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. You are not autoconfirmed, meaning you cannot currently edit this page. Instead, use /Non-autoconfirmed posts. 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

117.215.194.94 reported by Jim1138

117.215.194.94 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Is adding unsorced/poorly sourced content to
Social work (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The anon is changing: A person who practices social work is called a social worker.
to this: A person who practices social work with a Bachelor's, Master's (MSW), and/or a Doctorate degree in Social Work is called a social worker. ...

This is not supported by the anon's citation http://www.learnhowtobecome.org/social-worker/ and on the anon's talk page http://study.com/how_to_become_a_social_worker.html. Neither of which define "social worker", just something like: "How to become a social worker... get a degree"

Merriam-Webster:social work nor dictionary.com:social work do not specify education requirements for social work.

The classification of a "social worker" may be a legal definition in some countries.

I have asked a number of times to give a citation specifically defining "social worker". I get a reply with the same links (above) with a NASW link specifies, you may have to search. here

Now the anon is stating on talk:social work that I am in agreement: here Which I am not nor do I know how the anon came to the conclusion.

Also, previously added unsourced content to Emotional self-regulation which should be wp:MEDRS on here.

Jim1138 (talk) 10:37, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Essentially, the anon's edits to social work changes the meaning of what a social worker is which I think is invalid. Jim1138 (talk) 10:44, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

• Jim1138, this is a content dispute that belongs on the talk page of that article(s), not here on ANI or AIV or on user talk pages or in edit summaries. Start a discussion thread on the article talk page and try to reach a resolution. If you do not reach an agreement, remind the user of WP:BRD, and use some form of WP:DR (dispute resolution). Right now you are both edit-warring non-stop, and theoretically should have both been blocked for that. Softlavender (talk) 15:04, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

*Discussion is now proceeding on the article talk page, and the IP has been given a formal warning about edit-warring, so this thread can be closed now. Softlavender (talk) 02:22, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

IP-hopping, edit-warring, trolling, and vandalism

117.215.194.94 has now revealed their true colors: After lying on the article talk page [1] and also after being warned about being blocked if they continued edit-warring, they switched IPs to 117.242.254.54, and continued vandalizing [2], lying [3], [4], [5], and edit warring [6], [7]. Afer that IP was warned they switched to 59.89.238.210 and continued the exact same behaviors, both on the article and on the article talk page. Now they have switched to 117.215.194.25 and are continuing to disrupt/troll the talk page (the article itself is semied for a couple of days). All four IPs need to be blocked for socking and trolling (note all of them geolocate to Kerala, India). The article needs longterm semi-protection -- Ymblanter semied it for 3 days but it's pretty clear the trolling behavior is going to continue after the protection expires. Softlavender (talk) 06:17, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Ah, a typical day on Wikipedia. God, I missed this place. HalfShadow 07:04, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Softlavender This may actually be three or four different people. Almost sounds like 59.89.238.210 is senior to the others. A professor and students perhaps? They use similar mannerisms but refer to the other IPs as different people and deny having done edits by the other IPs. As they seem to return to the same IPs, I don't think the IP changes are from moving from coffee shop to coffee shop. Seems too blatant to be socking, but may be meatpuppetry. Prof complained to students who jumped in? All IPs whois to Bangalore. Jim1138 (talk) 09:17, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

All IP-hoppers deny socking -- that's part of the M.O. They are all trolling, all vandalizing, all lying, all edit-warring. You don't have to move from coffee-shop to coffee-shop to IP hop. A fifth IP they are using is 117.213.19.177. -- Softlavender (talk) 09:38, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

I think Jim1138 is showing a lot of good faith here, but there's evidence - in their own words, no less - that at least two of the IPs are the same person. These two diffs are 117.242.254.54 removing Softlavender's talk page comment, then (after I'd given that IP two warnings) here 59.89.238.210 admits to being the one who removed it. This diff shows 117.242.254.54 back again, this time moving content around the talk page instead of deleting it, then again 59.89.238.210 admits to being the one who moved it and describes themself as "just a passerby", i.e. pretending that they are not the IP editor who's been disruptive. Here again they pretend not to be the same IP as 117.242.254.54 even though they've already admitted on the same page that they are the same person, then later they lie by saying that editors reverting the content they were trying to add was vandalism by removing "accepted content".

Whether it's meatpuppetry or sockpuppetry overall is kind of irrelevant, though, since either way it's causing serious disruption and the IP(s) just don't seem able/willing to understand why Jim1138 and I have a problem with the OR they're trying to add to the article.

Softlavender: thanks for bringing this up. I was trying to figure out how to do it myself, but I wasn't sure on the best course of action. Now it's been raised, hopefully something can be done. Marianna251TALK 09:51, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Well, considering the IP's very first post on the article talk page (not to mention their posts on user talk pages) was a blatant lie [8], and they've continued trolling and vandalizing since then under all of the various IP addresses listed, it's very clear that this user (under all of the IP addresses) is a troll and vandal, and needs to be stopped. Softlavender (talk) 11:23, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

User:Vicky85144

Vicky85144 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The above user is being very disruptive after I nominated Vicky Martin Singh for deletion, copying the article to their userpage, as well as their talk page. They're also constantly removing speedy deletion tags and overwriting the content on their talk page, despite being warned for disruption by me and other editor. Opencooper (talk) 20:02, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

In addition to above, the user also copied the page into my talk page. [9] (sorry if I do this wrong). JumpiMaus (talk) 20:37, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

And my userpage. [10] JumpiMaus (talk) 20:43, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

They've also made another page with identical content at Vicky martin (Song Writer). Creation protection might be a good idea. Marianna251TALK 20:56, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

• Vickymartin.singh might be the same person? I have stuff to do right now, but they are either working in tandem or are the same person, it seems. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:40, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Looks like both users are sockpuppets of each other and both are Vicky Martin Singh. This is a case for WP:SPI and WP:COIN. Would it also be adviseable to salt the Vicky Martin Singh and Vicky Martin (songwriter) and Vickymartin.singh article spaces so he will at least need to go through channels to try to re-create it/them? Softlavender (talk) 09:33, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

• See also User talk:103.41.99.126 (which IP address geolocates to between Hyderabad and Mumbai). This random posting of the "article" on various unrelated person's user pages and talk pages is blockable in itself. If it were me I'd block both registered accounts (and possibly the IP account as well) as NOTHERE and for repeated disruptive editing, socking, userpage trolling, and self-promotion. Softlavender (talk) 09:41, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

I've blanked the talk page. —Farix (t | c) 12:18, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

• I've blocked everyone but the IP address and left a note on the talk page for Vicky85144. Let me know if they try to repost the article for their talk page - if they do, then I'm going to revoke talk page access. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:13, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
• I've been alerted that the IP has started spamming their talk page with the deleted article, so I've blocked them for a week and revoked talk page access since I assume that they'd only repost the article content. If this keeps up then we may want to look into putting this artist's name on an article creation blacklist. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:17, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Charlene McMann

• Mariasfixing (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Charlene McMann (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

User:Mariasfixing was blocked yesterday for edit warring (removing conviction information on the subject). Multiple warnings had fallen into deaf ears, and the user is now engaging in sock puppetry, making legal threats and continuously attempt to remove factually cited information. A report has been filed under AIV, but perhaps it may be a bit more fair to see if the editor has anything to say. --Cahk (talk) 09:45, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Currently blocked for 72 hours. See also Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mariasfixing. Kleuske (talk) 10:24, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

I have blocked the socks while leaving the original account blocked as-is (72 hours for vandalism, which came after my 12 hour block for 3RR). This issue is becoming more sensitive than simple edit warring so I believe it is best to leave a line of communication open with User:Mariasfixing. -- John Reaves 14:54, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Please, just step back, throw everything you know about policies and guidelines out of the window for a second, and think about what's happening in the real world. A real person has seen a friend's life fall apart to the point they are considering suicide, believes Wikipedia to be responsible, and has gone onto Wikipedia in a distressed state, hoping to make the unpleasantness go away. I suspect they are not particularly interested in becoming in a seasoned editor, they just want things resolved in the same way you can get action taken against nasty Facebook posts. Wouldn't you do the same in their shoes? Don't overlook real threats over BLPs. The article has been locked for a week and I have taken the information under contention out. I realise the Chicago Sun-Times is normally considered an acceptable sources for BLPs (though Rupert Murdoch has had his fingers in it, so that's a red flag for me), but when the information is sensitive, and is known to upset the subject, I think it's best to err on the side of caution, and if that means deleting the entire article is the most neutral and right thing, let's go with that. Charlene McMann is not that well known a person (her article was sent to AfD and kept largely on the premise of "just about notable and inoffensive"), if she was as famous as Hilary Clinton I'd think differently, but I don't think Wikipedia is going to fall apart if this article doesn't exist. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:08, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure who this is in response to, but we all seem to be saying the same thing (in far less words). -- John Reaves 15:17, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

