Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

Eyes needed on articles about alcohol consumption

Could someone please look over the edits of Sbelknap (talk · contribs); he's got a particular personal vendetta against alcohol consumption and has been removing any statement from articles about alcohol and alcoholic beverages that do not conform to his beliefs; he shows no regard for WP:MEDRS, and is cherrypicking sources based only on those sources that reflect his personal beliefs, and removing those that do not. He calls material "deprecated" without providing any rationale why, and then just removes it. He calls sources like JAMA and the American Heart Association "low quality sources". See here where he removes a JAMA reference, and here where he dumps a bunch of sources that he doesn't think are "recent" enough merely because they contradict his narrative. Can someone else please review his editing and take corrective measures as needed; I want to avoid an edit war here. The user has been topic-banned previously from other medical topics for similar editing (see his talk page for notices of that topic ban); and I'm not wondering if he's now transferring the same behavior to other medical fields. Perhaps an expansion of his topic ban to cover all medical-related topics is in order. User has been notified. --Jayron32 11:48, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Linking the topic ban discussion--Ymblanter (talk) 11:57, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Blatant disregard for a topic ban? Only one answer... —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 12:00, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

To be fair, the topic of alcohol consumption was not covered by the details of his prior topic ban; but what is evident is that he's engaging in similar behaviors (using the cherrypicking of sources to enforce a particular viewpoint) in a new area. --Jayron32 12:03, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Jayron, apologies, I misread the TB as saying "health" (in general) rather than specifically, "sexual health". Although, of course, there's always the "broadly construed" appendage; and as far as appendages go, alcohol consumption has been known to affect sexual "health"  ;) —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 12:09, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) This is not a violation of their existing topic ban, but it is pretty much the exact behaviour that got them topic banned applied to an adjacent (but not overlapping) topic. I see basically three options here:

1. extending the topic ban to all medical content.
2. a sanction targetted at enforcing proper use of sources and proper talk page behaviour, regardless of the topic area (I'm sure this has been done before, but I don't recall the details).
3. both of the above.

I'm leaning towards options 2 or 3. Thryduulf (talk) 12:10, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

I agree. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 12:17, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm not an admin, so I don't know how much weight my input has, but I'm also inclined to agree with a sanction and topic ban. The editor has already shown that they won't learn from his previous topic ban on other similar topics with his belligerent editing. Sbelknap clearly really cares, but the lack of ability to rein things in and have productive discussions about their changes is really concerning for me. cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 12:54, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

An escalation of the behaviour they were topic banned for into areas not covered by the topic ban calls for blocking, in my opinion. But I endorse option 1 at minimum. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 12:59, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

cymru.lass - Your input in a discussion has the same exact weight and significance as everyone else. Administrators do not have any additional "status", "authority", or "rank" than non-admins. The only thing that's different between us is that I have a few extra buttons - that's it. We're trusted to perform actions that aren't given out to everyone and nothing else is different outside of that. I'm no more important of a user than you are (if anything, I'm less important than you, as my job is to help and serve you) :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 14:34, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Of course, some editors are more equal than others. EEng 21:20, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

If they don't have additional or higher "rank" then perhaps there shouldn't be references to the "promotion" of "editors" to "administrators". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.234.100.169 (talk) 20:53, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

• We tried to tailor the TBAN narrowly to give this person, who is an expert in the real world and wants to contribute to WP, the opportunity to learn with the hope that they could become better oriented to the mission and the P&G through which we realize it. The behavior described here is a huge bummer; this person could have been so, so helpful to us. He has now demonstrated that he is unwilling or unable to set aside his convictions as an expert as well as his real world advocacy when he works here, and that makes him a bad fit here. I support extending the TBAN to all health topics (not just "medicine") Damn. I've posted a notice of this discussion at WT:MED to get others' input from there. Jytdog (talk) 14:57, 31 August 2018 (UTC)(sorry I want to think about this more Jytdog (talk) 23:51, 31 August 2018 (UTC))
  • concur w/ Jytdog, (support extending the TBAN to all health topics (not just "medicine") )based on rationale above--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 21:48, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
  • That's my motivation suggesting option 2 - making it clear that it is the behaviour not the topic that is the problematic thing. Option three is the same but a time-out from medical topics while they are learning and anticipate that the topic ban would be relaxed first. It would require someone far better at wordsmithing than me to craft though. Thryduulf (talk) 15:23, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
    • I hear that. However I believe that the finasteride thing (the subject of his initial ban) is important to him in the RW. If losing his ability to edit that topic was not a sufficient wake up call, I have no basis for hoping that anything else will be. Hence my recommendation. Jytdog (talk) 15:32, 31 August 2018 (UTC) (redact Jytdog (talk) 23:51, 31 August 2018 (UTC))
• Support extension of TBAN to all biomedical topics. Reviewing the recent edits, such as at Cider there was clearly an attempt to crowbar undue content in about the effects of alcohol. What is worse, this is done using the recent Lancet metastudy in the same kind of vague and scary way that has been done lazily in the media, by saying just that alcohol consumption "increases the risk of all-cause mortality" (see [1]). Wikipedia should be so much better than this, and we expect much higher standards from medical editors. Alexbrn (talk) 15:15, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
  • I had a look at (only) his edit to Cider, and what I saw didn't line up with the description at the top of this section. It's probably undue – I'd probably have written two sentences that did little more than Wikipedia:Build the web to the relevant pages on the Health effects of alcohol – but he accurately presented both the current mainstream POV that zero alcoholic drinks per life is best for longevity overall, and explicitly presented the previous mainstream POV by saying that some prior studies found that one drink per day was better than a current consumption of zero per day in certain categories. Where we could do better in presenting this research would be to add that the difference between "zero per life" and "one drink, but not every day" seems to be pretty minimal.
    For those who don't follow this kind of stuff, while the Lancet article has made a big splash in the media recently, the idea that alcohol is a net negative is not really a new idea. This change in the medical establishment's POV has been visible on the horizon for a number of years now. I have no doubt that it's annoying to the industry (I happen to know a small cider maker) and feels personally threatening to some drinkers, but this barely counts as "news" if you've been following the literature. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:50, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

