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

The Wiki Ed welcome mat

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

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

He's not responding on his personal page either.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Welcome messages disabled

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

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

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

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

Dashboard

(may be related to the above?)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Some points:

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

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

Still another thought:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Proposal regarding overwriting of Wikipedia project pages

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

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

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

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

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

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

Proposal regarding preferred workspaces for Wiki Ed students

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

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

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

Other comments (Wiki Ed)

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

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

Seeking a one way IBAN re Andy Dingley

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

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

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

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

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

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

I am now requesting an Iban. Jytdog (talk) 20:41, 18 March 2017 (UTC) (redact to clarify, for those who are not reading carefully Jytdog (talk) 22:38, 18 March 2017 (UTC)) (redact - struck badly stated case. My apologies. Jytdog (talk) 18:00, 22 March 2017 (UTC))

• I'm a vegetarian. A news story this week has been on Memphis Meats, who are vat-growing animal cells to make a "meat". So I went to see if we had an article on it, and guess what I find - Jytdog and his perennial bullying tactics and 2RR edit-warring tatics [1] [2]. I have not edited this article, I commented at Talk:Memphis Meats.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Another PA struck out.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Front-loading your IBan request with all that irrelevant self-congratulatory misleading material was gratuitous. That said, it's clear that Andy came to the article via the edit-warring notice on your talk-page (edit-warring notice at 12:23, 18 March [3]; Andy's first edit at 18:48, 18 March [4]), and not through a "news story this week". Andy, I'd advise taking Jytdog's talk page off your watchlist and stopping tracking his edits. Softlavender (talk) 09:32, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

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

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

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

Understood Softlavender. The case stated concisely is as follows.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I am not the one indef blocked from the project

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

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

Comment: Andy is engaged in an edit war with me on the Honda Fit page. First he protected a false edit (swage cut) that had zero notable sources, then protects his own modified edit. Appears he knows very little about automobiles though is compelled to supervise and take ownership of the Honda Fit page.Lizzziemcdonald (talk) 05:18, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

You have made no edits (under either of your accounts) to WP, other than to remove self-evident and sourced content that the latest model of the Honda Jazz has gained a bodywork crease the earlier versions didn't have. But for a "new editor", you sure found this ANI thread quickly enough. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:02, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

False birth/death dates/places

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Halon8

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Competence required on the part of Halon8. They tell that Yakutia and Tuva are "separatist movements" [5]. They are not separatist movements, but autonomous republics. My very best wishes (talk) 02:04, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Let's try to assume some good faith and competence all around—I think there are just language issues here. Some googling indicates that there might be separatist movements within those "autonomous republics,"[6][7][8] just as there is long-term separatist movement within that other "autonomous" (cough, cough) republic of Chechnya. Based on my reading of the dif you just shared, I think that's what the editor meant. First Light (talk) 15:04, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

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

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

Unsourced claims on Sofia airport

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

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

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

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

User:Certified Gangsta's userspace

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

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

Certified Gangsta doesn't like having this page in his userspace, and has blanked it and asked me to delete it. User request to delete subpages in their own space falls under the WP:U1 speedy criterion, but the case was unusual, and Od Mishehu had specifically written on the page "Note: Please note that this page should not be deleted even if the user requests for it. This is the user's record under old user names."[9] Therefore, I asked Od Mishehu privately if he was all right with me deleting the page, but he's not, and refers to the specifics of WP:U1: "In some rare cases there may be administrative need to retain the page."

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I've refrained from commenting so far since I simply want to let this process take its course and minimize any potential drama. However, I do think I deserve credit for always applying username change through the proper channel when I easily could have opted for clean start or exercised my right to vanish like many others do, especially in light of my sporadic editing history over the past 6-7 years (unfortunately, that's just the way my real life has been going). All my contributions over the past 11 years are on this account and I have made no attempt whatsoever to conceal my history, so I think it's unfair for User:Od Mishehu to assume bad faith by opining that I change username as a way to "try and prevent users from "remembering" me". As far as I know, no other users have ever been subjected to one-second blocks and user space "badge of shame" like I have been. And the lack of precedents is quite disconcerting. For example, when User:Sumple was blocked for disruption [10], he immediately abandoned his account in favor of a brand new account User:PalaceGuard008 without going through Wikipedia:Changing username/Simple in a clear-cut attempt to wipe clean his block log. When he was exposed, admins on AN/I concluded that it was deception at best [11] [12] and abusive sockpuppetry at worst [13]. Yet there has been no effort whatsoever to fully document the block log of User:PalaceGuard008 despite the fact that his old Sumple account was once blocked indefinitely for sockpuppetry (later overturned just like many of my old blocks). And frankly, this is just one out of the many examples that I have personally witnessed where problematic users are allowed to bypass Wikipedia:Changing username/Simple and wipe clean their block log, which is something I would never do as a matter of principle. However, I think it would only be fair if User:Od Mishehu takes the initiative to fully chronicle User:PalaceGuard008 block log, including those from his old User:Sumple account, through the administrative use of 1-second block. Last but not least, I would like to thank everyone, in particular User:Boing! said Zebedee for taking the time to participate in this discussion and User:Bishonen for bringing this issue to AN/I. Happy editing!--Certified Gangsta (talk) 03:31, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

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

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

Proposed resolution

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

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

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

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

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

Resolved

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

edit warring to close RfC just started two days ago

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

---

I opened an RfC on Donald Trump talk regarding LGBT rights on March 22 here.

• Today, an editor closed it claiming WP:SNOW here. I reverted the close because the RfC's been up just two days, and has two supports and I mentioned this in the edit summary. here. Then another editor came along and reverted me, without any explanation in the edit summary here. And you'll note, this editor voted Oppose. He's involved and can't close anyway.

• I'm asking for an admin to reopen the RfC because the bot notices have not gone out yet, and won't for at least a week, and as cautionary note says, this close is too soon because it seems the Oppose votes are early pile on, and closing will prevent editors with other opinions from weighing in. I'm not asking for anyone to be blocked, just reopen the RfC by an admin, and if this closing persists, then a block would be needed. But I think an admin doing this will solve it for now. Thank you. SW3 5DL (talk) 15:52, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
  • What steps were taken to discuss this section prior to opening an RFC?--WaltCip (talk) 16:00, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

1. Please read my close statement. I specifically did not call it SNOW, and I stated as such. 2. The second point was probably more important. 3. This dispute belongs in article talk, not here. This is the second time in, what, 10 days? that you've run to ANI to complain about something that should be handled calmly among editors in article talk. This is not what admins do. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:03, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

And you did not think to comment on the talk page before closing the RfC? SW3 5DL (talk) 16:11, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

That is not required. I understood that closes are subject to challenge. I applied WP:BRD and executed a WP:BOLD edit (B). You challenged by reverting (R), which was an entirely legitimate move. The next step is discussion (D). So go discuss. Anythingyouwant's re-revert is a fuzzier matter, but it was just one revert and that sort of thing is so common that it certainly doesn't warrant a trip to ANI. If you want to make an issue of it, you could take it to WP:ANEW where edit warring complaints are addressed. Me, I would just discuss instead. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:18, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

The RfC had responses. It is barely 2 days old. The bot notices have not gone out. This is shutting down an RfC the larger community is meant to comment on. This page does not belong to you or any other editor. You are free to give your ivote, but you do not have the right to deny the ivote to others in the community because it is your opinion that it should be closed. SW3 5DL (talk) 16:23, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

• Support reopening of RfC. This was a disruptive closing. SW3 5DL (talk) 16:26, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

If you report Anythingyouwant's re-revert as EW, be sure to report this one as well. Many editors mistakenly draw a distinction between "good" edit warring and "bad" edit warring, despite clear advice NOT to do that in the first paragraph at WP:EW. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:34, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

The RFC was properly closed. Then SW3 reverted without discussion. I restored the close (once), and posted this note at SW3's talk page. Then SundayClose reverted my revert so I left this note at SundayClose's talk page. The proper thing is to restore the close, and seek consensus to overturn it at the proper notice board.Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:44, 24 March 2017 (UTC) @Sundayclose:Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:48, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

@SW3 5DL: I have started that discussion for you. If this is the wrong way to handle this dispute, I'm always open to learning. Please cite p&g. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:06, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

1. The RfC should probably have never been started. A five comment thread lasting less than a day does not constitute a reasonable attempt at working out ... disputes required of an RfC, and definitely not on an article with almost 2,000 watchers. RfCs can be lengthy bureaucratic exercises, and frivolous ones squander the time and attention of those willing to repond to Legobot.
2. This should not have come to ANI at all without at least attempting to discuss the issue, and when it did, OP should have notified the individuals involved, as is required.
3. The RfC probably should have never been closed, and any autoconfirmed user should have been able to predict that doing so would have resulted in a metric ton of drama. While failure to discuss the issue is a legitimate reason to not start an RfC, it is not clearly a legitimate reason to close one once it's well underway. Once reopened, it should definitely not have been closed again by an involved user.
4. Performing an obvious SNOW close while claiming you are not invoking IAR actually means exactly nothing. It's still an obvious SNOW, or at least an attempt at one.
5. The RfC has been reopened, and there is no administrative action that needs done here that I can tell, so I believe we're done here. TimothyJosephWood 17:31, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

So I can henceforth revert an RFC close whenever I disagree with it, even if I started the RFC?Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:37, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Disagree with your reasoning, Timothyjosephwood, still waiting for that p&g to counter mine. But I agree that we should be done here. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:39, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

You don't have a policy to stand on either. You have a recommendation from a WikiProject page which applies to starting an RfC and not to closing it, a close that is clearly not uncontroversial and therefore within the scope of an WP:NAC, a completely botched WP:SNOW close besides, which itself is a misapplication of the policy even as it claims to not be an attempt to invoke the policy it consummately misapplies, and now you have a gratuitous link to WP:STICK. TimothyJosephWood 17:48, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Failure to defer to the opinion of one non-admin editor hardly constitutes beating the deceased equine, so you might want to reconsider playing the STICK card here. I have now found WP:BADNAC item 2, which is the only remotely applicable p&g supporting your argument. It applies if a disagreement from the inappropriately-started RfC's opener, and one other editor, constitutes a "controversy" that I could have predicted. Otherwise it does not apply. It remains to be seen just how controversial the close is, which is why I opened the discussion in AT. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:01, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