It isn't directed at anyone specifically, but when I see a sensitive situation covered by terms such as "sock puppetry", "vandalism", "legal threats" and "edit warring", I do stop and wonder. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:30, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

No offense, Ritchie333 but given the name of one of the socks (Charlene.angel), I'm convinced that Mariasfixing IS Charlene McMann and is trying to get her embezzlement conviction off of her article. I think that section might be WP:UNDUE and could be reduced in size but it is actually the most noteworthy element of her biography. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:35, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

None taken, Liz. That looks like an awful lot of socks but nevertheless I think my point holds that users coming here out of duress for only one point may do things we might consider strange or trollish. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:12, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Given Ritchie's comments, and in the interests of doing no harm to the subject, would it be appropriate to delete the article at AFD? The previous discussion turned on having only the bare minimum of sourcing - and I believe the bar would be somewhat higher today. Add to that the fact that most of the sources available would focus on the subject's recent involvement with the legal system. I dunno, I could make a case for deletion if it were nominated. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 15:29, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

I decided to be bold and create the AfD here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charlene McMann (2nd nomination). Could someone please add the AfD tag to the page as it is locked? RickinBaltimore (talk) 15:35, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Done. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 15:39, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

I guess I don't mind the temporary removal of the "contentious" well-sourced critical info, if Ritchie is seriously concerned about her immediate mental health. But we can't be emotionally blackmailed long-term into posting hagiographies (which is what the article is right now). I somehow doubt the Sun Times or the AP or NBC news are going to cave in to this and redact their stories about her conviction for stealing. This is well-documented in multiple reliable sources, so that removal is not justified by WP:BLP, only by WP:RITCHIEISAHUMAN (which I'm willing to respect for a week). But the result of this IAR is we have a puff piece on someone who stole money from a charity. I suppose the right thing will end up being done in a week, when the AFD wraps up - either deletion, or restoring information that no self-respecting biographical article would omit - but I find it hard to swallow that people who were quite happy to be considered famous suddenly become not-famous when they're convicted of wormy things. If she is not notable now, then she was less notable before. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:07, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Just for the record (and I think I mentioned it over on the parallel thread on AN3). I removed the content because I believe protection policy says when you protect on a BLP you should remove information under dispute until things are resolved, and also it can be beneficial to revert back to a version that preceded any edit war, which seems to be this one, rather than having any strong feelings over the content. I agree it is currently lop sided, that's why I decided deleting it might actually be the answer that satisfies everybody. I'm certainly no stranger for being first in the queue to report genuine encyclopedia-worthy pieces of criminal activity if it's justifiable. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:25, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Non-admin comment The user whom this AN/I report was filed against has left a message on my talk page, appearing to be confused as she ostensibly wants to add information to the article - my conclusion is I must've reverted her whilst I was on Huggle last night. Regardless, I agree with Ritchie in the sense that in cases like this we should step back and look at what is occurring within the bigger picture. --Ches (talk) 16:33, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Can we just address the fact that you guys just gave in to a legal threat? [11] 142.105.159.60 (talk) 17:33, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, but her friend said she was suicidal and you can't believe the Chicago Sun Times or the Attorney General, and her husband is a lawyer and we'll be in big trouble if we don't remove the info about the conviction. And somehow this is different from all the other cases of minor celebrities who get caught fiddling with the funds they should be safeguarding. So yeah, we are giving in to legal threats. Edison (talk) 17:54, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Simple solution is for someone to threaten a counter-suit to keep the information in, I guess. GRAPPLE ^X 18:12, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

I don't see how that would work, Grapple X - we're talking about a potentially suicidal person here, and it could draw much more undue attention to the problem - how do you think a counter-suit threat would work? Please explain. --Ches (talk) 18:26, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Can we also just address the fact that some of you took the statement of her edit summaries (that the editor is McMann's close friend, that McMann is suicidal, etc.) at face value and true? Given that one of Mariasfixing's socks is named Charlene, I sincerely doubt the content of these increasingly emotional edit summaries. This is a case that should be directed at OTRS, not ANI. If Mariasfixing is McMann, she can appeal to the editors who respond to emails there who are much more well-versed in knowing how to respond to personal appeals like this. We normally don't delete content that is reliably sourced if the subject complains, we just make sure that it doesn't overwhelm the article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:42, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Non-admin comment Something struck me as fishy about this too. I was looking at Mariasfixing's contributions yesterday as this was unfolding (no explanation for how I randomly found myself down this particular rabbit hole) and found it odd that, before she started in on the Charlene McMann article, she went to a couple of random articles (if memory serves, one was about an attorney who works with Chicago cancer charities, and the other was about a charitable organization) and made unhelpful little non-substantive newbie-type changes (mostly inappropriate capitalizations that subsequent users almost immediately fixed). In a different topic setting it would have been the kind of behavior that one might expect from a new account attempting to gain autoconfirmed status. I'm not an admin so I won't make a policy argument one way or another but wanted to add those facts to the collective dossier. Julietdeltalima (talk) 21:12, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

I read it as someone considering themselves her "angel" (e.g. savior, protector, etc.). I'm, of course, just guessing though. -- John Reaves 18:58, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

What the hell? Is this how we want Wikipedia to function? If that's the case, I guess we should start scrubbing the wiki of any and all mean things just because we're afraid someone might get their feelings hurt. What happened to citations? What happened to reliable sources? This is a farce. Put the information back. --Tarage (talk) 20:42, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Even if the only thing notable about a person is that they were convicted of a crime? Because, near as I can tell, being the founder of a non-notable organization doesn't confer notability. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 21:50, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

• Wow, this is shocking. Heres a news flash, this is not the first time a purported friend or family member has tried to blank negative information about a BLP's subject because its inclusion is supposedly negatively affecting the person. I've never seen us cave in these situations, though, this is definitely a first. This is well-sourced non-contentious information and while I sympathize with the subject we're an encyclopedia and are not here to censor our content in order to coddle to subjects' feelings. Swarm ♠ 23:20, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

You must have been looking in the wrong place, Swarm. Here's an infamous case where Peter Hammill removed information I had added which cited Mojo, claiming it was factually wrong. The drama was minimal because I checked the band's official biography and discovered he was right, so I rewrote the sentence, using the updated source. We are all pretty much behind tossing Sarah Stierch's article into the bin. And I don't want to think about one of my old college friends who is on Wikipedia because she had an affair with an unquestionably notable person and caused the break up of his marriage (this may have been deleted or fixed since I checked back in 2007; I don't really want to revisit it because I find it a little upsetting). Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:14, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

• On April 9, 2009, the Wikimedia Foundation's Board of Trustees passed a resolution regarding Wikimedia's handling of material about living persons. [...] The Foundation urges [...] that human dignity and personal privacy be taken into account, especially in articles of ephemeral or marginal interest (from WP:BLP). We should take human dignity and personal privacy into account here and we certainly shouldn't be creating scarlet letter type articles, it's not our purpose to create badges of shame for marginally notable people on a top five website. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:07, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

This article was created long before the legal issues occurred. I think we should delete this as BLPREQUESTDELETE, but it's funny how everyone wants an article about themselves until it starts to contain negative information. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 00:45, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

I just can't believe how differently this article and complaint was handled compared to the other appeals we have gotten from relatives or agents or managers to remove unflattering content from biographies. Normally, these appeals are quickly rejected.