• See also here. Alcohol is rapidly becoming the new tobacco. The attitude toward alcohol is, despite the latest Lancet article, still quite similar to that of tobacco in the 19th century. As pointed out here: "In the mid- to late-19th century, doctors determined that lip and tongue cancer rates were higher among smokers of pipes and cigars. Despite this link, major medical journals mocked those who opposed smoking. The Lancet, the leading journal of the time and still one of the most important medical journals in the world, wrote in 1879, “We have no sympathy with prejudices against … tobacco, used under proper restriction as to the time and amount of the consumption. ... A cigar when the mood and the circumstances are propitious [is] not only to be tolerated, but approved.” Moderation, not abstinence, was the order of the day." It's then no surprise that the disparity between where the evidence is leading to and the general attitude (that to some degree will end up in Wikipedia, as there is more to alcohol than the health aspects of it and Wikipedia must cover the entire topic) will attract activists who feel strongly about the health aspects. Count Iblis (talk) 16:36, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Sure and there's no doubt alcohol, especially in quantity, isn't good for you. The problem is the "activist" angle. There's no doubt driving a car risks a crash which can kill/maim you. We don't put that information in every article about every brand of car. Adding a socking great section to Cider and Whisky and so on is the problem. Alexbrn (talk) 16:49, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
  • No one is disputing the addition of relevant information from the Lancet article to proper context within the proper Wikipedia article. What is the behavioral issue here is the existence of that one article to justify sanitizing all other valid WP:MEDRS sources from every article if the results of those studies contradict the Lancet report. --Jayron32 17:12, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

I don't know the history here, but what strikes me about this complaint is that I don't see any attempt at either Talk:Long-term effects of alcohol consumption or User talk:Sbelknap to discuss this with Sbelknap. In fact, I see the opposite; Sbelknap opened a discussion at the article talk page explaining why he made those edits, and no one objected or suggested he was doing the wrong thing. Kendall-K1 (talk) 23:37, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

• Will give this a little more time, but I'm seeing a clear consensus to extend the TBAN to cover all health and medical topics, as well as for an editing restriction requiring proper sourcing and proper talk page conduct. Swarm ♠ 15:29, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

• Sorry again for my too-quick initial reaction. So the OP is unfortunately misleading. In the first diff cited, Sbelknap removed PMID 9863785 (Lancet primary source from 1998) and PMID 11308432 (JAMA primary source from 2001) and this press release. Similarly, in the second diff cited Sbelknap removed a small pile of old primary sources. These edits were perfectly appropriate. Those are unambiguously "low quality sources" per MEDRS. I and other experienced medical editors make edits like that every day. User:Jayron32, those parts of your OP are wrong and you should strike them. And yes, this should have been discussed before posting here.

What is more problematic, is a) the attention only to the evidence, and b) overplaying what the paper describing the evidence says. On a), when I say "only" evidence, we are mindful of what clinical guidelines and public health recommendations say, as well as what the most recent evidence is. Medical practice and recommendations are always judgement + available evidence. On b), the overplaying is apparent in the block of text that Sbelnap has been adding to several articles, like here and diffs above. All of the studies about long term drinking are observational, and can show correlations and risk, but not cause and effect. This is ironically exactly where an expert like Sbelknap could be so, so helpful but instead we have a very flat, un-naunced advocacy-driven edit. This is very close to the kind of behavior that became problematic at sexual health stuff. I am discussing with Sbelknap via email, after he reached out to me, which I appreciate. That's all I have to say for now. Again my apologies for my too-hasty initial response. Jytdog (talk) 19:22, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

• fwiw its worth Sbelknap and i have agreed (I believe) on more nuanced content, something like this as opposed to the diffs linked above. I think Sbelknap understands that they rang alarm bells here and will be more careful in the future. I think no action is needed at this time. Jytdog (talk) 02:06, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

• As Jytdog says right above, edits cited in OP are fine (not only fine, but improved the article) and as Kendall-K1 mentions, Sbelknap engaged in Talk page as he made those editing with perfect explanation on why they were made. This ANI post should be closed without action since it should never have been opened. --Treetear (talk) 17:21, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

• If Sbelknap (talk · contribs) is not doing the things that were previously a problem, would it be appropriate to lift the previous topic bans? Count Iblis mentioned that, due to a changing balance of MEDRS, the health effects of alcohol are liable to be something we'll have a fair number of arguments about. Would it be possible to forstall using up editor's time lots of little discussions by reaching a more general consensus early, with provision for updating it? HLHJ (talk) 06:19, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

  No one has implied that he is "not doing the things".. in fact I said the opposite. The Benghazi "if" is shit rhetoric, so a trout for that. And no, about lifting the other ban now. Jytdog (talk) 09:09, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