1. WP:NAC is neither a policy nor a guideline.
2. WP:BADNAC is in the section specifically covering XFD
3. There is however a section covering RfC, and I particularly like this bit, after all, I wrote it: Editors should consider not only whether their assessment of the consensus is correct, but whether the discussion might be better closed by an administrator as a matter of form, resulting in a judgement that would be less likely to be challenged, even if the substance of the outcome would be the same. TimothyJosephWood 18:09, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. Then this comes down to one question: Is it inappropriate to close an inappropriately-opened RfC, subject to challenge? You have stated your view, but you have yet to show p&g that answers that question. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:20, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure WP:COMMONSENSE pretty well covers a situation where you boldly close an RfC two hours after it started and it gets reverted by two different editors. TimothyJosephWood 18:47, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

It would appear that your common sense and mine are in conflict. User:Cyclopia/Ubx common sense For the record, that's 26 hours, not 2. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:50, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Meh. Point still stands. There's nothing wrong with making a good faith effort to close an RfC that may stand a comparatively small chance of succeeding. And while it may be a touch premature, the question posed itself isn't a gross misinterpretation of policy, and whether to close it early is not something that justifies more debate than it would take for the actual RfC to fail. TimothyJosephWood 20:21, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

@Timothyjosephwood: If that's a change in your position (I can't really tell), it would help matters if you would add to or strike your comment in the AT thread. You come across as very authoritative there and some editors may perceive you as an authority. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:34, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Well I've been around for about ten years now, so I'd like to think I've started to get the hang of things. That NACs are intended to be uncontroversial closures isn't apparently abundantly clear in the guidance provided, is a problem with the guidance, and one I intend to fix, because it is overwhelmingly the de facto practice with regard to what closures are and are not appropriate for non-administrators. TimothyJosephWood 21:24, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

If the definition of "controversial close" is any close that might be contested by two editors, I suspect virtually all closes are controversial. By your reasoning, then, except for a precious few no-brainers that any 13-year-old could handle, only admins should close discussions. This needs "fixing" only if you say that closes, and NACs in particular, are not subject to challenge. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:55, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

We are not dealing in the hypothetical "might be challenged". The close was challenged by two editors, and they are supported by myself, and it therefore is not an uncontroversial close appropriate for an NAC. NACs are intended to be and are for the most part janitorial actions. If you don't understand it then you need to hang out more in XFD type places, and if you don't like it then tough luck. NACs are definitely subject to challenge, and the challenge in-and-of-itself serves as an indication that the close was not uncontroversial and that there is more discussion on the matter to be had. TimothyJosephWood 22:24, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

there is more discussion on the matter to be had. Precisely. That has been my position from the start of this thread. And I in fact started said discussion. It requires a stunning failure of logic to say that the close was rendered retroactively improper by objections that were not known in advance of the close. If this is where 10 years gets you, you can have it. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:37, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

I would also remind you that failed RfCs are themselves precedent setting in certain ways, and can be useful in avoiding endless rehashing of the same debate ad nauseam if it is the case that there is not a new argument or fresh evidence to suggest that the previous RfC might be overturned. But a botched closure likely ruins all that and makes us all go through the same song and dance again, when we could be over at WP:BACKLOG fixing #### that matters. TimothyJosephWood 22:31, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

• Despite the "Keep calm" message on his talk page, SW3 appears to lose his cool a bit too easily these days. Do we need to swap the trout of a few days ago for a whale? The early RfC close was audacious but justified given the lack of prior efforts at consensus-building and the quasi-unanimous opposition to the OP's proposal. He comes complaining to AN/I counting two supports including his own and one "compromise support", neglecting to note the 8 editors opposing, all providing a cogent rationale (not "me too" !votes). I have no prejudice against keeping the RfC open but it frankly doesn't stand a chance. OP also falsely claims that "the bot notices have not gone out yet, and won't for at least a week", which is patently false [14][15][16] thus abusing the incidents board. — JFG ^talk 18:16, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

SW3 was referring to the user talk notices summoning subscribed editors to the RfC, not the listings. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:30, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

• Just putting this here since the threading is getting wonky. But trying to champion further discussion and broader input while arguing to shut down on of the most powerful tools available to solicit further discussion and broader input, is a pretty self-contradictory position to take.

It requires a stunning failure of logic to say that the close was rendered retroactively improper by objections that were not known in advance of the close. No, it doesn't. What it requires is an appreciation for the fact that the close may not have been as uncontroversially acceptable as originally thought, and a passive willingness to let the discussion happen even if it is a failed one. As I said above, failed RfCs are also important gauges of consensus. The "D" in BRD with regard to closing an RfC is the actual RfC, not a discussion about the discussion, whether to shut down the discussion or whether to let it continue. But at this point, I'm not seeing anyone stepping in to try to reclose, so I'm not really sure why we're still talking about it. TimothyJosephWood 10:34, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

@Timothyjosephwood: The entire point here is that the issue was given far too little time in regular discussion before the RfC was started. 10 hours, 5 comments, 3 editors. This was a misuse of the RfC process—as I clearly articulated in my close statement, including a direct quote from WP:RFC itself. I'm sure you're aware that clear consensuses can be developed without RfC. I didn't shut down discussion, I shut down the inappropriate RfC. You seem to have lost sight of that fact. Then the same editor who misused the RfC process came here and misused the ANI process—for the second time in a week. But it's clear that we're not getting anywhere here; if you're unable to hear what I'm saying I'm prepared to drop this and kick this can down the road. I will do the same thing under similar circumstances in the future. ―Mandruss ☎ 12:44, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

I hear what you're saying, and I agree that the RfC was premature; I just disagree that that's a sufficient justification to close it over the objection of multiple editors. But I agree that we're not really getting anywhere here, and even if we were, it doesn't require the admin bit, so considering the can kicked is probably as good a resolution as any. TimothyJosephWood 13:15, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

@Timothyjosephwood: Thank you for your reasoned comments here. The Donald Trump talk page has had multiple RfC's, often with several open at the same time. RfCs on that page are commonplace, sometimes with little prior discussion, and sometimes contentious. See here and note the calls to 'abort,' but nobody shut down that RfC. Closing the RfC without any prior discussion, without ivoting, without any comments offered to that effect, is disruption. The claim that the RfC was 'premature' does not justify disruption, as you've noted. That explanation is akin to, "I set the house on fire because the lights went out and I needed the light to find the fuse box." As for bringing the issue here, I needed somebody to put out the fire. I think you've done that. Thank you. SW3 5DL (talk) 16:05, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

What has happened in other non-identical cases is irrelevant here. To whatever extent previous cases are similar, consider that perhaps it was simply tolerated until we reached a point of "enough is enough, this needs to stop". As I've said, I reserve the right do it again under similar circumstances (unless an admin tells me not to; note that no admin has weighed in here one way or the other). Please observe WP:RFC as to proper use of the RfC process; that guidance is there for good reason. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:35, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

To SW3 5DL, your RfC was premature, period, and as I said above, we have finite resources of people willing to respond to Legobot and actually make well reasoned contributions, and we should not squander that on issues that have not yet been sufficiently discussed. That standard is weighted by the amount of page watchers, with relatively isolated articles warranting more quickly turning to broader opinion, and very heavily watched pages tending toward simply waiting for more input and further discussion. Claiming open disruption, is a pretty high standard, and one which should not be done lightly.

To Mandruss, being an administrator is not a big deal and putting so much weight into the opinions of someone who has more buttons than you makes you come off as sophomoric. I would advise putting more weight into well reasoned arguments instead. TimothyJosephWood 23:23, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Great concept dude, but what if I feel my reasoned arguments are better than your reasoned arguments? Deep question. Furthermore, considering that the article is under DS and I have no desire to be blocked, what admins think about this does matter to me. As it's likely this thread has been read by one or more admins without comment to date, my takeaway is that I wasn't too far out of line. Your reasoned arguments notwithstanding. Also note that there were reasoned arguments in support of my action (admittedly one just barely off the fence) from two experienced editors who are familiar with the context on that talk page, which you are not. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:20, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

@Timothyjosephwood:, If you'll re-read my comments to you above, you will note I direct my comments only to the disruptive closing of the RfC. Thanks. SW3 5DL (talk) 14:34, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

• Comment: The RfC has been re-opened. There is actually no specific timing or waiting necessary for an RfC, unless there has been an RfC on the exact same question completed less than 30 days beforehand. Discussions about the parameters and variables and options regarding the subject of the RfC should occur in the "Discussion" section of the RfC.

  The RfC is neutrally worded. That said, it is very confusing, as on the surface it seems to be asking where a/the section on LGBT Rights should be placed, and most editors are responding to that question. However, looking deeper, the RfC appears to be actually asking whether there should be an LGBT Rights section or paragraph in the article at all (so far there isn't one). So, although the wording of the RfC is neutral, it is not clear. A clearer question would be: "Should this article contain a section or paragraph on LGBT rights?" My suggestion, if it is possible, would be to scrap the current RfC and create a new one with that question, along with a sample cited proposed text for the section/paragraph. Where it should go inside the DT article is not the important question. Softlavender (talk) 03:42, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

  There is actually no specific timing or waiting necessary for an RfC, - Well that's just contrary to fairly clear guidance at WP:RFC, as stated multiple times above. You're free to seek a change to community consensus on that point. If you mean that the guidance doesn't say anything like "RfC should not be started until at least one week of prior discussion, involving at least 6 editors and 50 comments, has failed to reach consensus" ... well, duh. No Wikipedia guidance is like that. 10 hours/5 comments/3 editors is clearly insufficient by any reasonable interpretation, or the guidance is useless and should be removed. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:07, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

@Softlavender:, I will take a look at the RfC again, but from what I saw it appears there is a total objection to the mention of LGBT rights, and the arguments seem to center on it being a social issue, rather than a civil rights issue, despite RS calling LGBT rights a civil issue. Hence, the RfC. I will check the wording. Thanks. SW3 5DL (talk) 14:34, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Once again, you are conflating two issues into one. You need to do things in order: (1) Create a viable cited text for a paragraph or section on LGBT rights. (2) Gain consensus to put it in that article or into some other article about the Trump presidency. You should not have started an RfC without doing those things thoroughly beforehand. And the RfC you did start is confusing and unclear and doesn't even ask what you want to ask, which is should there be mention of LGBT rights in the article. Your bringing up the name of the article section has torpedoed the entire premature RfC. Softlavender (talk) 15:04, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