And just to clarify things that I think are being ignored, these are edit summaries from Mariasfixing, a confirmed sockpuppeteer who had multiple accounts. This isn't some innocent newbie. Second, contrary to what Mariasfixing was claiming, this was not tabloid material. Charlene McMann pled guilty in a court of law to embezzlement of over $40,000 from a cancer charity she ran. We aren't talking about celebrity babies or an athlete's adulterous affairs, this was a criminal sentencing that was well-documented in the local press. I'm sorry that she finds this information embarrassing but just because convicted criminals are embarrassed by their crimes doesn't mean that they are erased from Wikipedia. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:03, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Likewise, I find it insulting that 'compassion' is being used as grounds here. If it fails BLP, fine, but don't pretend that this troll has any standing in why it was deleted, lest you open the floodgates for other such requests. I almost want to vote to keep it out of spite. --Tarage (talk) 01:11, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps related to Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#WP:RIP? EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 03:52, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

We have no obligation to this supposed friend (or possibly the person herself) until they prove their identity to OTRS. Then and only then does the WMF's policy come into play. Until then, they're just another pseudonymous editor. BMK (talk) 03:13, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Comment: I second @Julietdeltalima:. The user in question made an edit to Scott Seaman 19 minutes before the blanking begins (on this account anyway). Scott is the subject's husband, who co-authored a book together under the name "Charlene McMann-Seaman". I made a comment on AfD that I would, per @Floquenbeam: to delete the article if there's the consensus to do so. However, I feel it's simply pressure tactic to remove negative information. If the conviction is 'wrong', they have plenty of avenue to appeal the decision, but all of the edits seem to point out the only action is to disagree the conviction itself.--Cahk (talk) 06:32, 3 March 2016 (UTC) ‎

Agree with Beyond My Ken 100%. KoshVorlon 11:50, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Ylevental - COI and related issues

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

Ylevental has launched a large number of AfD discussions apparently aimed at removing the idea of "neurodiversity": the opinion that some/all autism is not an illness to be prevented/treated/cured, but a different way of thinking. This thread, of course, is not to discuss that idea. The editor has nominated for deletion:

• Autistic Pride Day - "a celebration of the neurodiversity".
• John Elder Robison - an author with autism who "is active in the autism rights movement".
• Wrong Planet - "an online community for individuals with autism and Asperger syndrome." The editor decided the first sentence should state "The site has been noted for the murderers that were connected to it."[12]
• Aspies For Freedom "a solidarity and campaigning group that aimed at raising public awareness of the autism rights movement."
• Amy Sequenzia "activist and writer about disability rights, civil rights and human rights"; "a board member of the Autistic Self Advocacy Network".
• Autistic Self Advocacy Network "advocacy organization run by and for individuals on the autism spectrum".
• Autism Network International "an advocacy organization run by and for autistic people."
• Jim Sinclair (activist) "an autism-rights movement activist".
• Retrospective diagnoses of autism the included list of individuals purported to have had autism was removed by the editor because "this could be used to push an agenda".

The basic goal here is apparently to remove any indication that individuals contributing to society is a positive way may have autism. There are two exceptions to this: Hitler, who the editor repeatedly added as having autism (bumped in from of an otherwise chronological list[13]) and Jonathan Mitchell, "an American autistic author and blogger who advocates for a cure for autism." The editor has a confirmed COI with this article[14] and feels strongly this is a FA or GA candidate.

There are accusations of sockpuppetry and other COIs bouncing around on various talk pages, but I have no meaningful information on those issues. While I do not immediately see an easy solution to this situation, it seems that it will likely end badly if the situation is not discussed and addressed in some way at this point. - SummerPhD^v2.0 05:04, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

First, someone please speedy-keep those bad faith nominations. I'm curious to see Ylevental's comments on this. I wonder if this is more an issue of NPOV and POINT than of COI. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 05:16, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

My original title here was not simply COI (not use how I lost it). I have amended the title as I believe this is not an either/or question. - SummerPhD^v2.0 05:19, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

@SummerPhDv2.0: Are you familiar with this user and their edits at all? Or just reporting their behavior? (Curious to hear from others who might be able to weigh in on the user's good-to-bad contrib ratio or something like that. From just these AfDs, it seems they're being very disruptive in this one topic). My experience with them was over at black pride and white pride (and their bad faith AfD nom for the former) and it was not a positive experience. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 06:13, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

I cleaned up Jonathan Mitchell, an article that Ylevental created, after seeing it go to BLPN. That article has been a nightmare. Granted, that's partly because it's under constant attack by an IP sock who has been harassing Ylevental, but, if you ask me, Ylevental is no better: [15], [16], [17], etc. I was tempted to file a SPI on the IP sock who's been harassing Ylevental and close the AfDs as speedy keep, but I didn't want to deal with the drama. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 08:32, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

We had a little discussion about undeleting an article named Einstein Syndrome; it can be found here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_undeletion/Archive_223#Einstein_Syndrome Lectonar (talk) 08:45, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

• @Lectonar: -- I participated in WP:Requests_for_undeletion/Archive_223#Einstein_Syndrome. What I wasn't aware, during that discussion, is that the most recent deletion had been under WP:CSD#G4 -- even though the version deleted by AFD in 2007 differed substantially from the version deleted as G4. I think: (1) Einstein Syndrome should have been uncontroversially restored, because its 2015 deletion as G4 was counter-policy; (2) that @Ylevental: didn't recognize the G4 deletion was bogus strongly suggests Ylevental is a promising, energetic newbie, who should be encouraged, and gently informed of what I suspect have been good faith mistakes. Geo Swan (talk) 23:14, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

They are not good faith mistakes. He is presently vandalising Wrong Planet by removing perfectly good material, to make a point as has been mentioned. These aren't mistakes full stop. They are intentional edits designed to press the views of Jonathan Mitchell and remove the views of those he has nominated for deletion - as has been covered in the first comment in this section. 101.182.231.86 (talk) 23:52, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Further, the user is continuing to vandalise Wrong Planet removing sourced information. 101.182.231.86 (talk) 03:50, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Well, I'm not sure what you want from me or where this discussion is going. I was cleaning up the Autism Rights Movement series, and simply marked articles that I thought didn't have enough sources to qualify or thought that they should be merged into other articles. For instance, I only found two sources for Aspies for Freedom that covered it in depth, and I thought Jim Sinclair should be merged into Autism Network International. I'll provide more information if needed. Ylevental (talk) 12:36, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Willing to note here that on Retrospective diagnoses of autism the user added Adolf Hitler to the list.DoggySoup (talk) 12:47, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Adolf Hitler was listed in the table of the article long before the user even had an account. The problem was the edit warring between Ylevental and an IP over having a separate more detailed section in the article about Hitler [18]. CatPath (talk) 15:54, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

As someone mentioned earlier, I also wonder whether the issue is WP:POINT. The Jonathan Mitchell article, which Ylevental created, went through a bad faith AfD. The nominator was eventually banned, and the article was locked to prevent edit warring/vandalism by IPs. Mitchell espouses a view that runs counter to those in the neurodiversity movement, which includes the individuals and groups described in the articles that Ylevental brought to AfD. CatPath (talk) 16:14, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

• Comment - I've closed a couple of the AfDs per WP:SNOW; I left a few others open as at a quick glance I thought that the discussions should probably be finished first. I personally don't think WP:SK#2 (bad-faith speedy keep) is applicable where a valid discussion can be held, but others may disagree. ansh666 09:33, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
• The pattern is repeating at Retrospective diagnoses of autism. Previously, the editor's push was to move Hitler to a place of prominence on the list. That was eventually rejected. The editor's next idea was to remove the list or propose deletion of the article (and remove the list while the AfD was in progress). Failing that, the editor has again suggested removing the list while making Hitler more prominent. BTW - My highest regards to all involved for avoiding any invocation of Godwin here. - SummerPhD^v2.0 22:55, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

This is correct. He is also pressing the removal of Fitzgerald completely, but he's removing a proven quote from Tesla's autobiography as a part of this - something that has nothing to do with Fitzgerald. He definitely has an agenda here and I think the only way to stop him now is to block him for a period because I don't think he's listening and understanding the problem with his editing. 101.182.231.86 (talk) 03:01, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

User:Yossimgim

Yossimgim (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) making disruptive edits lately on Israel article. On other pages that unprotected, the user edit from IP addresses: 109.64.131.137, 79.176.62.204, 79.183.130.71. I'm sure it's the same person because edits appear at the same time and are similar in nature. Here, for some reason, he deleted the same picture from different articles using account and IP: 1, 2. The picture was added by me in both articles recently. Here he made disruptive edit under misleading edit summary: diff. Many edits has been reverted, not only by me. Was blocked three times before (1, 2, 3), constantly erases own talk page from notices, posted inappropriate warrant on my talk page. --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 09:52, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Some of the edits had misleading edit summary, partially or totally unrelated to the actual edit. “WarKosign” 10:38, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Yossimgim has also been rather disruptive in the past at Talk:Natalie Portman, and on user talk pages including my own. Essentially when the argument went against him he posted on everyone's talk pages accusing them of edit warring. —  Cliftonian (talk)  14:24, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Found his sockpuppet: Dr. Feldinger (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). As Yossimgim he added picture of Bar Refaeli to Israel article 15 times, and as Dr. Feldinger once. It was discussed before and account Dr. Feldinger was banned. I don't see how temporary ban will stop him as he appears on Wikipedia occasionally anyway, was banned before 4 times in total, and just continue to add same pictures in different articles for years only to be reverted and then comes back again. --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 08:52, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Have you reported this at WP:SPI? The user and IP's certainly are quacking. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 09:28, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Just started investigation: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Yossimgim. --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 12:05, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

