: [44][45][46]. His latest work is "The Green Woman with the Tiara Does Not Elope but Marries the Man with the Seventy-Dollar Ears". So deep! So avant-garde! So boundary-challenging! It's even acrylic and gauche! EEng 05:21, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
• à chacun son goût -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 07:24, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

I think they used to call it "the disease of kings" -- Henry VIII and so on.. EEng 07:40, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

• I just noticed that the current version of the Consensus reality article he created way back in 2002 includes An Analysis of the Metapragmatic and Therapeutic Dimensions of Vampiric Live Action Role-playing as a 'source'. Someone should probably look through those pages he created over the years and see how problematic the rest of them are, regardless of whether or not they're direct spam for him. ‑ Iridescent 14:42, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

  I can't face the thought of that today, but here's a list of his page creations in case someone wants to formulate a plan for dividing up the work. [47] EEng 21:30, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

  I checked the A's and the B's and didn't find anything. EEng 21:40, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

  I did a randomish dip sample—there's a lot of drivel like Fax art and Arsenal/Surrealist Subversion, but I'm not seeing much that's problematic. Because his main burst of activity was over a decade ago, it looks like for once Wikipedia's model has functioned as it's supposed to, and the garbage like Mattila Square, Quad-ruled paper and J. Karl Bogartte has been removed by Wikipedia's natural processes of article patrolling. ‑ Iridescent 01:09, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

  Arid desiccant, I've been meaning to ask you for some time: what's the difference between a dip sample and a just plain sample? EEng 04:48, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Dip sample

Dim sample

• Are not all desiccants, by nature, arid?-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 05:07, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Not at all. It is the natural destiny of desiccants to lose their aridity in the performance of their duty. EEng 05:28, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

très tragique-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 05:42, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

@EEng For a dip sample, you take the whole list and select entries from it at random; for a representative sample, you divide the list into chunks and sample one entry from each chunk. Usually when people on Wikipedia say they've checked a sample, they mean a representative sample as the way contribution histories are displayed makes it easier to keep clicking "older" and sample one entry from each 50-entry page of results, but in this case I genuinely did pull up the whole list and click on it at random, which IMO is a fairer method when you're looking to see if there's a pattern of problems (representative sampling top-loads your results towards either the oldest or newest edits depending on which way you're working through the list, as even if one starts out with the intention of checking the entire history one tends to abandon the checks once a pattern becomes apparent). ‑ Iridescent 12:46, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

• Wow, I had completely forgotten about this guy. I tangled with him a few times years ago when he was attempting to promote himself as a Surrealist. Then I actually met him at a Surrealist event in Chicago in which he was attempting to promote himself as the greatest living Surrealist artist. He's really insufferable and utterly boring. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 16:45, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

It's tough picking the simultaneously stupidest and most pretentious of his edits, but for personal reasons my favorite is [48] And no, he's not a Harvard alumnus -- he took some summer school classes. And "Japanese politician" -- what a dumbfuck. EEng 08:51, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Oh, wow! That's a good one!

The true beauty is "poltician", which I imagine is the Harvard spelling. - Nunh-huh 22:59, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Watch your mouth, plebian. You're thinking of Yale. EEng 23:48, 20 October 2018 (UTC) P.S. #1: Life at Yale; P.S. #2: Whose job was it to make the determination that led to the statement that, "A Saybrook master’s aide, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, confirmed to the News that the Friday incident involved chocolate instead of feces."

Hundreds of garbage articles created by blocked user

John Carter (who is currently blocked indef) has created 655 pages. So far, 103 have been deleted and another group are at AfD. They are nonsense. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jabal ad Dayt for an example. I clicked on some of the notices on his talkpage about other creations that were deleted and they are nonsense as well. It would probably be a good idea for someone to review all of these articles, because this is a pretty poor track record. I do not want to go through 500 pages on my own. Natureium (talk) 19:14, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

FYI Alexandermcnabb is meticulously combing through these. There are several threads on A's talk page regarding these including this one User talk:Alexandermcnabb#A cup of coffee for you!. MarnetteD|Talk 19:51, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Wow, what a saint. Natureium (talk) 19:55, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

I accept the beatitude with grateful thanks. Mind, I could use some help. There IS some good in there, the odd nugget, but there's an awful lot of total rubbish and over the past ten years it's spawned hundreds, if not thousands, of WP-derived web pages in/about the UAE. Each of those damn stubs has, in ten years, created a virtual universe of non-existent places offering tours, trips, car hire, shoes - maps citing WP, WP citing maps. He made his whole own UAE on WP. I've been AfDing the articles individually (which has caused some irritation, I know, but a) I didn't know how to bulk AfD and b) I was scared of WP:Traincrash. There were a few of the 'settlement' stubs which had their staunch defenders despite the places totally lacking in notability, for instance this Dahir, Fujairah and this one, which is a residential block in the city of Ras Al Khaimah Al Mataf). I'm now trying to bulk AfD them where relevant but have to admit the task is Augean. I didn't know he'd created 655 pages and do fervently hope they aren't all UAE stubs because it's caused an immense amount of confusion and damage. Hey ho! Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 03:59, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

These really need a Neelix-esque nuke approach. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:23, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

I think I reached the end. He's created thousands and thousands of categories and redirects, but appears to have only (relatively) briefly focused on the UAE's geography. Someone may like to take a look at the rest of the creations... Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:43, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Dang... that's a lot of articles. Thank you, Alexandermcnabb, for going through them. Looking at the user's contributions and filtering to show only mainspace edits that are page creations, there's... wow... a ton of redirects that go many years back. If I can be of any assistance, or if any tools like Special:Nuke might make anything go faster, let me know and I'll be happy to help. We just want to make sure that we don't go crazy and delete anything that is legitimate and shouldn't be. ;-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 11:19, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, Oshwah but I'm done with my bit - I got involved when his edits touched geography in the UAE and I stumbled on the considerable mess that got left behind - and that's what I've been cleaning up, article by article and AfD by (sometimes contested!) AfD. But I'm no good on the Wiki procedural stuff (what's a valid redirect, what's not? Are all those thousands of categories necessary/needed?). I'm a little concerned that if all that other stuff is of the same quality/utility of the stuff I found, and where I have occasionally dipped in while paging through his edits to find if he'd done any more UAE stuff I hadn't so far found (I didn't see that he had) it was of dubious utility as far as I could see. But I am no WP procedural wonk, I have to leave that to you guys! Even making a bulk AfD work had my head bursting... Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:55, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