@Softlavender: Please use the article talk page for content discussion. This ANI thread was opened only for the purposes of reopening the RfC after a disruptive close. That's been done. The issue has been resolved. The thread here needs to be closed. Thanks. SW3 5DL (talk) 15:43, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

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

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

Resolved

 – Illuminaati warned, then blocked.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Continued abuse.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

User:Bob Henshaw introducing errors en masse

For over a year and a half User:Bob Henshaw's only purpose on Wikipedia has been to add census information to articles on English villages and parishes. I've seen him regularly pop up on my watchlist and have never interacted with him prior to today, but a few months ago I saw him add blatant errors to a couple dozen of Hampshire villages that I watch. I thought little of it at the time and quietly fixed his errors. However, a cursory glance through his contributions reveals that he doesn't just add nonsensical statements, mangled sentences, and incorrect population figures to just a few stubs, no, he's been doing this every day for every county in England since January 2015. Hundreds of unseen edits. While I think he's been doing this in good faith and don't want to discourage him from adding population figures from the 2011 census (which is useful), the fact is that does more harm than good and most of his edits are disruptive. The problem is much larger than I can put in diffs, but I'll highlight several I've pulled out from his recent contributions at random as examples:

• After I left him a message on his talk page pointing out his errors, he ignored it and made two more errors to Antony, Cornwall, completely breaking the infobox template twice and not bothering to fix it
• Adds nonsensical sentences like "At the 2011 Census the population was included in the civil parish of" which makes no sense gramatically and is just fluff. He does this to almost every article he comes across. He also very rarely adds full stops[17][18][19][20][21][22][23]
• Lately he's been adding the same horrible construction to villages in Cornwall[24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33][34]. These are only just a few - spot the missing brackets, full stops, and typos.
• According to the Post Office the population at the 2011 census. According to the Post Office? This is just one diff, but a recent one. "According to the Post Office" is a commonplace phrase in his editing. No idea what it even means. That and "at the 2011 census", not "as of the 2011 census", which makes grammatical sense
• [35] According to the Post Office again
• Durford Wood, 14 Dec: Adds that it is in the the civil parish of Rogate. No it isn't, Rogate is in Sussex, a different county. The post town is also incorrect[36]
• Bentworth, 31 Jan: Adds that Woolmer is in the civil parish of Bentworth. No it isn't, Woolmer is 20 miles away and isn't related at all. Where does he get this from?[37]
• Flexcombe, 27 Dec: One of the countless "(where the 2011 Census population was included)," sentence again. Flexcombe is not in the parish of Liss, it is in Steep[38]
• Froxfield, Hampshire, 18 Dec: "At the 2011 Census the hamlet had become a civil parish in its own name".[39] What the hell. It has had its own civil parish for centuries. It wasn't suddenly created in 2011. Where in this source does it say that? He's making it up
• Finchdean, 16 Dec: The Post Office does not tell you what civil parish a hamlet lies in, maps do. At least he got the civil parish right this time, but still adds in the fluff[40]
• Another thing he does all the time is adding in the 2011 population figures in an infobox whilst keeping in the 2001 figures.[41] (only one diff, but there are likely hundreds more). I think this clutters the infobox because there's no need to keep an outdated figure
• At the 2011 census, not "As of the 2011 census". Rare full stop
• Isington, 21 Dec: " At the 2011 Census the Post Office confirm that the population". The post town is not Alton, it is Farnham.[42]
• Idsworth, 21 Dec: Another "the Post Office confirm that", but at least the post town is correct this time[43]

The diffs are the tip of the iceberg. You just have to look through his past 250 contributions to see that he is adding these nonsensical sentences and false information en masse in almost every edit. I know that he does this in good faith his editing is very problematic. I would like to propose a topic ban if the gross errors continue. I'm sorry that I can't list more diffs, but I invite you to just look through his contributions and pull out an article at random. JAGUAR  21:08, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

I have reverted a few unreferenced population changes but there are many hundreds, it's getting VERY disruptive, the vast number of poorly edited, unsourced changes. Theroadislong (talk) 22:47, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

I don't quite get why you found it necessary to leave two level-3 warnings and one level-4 warning hours after he had stopped editing. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:19, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Doesn't look like he's ever used a talk page. A short block might get his attention. --Tarage (talk) 23:34, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

He's used his twice so he know it's there. I'd rather wait and see if he starts editing without responding. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:19, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Do we want to bet on how poor his unblock request will be? No points for "I dindo nuffin" 01:17, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

When I saw the heading of this section I thought it was something serious, like use of inaccurate data or unsourced and unllkely information. Biut these are minor errors in wording and grammar. They do not confuse the sense. I think all that is necessary is for them to be silently corrected, and the standard wording explained to him. DGG ( talk ) 01:30, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Are we reading the same section? There's an entire list of "inaccurate data or unsourced and unllkely information" just above. --Calton | Talk 03:51, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

I was literally about to say the same thing. There's almost nothing accurate about this person's edits. Putting towns in the wrong county is very serious, let alone not being able to write a simple sentence. Capeo (talk) 04:03, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes, the problem is much larger and more serious than I had previously thought. I went through his contributions a minute ago, skipped 100 pages and pulled one a diff at random. On St Anthony-in-Meneage he has changed the population figure from 178 to 168.[44] According to the source which he got it from, the population is 178 as of the 2011 census, not 168. He changed it for no logical reason. The sentence in the lead now reads "In the 2001 census the parish had a population of 171, increasing to 168 at the 2011 census". Increasing from 171 to 168. Pretty much every edit I'm pulling out either has an error in it or contains a mangled sentence. The list of errors above were mostly from Hampshire, and I could tell right off the bat that the post towns and civil parishes were wrong because I know the local area well. I have no idea how many hundreds of errors he has made nationwide. JAGUAR  12:10, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

I've raised similar issues with this user in the past and been ignored as well - the user talk page has a section from 2016 when he was editing Suffolk articles en masse (my area). Others have added similar concerns as well. I don't think I ever got a response or saw a change in editing style or content. Blue Square Thing (talk) 14:23, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

I am one of the few editors that Bob has interacted with on his talkpage, and I don't think it's his intention to be disruptive, though I agree that some of his edits are unclear or a bit slapdash, and need adjusting or tightening. For example, in this edit, which Theroadislong reverted as not being supported by the source, if you look at the Neighbourhood Statistics page for Manaccan, it can be seen that the figure tallies with what Bob changed it to. Unfortunately Bob didn't change the source. (There remains the question of which source is accurate - it might be that the figure on the Neighbourhood Statistics page includes another unnamed parish in addition to Manaccan - a quite common scenario - whereas the the genuki source does not). PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 14:32, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Exactly and he is making hundreds of similar edits which might be accurate, but are unsourced or are now cited to the wrong source. Theroadislong (talk) 16:31, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

I have encountered Bob elsewhere on the net. Without wishing to out him, he's an intelligent and knowledgeable chap, but computers aren't his forte. Obviously blocks are not punitive, but I really hope it doesn't come to that as I'm not sure he'd be able to file a convincing unblock request. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:57, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm sure he's doing this in good faith, and I don't wish to antagonise him, but the majority of his edits are either incorrect of malformed. I'm in the process of doing a cleanup of all the Hampshire settlements he has edited, and already found a couple of errors in the first minute. "At the 2011 Census the population was included inb the civil parish of King's Somborne"[45], "According to the Post Office the 2011 Census population was included in the civil parish of Langrish"[46]. I really don't want to see him blocked but the problems are very widespread and I dread to think of the hours of cleanup that is going to be involved. I hope he can change his approach to editing. JAGUAR  17:13, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

I think it's more the case that some of his edits are not clearly written or explained. In the example given above from the Little Somborne article, I think what Bob meant was that the census information for the parish has been lumped together with that of King's Somborne, as can be seen from the map at the Neighbourhood Statistics page for King's Somborne (and also from Bob's edits at the King's Somborne article). I suspect many of his other 'errors' are similar. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 18:07, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

@Ritchie333: Any idea how to reach out to him? He's edited without acknowledging this thread. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:15, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

@NeilN: I've blocked. I've not used the template, but a personalised message trying to explain as best I can that we're not punishing him. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:25, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll have to go through AWB and do my best to remove his awful constructions but I'm worried how many errors there are that people won't be able to pick up. I looked through his user talk page on the SABRE wiki—it seems that he caused the same level of disruption over there as he did here. It's a shame as he could have been a productive editor had he just stuck to updating population numbers themselves. JAGUAR  21:48, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

It does look like the post-town and census changes got all mixed up. Perhaps we could just apply the correct data to the articles. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 20:29, 26 March 2017 (UTC).

Is there any way to mass rollback somebody's edits through AWB or a bot? I have never seen anything this bad before. It has taken me over two hours to fine-tune AWB and yet I had to remove 200 of his malformed sentences manually. I still can't pick out his errors. Every edit of his I have been through so far has had the wrong civil parish in it. So far I've been through over 300 of his 11906 remaining edits and it just screams "nuke from orbit". I can't begin to explain the extent of this problem. JAGUAR  15:58, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Inaccurate information inserted on Meir Einstein

If you look at the history of Meir Einstein, you will see 2 IPs inserted information about Meir Einstein without providing a source; I didn't find the information they inserted in any news source, so I've removed it twice. I'm not sure what to do if the information is inserted a third time, because that may be considered edit warring on my part. Ethanbas ^(talk) 23:19, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Removing unsourced contentious BLP claims (he just died, so BLP fully applies) is exempt from WP:3RR. You are fine. --MASEM (t) 23:27, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

OK thanks. How long does BLP last for after a person has died? Does it cease applying only for historical figures (however that may be defined)? Ethanbas ^(talk) 23:30, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

OK: "Anyone born within the past 115 years is covered by this policy unless a reliable source has confirmed their death. Generally, this policy does not apply to material concerning people who are confirmed dead by reliable sources. The only exception would be for people who have recently died, in which case the policy can extend for an indeterminate period beyond the date of death—six months, one year, two years at the outside. Such extensions would apply particularly to contentious or questionable material about the dead that has implications for their living relatives and friends, such as in the case of a possible suicide or a particularly gruesome crime. Even absent confirmation of death, for the purposes of this policy anyone born more than 115 years ago is presumed dead unless reliable sources confirm the person to have been living within the past two years." from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Recently_dead_or_probably_dead Ethanbas ^(talk) 23:31, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Right, exactly - but even this specific information being added would absolutely need to be sourced to be kept, and I doubt you'd any flak for removing that claim repeatedly five years out. --MASEM (t) 23:33, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Widespread NFCC violation needs correction

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

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

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

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

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

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

(edit conflict) – 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Harassment

Oncenawhile (talk · contribs) has been posting baiting attempts and other crap on my talk page for years:

• [47] (personal comments about my name)
• [48] (I never mentioned Harper)
• [49] (personal attack after I made a comment about his harassment)
• [50] (acknowledges I removed his post but somehow thinks this is gloating material, adds more personal attacks)
• [51] (more childish baiting)
• [52] (this was today, again acknowledging that I remove his crap from my page)

All this despite my repeated removal of his comments and requests that he stop posting on my page (which you can see in the edit summaries of [53] [54] [55]). Can an admin kindly do something about this?