• He has been involved in a slow-burn edit war on the Benjamin Disraeli article too, despite a request to use the talk page's open thread on the matter. – – SchroCat (talk) 07:30, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Well the SPI was rejected on the grounds that the Dr. Feldinger case is stale. If this is an entirely new editor (or the sockmaster can't be pinpointed), Yossimgim is a disruptive editor who doesn't demonstrate anything to suggest that s/he is WP:HERE... and is still 'contributing'. I don't see any attempts to engage with other editors (never mind the tone of communications with other editors last time s/he was around). Currently, the only response to other editors has been to delete warnings and carry on regardless. Given that the multiple POINTy IP edits point to this being the same user, this is getting to be unjustifiably irritating. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:08, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Disruptive editing to the F1 project

In October last year a report was made of an IP editor persistently disrupting the F1 project here. A block was issued for a week by user:Diannaa and two further blocks were subsequently issued by the same admin. The IP editor however has continued in much the same vein and several members of the F1 project have spent considerable amounts of time, trying to make something of his sub-standard submissions. There have been seven six recent drafts which have been found to be copy-vios two of which have been WP:TE re-submitted several times without fixing issues noted on review and also removing citation tags. There is a tremendous history of disruptive editing by this editor whose IP address changes sometimes more than once a day. He's now up to more than 100 different IPs in the ranges 92.21.240.0/20 and 88.106.224.0/20. Just some of the history of his edits can be seen at User talk:Bretonbanquet who has been one of the editors involved in 'tidying up'. We have tried several times to engage and leave helpful advice on talk-pages but it is not certain which of them he might have seen and he has been known to just blank the page. Here is a diff of him removing a talk page post by another editor and here is one example of an inappropriate edit summary, although he rarely leaves summaries. The F1 project would be grateful for any assistance you can give as we have run out of patience with this editor who has been given plenty of time and more than enough leeway to edit in a conventional manner. I apologise for the long-winded submission. Please let me know if you need any further info. Thanks. Eagleash (talk) 13:34, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

The latest series of posts on the subject at the F1 project is here. Eagleash (talk) 19:30, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Earlier threads on the subject here and here. Eagleash (talk) 12:02, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

I second all of the above, and I can say I've rarely come across an editor who takes such little notice of notability guidelines, or indeed, any guidelines. He almost never engages with other editors, and when he does it's usually uncivil; he never uses talk pages or heeds advice, and creates a huge amount of work for others. He has created large numbers of articles and templates, all of which were either copy-violations, unreadable or not notable (or a combination of the three), and all of which required rewriting, merging or deleting by other editors. To make it worse, it's hard to track the guy's activity as he is forever switching IPs; so you can't talk to him or pin him down long enough to get him to understand how things work.

This has been going on for a few months now, and some of us seem to spend all our time cleaning up after this guy, when we would rather be doing something more constructive. Any ideas will be gratefully received. Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:26, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Non-constructive edits and reverts of multiple editors by IP editors

Nightscream notified me of a situation involving multiple articles edited by one or more users using multiple IP addresses to make repeated non-constructive edits, reverting the edits of Nightscream and Tenebrae. I protected the articles Jupiter's Legacy, List of Jupiter's Legacy story arcs, and List of Saga story arcs for one week on February 8 in response to encourage talk page discussion rather than edit-warring, but there was no discussion on any of the article talk pages and it appears the editor has returned to the disruptive edits. Since the user appears to have no problem switching IPs, it may not help to block the addresses, and I am not sure whether we want to keep the articles protected for a lengthy time. What is the best solution here? BOZ (talk) 15:37, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

I see no reason why the articles can't be protected for longer periods. I am the creator and primary contributor/editor of both articles, so no significant amount of information would be excluded. To the extent that information is added by other editors, they can continue to contribute with username accounts. Protection would simply exclude our IP policy violator, until he gets tired and leaves, at which point the protection can be lifted. Nightscream (talk) 22:20, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

The three articles can be protected for increasing periods, if that the best solution. BOZ (talk) 12:33, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

With no input to the contrary, I protected Jupiter's Legacy and List of Jupiter's Legacy story arcs for one month. The third article has had little activity since the protection expired. BOZ (talk) 18:19, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

User:67.83.143.151, wp:GWAR, wp:PUSH on 2 articles, this has been going on for months, non respect of other users, treating them as "hipsters"

67.83.143.151 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) We are in the situation of a genre warrior. First, he started on the Bauhaus (band) article. As many users including Mezigue and Binksternet told him his edits were not relevant, he called them "hipsters" on their talkpages. I don't need to add anything, you just have to read the history of his edits. Now he has changed of target and does the same thing on the Juju (Siouxsie and the Banshees album) article and makes attacks against Greg Fasolino. This has to stop. First, these two articles must be protected from ips and this ip should be blocked for at least a week as one can't let someone attack other longtime wikipedia users without reacting. If he doesn't change his behaviour in a near future, his ip will have to be blocked again. Woovee (talk) 16:31, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

In the edit summaries, this person makes insults, for instance saying that another editor is "full of crap". This person is not here to build the encyclopedia. Binksternet (talk) 16:36, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Can't we just throw genres out the window and leave them for other websites to care about? They only ever cause more hassle like this can could ever be countered by whatever meagre claim to encyclopaedic merit they may have. GRAPPLE ^X 16:37, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

They are actually useful for readers attempting to learn about music history. The issue here was an editor who was pushing a personal agenda, and even though his preferred genre was not only included in the article infobox but discussed throughout the article, it wasn't good enough because he has a personal dislike of the other main term, which is the term used in the sources. He not only attacked me personally at great length on my own Talk page (which i deleted after awhile as I was tired of the personal insults), but informed us that he did not care what the sources said, as the sources (major media going back 30-40 years) were "wrong" and "lazy". So let's not let one bad user who doesn't understand consensus or use of sources to sidetrack us into whether genres are useful. Thanks. Greg Fasolino (talk) 19:17, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Personally I would be happy to use just very broad genres like "rock" as indeed this stuff causes endless arguments and is very subjective, but that would be a site-wide decision. In the meantime there is no reason to let a hysterical bully have their way. I also nearly reported them several times but ended up just asking for semi-protection on Bauhaus (band) because life is too short. (And also if I'm honest because I find their insults hilarious, but looking at Greg Fasolino's talk page history I now see I only got a trailer for the full-gale shit storm they are capable of.) Mezigue (talk) 20:03, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Even broad genres will have people arguing about the edges. I propose we cut things down to the two objective genres: "vocal" and "instrumental". --Carnildo (talk) 02:02, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

• Could've just been reported at WP:ANEW. While I don't see a 3RR violation, the IP is clearly edit warring. Also I just want to say, WP:GWAR has to be the most awesome projectspace shortcut ever. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 18:20, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Mendaliv, can I still report him on WP:ANEW ? Is it allowed to post a comment about an user on two noticeboards at the same time ? Woovee (talk) 18:30, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Woovee You shouldn't post the complaint at more than one place, you can close a request as moved to a different venue. Amortias (T)(C) 23:23, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't get back to you on this, Woovee. I honestly would've thought listing at ANI would get it faster. You could still list at ANEW, but it'd be stale now... the IP seems to have cut it out. If it continues, go ahead and list at ANEW. If someone complains about cross-posting, ping me and I'll be happy to jump in. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 17:48, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

86.169.72.177 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

The WP:RBI approach taken on socks of this banned user might warrant action on most recent IP sock: 86.169.72.177 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). Recent edit history on any articles involved should help an assessing admin recognise patterns of disruption. Page protect on (at least) AW139 article also likely should be considered. Guliolopez (talk) 00:40, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi. Is any admin in a position to review this? Guliolopez (talk) 19:35, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

On Techtorium Institute of Information Technology – Abusing multiple accounts?

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

---

On this newly created page, I requested it to be deleted seeing that it only contained promotional content.