I agree with Lugnuts, given the scale of the issue here, why don't we simply nuke first and ask questions later ie delete them all, and if any turn out to be notable (unlikely) in the future they can be restored? GiantSnowman 15:02, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

@GiantSnowman: it seems like Gazetteer of the United Arab Emirates (1987; see Google Books profile) was cited, but without page numbers. I think Wikipedia:RX might be able to supply a copy? WhisperToMe (talk) 23:34, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

I have took a couple more articles of the UAE stubs that are not notable to AfD. Pkbwcgs (talk) 16:55, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

@Alexandermcnabb: Did you find any of the articles to be correct or were they all garbage? Natureium (talk) 02:19, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

@Natureium: There were a couple of names were right (but they were still nine-word stubs with wacky pins), a couple of the settlements scraped through AfD. 98% cruft, I'd say. Are there any left to nuke? Thought I'd got 'em all. It's the non-UAE stuff I thought might need a bit of scrutiny!!! Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 05:57, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

• Comment. I agree all of the UAE stubs need to be mass nuked. It's exhausting AfD and exhausting the time and patience and research of many users to have to deal with them. I agree this is a Neelix-level cleanup, but unfortunately unlike the Neelix creations, since these are articles (as opposed to redirects), the hundreds of inaccurate decade-old stubs have created a massive amount of misinformation spread all over the internet. This is, literally, a Wikipedia's worst nightmare scenario. Softlavender (talk) 15:04, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

I have taken the liberty of slightly changing the title of this thread to emphasize the scale of the problem. Softlavender (talk) 01:53, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

• Support a mass delete, to make it crystal clear/easy to see for reviewing admin. GiantSnowman 15:10, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
• Comment even though he cited the Gazetteer of the United Arab Emirates (1987), he never cited page numbers, ISBNs, etc. There really is a Gazetteer of the United Arab Emirates published by the Defense Mapping Agency so hopefully someone gets a copy of it and actually uses it... WhisperToMe (talk) 08:48, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Block or not block this Georgia Dept. Education range?

A lot of vandalism at [49]but it's not all vandalism. I think. Doug Weller talk 19:34, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

I've looked at everything from the last two months, and found two constructive edits, very minor ones, in a great river of typical school vandalism. I say block the range for at least three months, Doug. Bishonen | talk 19:57, 16 October 2018 (UTC).

This is obviously a middle school's media lab range. I mean, who could make a coherent argument that this edit was not made by a 12 year old boy (who was giggling while writing it)? I say block away: teachers who want to teach kids this young to edit WP can also teach them to create accounts. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:04, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Exactly. Blocked 3 months. RickinBaltimore (talk) 20:08, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Excuse my pedantry, but no not quite exactly. The Georgia Dept. range (it's a /14 range) spans the whole state and multiple, multiple institutions. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 20:15, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

But a /14 range block is larger than what is allowed, since the max range (is this because of the MediaWiki software, on all MediaWiki wikis, or is it just Wikipedia or all Wikimedia wikis) is /16. ^Semi_Hypercube ✎ 20:29, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

The /16s have all been blocked before, meaning they can be range blocked. My point however is not to encourage a /14 block, but to point out that this is not a "middle school's media lab range". -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 20:33, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Is the/14 range constructive at all. It's a silly rule if it allows vandalism to go unchecked. Soft block and allow legit users to create user names?-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 20:41, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

@Zzuuzz: Arguing against obvious hyperbole is generally not advised. I was not speaking literally. That being said, big institutions (like school boards) absolutely do block out IPs to whole districts earmarked usages like "media labs", giving more IPs to each school than it needs (I'll bet you can find large groups of consecutive IPs in that range that never have nor will edit). I don't know that GA does exactly that, but I wouldn't be the least bit surprised. You could have just changed my "a middle school's media lab" to "some middle schools' media labs" and taken it from hyperbolic to literally true. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:32, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

P.S. I didn't mean the first sentence to sound as dickish as it sounds, so please excuse me not including the link I'm giving it in this edit right off the bat. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 23:16, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Princess Eugenie of York

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Sorry, guys, BUT: Way to lie about a BLP! This is bogus! Welcome to the wonderful world of needing to be big kids!2605:8D80:403:F5D9:2911:88D4:2E93:72EE (talk) 20:54, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

This user is linking to a thread in which they (on a different IP) made personal attacks, and were blocked for it. The original block has not expired yet. Looks like the stick will be bent into a boomerang. ^Semi_Hypercube ✎ 21:02, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

"This user" is pointing out that a BLP has been changed without any proof whatsoever and Wikipedia requires a valid, third-party source for any and all changes. I'm sorry "this user" is following policy.2605:8D80:403:F5D9:2911:88D4:2E93:72EE (talk) 21:06, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

The IP keeps popping up under different variants of the v6 IP address. What started out as a naming dispute and edit war seems to have turned into personal attacks and general disruptiveness.  — Amakuru (talk) 21:13, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, it's an indeffed editor. I range blocked the newest IP range for a few days. I think that should resolve it for now. Let me know if it doesn't. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:15, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

@NinjaRobotPirate: As info, this is continued on new IPs after I reblocked 2001:569:77E2:3900:0:0:0:0/64 which had previous block expire on Sept 25, 2018. I also blocked 2605:8D80:403:51DA:0:0:0:0/64 earlier today/yesterday. -- ferret (talk) 21:21, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

It's been a while since I dealt with this ISP, but the 2605:8D80 ranges typically require a /48 (or slightly wider) to stop the disruption. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:41, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

 Comment: The title of the article isn't dictated by WP:BLP, and Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Capital_letters#Titles_of_people makes no mention of requiring any honourifics for article titles. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). This message was left at 21:31, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