FWIW, he also likes telling other editors they are not full members of the human race [56], for example. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:25, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Anything recent? What I'm getting at is what brought you to ANI today. El_C 22:55, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes, this. Oncenawhile (talk) 23:01, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

My sixth diff above notes it's from today, but a quick look at my talk page would have shown you that today not only did he post that ridiculous bait, it was preceded by [57] this nonsense, also today. Recent enough? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 23:14, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Seconding this nomination as I've also been on the receiving end, and witness to, repeated personal attacks by Oncenawhile. This has been a long-running problem with this editor, in addition to other indiscretions of his. Some examples:

• Coming on to my talk page and comparing my posting to "Milli Vanilli"
• Calling my post "general ########"
• Calling Shrike "a fraud" who "should be ashamed"
• Referring to Poliocretes as "close-minded"
• Describing my statements as "vacuous"
• Saying that I made a "stupid revert"
• Calling me "Pathetic"
• Calling me "Islamophobic" based on nothing
• Telling No More Mr Nice Guy "I worry about people when they feel the need to project their own self-importance to unknown strangers. Numerous psychological studies have shown that such behaviour belies a deep lack of underlying self confidence."

Also pointing out that only a few days ago, BU Rob13 told Oncenawhile that he was "rapidly heading towards a topic ban" based on some of these personal attacks. Obviously that hasn't made any difference. Drsmoo (talk) 23:14, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

I was ready to topic ban until I realized these diffs were from 2015 and 2016. This editor received a final warning of sorts about a week ago at AE. Coming to ANI very shortly after with diffs from before the warning is not helpful. The only 2017 diff shown here was a bit snarky but not a personal attack. No action is needed here. I will only reiterate my earlier warning to Oncenawhile with the added comment that you will be blocked for a long period of time if this ever repeats itself. That diff is beyond the pale, and it would have resulted in sanction if it had been reported at the time. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 23:21, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi @BU Rob13: please could you expand on your use of the phrase "final warning of sorts"? Surely a final warning would require some previous warnings, an opportunity to respond, and a proper investigation of an opposing editor's list of diffs (to check if they were taken out of context or cherrypicked). Oncenawhile (talk) 23:53, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

I can't speak for Rob, but myself, I give one-and-only warning for personal attacks, such as for the one cited ("underlying self confidence")—so perhaps that's the inference. You should certainly consider yourself under a final warning due to it. El_C 00:50, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

I don't think I've made other comments like that before or since, but either way it wasn't an attack. I admit it was a personal comment, but one has to understand I had developed some kind of Stockholm syndrome with this editor. Despite his constant opposition to my edits, I consider him likely to be quite similar to me in many ways. At the very least, we both seem to care about this encyclopedia, even though we express it in different ways. Oncenawhile (talk) 01:02, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Good. Yes, I consider it a personal attack—at the very least, casting aspersions. You should definitely avoid insinuations into editors' mental faculties. El_C 01:05, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

@Oncenawhile: The pattern of behavior outlined by the diffs above is both severe and long-term. In particular, you essentially insinuated that another editor was mentally ill. That's unacceptable and warrants an only warning for discretionary sanctions. Keep in mind discretionary sanctions are active in the topic area and require no warning beyond the initial notice. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 05:55, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

@BU Rob13: I object to the characterization as severe. None of my comments fall under any of the examples at WP:WIAPA. I have already acknowledged that the self-confidence comment from 14 months ago was misjudged, but it was not an allusion to mental illness (I am very sensitive to that topic, and neither low self-confidence - nor low self-esteem with which it is often incorrectly conflated - are considered mental disorders in their own right), nor was it intended as an attack. Nor is there anything severe about any of the other diffs that NMMNG or Drsmoo brought, or even some form of pattern. Many of the diffs have been misrepresented by NMMNG and Drsmoo in their summaries above (most importantly, in the majority of cases they have misrepresented comments I made about content and comments as if they were actually about the editor), and this appears to be having their desired effect. For example, at the AE, following Drsmoo's summary you incorrectly stated that I had called another editor close-minded - yet if you read my actual comment the reference was to the work of an eminent scholar who has been working (eg page 9) to counteract close-minded thinking in the field of archaeology. If you look into the other diffs, you'll find the same misrepresentation - in a much more obvious fashion - again and again.

To get specific, are you saying I can't call another editor's comments vacuous, ########, a stupid revert, or pathetic? I have previously considered that being very direct about one's views on other's comments is sometimes appropriate.

Finally, since you have given a strong view on their accusations regarding my editing style, please could you also look into my accusations about theirs? Oncenawhile (talk) 12:14, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

@Oncenawhile: Vacuous and a stupid revert are fine; they address arguments, not people. ######## is pushing it in terms of civility. It's not actionable on its own, but it does assist in establishing the pattern. Pathetic is also pushing it. Look, when you go to comment on others' comments or actions, think about whether such a comment is going to help reach a consensus. Calling someone's comments "pathetic", even if you diametrically disagree, isn't helpful. It doesn't achieve any goal other than to irritate and divide. I have made plenty of harsh comments about the arguments other editors make in various disagreements of opinion. I certainly don't shy away from that. But I never use words like "stupid", "pathetic", "########" because they don't actually help with anything. At best, they don't tell you anything about why things are "stupid", etc., so they don't add anything to your argument. At worst, they incense other editors and make it much harder to reach consensus. Focus not on what's allowed by the rules but what's helpful to accomplish your own goal, if that's easier for you. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 15:07, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

@BU Rob13: thanks for this, which I consider a fair and balanced assessment, and good advice. I would note that my ######## comment was actually "general ########" (being used as a cruder synonym for vacuous), and my pathetic comment related to the behavior of the editor who was once again trying to evade explaining why he reverted an edit. See, even I manage to misrepresent my own comments.

In light of this discussion, I am reflecting on whether I should be softer when facing these kind of editors (I consider that editors who refuse to properly explain a disputed edit to be the most disruptive kind of editor we have, as they impede progress and are much harder to deal with than plain vandals). The problem is that I have yet to see admins engage on trying to fix this, so when Dispute Resolution fails (which it often does) I feel I am left to my own devices. Am I right to imply from your silence on this issue throughout this thread that you see things differently? Oncenawhile (talk) 18:10, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

What about his ongoing harassment on my talk page? That happened twice today after I asked him at least 3 times to stop. Been going on for years, even before the diff you say is beyond the pale. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 23:33, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Oncenawhile should certainly stick to article talk pages to communicate with this editor, since it's plainly obvious their user talk page messages are not welcomed. El_C 01:09, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, but can you point out one actual personal attack? Not reference to an argument being pathetic or a position being border-line Islamophobic, but one ad hominem. El_C 23:23, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

I provided the recent examples you asked for above, in case you missed it. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 23:33, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Please note that there is a long history of these two editors] opposing my edits at the same time.

Drsmoo has been forum shopping these cherrypicked diffs for a long time, opening half a dozen or so ANIs and jumping in other discussions whenever possible. I have yet to respond in kind with a list of diffs regarding Drsmoo's (or NMMNG's) behaviour for that matter, but I will do if admins think worthwhile. Oncenawhile (talk) 23:40, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

---

I'm just trying to figure out what happened today to prompt this... El_C 23:42, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

I think it's my statement at WP:ARCA. I am pushing for changes which will stop the exact tactics that these two editors use to counteract my edits. Oncenawhile (talk) 23:45, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

No, it's your multiple not-trying-to-improve-the-encyclopedia posts on my talk page after I asked you repeatedly to stop. Hopefully El_C will figure out what happened today (hint: this is the third time I explained it) and perhaps explain why that would even be relevant. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 23:54, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

No one is trying to specifically counteract your edits. You happen to make a lot of edits which are inaccurate, and then when reverted, drag things on for weeks/months while personally attacking everyone and/or ignoring consensus. Then you say that the other editor has been following you because of the number of edits. Feel free to post a list of diffs, I have no issue with that whatsoever and am confident that I've upheld the rules. Drsmoo (talk) 00:09, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

The tactic is simple. You or NMMNG revert an edit you don't like, I respond on talk by saying "your revert is incorrect because of xyz", then you simply avoid the question - either by silence or by diversion. This often upholds the letter of the rules, but there is an important distinction between the letter and spirit of the law. Hence the rules need to change to stop this behaviour from all editors who follow it, as it is damaging the encyclopedia. Oncenawhile (talk) 00:18, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Let's not bring ARBPIA into ANI, because nothing good will come of it. El_C 00:21, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

No, consensus decides that your edit was bad, you ignore consensus and personally attack everyone, everyone stops responding to you because you haven't established consensus for your edit and they aren't going to be bothered when your edits are so uncivil and they don't feel like being harassed and personally attacked. Drsmoo (talk) 00:39, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

If this was the case, you would not have avoided my request to point out where your sources support the sentence, despite me asking more than a dozen times. Ignoring it again and again with aspersions of consensus on a separate question is not going to make this go away. Oncenawhile (talk) 01:06, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm a bit surprised that NMMNG wasn't afraid of a BOOMERANG when bringing this case. For example are the comments he reports worse than what he wrote to Oncenawhile yesterday: "The reason I did not reply to your comment above, as you know from our dealings on other articles, is that I do not allow you to waste my time unless at least one other editor supports your position." [58]. Also, if you look at that section of the talk page, you will see that only Oncenawhile has made an argument for his position. So who behaved better there? Zero^talk 00:55, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