Accounts in question:

MaddogGaming (talk · contribs)

• Initial page creator

Kewljaykay (talk · contribs)

• Only current edit is on the newly created page shortly after the speedy deletion template was posted. (A Tag states "speedy deletion template removed")

Can an admin please take a look into this? Thanks! FA9295 (talk) 02:08, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

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

Redirect vandalism

I've noticed a bunch of vandalism on pages where people are adding vandalism to articles by putting in redirects to inappropriate pages, such as this, this, and this. Is there a way to prevent this (such as an edit filter), or should we just keep reverting them as they appear? Kevin Rutherford (talk) 02:32, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Those diffs are all one troll it seems. Were there others? I looked on the usually sites that organize trolling campaigns but didn't see much (though /pol/ had a few mentions of wikipedia today). Those edits did set off some filters though ([19]). EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 04:20, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) User indeffed. Nice catch! Regards,   Aloha27  talk  04:38, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Suggestion: Could one of the current anti-vandal bots be cloned & modified to trap this as follows?

1. Check recent edits that add redirects,
2. Extract the name of the "old" (redirected) article [ sans any parenthetical disambiguation like (actress) ]
3. Do a string search in the "new" (redirect target) article contents to see if it includes the "extracted" name.

In theory the new article should always have the old article's name/topic in its contents somewhere. If not then an automated revert could be executed with an "apology-if-wrong" type notice put on the editor's talk page. Koala Tea Of Mercy (KTOM's Articulations & Invigilations) 04:41, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

I didn't even notice that it was the same IP, but I think we could set up a bot to notice if there is a redirect tag on a page, and then there is a certain amount of text below it. I think that might be easier than the other option, but I could be wrong. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 05:36, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

You make a good point, that a redirect should be on a basically empty page. Your approach would be much faster (and have much lower server overhead) to spot, but of course there also is always the risk that vandals would add the redirect and page-wipe the article. And so the battle goes on... Koala Tea Of Mercy (KTOM's Articulations & Invigilations) 06:17, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

NLT block

• CaseyMcCreedy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Katherine McNamara (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• "Legal removal of Evan McNamara's per request of her lawyer and publicist AdvantagePR as he is no longer legally her parent."

This edit summary is plainly intended to invoke a chilling effect, with an implicit legal threat against any editor who reverts. Regardless of the merits of the edit (and I am a strong supporter of following the subject's wishes in these things), the edit summary seems to me to be a clear violation of WP:NLT, but I think reasonable people may differ so I am bringing it here for review and I will leave it to independent reviewing admins to decide if the block should stand or not. Guy (Help!) 09:49, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

As they went straight to a legal threat without any previous dispute and the edit summary is dry and factual, I would say a NLT block is appropriate. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:30, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Personally, I'm not persuaded, and would give some leeway if an unblock request was made. However I would expect the sentence in question to be better supported by references. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 10:43, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

I had a laugh at the "no longer legally her parent" to justify for removing mention of her father. But this isn't a legal threat as neither Wikipedia or any editor is being threatened with legal action. Of course, that doesn't mean that there aren't other problems with the edit. I did do a quick Google check to see if there were any mentions of Katherine McNamara "divorcing" her father, but didn't come up with any legal action regarding her and father. Perhaps someone else's Google-fu will be better. —Farix (t | c) 11:38, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Not a legal threat at all, nor is it the right way to make changes either. KoshVorlon 12:00, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Also, I can't imagine an actress successful suing to "divorce" her father being completely ingnored by the media. At the very least TMZ would have covered it.--65.94.252.62 (talk) 00:47, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Discography vandalism

Over the past few months, multiple artist's discographies have been vandalized, having content blanked and release dates changed. Some of the IP addresses making the edits include:

• 1.136.97.2 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 1.136.97.10 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 1.136.97.17 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 1.136.97.18 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 1.136.97.23 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 1.136.97.26 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 1.136.97.30 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 1.136.97.31 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 1.136.97.37 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 1.136.97.42 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 1.136.97.48 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 1.136.97.49 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 1.136.97.50 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 1.136.97.56 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 1.136.97.57 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 1.136.97.61 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 1.136.97.62 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 1.136.97.65 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 1.136.97.72 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 1.136.97.75 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 1.136.97.78 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 1.136.97.81 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 1.136.97.84 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 1.136.97.86 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 1.136.97.98 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 1.136.97.101 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 1.136.97.104 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 1.136.97.125 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

Some have been blocked but new ones are popping up on a regular basis. Is it possible to get a range block for 1.136.97? Eric444 (talk) 11:56, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I've seen this one about on some discography articles. A 1.136.97.0/25 block affects only 128 addresses with little collateral damage so I've blocked for a month. We'll see if that slows them down. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 13:33, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

This LTV is likely Dylan Florida. I've got a few other /24 under multi-month blocks that I keep having to renew (including ranges adjacent to this /25). Will want to keep an eye on the rest of the /24 containing yours, and also check back in a month to reblock it. DMacks (talk) 14:00, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

OK, DMacks. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 15:37, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

User:Jonadabsmith engaging in harassment?

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

I am rather concerned about this comment by Jonadabsmith. I quote: "Dr Harry Potts, what time would you like us to call round your office on campus for a meeting to discuss your personal attacks on students you are meant to encourage to embrace new political ideas and not silence?". Cordless Larry (talk) 20:58, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

That Dr. is the real name of User:Bondegezou, a fact which if not immediately shown on his User page is easily accessed via external link. I'm not sure how that fits into any "outing" calculation. More broadly, Jonadabsmith is unhappy about a couple of AfDs, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Luke Nash-Jones and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/London Students for Britain, and his comments at the AfDs and on the article Talk pages would appear to exceed the usual boundaries of WP:NPA and WP:AGF among others. JohnInDC (talk) 21:19, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

I don't think it counts as outing, given that Bondegezou has linked to his work profile from his user page. I was more concerned about Jonadabsmith's suggestion that he wants to pay him a visit at work. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:23, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

I think that's right. But addressing a person by his / her real (and full!) name rather than his User name adds, IMHO, a bit more menace to the comment. I don't know what kind of an actual threat it amounts to but it certainly seems designed to intimidate. JohnInDC (talk) 21:26, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

I think the assessment here is correct, but agree it is very problematic behavior. Does seem menacing. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 21:45, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

I concur; it's hardly friendly, even if it's not a threat, per se. GAB^Hello! 21:50, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

If Bondegezou places his name and place of work on his profile, he is hardly seeking to hide such, and it is hardly unreasonable for a student of a university to ask to visit a known professor at the same establishment to resolve some difference. I stress, that there was merely a request to visit, not an actual visit. Your implication that such would involve harassment is ridiculous. A friendly chat over a cup of tea is likely to be far more productive than people playing keyboard warriors while shouting acronyms as if they are the Supreme Court. User: Jonadabsmith —Preceding undated comment added 21:29, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Jonadabsmith, regardless of the outcome of this discussion, no amount of chatting with Bondegezou is likely to change the outcome of the AfDs. Deletion is not in the gift of Bondegezou and the decision will be taken by consensus. What you need to do is establish the notability of the subjects, not attack other editors for supposedly being biased. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:33, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Cordless Larry what would you like me to do to improve the notability of the subjects? More newspaper references? Jonadabsmith

Please see the pages WP:Golden rule and WP:RELIABLE, Jonadabsmith. Those will help you understand what is required. In-depth national newspaper coverage of the subjects would help, yes. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:39, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Jonadabsmith would also do well to read the second and fifth bullet points of Wikipedia:No personal attacks#What is considered to be a personal attack? -- as others have hinted above, he or she seems to be breaching this policy. MPS1992 (talk) 22:19, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

• The comment by Jonadabsmith (talk · contribs) (diff) is an outrageous attack on an editor. An immediate and complete repudiation may be sufficient, but the attack combined with the WP:SPA nature of the account suggest that a WP:NOTHERE block is warranted. Johnuniq (talk) 22:25, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

There is currently an SPI open on this. GAB^Hello! 00:16, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Comment Their constant bringing-up of Bodegezou's political leanings, which they make clear, in the AFD as if it invalidates the fact that most of the sources are from non reliable sources is a clear sign of trying to muddy the AFD. This is unacceptable. Blackmane (talk) 00:31, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

This isn't even remotely ambiguous. The comment in question includes clear personal attacks, an inability to argue the content issue in question without going after the character of another editor, and a threat to extend harassment over this editing issue into the off-project work environment of a contributor. It's quite probable that the SPI will turn something up on this SPA, but regardless, the evidence for WP:NOTHERE seems pretty absolute. Someone should simply take this directly to an admin. Or we can always make a proposal right here. I know what my !vote will be. Snow ^{let's rap} 05:49, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

@Snow Rise: Yes, all the socks are confirmed to one another and possible to the master. GAB^Hello! 23:01, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