True, but there's a bit of a local convention at WP:NCROY that leads us to bypass the usual rules of WP:CONCISE and WP:COMMONNAME for certain members of the royal family. I don't entirely agree with that, but it's stuck for some time now. (Also this isn't really the place to be discussing the content issue!)  — Amakuru (talk) 21:44, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

I've left an oppose !vote on the talk page in question. I know it may seem out of place, but I'm just trying to establish consensus (not that I care). Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). This message was left at 23:32, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

@TheDragonFire300: BLP does absolutely and specifically apply to titles, see WP:BLP#Applicability of the policy. The most obvious case would be transgender people. I do agree that in this specific case, it's probably a non sequitur, but as a blanket statement, that's incorrect. ansh666 23:48, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

@Ansh666: I see nothing in the linked policy about article titles, which is what I'm referring to (not the title of the person, that's a whole different matter) Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). This message was left at 23:58, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

It's right there, in the first sentence of the section I linked to. BLP applies to all material about living persons anywhere on Wikipedia, including talk pages, edit summaries, user pages, images, categories, lists, article titles and drafts. (emphasis mine) ansh666 23:59, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

@Ansh666: Thank you for the clarification. Struck above accordingly. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). This message was left at 00:07, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

BTW, although the above mentions talk pages, probably the key take away is anywhere. If it's on wikipedia then BLP applies. Stuff outside wikipedia is not directly our concern, but linking or inferring it could be a problem. Wikidata and Commons while technically not hosted here obviously have even more extreme issues since they can directly appear here. This doesn't mean that the same standards everywhere, there's generally slightly more tolerance on user talk pages and sub pages although precisely how far this goes is often disputed, and in fact was just recently disputed. Incidentally while transgender people may be a decent common real example, it's trivial to think of more extreme cases. E.g. it should be obvious an article title John Smith (murderer) or John Smith (paedophile) could be a serious BLP problem. Nil Einne (talk) 09:29, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Панн

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

User:Панн is not grasping some basics about formatting. I have tried to help several times on the user's talk page, but have gotten little reply, and no actual discussion. It looks like this is an ongoing problem, per other messages on the talk page. My current concern is Protests in Armenia (2018), which is 100% unreadable as of this edit. If there is a better place to ask about this, please let me know. Thank you for your time. Jessicapierce (talk) 04:00, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Unreadable doesn't do justice to this exemplary trainwreck. EEng 04:16, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Jessicapierce, I see that you have left some messages on the user's talk page about these issues but your most recent message was 2-1/2 weeks ago. Why come to ANI now instead of trying their talk page again? More talk page messages is better in such cases. If the main problem with the user's edits is minor technical things like an extra space in a ref tag, then maybe the best thing would be to correct the minor errors yourself, and leave a friendly explanatory note for the editor. Also useful in cases like this is to end your user talk page posts with friendly questions like "do you understand now why this was an error?" and "will you try to do better?" Such questions may draw a shy or insecure editor into discussion. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:15, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

They broke the html, but I don;t see where/how.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 04:22, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

The article is at least in part an uncredited translation of hy:Բողոքի ցույցեր ՀՀ ԱԺ ցրման պահանջով. (Having found it via the other uses of the image, I checked the infobox and Background paragraph via Google translate). Yngvadottir (talk) 04:25, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

"maybe the best thing would be to correct the minor errors yourself, and leave a friendly explanatory note for the editor" - That's exactly what I did, as you can see in the "Broken formatting" section of the user's Talk page. I went to great pains to show the difference in spacing (</ref> vs. </ ref>) which can result in format errors (this particular error is the merest part of the problem). I received no reply, and the problem has persisted in the user's more recent edits. I'll try posting to the Talk page again, but I don't think I'm going to get anywhere, so it felt like time to ask for help. Jessicapierce (talk) 04:25, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

I made a pass and left a "copy edit" on it. Now we can see how truly bad it is.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 04:47, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

What language Wiki is that?-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 04:49, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict):::::I edit conflicted with you. I'll look into it some more. Blackmane (talk) 04:53, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Armenia. I left a cite to the Armenian page on the article, but probably did it wrong. As to the user, I've just come from their talk page where I left yet another message. This is an ongoing WP:CIR issue as the user keeps creating messes in article space that are being moved to draft space, which I nearly did with this article. They need to not create in main space till they are better at formatting and citing, and I said as much.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 05:03, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Anyone speak Armenian?-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 05:05, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Or is it беларускі?-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 05:09, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Ok, I've fixed the remaining cites and such, enough that it's not a morass of broken html and cite tags. Blackmane (talk) 05:35, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

This is almost certainly a machine translation, with the reference-breaking spaces introduced by the process. A tell-tale is that ref titles are translated. I fixed a couple of references where the URL had been interrupted, and in the process used the title= and trans-title= parameters correctly. Панн has linked them on Wikidata; Dlohcierekim, I replaced your in-article attribution with the template we use on the article talk page, and I have now added the "rough translation" template and added the article to the woefully long list of bad translations at Wikipedia:Pages needing translation into English. I'm afraid I am very much unable to read Armenian. But if this article is to be kept—and it does seem to be a notable topic judging by international press coverage—I note that we already have 2018 Armenian protests, redirecting to 2018 Armenian Velvet Revolution, so something needs to be moved to avoid confusion. Yngvadottir (talk) 05:48, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

@Yngvadottir: Well done. It does mention Velvet Revolution. Is this an article that already exists or is that other article something else? Mergeable? MOve to better title?-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 12:46, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

(I just got up, someone may have done something already): This article is still incomprehensible, but it's about events in early October. 2018 Armenian Velvet Revolution is about events earlier this year, March and April if I remember correctly. So if this article gets kept, I would suggest changing the titles of both articles and making the 2018 Armenian protests article a DAB page; however, a merger might be better; I am not competent to assess the sources in the new article and look for later ones to see whether the events this month are better treated as a continuation or as distinct. Yngvadottir (talk) 15:01, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Repeated uncivil verbal abuse in film articles

Seems like some people are really frustrated. The Mohanlal v Mammootty fan wars has gone one step ahead, now a weird version of it is taking place in Wikipedia. Since 13th October, an IP (or IPs) was persistently trying to edit Mohanlal's name in Odiyan (an upcoming much anticipated film in the industry) cast list and replacing it with extreme foul language (Malayalam written in English letters). An otherwise less edited page, on that day there was at least 120 edits, warring to add the profanity.