I don't see any issue with that comment whatsoever. Could be phrased differently, but all things considered is farily civil. Quite different from "Telling NMMNG not to attack another editor is like telling a child they can't have cake." Drsmoo (talk) 01:07, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Heavens. NMMNG told Once that he was going to oppose him but had no obligation to explain himself. It is a spit in the face of Wikipedia. Zero^talk 01:42, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

I think both civility and a cooperative attitude would go a long way to make ARBPIA articles a less toxic place. El_C 01:18, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Oncenawhile shouldn't have posted on NMMGG's page. Since I and NMMGG are utterly unable to agree on anything, we agreed not to post on each other's pages. It's common sense.That said, one index of what editors are doing in these conflicts is the interaction measure, which Oncenawhile applied to this case. If one looks closely at it, one, well, I for one, get the impression these are conflicts between a content/page builder, Oncenawhile, and editors who do a lot of reverting, or argufying on those pages. This kind of difference underlies much conflict, between builders and kibitzers. You can have poor builders of course, but they do actually work. The second index of what is really going on is to see which editors (the reverter-report type) are prone to prefer rushing to A/I or AE to 'denounce' the others, usually over trifles that look thin-skinned. One should of course strive for good manners, but one shouldn't be in the toxic I/P area if one doesn't have a tough hide or lacks patience. Nishidani (talk) 07:49, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

• Oncenawhile shouldn't have posted on NMMGG's page. Since I and NMMGG are utterly unable to agree on anything, we agreed not to post on each other's pages. It's common sense. [59] took a while for that to take, but I'm glad you now think it's common sense.
• The second index of what is really going on is to see which editors (the reverter-report type) are prone to prefer rushing to A/I or AE to 'denounce' the others, usually over trifles that look thin-skinned. [60] [61] lol. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:35, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Probably doesn't help that Once is constantly pushing a strong pro-arab stance.74.70.146.1 (talk) 09:55, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Oncenawhile has had multiple run-ins with NMMNG over many months, probably years. If someone makes it clear that they don't want anything to do with you, it's sensible to not post on their talkpage. If either has a problem with the other, ANI is the venue; otherwise, the person should suck it up and focus on content.

As for discussions between Oncenawhile and NMMNG: after a certain point, discussion is useless when people aren't going to agree. By the same token, NMMNG shouldn't simply revert without giving a reason, as they did here; if someone is allowed to block something simply because they don't like it, WP cannot work. WP:3O is a good way to get informal opinions to break impasses, and RfCs should be considered as well. Also, one or the other can simply let it go. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 11:31, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

To reiterate, Oceanwhile should know by now they they are not welcome on NMMNG user talk page, so posting there (anything) can be seen as provocation. At the same time, on the article and article talk page space, they are both expected to conduct themsleves professionally. And of course, I would hope for all reverts to be well-reasoned—otherwise, there's a risk that the consensus clause will be used to grind, not just edit wars but editing itself, to a halt. El_C 18:18, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

@El C: I must have the ability to post notifications on his page, to make him aware of conversations elsewhere. For example, as required at WP:ANI, WP:RM, WP:AFD and WP:DISCFAIL. Oncenawhile (talk) 06:50, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Unless specifically required to by process, (ANI notification for example) if someone tells you to stay off their talk page, you stay off their talk page. No discussions about articles, no complaining about reverts they have made of your edits. Otherwise you risk getting an interaction ban with the user which you given your editing area, would not like very much. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:08, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

I already told him explicitly that he may post administrative stuff he's required to inform me about on my page. He's just wasting everyone's time again. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 16:37, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Abusive/threatening IP

See [62] and related edits at Talk:Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer. Looks like time for a block, and RevDel of the edit summaries. Page may need brief semiprotection. I don't think the threats are credible enough to require notifying the WMF, but I might be wrong. This has been going on for a while, several IP addresses seem to be involved and the abuse is escalating. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 23:50, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

User:Albignoni making legal and personal threats

Albignoni (talk · contribs · logs), a single purpose account with 8 edits since: 2015-01-02, edit warring to exclude information about a source which proves that his prior edits (performed as dynamic IPs) were made up. He's throwing legal and personal threats in two languages at me. Quote (from summary of a dynamic IP): you will get problems with my lawyer, and in Polish (as Albignoni): Wydawnictwo Znak i moj adwokat znajda cie, which translates roughly as: Sign Publishing and my lawyer with hunt you down boy".[63] Editing history:

1. Logged out as 93.230.43.90 (talk · contribs · logs) from Baden-Württemberg, 23 March 2017, removing the same book reference.[64]
2. Logged out as 149.172.46.139 (talk · contribs · logs) from Baden-Württemberg, 25 March 2017, removing the same book reference.[65]
3. Logged out as 134.3.199.60 (talk · contribs · logs) from Baden-Württemberg, 7 October 2016, removing book reference and adding the false quote in question but without the actual source-link.[66]
4. Logged out as‎ 109.192.182.68 (talk · contribs · logs) from Baden-Württemberg, 3 August 2016, the same false quote inserted for the first time with link to Google Books which proves that it does not exist.[67]

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

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

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

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

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

Hello. Whatever the wrongs of other users, it would be great if you could show some contrition for repeatedly ([68] [69] [70] [71] [72]) restoring in an article about a copyrighted book a link to a copy of that very book. "Respect copyright laws" is actually something you can read at WP:5P. Thanks and regards, Biwom (talk) 02:53, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Retaliatory Editing

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

massive deletions

User:JzG has been doing wholesale deletes on any footnote citation to a thinktank. about 50+ in the last hour or so. Most of theese are solid rs -- including two I added after studying an issue on food supply. user Rejects using talk page and gives a very poor explanation at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Rjensen&diff=prev&oldid=772281822 Rjensen (talk) 10:56, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

I have been removing large scale link spamming, in this case notably including think tanks. The paid editing of user:Vipul and associates added large numbers of links to libertarian think tanks (Vipul is an associate of Bryan Caplan and added numerous primary sourced sections of the form "Bryan Caplan said X, source, Bryan Caplan saying X on his blog"). I have also been removing references to anti-vaccination propaganda sites, predatory open access journals and other sources we should not be using.

There's been discussion of a very small number of these removals on my talk page, most have been uncontroversial. And when I say most, what with the predatory journals it must be well into the thousands by now.

And every now and then someone doesn't like it and complains. Welcome to the list :-) Guy (Help!) 11:01, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

And there is also talk at User talk:Rjensen. This has not excallated to a point where it needs discussion here yet. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:09, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Also, this edit [73] by the OP is supposed to be a "fix" for my "bias", claiming that he'd checked the sources. A website called "Farm Policy Facts", of no evident authority, a 404 link to farmland.org, and primary sourced references to someone the OP says he has personally decided is reliable (good job, well done). So this is perhaps not entirely as straightforward as the OP makes out. Guy (Help!) 11:12, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

• Some think tanks are considered reputable and neutral sources of information about a particular center that they specialize in (e.g. Pew Research Center), others are simply providers of opinion from a particular political perspective. In dealing with think tanks of the latter type there needs to be some kind of indication that their opinion on a topic is notable, and generally it should be explicitly attributed to them as their view. (i.e. not "Charles Murray is a White Nationalist" but "The Southern Poverty Law Center have described Murray as a White Nationalist"). It seems reasonable to remove information based on political-opinion type think tank sources if they do not clearly identify the source, if the view they express can be considered controversial, or if there are more reliable sources available about the topic. When information is challenged and removed, the person who wishes to include it must make the argument for why the source is admissible and the material neutral.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 11:57, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Meanwhile Rjensen has claimed that WP:NPOV requires the use of biased sources, which is contradicted by the NPOV policy which says " Neutral point of view should be achieved by balancing the bias in sources based on the weight of the opinion in reliable sources and not by excluding sources that do not conform to the editor's point of view. This does not mean any biased source must be used; it may well serve an article better to exclude the material altogether.". ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 12:25, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

• Links to Library of Economics and Liberty http:// econlib .org/ is one the of think tanks affected. Is it considered unreliable, with no useful information? I know it has a libertarian bias, but some of its content could be valuable.Jonpatterns (talk) 13:06, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Econlib definitely has good content and pieces published by it have often been quoted or cited in reliable secondary sources. Many of its authors are AFAIK professors of economics. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:01, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

And if there are articles which are good, then they will be published in the peer reviewed literature. The issue here is somewhat analogous to the many SCAM-specific pseudomedical journals: when your peer review consists solely of people who have the same ideological biases, then it is not effective because ideologically consonant bullshit, or mischaracterisations of competing ideologies, are much less likely to be detected. Guy (Help!) 16:47, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

• The claim appears to be WP:REFSPAM. That policy seems to be about deliberate insertion for some gain other than providing reliable citation. Jonpatterns (talk) 13:12, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Think tanks have an interest in being linked from a site like wikipedia, so I would tend to agree with Guy that if a another source is available for the same information it should be preferred (unless of course the opinoin of the think tank is itself notable).·maunus · snunɐɯ· 13:18, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

First, a lot of it was deliberate refspam. Vipul blogs at econlib (or rather, econlog, which it econlib's blog), and virtally every article he edited where any ref could be crowbarred in, there it is, loud and proud. He also expanded articles on a number of other econlib associates, and added self-sourced opinions by Caplan, especially, to dozens of articles on high level subjects.

Second, a lot of it was subtle refspam, such as online copies of books by historical figures like Mill, presented as being published by the "library of economics and liberty". This is basically no different to linking to a book source via Amazon: the website is selling something (in this case libertarian ideology, more than product, but that's not a difference that is actually important). Out of copyright books should be ported to Wikisource or linked on Gutenberg or some other neutral source. There's a second more subtle bias too: if we only have online full text for the books that the libertarian think tank likes, are readers more likely to drink of that well, rather than look up dead-tree books with a different perspective? That question answers itself, and is a large part of the reason I think these links have been added.

Third, the "library of economics and liberty" is a libertarian think tank, and in many cases its publications were presented as if they were authoritative and neutral sources. That is an NPOV problem. And I wuld have exactly the same issue if it were the Fabian Society, and in fact I have removed a lot of links to a Marxist equivalent as well.