I don't think that outcome comes as a shock to anyone. I am a little surprised that Bbb23 decided only to block the sock accounts and left it to another admin to decide whether to also block the likely master--but hopefully another admin will be along shortly to attend to that. It seems a pretty open and shut case of disruption and WP:NOTHERE, so the only thing I feel needs to be reiterated at this point is that Jonadabsmith can/should be blocked for the socking or for the blatant harassment/threats--and hopefully the block length will reflect the aggregate circumstances of the disruption. Personally, I'd fully support an indef in this instance, given this is clearly an SPA here to further a specific agenda--even if it means disrupting process through puppetry (generally grounds for an indef in its own right), to say nothing of threatening the off-wiki professional interests/personal well-being of a contributor. Snow ^{let's rap} 23:24, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

I agree. At the very least, they should be blocked for the duration of the AFD, as suggested. GAB^Hello! 23:34, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

User:Bondegezou, I'll pop over from the IHR if you need someone to watch your back mate. Bloomin' ungrads 11:36, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Urgent block needed for sock

71.174.132.60 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) I am in a dire need of a block for a sockpuppet who is a troll, is currently edit warring and engaging in possible personal attacks (on talk pages) at Talk:Jewish Bolshevism. There has been an ANI complaint about this troll before. I am currently on mobile and diff links are hard to work with, so if it is really necessary please let me know so I do so. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 05:46, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Note to Administrators This is a self-admitted[20] sockpuppet. I'm still for indefinitely blocking this sock even thought the page was protected. He's only going to cause more trouble when the protect expires. Boomer Vial^Holla 05:51, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

IP's are generally never blocked indefinitely, except for open proxies. Admins however can put it on long term semi protection, which is less disruptive to registered editors than full protection. If this IP is a sock of a currently indef blocked registered user, then editors are exempt from the 3RR when dealing with them. Blackmane (talk) 06:25, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

This person is hopping in the range 71.174.0.0/16. I would do a rangeblock, but http://tools.wmflabs.org/rangecontrib is now restricted so it only outputs the last 30 edits. A /16 range is too large to block without more information. Anyone know of a better tool? EdJohnston (talk) 06:43, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

At Special:Preferences under gadgets, enable "Allow /16, /24 and /27 – /32 CIDR ranges on Special:Contributions...". That shows contribs links for a range, although I only used it once to see how it works and do not know how far back it goes. Johnuniq (talk) 07:09, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Oops, I assumed your link was to xtools but it was for an older tool. Again, I don't have experience with using it, but xtools allows you to enter a start date although it only allows a maximum of 50 contributions. If you preview {{blockcalc|71.174.0.0/16}} in a sandbox, it provides a link (c) to xtools with the start date set to one month ago. Johnuniq (talk) 09:52, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Legal threat?

This IP (80.12.43.175 - ANI notice) just left this on my talk page. I believe that this constitutes a legal threat, but I want to get input in case I am wrong, and administrator action if I'm right. Thanks :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 10:13, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

The IP also keeps reverting edits made to Carl-Eduard von Bismarck, which removes a reference, adds unreferenced BLP issues, and removes templates such as {{reflist}} from the article. A report has been filed at AIV. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 10:15, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

A new user, Transparencythruth has just been created (presumably by the IP), and is now adding the same BLP issue to the article. Left a 4im warning, and an ANI notice. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 10:21, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

That was my reading of the situation too. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 10:24, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Blocked new one as a sock. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:26, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, Peacemaker67. I'll keep an eye out and update if I find any more. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 10:28, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Seems the article has been vandalized over the last few days from the same IP range, including Khaoz529k, 80.12.35.99, 80.12.39.28, and 80.12.51.34. I'm tempted to roll the article back to a point prier to these edits.[21] —Farix (t | c) 12:10, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

No objection to that: the only difference from the current version [22] is in the person data. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 12:59, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Seconded. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 17:36, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

This was closed too quickly. I just blocked Khaoz529k (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) for this and this. A clear legal threat. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 17:02, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

CambridgeBayWeather - I've re-opened this thread, as your information is important and is relevant to my initial report. Thank you for catching the legal threat left on my talk page. I went through about half of that message, assumed that it was all nonsense, and went on my merry way without realizing that I missed something. Much appreciated! :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 17:25, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

• I semiprotected the article. I guess it's whack-a-mole from here on. I note that the rule of thumb that any user with "truth" in the name is here on a mission, has been shown once again to be valid. Guy (Help!) 01:29, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

User:Potguru

Potguru (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Well, here we are again, and here I am posting on the dramaboard. Anyways, I think its time User:Potguru be shown the door. The user has had some issues on the past, and seems to be here mostly to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS - The user recently has been editing Donald J Drumpf and Donald Trump (Last Week Tonight)‎ - The user seems to be warring pretty hard, and is nothing but incivil.
The proof is not only in the content, but the edit summaries.

[23] -- [24] -- [25] - The user seems to be throwing thier toys out the pram and now asks that we "please erase every contribution I've ever made to this god forsaken shit hole!" --allthefoxes ^(Talk) 19:58, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Also worth noting that the user made three consecutive votes on an AFD just to push the point. There is no question that this user is simply being disruptive and un-collaborative like a bull in a china shop. --allthefoxes ^(Talk) 20:01, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

I've already reported the user at WP:AIV. I agree a time out is needed. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:02, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Agreed. They've decided that the "Trump supporters" have won and Donald J Drumpf is to be deleted. The AfD isn't over yet, but they've decided to take back all their contributions while blanking their talk page to any warnings. clpo13_(talk) 20:03, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Yep that was an accurate feeling when written. If there were a magic button that removed all my contributions I'd click it in a nanosecond. I WAS attempting to resolve a problem of multiple articles related to the same topic. But I have been attacked by Muboshgu repeatedly, and other non-well meaning editors who are, frankly, mad that the drumpf topic is getting the amazing press coverage it did. As I said... just erase all my contributions and I'll go back to the rock I live under with people who don't hate and are not afraid to learn. --Potguru (talk) 20:05, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Your solution to fixing an issue like that is throwing a huge fit, attacking other editors, etc? Instead of calmly discussing with other editors and collaborating? Wikipedia has no deadline, things take time. Staying calm and discussing is one of the core foundations of Wikipedia, and you seem to have no regard for it. I think you still have potential to be a great editor, but you may need to take a WP:WALK --allthefoxes ^(Talk) 20:09, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

My solution was this...https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_J._Drumpf_(Last_Week_Tonight) please carefully review the edits and my hard work before you judge me --Potguru (talk) 20:10, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

You were bold, and you made that page. Someone "reverted you" and now its time to discuss. It's the Bold, revert, discuss cycle. --allthefoxes ^(Talk) 20:11, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

And only seconds ago you were wanting to show me the door... nice neighborhood, huh? --Potguru (talk) 20:28, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

dude, you want to fix the problem? Speedy delete donald j drumpf and consider recommending that the page I authored already did all the work. As you know I can't do anything right now because everyone is watching me. Your suggestion is great, now kindly act on it and take me out of this damn box. --Potguru (talk) 20:31, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

What would help is if you would stop deleting valid content from Donald Trump (Last Week Tonight). – Muboshgu (talk) 21:47, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Unlike your war edits mine are (most often) constructive and they build upon others work. You just revert anything I do because you don't like the subject matter. --Potguru (talk) 22:16, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Your edits are mostly nonconstructive, which is why we're here. You delete valid material about Google Search results sourced to the New York Times, and created a duplicate article, which you then removed the CSD template from despite several warnings. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:12, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Revdel

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

---

Could an admin please reveal this? 96.237.27.238 (talk) 20:46, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

In the future, it's better not to publicly post a request for revision deletion on Wikipedia, as it only creates more links to the edit in question. Instead, you should follow the directions listed here, or email the Oversight team. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 20:51, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Quite agree. Streisand effect and all that. Send an e-mail as directed. Works like a charm. I do it all the time. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 21:07, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Also, this edit is from an the year 2006 (this information may not be relevant, but I figured I'd share this information). ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:08, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Rev del has been performed. This thread can be set as resolved. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:50, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Resolved