Some IPs are:

• 2405:204:D105:E05F:EC1F:93DF:BBAB:3519 (14 edits) - most disruptive (also edited Kayamkulam Kochunni)
• 2405:204:D302:3DB1:D9AD:D0AA:A5B6:FE55 (3)
• 86.98.84.7 (1)
• 2405:204:D48B:93CF:346A:3D8C:26FE:8EF1 (2)
• 2405:204:D308:7024:5208:43DF:5B9E:8A86 (4)
• 137.97.155.163 (10) - most disruptive (also in Mohanlal regular collaborator Antony Perumbavoor)
• 49.15.207.246 (1)
• 42.111.228.116 (1)
• 78.100.162.226 (1)
• 2405:204:D401:C999:A711:D1EB:E234:868F (2)
• 2405:204:519E:B978:3F78:3C0A:BEDB:40E8 (2)
• 2405:204:D08B:9642:0:0:1E85:E8A1 (2)
• 43.239.55.13 (2)
• 2405:204:659A:E1A6:904D:6515:3C4D:FB90 (2)
• 83.110.229.77 (1)
• 2405:204:D206:94C3:79CD:B692:225B:ED5A (1)
• 2405:204:D282:32E5:0:0:2480:B8A4 (1)
• 45.125.117.2 (2)

Finally the page was protected for disruptive editing. Unable to vandalize Odiyan, the target shifted to Mohanlal's Pulimurugan (the top-grossing Malayalam film).

• 27.61.41.50 ([50], [51]) - vandalizing box-office data
• 27.97.28.205 ([52])
• 2405:204:D10E:F29C:2487:7A45:2113:988C ([53]) - profanity
• 27.61.22.115 ([54]) - profanity and box-office vandalism
• Fayismuhammed ([55])

The page was soon protected. If you observe here, 27.61.22.115 and Fayismuhammed edited in 1 minute gap with same edit summary. Fayismuhammed, an otherwise inactive user came at the same time ? You know what I mean. Check his contributions, it's all box-office vandalism, adding inflated numbers in Mammootty films (Rajamanikyam, Pokkiri Raja) and diminishing them in Mohanlal films (Drishyam, Pulimurugan). Same obscene words used by IPs here was also seen in Odiyan, so it's possibly the same person.

Then other IPs began returning the favour, doing the same in Mammootty films. But is less occuring when compared to the vandal spree in Odiyan and Pulimurugan. On 17th October, Frz latheef undid such an edit in a Mammootty film [56] at 21:29 UTC. Just a minute after, this IP went savage adding profanity in a number of Mohanlal films. It was from 21:30 UTC to 21:39 UTC just after Frz latheef's edit. Maybe his retaliation ?

Instead of protecting the pages and preventing good faith editors too, blocking the problematic IPs/Users will be more effective. After all, how many pages can you protect. Both the M's has acted in more than 300 films each. 2405:204:D483:E219:BC9B:BFD2:524F:F1C1 (talk) 13:18, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

• I've done some blocking. I think an edit-filter would be useful here, and I'm going to request it. Can you let me know on my talk page of any further issues? Thanks. Black Kite (talk) 15:09, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Given the diverse IP ranges and edits made, I agree with Black Kite that an edit filter will probably be the best solution to this matter... ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 16:04, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

I agree, the tightest range here is an IPv6 /32, which is much too large to block. It's regrettable but this is why we have semiprotection. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:15, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

I agree; semi-protection will be helpful, but it won't stop further disruption from spilling over and spreading to other articles and we'll essentially be playing "whack-a-mole", which would be both beneficial and convenient to avoid if we can do so. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 08:19, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Black Kite, Oshwah, Ivanvector. Why are you not blocking them ? Today they have started it in Mohanlal's upcoming films Drama ([57], [58], [59], [60]) and Lucifer (film) ([61]). You think this is going to stop ? Unless you apply a range block, I don't think so. 2405:204:D18A:ACC0:A859:7843:4744:8F26 (talk) 08:26, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Blocking individual IPs has already been an active task performed as noted by Black Kite above. Given the ranges available to the user and what I calculated from the IPs listed here - they could just hop onto another IP and continue with their "business as usual". The IPv6 range (2405:204::/32) is much too wide to block and it would result in a lot of collateral damage as seen by the range's edit contributions. The IPv4 addresses listed here all come from different ranges and would be useless to try and pursue. I just applied semi-protection to the two articles you listed in your response above. Are there disruptive edits continuing to actively occur at this moment in time and on other articles or pages? If so, can you list these articles and pages here so that I can take a look? ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 08:49, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Just to note that I did rangeblock a smaller subset of that IPv6 range because all of the recent contributions appeared to be about this subject. However as Oshwah says the IPv4s are just popping up all over various ranges and I can see no rangeblock for any of them that would not cause significant collateral issues. Semi-protection and/or edit-filter is the main way to proceed here. Black Kite (talk) 09:35, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

(Edit: the 42.109.136.x - 42.109.146.x range appears to have very little collateral so I have temporarily rangeblocked that.) Black Kite (talk) 09:39, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

The problem with applying a useful range block, IP, is that it would also block your IP. That's the "collateral" problem here, we can't technically sort the good edits from the bad. We're doing the best we can. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 12:39, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Black Kite's block on "42.109.136.x - 42.109.146.x" translates to 42.109.128.0/19 in CIDR notation, for those who don't know how to calculate those. ;-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 13:05, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Black Kite, Oshwah, now it's in Neerali ([62], [63], [64] - this page was vandalizing since 17th October, I forgot to mention) and Janatha Garage [65], also Untitled K. V. Anand film. Any blocking possible ? 2405:204:D489:DA38:79C2:3D18:F628:DB52 (talk) 16:06, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

I've added semi-protection to all three articles listed here, and blocked 188.236.128.0/19 due to their disruption to them. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 17:01, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