  • Given that some progress has been made with this editor, we could give Sbelknap a trial period of, say, one month of restriction free editing. During that time, he's to be treated as any other editor not under a topic ban. After that period the topic ban is reimposed, unless there is a consensus in favor of lifting the restrictions permanently or for renewing the temporary lifting (e.g. if he hasn't edited much during the trial period). Count Iblis (talk) 19:52, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

• I do not know the previous cases but I know that he is rather hammering on Talk:Whisky about the negative effects from alcohol. He added this twice to the article Whisky first here and after a revert here. The Banner talk 15:16, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Death threat

203.81.71.30 has threatened to kill me.[2] While I suspect that this is the work of someone who is all hat and no cattle, it is rather incivil.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:36, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

I agree with the assessment. Blocked for 72 hours, and the post removed and revdelled as purely disruptive. Alex Shih (talk) 06:56, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

• I'm not an admin, so I cannot see the redacted death threat, but I do nonetheless feel compelled to ask: is 72 hours really a sufficient block for threatening to kill another editor? Or was the threat so unrealistic and childish or cartoonish that the block is, more or less, pro forma? It's not that I don't trust Alex, I do, but I'm struggling to understand. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:15, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

• Pinging Alex Shih. There have been further statements by the IP like [...[redacted - Oshwah]...] and a post-block statement of "Instead of giving me a million chances for me to personally attack and harass others, you have honored me (disrespectfully) with a 3-day block..." Leaving this to the discretion of Alex to decide whether to increase the block duration... Lourdes 08:21, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

I was trying to figure out whether this is a dynamic IP (for which a 3-day block would be perfectly justified) or a static one, and I see that the IP geolocates to Myanmar. Could it be an open proxy?--Ymblanter (talk) 08:25, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

I have my suspicions about that. It's worth noting that this user has used at least two other IP address in the range in the last two days - for this reason block length is probably not the thing to be addressed. With IP addresses a longer block doesn't necessarily achieve anything. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 08:27, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

If you want to see the death threat, it is [...[redacted - Oshwah]...]. What is interesting is that someone with an IP address in Myanmar speaks very good English and is engaged in disruptive editing. Agree that this is a possible open proxy.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:43, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

I've redacted the external URL to the threat above - Zzuuzz has the ability to view the threat himself, and we should avoid linking external resources to content that's revDel'd on-wiki. The point of rev del'ing is to remove it from public view, and adding methods in order for it to be viewable makes keeping it redacted more difficult and it defeats the purpose :-). ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 11:47, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

• I've seen similar from Myanmar IPs recently, and according to https://whatismyipaddress.com/ip/203.81.71.30 this one is a "Network sharing device or proxy server". A suitable proxy block should probably be put in place by someone who has the ability and time to work out the appropriate IP range. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:00, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Yeah, but whatismyipaddress.com seems to say that about IP addresses at random. I wouldn't put too much faith in that. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 10:37, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

  Per that website (addendum: per NRP, assuming we put any faith in that), there appears to be a proxy service in the range Special:Contributions/203.81.71.16/27. Editing of this person does seem restricted to that and not a /24 range of that I see.. Galobtter (pingó mió) 10:45, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

  https://www.ipqualityscore.com/free-ip-lookup-proxy-vpn-test/lookup/203.81.71.30 says it's a Proxy/VPN too, and gives it a "Suspicious" Fraud rating. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:55, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

• I'm still calling BS on this, because it is very unlikely that it is someone actually in Myanmar, unless they are on holiday there.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 10:50, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
• whatismyipaddress provides some specific definitions of what it calls a proxy, and there is nothing inherently wrong with proxies. Looking at the range, and the edits to Myanmar-related topics, I'd advise a little caution before throwing down an all-encompassing range block, because it will hit some collateral. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 10:55, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

  Yep, but if someone can identify the range and check what's coming from it, we might get a better idea. And there's the ipqualityscore.com result too, added above. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:52, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

  @Boing! said Zebedee:I've looked at the IP, and I'm not seeing any actual technical evidence of a proxy operating at this time on that IP. As NinjaRobotPirate mentions above, a lot of those "proxy checking" websites (IPQS, Whatsmyip, iphub, getipintel, etc) should probably be taken with a grain of salt. They are useful for indicating something that needs to be checked more thoroughly, but I'm not sure I would use them as sole evidence. Myanma Posts and Telecommunications indicates that the company also provides mobile service, and anyone that's ever dealt with a vandal on a mobile range knows that they can jump around a lot - and behave like someone behind a proxy. My suspicion is that this is what we are encountering here. SQL^{Query me!} 05:04, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

• @Oshwah: Since you redacted the death threat (or its remnants rather), just pointing out that the disparaging insult against the black community, which is still there in the edit history. --QEDK (後 ☕ 桜) 11:52, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

QEDK - That wasn't me that removed that specific attack, and I think they left the diff URL there for others to review it for this discussion. Nonetheless, I went ahead and redacted the rest. If any admin believes that I should not have done this or if I should put the diff URL back as it was, please let me know and I will do so. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 12:06, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

I'm aware ofcourse, I was simply stating there was another contentious thing to censor, which you either didn't notice or didn't want to revdel, so I pointed it out. --QEDK (後 ☕ 桜) 13:14, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Ah okay, no worries. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 15:07, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Needing more eyes

I had Aghachi7 requesting New page reviewer today. I moved to eventually decline it because of the quality of articles they have been creating. The problem is, there are a ton of articles. When I went through Samson Olatunde, I found that the majority that was in the article was not listed in any source or was only listed on an WP:SPS source. Admins can see my removal of text before eventually looking at the whole article and realized it was purely a promotional piece and G11ing it. I went to review more articles they created. Dipo Awojide was deleted G11, Ademuyiwa Adebola Taofeek was deleted A1 and then A7, and User:Aghachi7/Linda Ikeji's Blog was deleted G11. Further upon reviewing some articles, I deleted Green Mbadiwe G11/A7, File:Alternate Sound band.jpg per G12. And i'm very tempted to delete Tchidi Chikere for G11. And that is every single article I took time to look at, deleted basically. The quality of this contributors articles is not par for what they need to be. A sanction in some form may be appropriate, but I'm primarily seeking help to review the rest of the articles by people who are better than content creation than I am.