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

Unconstructive edits of User:Gamerprof

User:Gamerprof does these edits [26], [27], [28] at Ryazhenka without any summaries which show a clear edit warring behaviour. They refused to participate at the extensive content dispute at Talk:Ryazhenka about the origin of this product. I opened this topic on Talk in December after their first edits of this kind. They ignored it and also they ignored my comment summaries inviting to participate at the discussion and the warning at they Talk. Previously they attempted to remove the word "Ukrainian" from sourced sentences (a clear vandalism) and to introduce several times highly unreliable sources (one where the authors were unsure about its origin, one blog page and one copy of an old version of Wikipedia itself) to assert its Russian origin (s. history) which were reverted by me and another editor. Recently another editor took part in the dispute at Talk and we discussed it in detail. The outcome of the discussion was that there is some degree of uncertainty due to the scarcity of the sources, but that the Ukrainian origin is the only one supported by the sources (actually old Russian and Soviet primary sources, as until recently this product was virtually uknown in the West). However, User:Gamerprof did not take part in the discussion, but changed lately the behaviour to simply deleting the entry in the infobox on its historical Ukrainian origin. I see no possibility to resolve the issue in a civilized manner, as the user refuses to participate in any discussion. In general, User talk:Gamerprof leaves an impression of a common edit warring behaviour on multiple pages. --Off-shell (talk) 22:35, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

It looks like Gamerprof has never made an edit to an article talk page or a Wikipedia space page so I'm not optimistic that he will come here and explain his behavior. This might have to be decided without his participation. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:58, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

In the past when I've seen cases like this, the usual outcome is a block for the non-participating editor to prevent further disruption. When the editor agrees to participate in discussion, then the block can be lifted. Not sure if that is the answer here, but it's one I've seen before. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 00:59, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Also, considering these edits, we might enlist a Russian speaker to try communicating with this editor. (though if Google Translate is even close with the translation of those comments, we might just assume this editor is here to right great wrongs... and summarily block) —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 01:06, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Google Translate is very close to the Russian original, except that he used a reflexive Russian verb for "wipe" meaning "wipe your butt with". --Off-shell (talk) 06:47, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Revision deletion—A quick favor...

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

---

Hi.

Can an admin do me a quick favor and perform a revision deletion on the following two edits to my userpage.

• [29]
• [30]

Thanks.

FA9295 (talk) (contributions) 23:05, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Done...only one revdeletion necessary, user has been blocked. Lectonar (talk) 23:12, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

@Lectonar: They have returned. Can you have a quick look at my userpage again? Thanks! FA9295 (talk) (contributions) 00:24, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

@FA9295:  Done SQL^{Query me!} 00:48, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

@SQL: Thanks! Can you also remove the first accounts' user name ("FukTrump") on the page history, as Lectonar never did that... FA9295 (talk) (contributions) 00:51, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

@FA9295:  Done SQL^{Query me!} 00:53, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

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

What to do with this IP?

212.252.20.216 appears to be a single-purpose account who has been adding questionable material and deleting sourced information. I really don't want to keep reverting their edits. Nevertheless, I tried to have the IP discuss the changes at the TP but it doesn't seem to work. What should be an appropriate measure to take here? Étienne Dolet (talk) 23:39, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Disruptive Editing and Ownership Behavior

I have been having issues with disruptive editing (among multiple other issues) by User:MontanaBW. This behavior began when I started editing the Parelli Natural Horsemanship (a.k.a. PNH) page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parelli_Natural_Horsemanship about two months ago and has continued since.

As a matter of background, I am a student of PNH and have been for about 10 years. I have no other affiliation with the organization, financial or otherwise. I have never been paid to train horses or people on horsemanship.

When I found the page, it was sorely lacking in substance and was filled with anti-PNH material. Some of that material was valid criticism that was reasonably written. However, much of the text significantly overstated negative elements found in the source; some of it was written in a distinctly unencyclopedic tone; some of it was uncited and had been for years; some of it was nonsensical; a fair amount of it was distorted; some of it was outright incorrect and much of it lacked any countervailing view representing the “other side of the story.”

I will leave out the ugly details here but will summarize them by saying: I added material. MontanaBW deleted much of my material. She engaged in repeated "discussions" (which can be viewed in their entirety on the PNH talk page and my talk page) that usually amounted to little more than a conclusory rant about how PNH was a cult and Pat Parelli (the founder) was a “huckster” and a “flimflam artist.” She is certainly entitled to her opinions, but her editing should not reflect them.

More often than anything resembling a substantive discussion, she accused me repeatedly of COI, POV editing, copyright infringement, SPA and probably a few other things I’m forgetting at the moment.

I will give her credit for saying the right things in terms of principles (e.g. repeatedly referring to foundational principles such as NPOV and such). However, as she was saying the right things, she was doing the wrong thing -- deleting much of the material that did not comport with her vehement prejudices against PNH and being quit uncivil in the process.

That was more background than I had meant to put in but, in rereading it, I’m not sure what I should cut out. My apologies for the length so far.

MontanaBW’s latest ugly remark, left on my talk page, included, “Others can try to educate you, at this point, as far as I am concerned, I am done trying to teach a brick wall. You can either edit properly or get reverted.”

In turn, my immediate concern are her latest manual modifications to the page, which she called “Kept some changes, tossed some changes.” Most of the deletions on the page were of my work. Some of her modifications very nearly defy explanation, other than she has manually changed the page back into almost exactly how she had left it before others and I made changes (this is MontanaBW's last version of the page ).

In approximate order of their occurrence in the text (and omitting a few), these are the changes MontanaBW made manually to the page:

• She changed the “co-authored by” section – back verbatim to her earlier version – which gave “co-author” credit to the (non-notable) ghost writer and a photography-by credit (to Pat Parelli’s first wife). These individuals are clearly non-notable. On the talk page where others and I had been discussing it, she simply put, “Parelli's first wife also claims co-founder credit and helped him with his first book” (this is uncited…) and “Clearly, behind the "great man" are several hard-working women.”
• I fixed a misplaced period (to comport with the American style regarding periods/commas), putting the period where it belonged (inside the quotes):

from “The Four Savvys”.

to “The Four Savvys.”

She changed it back to the incorrect placement

• I fixed another misplaced period, taking the text

from “7 Games”.

to “7 Games.”

She changed that back, too.

• The same thing happened with

"Parelli Natural Horsemanship University",

• To comport with the talk page discussion (and to remove the word “now,” which is inappropriate), I changed the “co-created” sentence. She changed it back, verbatim, to her earlier version. Her version did not comport with the talk page discussion, which she hadn’t participated in (and added that “now” right back in).
• I had reorganized for flow. The text had read <program availability><program description><program availability>. I reorganized it so that it read <program description><program availability> (i.e., so the topic of “availability” wasn’t split by a different topic for no reason.) She manually changed it to (again, verbatim) her earlier version.
• A material mistake had been introduced at some point, describing “liberty” work with a horse as involving the horse in a halter and lead rope/flank rope. That is unambiguously wrong. Liberty work is…a horse at liberty. I changed it so it was correct. She manually reintroduced the error (to, verbatim, her earlier version).
• I fixed grammar. “Horse” is singular, so I changed a “they are” to “it is.” She changed it back to be grammatically incorrect.
• This is an article about an organization, not individuals. I changed “The Parellis state” to “PNH states.” She changed it back (again, verbatim).
• Another editor and I had discussed Lauren Barwick. She is a Parelli Professional (a title), so that is what I called her (and provided a citation). The other editor changed it to Parelli Instructor. That was wrong as “Parelli Instructor” isn’t a title; it’s a description. We discussed it and I changed it to “Parelli instructor,” which wasn’t as precise as it could have been but seemed to make both of us more or less satisfied. It was a good exercise is collaborative editing, I suppose. MontanaBW later edited it back to “has been coached by,” which isn’t wrong but it’s only about 10% of the story. (And, unsurprisingly, it is her exact text from beforehand.)
• I changed a period that appeared in the middle of a sentence into a comma (it had been “that it is "gimmicky and over-commercialized." sells overpriced materials”). She deleted the comma and reinserted the period in the middle of the sentence.

It is very difficult to improve an article when mistakes (grammatical and substantive) are being reintroduced in such a purposeful way. Her ownership behavior is not new. It appears to have existed not just for months but for almost the entirety of the life of this page.