Vipul's paid editing ring was all about SEO. Removing these links is just undoing that damage. If any of this content is published in scholarly journals, it can be cited from there. We should not use partisan primary sources, and we definitely should push back when people associated with those sources have engaged in years-long efforts to boost their presence on Wikipedia, as is unquestionably the case here. Guy (Help!) 14:41, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

External links/refs are no-follow, so the SEO argument is invalid. Using a primary source (partisan or otherwise) is dependent on the topic and the content. Morphh ^(talk) 15:37, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

I don't think that can be stated categorically. Consider a recent paid-editing job "we are looking for a strong signal from Wikipedia Page to our website" [74]. – Bri (talk) 16:10, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

That's not really a refspam problem as what's being described here though. That's an article notability, self-interest problem. We also can't speak to that advertiser's competency on the matter. No-follow was added on all external links in 2007 at the request of Jimbo. Morphh ^(talk) 16:58, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Every single SEO article I have read that mentions Wikipedia, notes that fact, and then goes on to say that it's still extremely important to promote your website and brand on Wikipedia, including through reference links. These are dark arts, and the people who do it for a living appear to have no morals. Guy (Help!) 20:01, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

• I also have problems with the way Guy is going about this. This appears like a one-sided machete approach of search and delete for sites he doesn't like (free market think tanks). I've been in organized campaigns to remove econ ref-spam for Austrian school - this is not how it is done. I've not see consensus to remove these sources, no review of the sourced content, no review of the source itself. I've never even heard of Vipul. It's a blacklist and if the article references something in the blacklist, it's bias and needs to be removed. Take a look at this ridiculous tagging of an FA article that has received considerable peer-review and been stable for years. I think this has moved from a well intentioned effort to remove ref-spam into something else. Morphh ^(talk) 15:37, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

I inclined to agree with this. It has been with good intent but a bit heavy handed. I'm all for finding better sources, but this takes time. Perhaps it would be better to remove questionable reference and initially put in a citation needed tag, rather than chopping whole paragraphs.Jonpatterns (talk) 16:25, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Or alternatively, rather than delete, add, for example, .--Wehwalt (talk) 16:35, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

That FA hasn't been reviewed for ten years, and I strongly suspect it might fail if that was to happen now. It's 33K bigger, there's a whole unsourced section in there, and it's full of weasel wording ("Critics say...", "Supporters claim..." and similar). It does need a good clean-up. Black Kite (talk) 18:13, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

@Black Kite The unsourced section is due to Guy removing the sources as described in this ANI. I haven't reverted it. The large increase in size was likely the last section recently added that lists all the sponsors. Again, I didn't revert it and it hasn't been discussed - it's more of a list than content. That's not to say it couldn't use cleanup, but those are things we can easily discuss on the talk page. Morphh ^(talk) 18:35, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

The source for that entire section gives you a 404 error. Regardless, even if it was fixed you can't source an entire section - in Wikipedia's voice - to "Americans for Fair Taxation". Black Kite (talk) 18:53, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

I agree with you there. My point wasn't a rebuttal - I also agree that it would probably fail. I was just explaining the current state. At one point that section had several sources but I haven't kept up with it. That's actually one of the edits that I agree with Guy on, so it's a bad example. Morphh ^(talk) 19:01, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

• Certainly edits like this or this aren't too clever. Nor is the edit summary remotely accurate. Here and here we see a link to an out-of-copyright textbook being removed because the website hosting it somehow contaminates it as "refspam" (but we keep the ref because it was always relevant, now just without easy access to the online text). Or even valid ELs from elsewhere that are simply in the same EL section.

I have an inherent distrust of any single-issue crusades like this. They rarely give rise to well thought out edits. This batch seems to be based on econlog.econlib.org (which I can't even add) being seen as so non-RS that it should be in the edit blacklist, bulk-removed (and of course BRD then conveniently no longer works, as it's blacklisted from the pleb editors) and then any associated articles AfDed. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arnold Kling Now I can't immediately justify that Kling is notable, or that economists (he's clearly an economist) shouldn't just be removed because they play for the wrong team. And certainly not when that involves facing off against an omniscient, omnipotent admin over a content dispute. But bulk removals with an agenda behind them so rarely give rise to positive editing. Maybe these do need to go. Maybe as a "socialist cuck" my personal agenda agrees with Guy's here, I just don't use mine as a guide to editing. Re [75] I have absolutely no idea what "think-tankery" is and why it justifies summary removal of references like this. I don't like right wing fruitbats any more than anyone else, but sometimes the contemporary fruitbat position on a theory such as hydraulic macroeconomics is still worth knowing. Certainly right wing fruitbats are commentators on the naming of fruitbats. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:15, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Of your diffs, I would have removed the first one straight away as well - that's just original research (at the very least, it needs an "According to..."). The second one is a blog and whilst not terrible, I'm pretty sure if that's a notable theorem there will be better sourcing than that. The third and fourth are just unnecessary - the cite is already there, I don't see the need for the refspam especially as the online book is available from non-contentious sources. Black Kite (talk) 18:09, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

So you think the first one is a "good edit"?

Read it again.

I'm not disagreeing that, "Econlib must go!!": that's both above my pay grade and also a bit pointless to try and debate when it's such a fait accompli. But this sort of crusade (and I use the word deliberately) makes for bad, careless edits, and these are just some of them. As to the sources, then if they're so widely available then why couldn't they be fixed cleanly and fully at the time? This sort of crusade has regularly been carried out by editors (and I'm not including Guy here) doing Serious Bizniz so rapidly, because the world would end if these awful years-old links stayed there a moment longer, yet at the same time doing things like losing links to online copies (which have a tangible value to our readers). Then the poor bloody infantry are expected to clean up the mess afterwards, restoring links from hopefully acceptable sources - a task which is always far harder to do that way round, than in the right order. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:17, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

That first diff sources the phrase "Mainstream macroeconomics is hydraulic. There is something called aggregate demand which you adjust by pumping in fiscal and monetary expansion.", but the source actually says "Mainstream macroeconomics is hydraulic. There is something called aggregate demand which you adjust by pumping in fiscal and monetary expansion. I wish to reject this whole concept of macroeconomics." So it's actually being sourced with something that not only is an opinion piece, but actually disagrees with it! Black Kite (talk) 19:25, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Like I said, read it again.

I'm not making subjective judgements about the meaning of the sources cited. I'm just talking about basic editing, where Guy shouldn't leave truncated sentences lying around. And as for your, "(at the very least, it needs an "According to...")", then read it again: it did do just that. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:32, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

No, Andy, you're just doing what you always do: stoking needless drama. Guy (Help!) 19:59, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Then be more careful with your bloody edits and don't be in such a rush that you leave obviously broken stuff like half sentences. There is no excuse for this, not even when someone as hugely important as your illustrious self is out righting great wrongs against Gotham city. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:43, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

I didn't see the problem at first either, in the first one, but when I did, I fixed it. Andy, be more explicit, less elliptical, to be less dramatic. Dicklyon (talk) 23:08, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

If a few admins here want to appoint themselves as Judge Dredd, being the sole law as to whether some content is permissible or not and protecting the pages from any plebs who disagree, then it's not the pleb's job to do their proof reading for them. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:16, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Wikt:melodramatic TimothyJosephWood 23:27, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

The perennial problem

I am seeing above the beginnings of a repeating issue that I have encountered when removing links to predatory open access journals. I will remove, say, a hundred of these, and I will be challenged on a handful. The people challenging me will demand one or more of the following:

1. No source be removed, however problematic, unless I personally find a better source.
2. Sources be removed but no article content, i.e. replace the deleted source with {{citation needed}}
3. When removing sources, also remove all content supported by that source.
4. How dare you remove X type of source, it's perfectly reliable, you're just trying to suppress Y kind of activity or viewpoint.

My usual approach is to read the text, deciode whether it's likely to be challenged without the source, and then remove either just the source, or the entire sentence if it looks dodgy. So, WP:SYN type claims such as "Anarchists believe this is wrong, source, anarchist blog", I will remove the sentence. "Unemployment is where people have no job, source, partisan think tank" I just remove the source.

And yes, I sometimes get it wrong, and the result is usually that it gets fixed and we all move on. In some cases, though, I have had two or three people demanding mutually exclusive combinations of the above, usually because the article or content in question basically has no other source. Of the three, the last is a problem because it does not self-resolve.

Check my talk page for a list of the kinds of crap sources I am removing. OMICS Group journals and other predatory publishers, insane conspiracist websites like Natural News, whale.to and the National Vaccine Information Center, sales pages for self-published books, self-promoting spammers. I'm also active at the blacklist.

This is not some out-of-the-blue agenda against libertarian think-tanks, it's part of a long term personal project to review and improve sourcing. This particular one hit my radar due to conflicted promotional editing by user:Vipul. The problem is partisan, promotional or commercial websites which go out of their way to create a veneer of authority, used as sources on Wikipedia. Guy (Help!) 19:58, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

• This is a collaborative project, so can collaboration assist?

How about: Discuss first, get agreement (probably not that hard), agree the scope of how far to prune (is a notable fruitbat still WP:N, or do they have to go too?) and then identify the tasks.

What is the difference between removing Econlib as a source, removing content sourced to Econlib, and removing subjects discussed by Econlib? I think this might be harder. Yet many editors, and I am one, feel deeply uneasy about removing content or topics simply and only because it has so far been sourced from Econlib.