Also this users attitude towards others seems to be very telling. Warning an IP for reverting while they were editing, an unconstructive edit warning to the same user, this warning for this edit. Also they are spamming others to review an article they created about 30 times. Also showing WP:OWN type behavior [3] -- Amanda (aka DQ) 20:31, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

• I suspect this editor is also engaged in covert advertising. Apart from the above (Dipo Awojide and User:Aghachi7/Linda Ikeji's Blog are very concerning) we have Sheena Allen as a promotional puff piece about an American entrepreneur -- all of this editor's other created articles have a Nigerian aspect to them. If he is Nigerian, how likely is he to have taken File:Sheena Allen.jpeg? MER-C 20:38, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
• While not yet proof of anything, that photo was almost certainly taken the same day in the same location as the photo in this article.--S Philbrick(Talk) 20:53, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

I looked at the requirements to become a New Page Reviewer, And I do not see the requirement that the editor know how to create proper citations. Despite that, I would've anticipated the new page reviewers would have at least basic skills in creation of citations. While I do see an example in Sheena Allen, I looked at three other articles:Mike Okonkwo,Ejike Mbaka, and Tchidi Chikere, And all I see are bare URLs. That puzzles me.--S Philbrick(Talk) 21:13, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

@DeltaQuad:

The header "Needing more eyes" is absolutely appropriate. Actually we need more hands too.

1. I have dedicated my work to solely the Wikipedia:WikiProject Nigeria and I have been left to fend for the project myself. Putting up requests for articles, managing the project page itself, creating articles and fighting vandalism to the best of my ability. And I can say I have been the most active member on the project in recent times (to the best of my knowledge). The more seasoned editors haven't been as active as they used to and I had to step up. I put up requests for new articles to be created by the project members and every time I don't get feedbacks. The project is literally in comatose. Earlier today, I had to request that I be given mass message sender privilege to enable me send out messages so I can rally round enough man power, because we need to get the project back and running smoothly. Aghachi7 (talk • contribs) 21:05, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

I am sorry to hear that WikiProject Nigeria (along with a number of other wiki projects), are close to moribund. I'd like to support anyone who wants to reinvigorate such a project. I'm not close enough to the new page patrolling initiative to know whether you should be granted this right, but there are some troubling notes regarding some of the articles you are working on, some of which may arise from the lack of person power in this general area. Editors working in a vacuum don't benefit from the strengths of a collaborative project.--S Philbrick(Talk) 21:17, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

@Sphilbrick: thanks. You took the words right out of my mouth, so to speak. Wikipedia is a community. Its also a platform where one learns more about editing with each day spent Wikipedia thrives on collective effort, whether it's by teaching folks with less experience or its helping to get pages to be as neutral as possible. The essence of Wikipedia is defeated when one has to work alone

2. I have a big admiration for people with 50,000 edits and I want to be like them. Now this might sound like a corny excuse, but I believe you have to know a person's motivation before you can judge his actions better. I figured out the best way to get my edits and avoid edit warring (which I ran into alot my first months on Wikipedia) is to stay in my lane. So I create very good articles. Here is what I do, i go to pages with lists like Miss Nigeria, Mr Nigeria, List of Igbo people, etc and create articles for names on these lists that don't already have an article or names that should be on the list. If Mr A is notable enough to have an article for achieving the same thing Mr B also achieved, why doesn't Mr B have an article like Mr A. Right? I put up every article I am about to create on the WikiProject Nigeria page to encourage inclusiveness, unbiased edits and contributions from other editors.

Aghachi7 (talk) 21:56, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Aghachi7, I understand where you're coming from, but over time the Wikipedia community has found it works best to stay out of the question of motivations and keep conversation focused on content. So I recommend taking on board any recommendations other editors are giving you in terms of how to improve your contributions (and DeltaQuad, I'll have a look at some entries and see what I can see as well, although unfortunately I'm not the most familiar with the sources in this particular area) and take the time you need to develop entries that meet minimum standards. (In particular, I recommend you review the policy WP:BASIC and make sure that all your biography subjects meet it, rather than assuming they qualify because another similar person has an entry.) I realize it's frustrating to see so many big gaps, and feel urgency about filling them, but your contributions will "stick" better if you make sure they are solid from the start, in terms of Wiki-policy. Innisfree987 (talk) 22:06, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

I'll continue reading but in the main I think I'm too far out of my depth to evaluate quality of sources confidently. I put a note on NPR talk asking whether anyone with more regional expertise could help. Innisfree987 (talk) 22:33, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

One way would be to start with a WP:DRAFT and invite independent review before main space. What you're trying to do is good - we do not cover Nigerian topics well at all - but there will eb drama if you go it alone like this. Guy (Help!) 22:14, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Good advice. Innisfree987 (talk) 22:33, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

I know jack about sourcing for the area too @Innisfree987:. I'm absolutely willing to help review draft space before getting to mainspace, with what time I can spare. My problem is mainspace is indexed, and there was quite a bit of information not covered by any sourcing. I'll put up something in my userspace so we can at least review all the articles already out there.