Again, I apologize for the length of this post. Can you offer any assistance with this editor’s behavior?JackieLL007 (talk) 00:02, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

• Looks like a content dispute. I see nothing disruptive about Montanabw's conduct. You might seek third party input from a variety of places listed at WP:DR. This is just not an ANI matter. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 00:10, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
  • I am, upon additional review, becoming increasingly concerned with JackieLL007's conduct, having looked hard at Jackie's user talk page and complaint here. The insistence above that the article use the Oxford comma, rather than Wikipedia's own manual of style, is the sort of nitpicky complaint we more often see from editors with an axe to grind. I'm not saying that this is the case, but Jackie, you should be aware that your own conduct does not look good here. I'm sorry if this isn't the response you were looking for, but I would respectfully suggest you walk away from articles concerning PNH for now. There is no deadline on Wikipedia. If another editor makes an edit that you feel is incorrect, it can be fixed some other time. For now, though, you should focus on becoming more experienced in the Wikipedia culture in subject areas where disputes are not going to concern topics about which you feel so strongly. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 00:53, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

References

It seems to me in reviewing the complaints brought here that JackieLL07 is fixated on the article Parelli Natural Horsemanship. According to her edit stats She has been editing only since Dec 29, 2015 and has made 105 out of her 209 edits on that article and 28 more to its talk page. She has made 7 edits to her next most-edited article. For someone who appears to only have been editing for a couple of months, she has found this notice board quite early: it invites the question of whether she has used another account previously. Nevertheless, this is single-purpose account which seems very keen to right the great wrong done to the Parellis by our article. Frankly, looking at the sources, neither I nor another uninvolved editor, Bishonen who cleaned up some of the article, the sources just don't support the claims JackieLL07 is making out of them. This is a new editor whose only purpose on Wikipedia seems to be to impose her POV on the Parelli Natural Horsemanship article, and resents the established editors who are explaining to her the problems she is causing. A certain amount of competence is required, so I'm going to suggest that that JackieLL07 turns her attention to other articles that she is not so invested in. Therefore:

• I propose a six month topic ban for JackieLL07 from Parelli Natural Horsemanship.

She can edit other articles that she has less strong feelings about while learning how Wikipedia NPOV works. --RexxS (talk) 02:28, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

• I'm not excited about accusations of this kind while an editor clearly cannot defend herself.[31]. Jackie many of these concerns are very simple copy edit/ grammatical changes. I don't think AN/I is the place for complaints made based on these kinds of very simple edits. Work it out on the talk page without accusations, eh?(Littleolive oil (talk) 06:18, 6 March 2016 (UTC))

Legal threat

Hoyalawya has included a legal threat on User talk:98.169.244.220. User has been notified of this ANI discussion. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:09, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

I had previously reported them to ANEW. GAB^Hello! 03:45, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

I don't think the user's comments rise to the level of a legal threat. I read it as there may be legal consequences to the organization as a result of the post, not that the organization will take action and cause legal consequences to Wikipedia(ns). That said, I don't think the user is quite grasping that this is a neutral encyclopedia; they're having issues with WP:OWN and WP:COI. They could probably use some extra guidance. —C.Fred (talk) 03:48, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Hmm, I translated it differently when I first read it, but I see how your interpretation of it could be correct as well, C.Fred. I will leave it to your fine judgment; if my interpretation of the message was wrong, please accept my apologies. I will gladly accept my ten lashings :-P ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 07:20, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Timothy Parker (puzzle designer)

Timothy Parker (puzzle designer)

A series of anonymous IPs have been reverting factual additions to this page. The page itself appears to be an autobiography, and the reverts appear to be the work of the author himself. Please see the article's history and judge for yourself.

Also read the following for background on the page's additions:

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/06/business/media/questions-raised-over-crosswords-seemingly-copied-from-the-new-york-times.html http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/a-plagiarism-scandal-is-unfolding-in-the-crossword-world/ Econrad (talk) 03:43, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

I currently have an AN3 report filed regarding this article here. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:50, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you! Econrad (talk) 04:00, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

• I figure at the very least we can add a semi-protection to the page for the time being. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:35, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Strange AfD behavior

There seems to be some odd behavior over at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Docker's Guild. There are a lot of similar IP users making similar arguments. I'm wondering if there's sockpuppetry or canvassing going on. Some more experienced eyes would be appreciated. clpo13_(talk) 05:25, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

DGG closed it and opened a new one. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:23, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

AHSApacheStudent

The aforementioned user continually vandalizes several pages dealing with 'List of programs broadcast by...' by adding false premiere dates and finale dates to various programs. The majority of the vandalism is on articles List of programs broadcast by Boomerang and List of programs broadcast by Discovery Family. He has been warned countless times, but continually ignores them. His regular violations of WP:NOR is getting annoying and a bit too much to handle. What could and should be done? Thanks, Carbrera (talk) 06:48, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

• It looks like they were blocked back in August 2015 for disruptive editing/vandalism. A look at their talkpage shows numerous warnings about unhelpful edits and I can't see where they've ever took part in a talk page discussion. By large their edits aren't overwhelmingly helpful. They do seem to have created a page for Viceland a few days before the article was created at the proper article name, but I don't see where it really impacted the article created a little after that. Some of this other edits seem to be attempts to split content off of articles and change titles without (or against) consensus. By large his edits aren't so helpful that we'd really lose anything by permanently blocking him, given that he's been repeatedly getting warnings for what looks like the same actions since he signed up. I figure that I'm going to give him an indef block. If he can make a very, very good case for himself and explain why he added false information and made other unhelpful edits, he may be unblocked. However for the time being he seems like he'd probably do more harm than good if left to his own devices, especially since he's never made an attempt to explain his actions or respond to anyone. You don't have to post on talk pages, but at some point you're expected to if you've been blocked and received as many warnings as this guy has. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:30, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Interpretation of the phrase "Musical comedy"

I came across the heading "Musical comedy" on Wikipedia, which has a redirect to "Musical theater". Seeing as the phrase "musical comedy" can include a number of genres and performance styles, not just theatre and movies, I made an edit to undo the redirect. This was twice reverted back to Musical theater.

While I do understand that Ssilvers is a prominent contributor in the world of theatre on Wikipedia, I contest that in this case an error has been made as what constitutes a Musical comedy in this day and age extends far beyond the reach of theatre.

There has been some discussion on the talk page between myself, Ssilvers and some of his allies (see talk page for Musical comedy) maintain that musical comedy belongs under the heading of musical theater. But this does not apply in this day and age, one where we have, for example, live performances by artists like Bill Bailey and (in the past) Victor Borge that qualify as musical comedy and where we have mockumentaries such as 'This Is Spinal Tap', all clearly falling under the musical comedy heading but not necessarily under musical theater. I would appreciate others who have a neutral interest in this matter to comment on this.Puddingsan (talk) 10:07, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

This is a content dispute, and you need to use the dispute resolution process to resolve it. Administrators aren't umpires, and aren't going to adjudicate this problem. -- Finlay McWalter··–·Talk 10:25, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

User:Maybeparaphrased: New editor stubbornly resistant to learning/following/caring about the rules. What to do?

User:Maybeparaphrased has only been editing for a month and (not surprisingly) has already encountered a few problems.

But now I have encountered a troubling pattern that, if not addressed now, will likely just get worse as Maybeparaphrased encounters other editors.

I came across this series of virtually identical and unsourced edits by an IP: here, here, here and here. In each case, not only were they not sourced, but they simply didn't fit where they had been placed. It was pretty obvious that this IP was attempting to place this same info on every single page where the subject was listed - whether it belonged there or not.

So I tried to correct it, by reverting those edits. When I got to the actual Hank Bergman article, it was an unholy mess and looked like this.

Thru a series of edits, I removed extraneous sections and non-encyclopedic fluff and now the article looks like this. But with my first edit, Maybeparaphrased decided to revert my edit there, as well as all my edits on those other pages as well. What followed was a series of notices left on my talk page and a series of back and forth on Maybeparaphrased's talk page: where I was repeatedly, threatened, four, times and curiously - after posting on my talk page, twice, - was told to stay off his/her talk page. When I advised Maybeparaphrased that threatening editors on his/her talk page for making constructive edits - especially since he/she was unfamiliar with the editing guidelines & policies - wasn't going to fly, was itself a violation and likely could backfire, I got the response that I should "take your alphabet soup of WP policies someplace else".

Again, Maybeparaphrased also reverted my edits on those other other pages, here, here and restored the non-encyclopedic, largely unsourced and irrelevant fluff on the Bergman page.

Obviously, it's ok to be newbie. You can even be an ass. (It's even ok to be an IP.) But if you're going to not only ignore the rules, but attack people who point out what the rules are, then you're definitely going to be a problem editor down the road - and some action should be taken now.

While I'm not recommending a block for the reverts, or the threats or even the stalking, I am definitely recommending guidance and monitoring for Maybeparaphrased. Before more serious action has to be taken against a newbie who doesn't think the rules apply to him/her and already feels he/she can operate without any repercussions. Any thoughts? Thanks.2602:306:BD61:E0F0:1DD3:FAF0:D888:A273 (talk) 11:18, 6 March 2016 (UTC)