POV pushing and edit warring by User:Dragao2004

• Dragao2004 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Rise of Macedon (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

At Rise of Macedon, User:Dragao2004 began pushing a pro-Greek POV. After a request for page protection on 9 October, the page was protected here. Discussions on the Talk Page were initiated here (prior to the page protection) and here (after the page protection). User:Dragao2004 participated in neither discussion, but initiated a third discussion here. During the course of this third discussion while the page was locked, it became clear that the majority of editors opposed User:Dragao2004's proposed changes and preferred keeping the long-term stable consensus wording. The main issue against the new wording is that it constituted WP:POINTy nationalist editing and didn't fit well with the overall tone and content of the article. A survey of involved editors was initiated as the page lock drew to a close here. User:Dragao2004 was clearly not being supported in his proposed change. Then, when he noticed that the page lock template had been removed, he reinserted his opposed edit here. His edit summary, "Greekness must be emphasized", clearly illustrates his nationalist POV-pushing attitude during discussions. A notice of this discussion was posted on his Talk Page here. A notice of this discussion was also posted at Talk:Rise of Macedon. --Taivo (talk) 17:25, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

• Yes, it seems like User:Dragao2004's edit was inappropriate. But I also see a lot of stuff written by you in the comments that doesn't seem correct either. (1) Yes, there was consensus on this sentence, but WP:Consensus can change. If the consensus was from a long time ago (it wasn't discussed recently), and/or if there is new information not previously considered, then we re-open discussion on the topic. He is free to boldly edit what he thinks is appropriate, and then be reverted if you have problems with it, and then discuss it on the talk page regardless of what the long time ago consensus was. (And the modern discussion should be focused on policy, not that there was a consensus a long time ago, which is irrelevant for a new discussion.) (2) You are wrong that all primary sources are not reliable sources. It is true that we strongly prefer secondary sources, and primary sources have to be used carefully, but they can still be reliable sources (And used if there isn't a secondary source). Original research occurs more often with primary sources (given how much more tricky they are to use properly), but it depends on how close the match is between the text and what the source says. (I haven't looked to see if these primary sources are actually reliable.) (3) It doesn't seem like his first edits were WP:POINTY to me (and you keep accusing him of that).

As to User:Dragao2004's actions (1) On the merits of the dispute, the real source of the policy problems for what User:Dragao2004 is proposing seems to be a potential violation of WP:LEAD in that it should summarize the article's contents. If there is a dispute on if it was properly considered part of Greece or not at that time, the summary shouldn't say either side is correct, and then later on should describe both points of view. Periphery seems an appropriate word that neither says it is inside or outside, but on the edge. (as you wrote once, I suspect his problem is that he is not a native speaker, and translated it has a different meaning) (2) These edits: 1 and 2, 3 looks like canvassing to me. (Although I would want to hear if there was some neutral method by which he picked which editors to alert.) (3) He should have known that for this edit there were substantial reasonable disagreements about if this was appropriate from a policy standpoint (as expressed in talk) and that there was no consensus on these points in his favor, and therefore should not have pushed this into the article. Doing that was POV pushing. -Obsidi (talk) 20:10, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Absolutely agree with all of this. Yes, Dragao's conduct was not appropriate, but that's entirely forgivable seeing as Dragao is a newbie; someone you're supposed to make an effort to help, encourage, teach, and be civil towards, and instead you chose to bite their head off immediately. Blocking incompetent or disruptive newbies is cheap, if good faith efforts to guide them in the right direction are proving ineffective. But how can we expect someone to have a grasp on Wikipedia's behavioral norms, policies and guidelines when all you're doing is constantly personally attacking them, being aggressive and combative, misrepresenting policies or falsely telling them they're violating policies, telling them their conduct is "illegal" or "POINTy", failing to seek or inform them about dispute resolution, falsely implying that "longstanding versions" cannot be changed, or that discussions from the 2000's cannot be relitigated, bludeoning them with walls of text, closing discussions that you're involved in, and reporting them to administrators. It's really disappointing to see this coming from a highly experienced editor, particularly because there was plenty of other input there and everyone else's conduct was calm and reasonable. There was no need for any of it.  Swarm  talk  20:47, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

I appreciate the time that you both took to review the situation and accept your criticisms of my own behavior. I make no excuses for it and will try to be more gentle with newbies. The one thing I do expect from newbies is that they listen to the voices of other editors, even when they might disagree with me or when I'm being harsh or when they're ignoring me because of my tone. User:Dragao2004 did not. As far as the issue of WP:POINT, there is a long history of pointy editing in articles surrounding the borderlands, both ancient and modern, between Greece and Macedonia because of the Macedonian naming dispute and the articles surrounding ancient Macedonia are especially sensitive. There is a very long history in the "Ancient Macedonia" cluster of articles of treating the imposition of the word "Greek" before the word "kingdom" in the first sentence as pointy editing. It's also very suspicious when a new editor shows up making this very edit within a week of some real world event or stress in that dispute. At the time that I filed this action, User:Dragao2004 had edited the text within just a few hours of the page being unlocked and without any consensus emerging in his favor on the Talk Page. I was hoping simply to draw the gaze of some admins on the obvious problem, not for any real punitive action against him based on what he had already done. Fortunately, he hasn't proceeded any further at this time. --Taivo (talk) 21:16, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

That isn't WP:POINTY editing, per WP:NOTPOINTy However, just because someone is making a point does not mean that they are disrupting Wikipedia to illustrate that point. As a rule, editors engaging in "POINTy" behavior are making edits with which they do not actually agree, for the deliberate purpose of drawing attention and provoking opposition in the hopes of making other editors see their "point". What you are describing is closer to WP:Advocacy. -Obsidi (talk) 22:39, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Ah. I see what you mean. I think that the use of WP:POINT in Balkans articles has taken on a slightly different meaning--raising a national flag just to make a political statement. I will adjust my usage. --Taivo (talk) 22:47, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Captainjackster disruptively adding categories