@Aghachi7: The draft recommendation above is perfect. New articles should start there. I'd be happy to review in what spare time I have, but please understand there is no deadline. The biggest policy you need to read over is WP:BLPRS. Also, i'd be happy to talk to you about sourcing before you start an article, as in we review the sourcing before you put the work into it, so we don't always play cleanup and you can learn. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 22:56, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Perfect, thanks DQ. If Aghachi7 is on board, I'll save other editorial suggestions for discussion at your userpage rather than clog up ANI. Innisfree987 (talk) 23:08, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Well, I appreciate @Innisfree987:, @DeltaQuad: and @JzG:. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aghachi7 (talk • contribs) 23:59, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Redoing ping because previous message wasn't signed: @Innisfree987, DeltaQuad, and JzG: Graham87 02:33, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

I've opened User:DeltaQuad/Aghachi7 to start the review process for those involved. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 03:04, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

• I am the current coordinator of WikiProject Nigeria, and was elected unanimously about a year ago. I take issue with your concerns on the WikiProject. Recall that I personally invited you to participate during the voting process but you ignored my post. If you have any ideas that will move the project further you need to share on our talkpage, that is the only way we can know editors that need assistance or want to assist the project. There are many experienced editors (many Nigerians) watching the talkpage and willing to help. Additionally, I also think there is a off-wiki COI concern here, which has also been raised by Mahveotm sometime ago. I do not buy the "if A was notable for this, then B should" as your main/only criteria for your selection of articles. You aren't creating articles for popular or prominent Nigerians, instead the subjects of your articles seem like subjects that would want to use Wikipedia to elevate their status. There are many popular and prominent Nigerians lacking WP articles, are are even listed on the project page, someone that is inexperienced but passionate should first start from there. You also added many so-called "social media experts" and "pr guru" who are un-notable and clearly not even popular to our project page. All these are suspicious, even from a Nigerian editor like myself! Few of your articles are genuinely notable, but the un-notability of the non-notable ones raises strong concerns for me.

I want to AGF, so I will ask you this since no one has done so, which of your created articles do you know personally, or have met individuals that know them personally? you don't need to have received money from them, you just have engaged in a conversation either with them or through intermediaries. Please come clean! HandsomeBoy (talk) 09:12, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Great Famine (Ireland)

Independent comments are requested at User talk:Boundarylayer#The Chancer "User:DrKay", wanting to engage in "warring" specifically on the question of whether the diffs linked in that discussion are reverts or not. DrKay (talk) 06:57, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

They are not reverts. You added 'unreliable source' and similar tags. Boundarylayer removed the tags while providing the requested better source (with no comment on the merit of that source), which must count as a legitimate edit. After all, he was providing that which you requested. If he had removed the tags without adding a source, that would be a revert. TheVicarsCat (talk) 08:29, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

No comment on whether the diffs are reverts or not, but I've alerted Boundarylayer to the DS around The Troubles since they haven't been alerted before Galobtter (pingó mió) 09:20, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

I note that BoundaryLayer, who already has one indefinite topic ban in place (on the subject of abortion), is now accusing another editor of being a "chancer" and a "hypocrite". They have already been blocked twice in the last year for personal attacks. I would suggest that this is sailing very close to another sanction. Black Kite (talk) 09:40, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Oh I see, DrKay presenting themselves as simply interested in the minutia of if these are reverts on the admin noticeboard. That seems proportionate. Wait, what is going on? Correct me if I'm wrong but again, wouldn't my word on it, or indeed the WP:CIVIL thing to do here be, to get a 3rd opinion or request for comment over something trivial like this? Why are you so intent on increasingly making it obvious that this wasn't just a misunderstanding on your behalf? As does anyone here really buy this anymore, all this over some silly overlooked "page-needed-tags", you should receive an edit-warring-accusation then find yourself on the admin noticeboard?

If anyone wants to see what the "Dr's" actual motivations are, much like the editors engaged in that abortion ban, then you really need look no further than this revealing quote the "Dr" made. "unlike you I don't edit-war to force my view on this article" From that quote, it is very clear User:DrKay is both levelling personal attacks and has an WP:AXE to grind over some content I've added, though rather than being civil and coming out straight about what that is. They have engaged in all sorts of this motivated wiki-lawyering and veiled nit-picking, in a chancer effort to suggest there is a "war", or get a ban in place etc. As let's drop the pretense, DrKay, no one goes tossing edit-warring labels and now starting Admin noticeboard proceedings...all this, over some overlooked page-needed-tags. Seems incredulous right, really strange right? Though not so strange when your realize, DrKay had days ago, written - "...you are a disruptive user..." and ever since has been desparately attempting to try to make something stick, to fit this their prejudiced view.

Despite being asked to elaborate, User:DrKay has not responded on precisely what "forcing" I'm allegedly doing on the article, it is presumedly something larger than "page-needed-tags" getting lost. So could it be, that what we are actually dealing with here, is an editor with a seething disagreement with content hidden behind this, the veneer of just being a diligent wiki-editor, engaged in what is fast becoming, the most transparent ulterior-motivatation-for-nitpicking, in the history of mankind?

Though seen as we're here, I would like to ask some admins what is the plan to prevent the rise of these kangaroo proceedings and indeed the roving gangs of editors gaming the system and attempting to generate bans for those they (closet) disagree with. As what makes me sail right past [User:Black Kite]] and others and only shake my head, on my way past. Is how we all know that this is happening. It's established practice now. We all hear about it, the admins probably see it as an everyday occurence at this stage.