Then there is the issue of the PD texts, with copies available from Econlib. These are a far lower priority to remove. They also add value. Per the SEO argument above, it's hard to show that they are damaging or convey prestige. So should they be removed at all? If they are to be, then there is clearly no reason to cut off our fruitbat muzzle to spite our pointy little fruitbat ears. So don't just remove them: tag them first (a 'bot task), identify the canon of texts sourced (probably not that many), find alternative and acceptable free sources for those texts, then text-by-text go through by 'bot and replace (not remove) them. Nothing is lost, the problem is fixed. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:52, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

• Thanks for still being active on the Vipul front, Guy. The workload you're taking on is appreciated. El_C 03:21, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
• The pollyanna approach starts with "let's not bite the newbies" (that is, we should encourage Vipul and friends), then continues with "omg someone is reverting refspam without spending an hour to polish each turd". Instead of enabling refspam, those commenting here should be trying to improve JzG's edit at Hydraulic macroeconomics (I can't think of anything better than clicking "thank" myself). Johnuniq (talk) 03:43, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

So how does one improve hydraulic macroeconomics? This is an old theory, largely superseded as being too simplistic. It's attractively easy to explain, but it doesn't seem to match how reality actually behaves. Now the right wing is talking about it again. So is it relevant to that article that the right-wing has re-adopted it? Have they? But with the recent blanking, and the admin-only lock on these articles, it's impossible for other editors to work on that. That is using admin privilege to strong-arm a content issue, and it's far from the first time that we've seen Guy using his privileges to do such a thing. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:08, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

That's an interesting question, but actually not specific to this topic. Wikipedia has people who add content and people who curate. This is a curation issue: the content that was added, is poor. Someone will be along real soon now with some better content - especially since this is a hot topic for right wingers (check the talk pages on climate science topics). The right does currently seem to have decided to collectively re-enact the 1980s, when simplistic notions could be asserted without serious challenge. I think this is one of the reason the centre is struggling right now, because you have many complex problems and, as Mencken would have put it, each has a solution that is neat, simple and wrong. The extremes at both ends don't worry about that, the centre does. Moderate Republicans were part of the reason Trumpcare failed to make progress last week, but those same moderate Reupblicans have basically no voice in framing a better alternative, the strident soundbytes of the House Freedom Caucus drown out all other voices. Guy (Help!) 16:42, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

• As a partial counter to the headache these occasional complaints cause, let my add my thanks to Guy for working to clear out bad sources. I especially appreciate the removal of citations to predatory journals, but removing the paid-to-have-a-particular-opinion pieces from think tanks is also a very valuable service. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:18, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
• What where the reasons for blacklisting econlib, was it its libertarian bias, its association with refspam behavior or something else? Jonpatterns (talk) 10:06, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Spamming. Its POV is irrelevant. Guy (Help!) 15:09, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

I wonder if POV has an influence though. There doesn't seem to have been much effort to search for sources onWikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arnold Kling before nominating it for deletion. Maybe I don't understand what "unique" means in the context of "Google finds fewer than 150 unique hits for this name," but I get 91,400 Google hits for "Arnold Kling" in quotes[76]. Even if "unique" means some kind of limited search, there are 32 results in the NY Times alone [77], so I don't see how it's plausible to think there'd be 150 only in the universe of web pages. How does an experienced editor fail so completely to find sources? --Jahaza (talk) 15:23, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

No, the direction of the POV is not relevant. The fact that the POV is non-mainstream is relevant (as it would be if it was anarchist, say), but the fact that its non-mainstream POV is free market fundamentalism is not relevant, it just happens that this is the POV of the person doing the spamming. If they have been an Occupier then the problem and the fix would be exactly the same. Guy (Help!) 15:29, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

"The fact that the POV is non-mainstream is relevant" and "Its POV is irrelevant" are contradictory. You've also not explained at all what happened with this AFD.--Jahaza (talk) 15:33, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

I see your misunderstanding. The issue here is WP:SPS, WP:PRIMARY, WP:ASSERT and a side order of WP:REFSPAM. The REFSPAM was the flag to review the content, but the core issues are the first three. If this was a mainstream scholarly economics journal then there would be no issue, because we can rely on their peer review, but n this case we're talking about think tanks and fundamentalist free market websites masquerading as independent scholarly sources, and that plainly is a problem. So: the direction of the POV is irrelevant, it's the magnitude that's the problem. It would be the same if it were Occupy or a Marxist site. POV think tanks are not neutral sources, however fervently they might believe otherwise. Guy (Help!) 15:38, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

User:Wilson Tan vandalism

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

---

I reported Wilson Tan (talk · contribs) to Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism, but was advised to redirect the issue here as it is slow, but long-term vandalism. This account appears to be a disruptive-only account with every edit being vandalism. The user has mainly been introducing factual errors at 2017 Melbourne Football Club season (among other AFL pages too) by inputting results for games that haven't been played yet. The user continued to vandalise with introducing deliberate factual errors even after final warning. Flickerd (talk) 08:26, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Blocked indef. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:13, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

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

Users forcing edits through

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

User:Factchecker atyourservice

Is becoming a problem, it started here [78] with off topic discussions about other pages and wider policy [79], odd attempts at gotchas [80], refusal to understand that talk pages are just for that article [81]/.

I asked his top stop discussing off topic comments and to stop talking about editors (as well as what I felt were (and are) indicators of a soapboxing attitude) [82].

He is now at it here [83] now with him saying that talk pages are for disusing the article is silly [84], insincere threats to call an admin [85], disrespectful responses [86] (see also [87]). The user clearly has some POV pushing issues with SPLC, and CIS and has a decidedly battleground mentally. In addition I think his debating style is dishonest, as he seems to contradict himself.Slatersteven (talk) 18:21, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Maybe not, but here you seem to ask how I would edit another page [88], here you seem to ask if materiel should not be allowed in another page [89]. As far as I can tell no one has accused you here of "anything about having similar content on both pages." you are being accused of wanting to talk about editing page A on page B's talk page.Slatersteven (talk) 08:44, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

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

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

That was nearly three days ago.

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

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

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

[90]

[91]

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

[92]

[93]

[94]

Clearly about the CIS article.

[95]

[96]

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

[97]

Rather more then two edits over 7 minutes.

This is where I ask you to stop [98], date stamp Revision as of 17:55, 24 March 2017, you last mention of off page use is at date stamp Revision as of 18:28, 24 March 2017.Slatersteven (talk) 15:54, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

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

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

Revdel

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

---

Please. Many thanks — O Fortuna! ^{Imperatrix mundi.} 18:22, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

@Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi:  Done -- There'sNoTime ^{(to explain)} 18:57, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

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

SportsLair

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

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

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

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

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

Right... I assumed they were merely quoting from Goodfellas: [99].It would certainly need a fair bit of contextualizing to justify it, I have to say. — O Fortuna! ^{Imperatrix mundi.} 19:24, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

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

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

Vandalism by Hyilix

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

---

Hey, can this person Hyilix (talk · contribs · logs) be blocked soon? He/She messed up Today's feature article in a way that it's very impossible to simply revert. Look at his contributions, lots of vandalisms and trying to joke with people that complain about his edits. On his talk page, lots of users are complaining about his subtile vandalism. --Deansfa (talk) 20:47, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Ok look, I was just testing Wikipedia's integrity. If you want to fix the vandalism just revert the edit at 19:18, 26 March 2017‎ by Hyilix on the Interstate 8 page. Hyilix (talk) 20:53, 26 March 2017 (UTC) Hyilix

It wasn't so simple. You admitted yourself that the time was long between [your constructive edit (to help the ignorant we are understand how to make vandalism) and the edit couldn't be reverted because of conflicted diffs. --Deansfa (talk) 21:04, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Support block: Contributions show lots of vandalism, which is clearly no joke. Setting the integrity tone doesn't help as much either. SportsLair (talk) 20:54, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

• Blocked 48 hours This was deliberate and barefaced vandalism. If you don't know enough not to do this, then you need to spend the next couple of days thinking about this and what you hope to accomplish here. If anything like this is repeated, you should expect a long term/permanent wikibreak. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:17, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

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

Numerous huge test edits and immediate revert by IP

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

---

I don't know if anything can be done about this, but for four years 97.76.226.66 (talk · contribs) has made large test edits (typically 5000-12000 bytes), then reverted them within one minute. It's clearly the same person making the edits because they all are made to articles related to Saturday Night Live. This IP has made less than fifty total edits, almost all of them following the same pattern. Other users and I have given standard warnings with no change. The frequency of these test edits is increasing, now occurring every week or two. If I'm the only one annoyed by this, feel free to ignore this report. Thanks! Sundayclose (talk) 23:04, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Blocked 31 hrs This is clearly long term disruptive editing. Re-report if they start up again either here or at AIV. Or you can just drop a line on my talk page. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:06, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

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

User:Elisa.rolle

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

---

Could an admin please have a look at this editor's contribs and see if a competencyu block is in order. She's only been editing for three days but has many edits to many article, spending about 5 seconds or so on each edit. Some highlights of her activities:

• Replacing good images with her own less good images
• Adding multiple images without consideration of how the images will effect the article layout
• Adding very poor images (i.e. too dark, poorly composed) to articles
• Adding images duplicative of images already in the article which don't add to or improve on the existing image
• Not explaining in captions why an image is relevant to the article, thus making the reader find the connection between the two
• Adding irrelevant images to articls, i.e. in the article on a male subject, adding a picture of the man's wife when she was a child
• Promoting her own work, a "travel guide" to LGBTQ luminaries, from which her pictures came from

Many editors have left messages to her on her talk page, asking her to slow down, giving advice, etc, but she's not fundamentally listening. (Or, rather, she's listening, but selectively. After I spent around 10 hours (cumulatively) fixing the articles she wrecked, and told her so, she re-doubled her efforts, this time using historical photographs, and after I fixed a number of those, and decided that the effort was not worth the outcome, and that he additions were not so intrinsically valuable as to justify the time it would take to fix the many articles she worked on today, I told her I would be rollbacking her edits, and did so. She reverted back. I'm now going to stay very far away from this person, but I believe an examination of her editing is warranted, and that perhaps a WP:CIR block might be needed if she doesn;t listed to the advice that's given to her. IN any case, I will not be fixing the articles that she re-ruined by reverting, so someone might want to spend the 12-20 hours that will take, or simply revert her back and warn her to take her time. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:05, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

I did listen to all advice I was given, and when I simply asked a question to you, you replied " It's really not necessary that we have photographs of where every LGBT luminary in the past 100 years has lived.", so if the issue is that, I'm adding LGBT content, and you do not like it, I think there is a huger problem here than me editing. Removing content that is pertinent to the article only since it's LGBT content I hope it's against some rules. Anyway, I'm tired of it, I posted my content, and I posted content from the Library of Congress (Arnold Genthe and Frances Benjamin Johnson, who are LGBT photographers of the past whose work is public domain). You reverted the edit on a building of Paul Rudolph, a Beach Club, to which a use added the photo of the sea in front. I put the original design by Paul Rudolph that is stored at the Library of Congress. Again Rudolph was gay, is that a reason to remove a pertinent content? I posted the common tombstone of Anne Whitney and Abby Manning AND corrected the cemetery details, that were wrong. You reverted the edit, therefore leaving a wrong info in the article. Only since Carole realized it, she reverted to my previous edit. I realized someone is scared of too much LGBT content. Therefore I will stop. BUT the content I added, I kindly ask it remains. --Elisa.rolle (talk) 00:12, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Don't play the LGBTQ card, as you know nothing about me, my friends, my family, my life or my work. You sound just like all the other editors who are certain that I'm anti-whatever-they-are-for because I edit to make Wikipedia better, without regard to their POV or yours or anyone else's. Your edits were often very bad, and that's why they were deleted. Period, full stop. That you can't see that is part of the reason I think you may be incompetent to edit Wikipedia - but that's for someone else to determine, as I'm off of your train for good. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:21, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