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

Captainjackster (talk · contribs) has been repeatedly adding categories to articles which are already in appropriate subcategories and thus should not have the additional categorization applied. As their contributions page will make clear, they are doing this to such a degree that it's impossible (for me, at least) to do any reasonable checking of their work. I asked them to desist in this conduct multiple times in the past[66][67][68] to no apparent avail. I am therefore forced to request that they either be topic-banned from applying categories (if that's possible), or blocked until such time as they indicate a recognizance of the fact that their behavior is disruptive. Thank you. DonIago (talk) 19:46, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Dude, I stopped after you asked me to just now, when I added a category to Trading Places.Captainjackster (talk) 19:48, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

After making how many category edits? Which of my prior messages on your Talk page was unclear? DonIago (talk) 19:49, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Captainjackster - Let's not worry about the past. You're obviously aware that you've been asked to stop adding categories to articles until they can be reviewed and any issues resolved first. Can you hold off on adding any more categories for the time being and work with DonIago to make sure that what you're adding is correct? So long as you two agree to work with one another and that you don't add any more categories for now, we can consider this ANI discussion resolved and I won't have to be the "bad guy" and consider any action - which makes things easy for me, for you, and for DonIago. It's a win/win/win! :-) Do you agree to do this? ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 08:16, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Sure, thanks. Captainjackster (talk) 21:08, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Mhvp2012

• Mhvp2012 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Mhvp2012 (talk · contribs) is a disruptive editor who has been given many warnings about adding unsourced content. However, he blanks his talk page regularly, making it difficult to see how disruptive he's been. In 2016, he created a biography at Max Hechtman. It was deleted at AfD. He recreated it again now. It's full of unsourced claims. He has been reverting any attempt to add cleanup templates or the removal of the unsourced content. He's also blanking the article's talk page. I think it's about time this editor was indefinitely blocked, but I'm probably too "involved" at this point. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:51, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

NinjaRobotPirate - Investigating... Stand by... ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 07:53, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

NinjaRobotPirate - Looking at his user talk page over 2018, most edits made to it have been by bots notifying him/her of orphaned files and non-free rationale uses of files. I see that you added a copyright warning to this user earlier this year, as well as a final warning recently regarding the addition of unreferenced content, but I'm not finding any warnings left by others. I spot-checked his recent edits, and many do appear to reference sources (though they might not be the best ones and better sources probably exist). I do share your concerns regarding the user's creation and expansion of Max Hechtman, a BLP article that included a lot of unreferenced content, rumors, other things that should have sources - and I also note your edit removing much of it. The latest deleted revision of the article compared to its current revision now don't appear much different (taking the unreferenced content out of the equation); it doesn't appear that notability has changed for this article subject and G4 appears justified here. Instead of indefinitely blocking this user now, we should perhaps monitor the user's edits and add escalating warnings for edits that lack any references or citations that clearly need them. This will have many benefits: it will document the issue and help show that this is a long-term and serious problem with the warnings left, it'll start a "paper trail" and give the user the opportunity to correct the problematic edits and behavior, and will help justify a block if the issues continue despite the warnings left... as we'll have documentation to show that we gave this user a fair number of chances and opportunities to seek help and correct the problem and to no avail. Are there any other edits, warnings, pages, or other concerns that I may have missed? ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 08:04, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

He's been blocked in 2017 twice for disruptive editing. He knows what the rules are. He's gotten escalated warnings: warning for unsourced addition; warning for blanking sourced content; warning for unsourced content. What more do you want me to do? He's gotten all the warnings that he needs. His behavior has not changed in years, and a block is already justified. There has already have been disruptive editing despite warnings. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 09:30, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

I've reverted their blanking of the article talk page. It's pretty obvious they're writing an autobiography here, and given their history of ignoring warnings I think a WP:NOTHERE/WP:PROMO block is well justified. But I'll try leaving them another note. NRP, I'd suggest that your removing inappropriate content from a BLP and tagging it with maintenance notices would not make you WP:INVOLVED, but I've also been frequently challenged on my interpretation of the guideline so take that with a grain of salt. Best to play it safe in any case. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 11:38, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

I've boldly tagged G4 on the page. In looking at his references, notability has not been achieved. I have never seen the page nor edited it before now but it does certainly appear that the page as it stands is substantially similar to the one that was previously deleted. Jip Orlando (talk) 12:30, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Agreed on the G4 flag, I had a quick Google but only came up with one reasonably detailed write-up in a local paper which he could have written himself. I'm not going to delete it myself since I already suggested the user should find better references, but I'm sure someone else will get it shortly enough. In about as polite a voice as I could manage I suggested that they should not edit articles about themselves but welcomed them to edit elsewhere, they do seem to be able to write well enough. We'll see what happens. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 12:45, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

I like to think about people like this as knowing just enough to get into trouble. But who knows, perhaps he will learn from this experience and become a productive editor. But we only have so much patience. Jip Orlando (talk) 13:15, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

• You can't find better sources to support a narritive of what he videotaped in high school and some film school projects. Page needs to be deleted and SALTed and this editor blocked for SPAMing Wikipedia with his non-notable autobio. Legacypac (talk) 13:08, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
  • I have deleted the self-promotional article and warned the editor that another attempt will result in a block. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 16:08, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

You know, it really fucking pisses me off when I go to the effort of trying to explain things to a newbie editor in a reasonably polite tone, with advice and links to the relevant guidelines and everything, and say stuff like "hey, you can ask questions whenever you want", and that gets followed up by a bunch of cowboys running in plastering the page with template notices and aggressive threats and final warnings and "get the fuck out" type posturing. Yeah, we have a problem with coordinated spammers, but that doesn't mean that every account that makes a conflict-of-interest edit needs to be run off the project like this. Some people just don't know any better, and if you put in the effort to explain, you get a good editor out of the deal. Sometimes not, but what the fuck happened to assume good faith? I hope you're all fucking pleased with yourselves. God dammit I need a beer. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:31, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

You should definitely get your beer, because this is one of those cases where good faith has sailed long ago as it was never reciprocated for two years. Granted folks needs to take it easy with template notices (and be more considerate when someone else just went out of their way to write a long paragraph to the user), but this user has apparently never responded to a single message, and quite deliberately removed every message manually for the longest time. Generally speaking, I think when a new editor, with conflict-of-interest or not, shows just a little bit sign of willingness to communicate, even the most "aggressive" editors would probably respond in kindness accordingly. I think good faith should be a two-way street. Alex Shih (talk) 18:56, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Violation

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• Civility restriction: Users are required to follow proper decorum during discussions and edits. Users may be sanctioned (including blocks) if they make any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith.