It starts with a round of Mischaracterization-spin-the-wheel and then mangled, context-void cherry-picking quotes being presented to officialdom, all part of nippy-heels WP:HOUNDING, that by hook-or-by-crook will find its way to escalate to admin-noticeboards. It's all done by sanction-happy editors just because they WP:DONTLIKE and disagree with others. Would I be wrong, that this is not an M.O. established on wikipedia now? One of veiled maneuverings? One really does wonder if those type of editors, are even aware of the articles, the Pot calling the kettle black and Hypocrites? With that then and it being now, really a genuine question User:Black Kite, not as you have falsely attempted to mischaracterize as "accusations" or a "personal attack". Though thanks for neatly giving us an example of the very mischaracterization behavior, I'm talking about. The increasingly laughable opportunism of it.

When, in reality and this is it, the only actual WP:PERSONALATTACKs are the loaded accusations, that none of you, are to bring them to task over. Or are even considering to be grossly inappropriate. Such as the actual accusations they've made - "unlike you I don't edit-war to force my view on this article" & days ago "...you are a disruptive user...". How close to a sanction do sentences like that sail User_talk:Black Kite. Who is "personally attacking" who here and being "disingenuous"?

I'm here to collaborate and improve and make articles. You don't need to take my word for it, just take a look at the article and you'll see that with the quality of references I've added and attempts to make the lede more reflective of the article. I've no interest in the egos here. As I really do not appreciate an editor who is actually the disruptive user, fabricating notions of "edit-warring", starting talk-pages without notifying involved editors, claiming they pointed things out(to an empty room), summoning me to the admin notice board, vague threats about sanctions being made here now. All of this...all of it they claim over some dropped page-needed-tags when updating an article...that's right folks, unbelievable isn't it? It's completely in breach of WP:CIVIL and the opportunism that it reflects, should begin to be recognized and sanctioned. Some editors are clearly intent on making this place akin to soviet-esque systems of kangaroo courts and conducting purges or bans to control content, and it needs to end.

Boundarylayer (talk) 22:22, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I think you've made my point rather well, if a little verbosely. Thank you. Black Kite (talk) 23:43, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

By "view", I refer to the view that self-published sources are acceptable in a heavily contentious topic area. DrKay (talk) 14:26, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

OberRanks and fabricated sources

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

---

OberRanks (talk · contribs), formerly Husnock (talk · contribs), has a long and troubled history of questionable image uploads, poor sourcing, sockpuppeting and WP:OR. Back in April I blocked him indefinitely [4] for what I thought were the latest two in a series of copyvio uploads. This block was lifted (unilaterally and without consultation) by admin DGG (talk · contribs) a few weeks later ([5][6]). At that time I was vaguely aware that OberRanks had also repeatedly faced complaints over article sources that he had apparently falsified (see here, here, here).

Given the clash with DGG, I am not willing to take renewed admin action against OberRanks myself, but I have in the meantime taken some time investigating his use of sources, and found that the issues known at the time were only the tip of the iceberg. I am now confident that the large majority of offline references added by OberRanks, perhaps all of them, have been fabricated. This goes both for his image descriptions and for article references, before and after the latest block.

Many of the references are difficult to check, because they are obscure offline publications that are unavailable in most libraries or online, or even unpublished alleged archival holdings. But among those items that I was able to check, not a single one was correct. The sources either don't exist at all, or do not say what OberRanks claims they say. These cases are too frequent and too systematic to be explainable as mere sloppiness or slips of memory. In several cases, he has used the fake sources in order to support the insertion of contentious material which he knew would be challenged and removed if not sourced properly. The only viable explanation is that OberRanks has been faking his references deliberately and habitually, throughout his editing career of more than 10 years.

The evidence (which is, by necessity, too long to post here) is at User:Future Perfect at Sunrise/OberRanks.

Given the number of cases, the persistence of the behaviour and the history of prior warnings and deletions, I don't see how anything other than an indefinite site ban is an appropriate response here. – Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:44, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

• I obviously judged wrong back in April. I apologize to Dr. F for not looking into his objections atthe time more carefully. DGG ( talk ) 23:06, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

• I cross-checked a few of the listed problems at User:Future Perfect at Sunrise/OberRanks and they appear persuasive. I'm good with a site ban here. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:46, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
• Site ban, no question. Most of the examples at User:Future Perfect at Sunrise/OberRanks use offline sources which I can't check, but I've checked the handful of online ones and FPaS's analysis is correct. FPaS's analysis of the offline sources is persuasive too, and I've no doubt of FPaS's honesty and ability to review such things accurately. That was excellent research, FPaS, thank you. I also checked a few of the suspect images, which are indeed obvious copvios (with downright lies in their descriptions). Sadly, we have a chronic serial copyright violator and liar here, and we need to show him the door. And it looks like we have a big potential cleanup job here too. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:08, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

  Looking back at OberRanks' talk page from earlier this year after the earlier copyvio block, I'm amazed that anyone believed a word of the obvious tortuous lies he came out with. In one case he was caught bang to rights over a copyvio and blatantly lying to support it, and he got away with "I would say delete that photo, and in a few months I can provide OTRS information in an undelete discussion". Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:31, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

  I'll just add that I guess we need to delete all of his file uploads too, unless there are any obvious PD ones. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:28, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

• Terminate with extreme prejudice. The question now is how to organize the cleanup. In most cases I suspect we should "simply" delete his contributions (simply in quotes because it's not really so simple) but if questions come up I have access to almost any English-language source. EEng 14:49, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