I would advise taking a very deep breath before insinuating some kind of bias against an editor of long standing and high regard. Perhaps you would like to review and modify your above comment? As it stands I don't think it is likely to be helpful. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:19, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Elisa.rolle You seem more concerned with venting than building an Encyclopedia. - Mlpearc (open channel) 00:20, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

As User:Beyond My Ken mentioned, several of the images this editor is uploading appear to be from her own book. See [100] and [101]. There doesn't appear to be any copyright violations, and there has been no attempt to create a Wikipedia article about herself. Still, there may be a conflict of interest. "Look at all these great pictures of South Beach...and I can get them all in this book on Amazon". Magnolia677 (talk) 00:25, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Ad Orientem, it wasn't me that introduced the LGBT topic at first, I just replied to a comment. Never once before that I pointed out mine was LGBT content. Yes, it's, but the articles were already in Wikipedia, I did not create them. I just completed them with pertinent pictures. Mlpearc, I'm not sure about the venting comment. I gave 3 clear examples of why the reverting was wrong. But as I said, I stop here, I will go back to read, as I was doing before receiving 99+ notification of reverting without reason, and I will not edit more. If you wish to revert correct edits, personal opinion is you are loosing valuable content. But is up to you. Already 2 people reverted the content, they provided a plausible reason, and I accept it. As per some of the images being sourced from my book, yes, they are, and of course is not copyright infringiment, since I gave it to wikimedia with a Creative Commons license. I DID NOT put any reference on the wikipedia article about my book, and as Magnolia said, I DID NOT create any new article. --Elisa.rolle (talk) 00:42, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

A specific reply to Magnoglia, I added also public domain content from Arnold Genthe and Frances Benjamin Johnson, first uploading it to Wikimedia (I checked personally with the Library of Congress, and that is no copyright infringement) and then adding it to Wikipedia. In no way this is link to my book, therefore this was all volunteering job from my side. All my edits were reverted without reason. And I hope the explanation that the pictures were not good does not apply: Arnold Genthe and Frances Benjamin Johnson were among the best photographer of the XX century, an inheritance the US should be proud of (and I'm Italian, therefore I'm talking as an admirer here). --Elisa.rolle (talk) 00:42, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

• Comment Based on what I've looked at so far and the replies from Elisa.rolle, at least one of which looks like an attack on BMK's motives, I'm strongly inclined to the view that at the very least there are some CIR issues here. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:29, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

I think that there have been some images that have been helpful, but there are also sometimes that images are added that are not needed. A key issue seems to be being very new to Wikipedia and not really understanding the guidelines for adding images and that it's very helpful to engage in discussions about reverted image additions, rather than adding it back.

Looking at the article with the most number of edits, Greta Garbo, there were two images added of her from 1925. Both images would benefit from cropping - and really only one of the images should be used. It makes the top of that section busy. I'll start a discussion about that on the article talk page and will crop the images in commons.

I would recommend not adding anymore images until the guidelines about images are reviewed. I gave one link earlier WP:Images and there are links from that page to more information. I agree with the point about questioning BMK's motives, that was inappropriate.–CaroleHenson (talk) 01:32, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

It would not be so much of an issue if she would use accurate descriptions on Commons. Instead, she is putting information about her book in the descriptions. If all the descriptions removed mentions of her book, that would go a long way to indicate they are here to contribute to building an encyclopaedia, instead of promoting their own works. --‖ Ebyabe ^talk - General Health ‖ 05:23, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Agreed, it looks like it's a blanket description, rather than describing the photos - which makes it a problem if there's not a tie in the article to the photograph.

I have been going through her contributions and for the most part have been having to revert the additions: 1) Poor quality historic images that have required cropping (ragged edges, cut marks along the side, etc.), 2) angles and composition that are not appropriate for encyclopedia articles (ex: commons:File:Lincoln Kirstein House, New York City, NY.jpg), 3) adding duplicate and unnecessary additional images that make the pages too busy. I am stopping now because it is beginning to seem that it would make sense to just revert all current versions of her contributions where she reverted BMK's edits, rather than looking at each and every one.–CaroleHenson (talk) 05:47, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

This seems like a case where mentoring would be the most prudent path to take. If successful we'll have fixed the problem and retained an editor with a decent amount of knowledge on an underrepresented topic. 2600:1017:B01B:C417:4D47:2706:B7F3:C2F1 (talk) 10:55, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for this suggestion and for recognizing I have "a decent amount of knowledge on an underrepresented topic", but as I said, I do not feel like continuing. I'm replying to some comments Carole did on some reverting, just one I made a further edit (she was complaining about the bad angle of the Lincoln Kirstein House photo, I had another I did not upload on Wikimedia, I did, and if that is better, ok, otherwise she is free to revert). But I will not do any more edits, and I will not add anymore pictures on Wikimedia. If you haven't noticed, I'm Italian, and I spend quite a lot of my savings to travel to those places and take pictures that then I was willing to put out for free with a Creative Commons licence. Another user pointed out there is a sort of guidelines on how not to bite the newcomers; well, I felt not only as I was bitten, but also chewed and splitted. --Elisa.rolle (talk) 11:47, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

A terribly convenient IP, with just one edit, parachutes in and offers support. Is it just me, or is someone quacking? Kleuske (talk) 13:23, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

You weren't bitten, you simply weren't listening. BB has been around for a long time and knows the policies; and he at least started out politely. 2600:1017:B002:688:9AA0:2E5B:B0BC:44D9 (talk) 13:25, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

I understand you are more into it than me. A "conveniently" IP address offers support, another just continue with the attack. For me is the same. No, Beyond My Ken didn't start politely, he started from the beginning in an unpolite way. I replied once, using the talk action, without reverting his actions, but just asking why in ONE event he was removing two photos and a sentence in an article WITHOUT photos and the reason was "unnecessary", and his answer was "It's really not necessary that we have photographs of where every LGBT luminary in the past 100 years has lived" and to revert ALL my edits in less than one hour. If this is how it works here fine. I just offered CaroleHenson (talk) to help on adjusting/removing my edits, but sincerely at this point, I take back my offer. Do as you wish, and I would also kindly ask to close this topic. I would prefer no support o attack is coming my way anymore. You can block me, or do whatever you want, I'm not asking to continue editing. I do not want to continue with editing. --Elisa.rolle (talk) 13:53, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Impersonation account

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

---

User:Barek2 is an impersonation account that needs to be blocked. It was created by a longtime troll whose current gimmick is impersonation accounts. —DangerousJXD (talk) 05:07, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Indeffed. El_C 05:11, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Darkknight2150 is another. —DangerousJXD (talk) 08:58, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Now blocked. —DangerousJXD (talk) 09:15, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

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

If this troll tries to "Impersonate" (and I use that word loosely) me again, can someone notify me? If ANI wasn't on my watchlist, I wouldn't know about this. DarkKnight2149 13:09, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

User:GretzkyCC

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

---

GretzkyCC (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is related to a victim of the 2017 Westminster attack. This editor has been editing the article, and got into a minor edit war, which they had agreed to cease. Inappropriate edit summaries using the phrase "muslim scum" have been made. I issued a clear warning that the phrase was unacceptable, which GretzkyCC reverted as vandalism. It has been suggested at talk:2017 Westminster attack#"an Islamic terrorist attack" (again) that GretzkyCC is WP:NOTHERE. That needs to be tempered by the admittance of being related to a victim, and that GretzkyCC may be grieving. However, such editing cannot be allowed to continue. GretzkyCC needs to understand this. Mjroots (talk) 08:14, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

GretzkyCC has been notified of this discussion. Mjroots (talk) 08:17, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

I have ceased my bad behaviour. I admitted to, and apologised for it at Talk:2017 Westminster attack. Having violated Wikipedia policy, I accept my punishment. GretzkyCC (talk) 08:20, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

@GretzkyCC: - It's not about punishment, and if this can be resolved without you being blocked then that is all to the good. Mjroots (talk) 08:23, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

I have been reported by another user for edit warring, which will likely bring about a block. I'm accepting of that. When I return I will get back to the constructive editing I was doing before. WP:NOTHERE doesn't apply, since I have made multiple constructive edits from this account and was a longtime constructive IP editor before signing up. GretzkyCC (talk) 08:28, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Edit warring may lead to a block, but not necessarily. As you've indicated that you have ceased edit warring, then that should be the end of the matter. Given the circumstances, a little slack can be cut. Mjroots (talk) 08:34, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

FYI SPI filed here. Sro23 (talk) 08:49, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

FYI I'm a constructive editor who has been banned for 10 years for literally no reason. I suppose I got my comeuppance in losing a family member. GretzkyCC (talk) 09:00, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that this editor is continuing to edit-war on other articles, making their explanations seem a little bit hollow. Exemplo347 (talk) 09:32, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

• Blocked per the user's own admission of being a sock. Sam Walton (talk) 09:34, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

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

Hard to detect mobile vandalism

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

.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Search sample

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

Destructive editing of User:Norvikk

I want to draw your attention to User:Norvikk's destructive editing [102] (all -20 and - 40 bytes). Here I changed the article [103] in accordance to the other articles appearance (before some users explained to me that they aim to reach unification of the topic). After my change user Norvik reverted it [104] and said that it is not a standard and to fake this claim he started removing this code from all other existing articles. I reverted some of his removes and opened a discussion at his talk page, we know how good is wiki notification for a talk page but he ignored my discussion and kept removing. The discussion was opened at 16:34, 27 March 2017 after that he reverted&removed 19 more edits till 16:43, 27 March 2017 9 minutes of active reverting/removing and ignore. Now he has responded at 16:51 when I am already writing this. Note that he were editing all those articles before as well but removed this code and made such removing only after my change to the Georgian article. I see such behavior very destructive and unacceptable for wikipedia. --g. balaxaZe★ 16:56, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

• FWIW I had reported Norvikk and another editor for edit warring a few weeks ago[105], Not sure if it's the same content tho, Either way I'm not seeing any discussion from either of you and at this point I'd say you both deserve blocking,

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

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

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

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

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