The AR-15 article is under this restriction, editor Simon223 has made unfounded aspersions against me [69],[70],[71]. These remarks "I don't think at least one other editor are going to be satisfied with anything less than the complete excision of mass shootings from the article," and "You asked at WP:NPOV/N recently about deleting all mentions of mass shootings from the page, I can provide the diff if you've forgotten," I initially tried ignoring it and collapse the comment as it was off topic and uncivil [72]. That did not work and he just went on to make more of these unfounded aspersions [73] "I wouldn't characterize me pointing out that you in fact said the thing that I asserted you said as abusive. It's just making a factual statement.".

He claims[74] this link supports his assertion's [75]. The edit of mine was just one minor edit to this [76]. In it I am asking uninvolved editors at the NPOV noticeboard about including this from James Alan Fox a highly regarded professor of criminology (most noted for his studies) on C-SPAN[77]. I am in no way implying the AR article needs to remove mass shootings content from the article, in fact I am doing the opposite.-72bikers (talk) 13:50, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

How can you possibly not understand that this is a violation of your 12-hour old topic ban?! --Floquenbeam (talk) 13:56, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Seriously? This is the exact same complaint 72bikers was topic banned for yesterday. At this point I'm half tempted to ask for a indefinite block, but if they immediately withdraw this complaint I'm willing to pretend this never happened. Simonm223 (talk) 13:58, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Enough. OP blocked for one month as arbitration enforcement. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:03, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The Kid Who Would Be King

Can someone take a look at the article for the upcoming film The Kid Who Would Be King, please? An IP-hopping editor (I will refrain from calling him a vandal because some of his edits are actually useful, mixed in with a lot that are not) is simply intent upon having his way, repeatedly removing sourced information, adding information that is not sourced or poorly sourced (using IMDb, for example), and generally editing in an unhelpful manner. He's also resorted to personal attacks when I reverted him again. I'm going to keep my distance – I didn't revert his most recent edits – but some order needs to be restored and the anon. needs to be admonished not to edit war. Thanks. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 16:25, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

To be fair, the cast list he is changing didn't have a source before he changed it. We don't even have any evidence the old one is better than the new one. What is your source for the old cast list? --Jayron32 16:35, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

I don't have one, and don't know what the source is or was when it was created. But, is it an improvement to replace one unsourced cast list with another one? And then to edit war over it? It might be best to remove it altogether until a source can be found. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 16:48, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Isn't the IP's cast list sourced in the in-line ref in the lead paragraph? I see every addition to the cast list they added in there. And aren't most of their other corrections either sourced to the sources already there, or minor re-words? (I say "most" because the only thing that looks unsourced is the release date). So yeah, "vandalism" would have been a pretty poor choice of words. Seems like something the article talk page would be well suited for. I hope that if someone repeatedly reverted me for adding sourced edits with the edit summary "unsourced", I'd react better than the IP did, but I'm not 100% sure. Especially when you eventually switched to straight rollback with no edit summary. Two apparently good faith editors who disagree on specifics: take to talk page. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:11, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Another issue here, which I neglected to mention above, are edits by a block-evading sock in this same IP range. A look at the edit history bears this out. So, my unexplained reverts were for that reason. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 00:35, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

I posed the question of the block-evading sock to NRP, but he thinks they're unrelated. I apologize for my error. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 22:39, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Ongoing COI concerns, WP:SPAs

The article Ethan Tobman has been targeted by edits with a definite WP:COI feel since I created it [78], by three accounts that have edited nothing else. They've been transforming it into more of a CV filled willed with glowing reviews and incorrect formatting, over the last 2 years [79]. The latest SPA actually claimed to be working on behalf of the subject, [80] with more glowing reviews and incorrect formatting (removing the italics on Room for some reason) and a flood of unreliable sources, particularly to IMDb. I already reached out to the first SPA; I think some administrative intervention might be needed here. Ribbet32 (talk) 22:22, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Ribbet32 - Looking at the recent edits made to the article, I definitely understand the concerns regarding Alloy Gibson and their edit summaries that clearly state that they're editing under the direction of the article subject. I've added semi-protection to the article and I'll leave Alloy Gibson a notice on their user talk page and warn them about conflict of interest. Apart from doing this, there's not much that I can really do. The edits made previously are too far in the past for me to justify any kind of action outside of simply encouraging you to remove the problematic content added and moving on from there. The semi-protection should hopefully allow you to go through and trim out all that promotional and POV fluff and get it back on track. If you have any questions or concerns, or if you need more help with anything, please message me on my user talk page and let me know and I'll be more than happy to lend a hand. I wish you well, and I hope that my actions will help to resolve or at least mitigate the issue. Good luck and happy editing to you - :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 20:03, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

NOTHERE block needed

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• Thatsnotyellow (talk · contribs)

Two contributions, this being extremely offensive to an editor. Johnuniq (talk) 00:51, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

• Gone. Courcelles (talk) 00:56, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Vogiahuy2001

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Resolved

• Vogiahuy2001 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 117.2.18.159 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Vogiahuy2001's recent actions evidently shows he's not here to contribute to the encyclopedia. He has moved Action Dad to User:Action Dad, in an already vandalized state where an IP, 117.2.18.159, has hijacked an article, changing from a Cartoon Network article to this. Seeing his user log, he has created articles such as Ffango-Zone Entertainment, which is basically a copied/changed version of Image Entertainment Corporation, and Infinity Crossover Legendary/Doraemon (2016 anime), both of them have been redirected by Tree-and-tree as a hoax (Doraemon was later restored and moved to user space).