  I hate to be the language police, but - even as a joke, and even when someone's behavior is bad enough to consider a site ban, it would still be better not to make casual allusions to violence like this. Opabinia regalis (talk) 02:02, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

  Oh, for crying out loud. Now, when you say "police", is that a legal threat? Because you really shouldn't be joking about that. EEng 05:11, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

• I am extremely disappointed to hear this news and have completed inspection of all articles on this list. I found an egregious violation on Adolf Eichmann, where he added content sourced to a journal article by Baade. The source article contains nothing of the sort and I have removed it. I've always wondered about the material he added to Amon Goeth but I've never been able to prove anything. I've now removed it presumptively, as well as unsourced service records on a couple of other Nazi biographies and a largeish section on Heydrich. I feel kinda sick, who knows what other damage he has done. I have to regrettably support a site ban. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 15:31, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
• This tool might be useful for organizing the clean-up. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 15:52, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
• Support indefinite site ban - FPS's evidence is voluminous and persuasive. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:02, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

• I also wanted to comment, echoing Drmies, that misbehavior of this sort is by far the worst possible thing that can happen to us, because it eats away at whatever reputation for accuracy we have, and gives ammunition to those who see us as nothing but crowd-sourced nonsense. Putting false information into articles and supporting it with fake sources is infinitely worse a crime against Wikipedia than sockpuppetry, incivility, edit warring or any of the other things that people get so exercised about. We need to deal with situations such as this quickly and decisively, so we can get on about the work of deleting the offending material. In fact, I would suggest an IAR indef-block while this discussion is ongoing, to be converted to a site ban when it's closed. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:39, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

• I considered an indef block yesterday evening too, but for the same reason as Drmies below (that OberRanks is not currently active), I decided there's no real gain. And this is snowing hard enough that we won't be waiting long, I'm sure. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:23, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

• @Beyond My Ken, Diannaa, Future Perfect at Sunrise, and Boing! said Zebedee: I think it gets even worse:
  • Curtis LeMay: More OR (citing NARA records).
  • Herbert Kappler: As above ([7][8])
  • The Brady Bunch: Suspected non-existentsource ([9])
  • Dungeon Keeper: Source only partially supports cited content ([10])
  • Military Personnel Records Center: Expanding content sourced to a website that doesn't support said content.
  • Way Out Here (song): Sources do not support cited content ([11])
  • Organization of the National Archives and Records Administration: Citing a non-existent source ([12])
  • National Archives at College Park: Another suspected non-existent source ([13]) GAB^gab 16:36, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
• Support Making one or two mistakes, being told about them, and learning from that isn't an issue. But to continue to do this, in what seems a deliberate act to falsify information in articles, for many years is not acceptable. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 16:43, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
• I've informed the Military History project, as many of the articles affected fall within the project's scope.Nigel Ish (talk) 17:38, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
• Support ban. This is really the crime of crimes. I was tempted to go ahead and block the user already, but given their recent inactivity there is nothing they are actively disrupting right now, so waiting for the outcome of this ban discussion is not problematic. Drmies (talk) 21:18, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
• Comment It certainly looks as if a site ban is in order here, but shouldn't we wait to hear from DGG first? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:33, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

• I don't see why we would need to. The fact situation upon which DGG based his unblock is different from the fact situation which is before us now, so, while DGG's opinion is, of course, good to have, I see no reason why a site ban would be dependent on waiitng for it.

Well, BMK, perhaps because it would be both polite and prudent to do so, and because after eleven years waiting that half-hour or so is not really going to change anything? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 09:39, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

• Support site ban – He wasted enough of my time at Mail buoy. Now that I know he's done this many times before, I think it's time to put a stop to this. Kendall-K1 (talk) 22:48, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
• Strong support Normally I would counsel hearing from the other party before going for any !vote but this is beyond the pale. Not only copyright violations but blatant fabrication of material using difficult to find sources is almost Essjay level of deception. Blackmane (talk) 23:10, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
• Support site ban - Alas, I am unable to provide my rationale without violating NPA. Swarm ♠ 23:59, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
• Indefinite site ban, no question. And this is the guy who put the following on his page back on 7 April 2007 -- "I... will do my best to adhere to WP:NOR when adding material to this encyclopedia." Treachery personified.Moriori (talk) 00:15, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
• Support site ban This is beyond the pale. RickinBaltimore (talk) 00:35, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Husnock Remedy #3: Looks like this has been a problem well over 10 years. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 00:59, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
• Support ban - I also spot-checked a few, where the source was available online or through Google Books, and while I know nothing about the subject area, I agree with the conclusion that these are misrepresented or fabricated citations. Doing that in a systematic way over such a long period is really not something we can accept. All the other stuff that regularly pops up on this page - he was mean to me, she called me names, he protected the wrong version, she violated the WP:ALLCAPS policy, blah blah - is small potatoes in comparison. Many of those examples are so specific, and about such small details, that it's hard to imagine what the point of it all is - if there's a POV or a discernible goal here, it's beyond my knowledge of the topic. Opabinia regalis (talk) 02:02, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
• Support site ban This long pattern of falsification cannot possibly be tolerated, and I offer my sincere thanks to Future Perfect at Sunrise for doing the hard work to document the seriousness of the problem. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:19, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

• Yes, I concur, and I should have said so earlier. Future Perfect at Sunrise, you've done a great service for us all. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:27, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