Overall, this looks like to be an attempt at making Korean hoax articles based on Japanese/American media. Please block and cleanup whatever he has done on his contributions. Thanks. theinstantmatrix (talk) 01:18, 20 October 2018 (UTC) edited 01:24, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

See also Vogiahuy2005. TeraTIX 01:56, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Yep, these articles are blatant hoaxes. Can't find anything apart from Wikipedia, WP:RS or otherwise, which even mentions Ffango-Zone Entertainment. TeraTIX 02:26, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

The Spanish Article on Action Dad mentions it. Is it a hoax? It was added in this edit by the aforementioned IP. Adam9007 (talk) 02:32, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

And is this user a sock? Adam9007 (talk) 02:57, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Blocked all. The socking string is very long, investigating .. Materialscientist (talk) 04:21, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Expert help needed—personality rights in images

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Resolved

• Paige Williams (author) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Paleofacts (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User is holding themselves out as an agent of Paige Williams and claiming that the photograph in the article was taken on private property, so that personality rights were infringed and the image is unusable. The uploader asserts that the photograph was taken in a public setting, which would put it in compliance with WP guidance on personality rights. Images are tricky, so can I get some more input on this one? —C.Fred (talk) 03:10, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

We have reached out to C.Fred to resolve this by adding the author's dedicated photo for use. This is for copyright and personal purposes regarding privacy/safety. You may use the photo submitted moments ago to C.Fred but the original image is not permitted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paleofacts (talk • contribs) 03:15, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

• @Paleofacts: I think you may be violating WP:COI and WP:THEYDONTLIKEIT. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). This message was left at 04:15, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
• Any Thelma, Dick or Harriet can come to Wikipedia and claim to be a representative of the subject of an article, so @Paleofacts: must go to WP:OTRS and verify their identity and their relationship to the subject. However, once they do so, they cannot then edit the article, as they have a clear and obvious WP:COI in regard to the subject. They can only make suggestions on the talk page and allow other editors to evaluate them and put them into the article if they choose.
  Further, the idea that because a photo was taken in a book store, which is private property, it is not a freely usable image is completely incorrect. If the event at which Paige Williams was speaking was an open and public event at which photography was allowed, then she -- a public figure -- has no personality rights concerning the photo, and no right to control the photographs taken of her at that event.
  For these reasons, I have restored the photograph to the article. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:56, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
  • I'd argue that several edit summaries are also legal threats: "You do NOT have permission to use this photo. Cease and desist immediately." and "You're flirting with a lawsuit.". Isa (talk) 05:04, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Indefinitely blocked Paleofacts for making legal threats. Materialscientist (talk) 05:32, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

• I love it when they're stupid. EEng 12:32 pm, Today (UTC−4)

Unsubstantiated accusations of being part of a "sockfarm"

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The users @SpacemanSpiff: and @Jakichandan: are making baseless allegations against me on Sitush (talk · contribs) talk page about me being part of a sock farm. Whats more, these discussions are ongoing without my knowledge. I am more than happy for the admins to investigate me however I find it strange that anybody who edits on a specific area is automatically assumed to be a sock account. I am from the state of Bihar and my interest lies in that particular area. Why should I be grouped with previous banned editors? It is slightly offensive as I have barely 10 edits. Good Puppy Heaven (talk) 12:02, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

@Good Puppy Heaven: I am sorry if you felt offended, but since you left the message on @Sitush:'s talk page regarding a topic (a source Bihar Puravid...) and have edited in the same topic areas sockfarm has shown interest in, and since@SpacemanSpiff:, who is an experienced admin himself, talked about a "Puppy from below" (similar to your account name) or something like that, I felt this suspision. I will be more than happy if you are not proven to be a sock. Thanks.—Jakichandan (talk) 12:17, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Editing in the same areas that other socks have edited in should not be an automatic reason to suspect that I myself am a sock account. In any case, next time you are discussing accusations against me, please notify me so that I have the opportunity to defend myself.Good Puppy Heaven (talk) 12:24, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

• The following accounts are  Confirmed to each other:
  • Good Puppy Heaven (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  • Glory2Suriname (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  • Michael Curnow (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  • MADHEPURA2018 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• The thinking by SpacemanSpiff and other editors is that at least two of the accounts are socks of Burbak (talk · contribs · count). Burbak and previously blocked socks are  Stale. Therefore I've blocked the newer accounts without tags.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:50, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

@Bbb23: Thank you. —Jakichandan (talk) 15:02, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

• I love it when they're stupid. EEng 16:30, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Hoax articles/information

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

AlandAhmad (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Has done nothing but recreate the article Mustafa Nawpirdani and add information about this person on the page Balak tribe (obviously hoaxes). Have already submitted the page for creation protection and reverted his edits but he keeps going. JZCL 14:02, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

General Elections in the Donetsk People's Republic (2014)

General Elections in the Donetsk People's Republic (2014) has the same issues as Protests in Armenia (2018), which were discussed a few days ago, here. The article is unreadable and should not be made visible in this state. I attempted earlier to reach out to the user and help with formatting, but have not been able to start a discussion (nor have others); I'll try again now. Per that earlier thread, the errors seem to be the result of machine translation. This is far beyond my abilities (translation/linguistics/patience-wise), but I thought I should report it. Thank you, Jessicapierce (talk) 19:53, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

There is an existing article, Donbass general elections, 2014. It dealt with both the DPR and LPR elections at the time they took place. It was deemed sensible to keep them together. The new article should be merged back into the old one, which I've now done. RGloucester — ☎ 20:00, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Legal threat?

(Apologies if this isn't the correct forum for this. Feel free to move or delete if it shouldn't be here.)

There's a user saying they "may look into possible legal recourse against Wikipedia" here. The context is that this user has repeatedly been reverted for edits to the 9/11 Truth movement article and has been warned on their talk page for vandalism and edit-warring. I know this isn't exactly the most strongly worded legal threat ever (and I have no idea why it's on the XLinkBot talk page), but I know legal threats are taken seriously here, so I thought it was worth getting some admin eyes on it. Cheers, Dawn Bard (talk) 23:55, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

The user is Andrewcameronmorris (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Making a legal threat to a bot is probably unfair, but others will be able to respond. Leaving a ping for User:Acroterion since they warned the user earlier today. EdJohnston (talk) 01:12, 21 October 2018 (UTC)