• Support ban. This is likely to be unanimous. Why would someone who describes himself as a "historian" who "works for the US Federal Government", "is a lieutenant commander in the United States Navy", "has a Bachelor of Arts degree in History", "has a Masters of Public Policy Administration degree", etc, deliberately compromise the integrity of the project in which he has invested "14 years, 4 months and 7 days" of his life? Perhaps the answer may lie on his user page which contains a userbox with this revealing and now, unfortunate, text: "Everything on Wikipedia is for fun. Assume that everything you write will be made fun of, heavily edited, and eventually deleted. Take nothing personally and remember that this is just the internet and not the real world. If you want your work taken seriously, publish it professionally and do not post it here."    Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 02:49, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
• Support site ban more than enough rope has been given here. MarnetteD|Talk 03:39, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
• The last thing we need on Wikipedia is an editor who makes up sources. In addition to a permanent block, we need to be vigilant about socks since this is exactly the type of editor who is likely to come back under a different name to have more fun at our expense. If the associated IP is a permanent one, it should be blocked too. Zero^talk 03:52, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
• Support site ban. There is nothing worse for Wikipedia than fabricated, inaccurate, or falsified sources/citations. In my mind it is worse than all other possible infractions combined. Softlavender (talk) 04:15, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
• Support and I sympathize with the editors who are dealing with the tedious cleanup, thanks for that. —PaleoNeonate – 04:53, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
• Ban this liar. His claims on his user page are probably as false as his sources. Meaning this is a case of stolen valor as well. oknazevad (talk) 05:30, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

• Support site ban: Falsification of sources is highly disruptive to the project. Persistent WP:CIR issues with no apparent learning curve suggest that the site ban is an appropriate remedy at this time. --K.e.coffman (talk) 07:24, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
• Support I spot checked three source examples, and looked at three of the ribbon images, came to the same conclusion as FPaS. Falsification of sources is one of the most egregious betrayals of Wikipedia any editor can commit. Just ban him already. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:56, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

I guess there's no harm in his having the full 24-hour rumination. But he won't ever edit again. —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 08:20, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

• Support indef site ban- this user is clearly not here to build an encyclopedia, just sabotage it. Reyk _YO! 08:46, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
• Ach, checking the link provided above by User:Compassionate727, I see that OberRanks' previous account, User:Husnock, used to be an admin but was desysopped for (among other things) sharing the account with a third party, socking - and copyright violation and original research. See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Husnock - just read the "Findings of fact" and weep. We missed a lot of signs on this one over a long period. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:01, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive719#OberRanks and dubious image uploads, from 2011, is also instructive. Unfortunately it was shrugged off without further action back then. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:10, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
    • Oh dear, our collective incompetence is looking worse by the minute - and I want to thank you again for sticking with this and not just giving up in exasperation. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:16, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
• Support indefinite ban, Issues from 2011? Pah! I see your 2011 and give you this about the user's copyright malfeasances from 2007 (deleted link so admins only, but MFDs about it making it clear what it's about are here and here). I knew the name rang a bell. Fish+Karate 09:36, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
• Support site-ban, and support a co-ordinated clean-up organised along the lines of a CCI, using the modified Contribution Surveyor that Diannaa has linked to above. All content added by this editor should be presumptively removed unless immediately and easily verifiable as accurate and appropriate. And yes, kudos and thanks to FPAS. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 09:39, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
• Support with thanks to Future Perfect for the agonizingly hard work. Cases like this are rare (WP:Jagged 85 cleanup is the only comparable case I know of) but faking stuff is the most destructive and corrosive action that can be taken. Johnuniq (talk) 11:31, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
• Support Fut. Perf.'s proposal, with gratitude for the man hours. —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 11:37, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

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

Cleanup

Thanks to everybody who responded and helped to bring this to such a quick, decisive conclusion. Maybe it's now time to start planning for the cleanup effort several of you have hinted at. Somebody suggested using my existing evidence page as a starting point for a central hub to coordinate it. Should it be set up similarly to a WP:CCI page, using that helpful tool Diannaa suggested yesterday? Note that there are also images over at Commons, both under OberRanks' and Husnock's name, and there may still be old article material from the Husnock account, and Husnock images on this (deleted) user subpage from the time of the last cleanup effort from 2007. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:21, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

• Yes, something along those lines sounds good - I'll dip in and help with what time I have. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:23, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
• Please only ask if it's a case where outright presumptive deletion would be problematic, but as mentioned before if it's in here [14] I can check it. EEng 19:57, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
• Since I already made a couple of easy deletions and noted them on your page, I obviously think this is the way to go. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:05, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

What is up with this page?

Could someone check why an assortment of IPs are adding weird stuff and edit warring at this IP talk page? I'm sensing it may be an LTA or similar. Not notifying anyone since there's many IPs. Thanks. Home Lander (talk) 18:10, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

It's an LTA (or NTA cause it's definitely new?) See here and my contribs in user_talk between 13:14 and 13:23 today. The content they are adding roughly translates to "suck a horse dick" and it appears to be proxy usage too... CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 18:16, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Investigating... ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 18:24, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

The IPs are all mobile ISPs with very large ranges. I managed to block one range that won't have any collateral damage, but I won't be able to say the same thing about the others I've looked at so far... ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 18:29, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Oh goodie. Thanks for looking into it. Home Lander (talk) 18:33, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Home Lander - You're welcome! :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 19:44, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

@Oshwah: A good portion of these are /16 blocked as NOP on several other projects. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 18:35, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Chrissymad - Definitely not surprising to hear; I've blocked about 3 of them so far. I still have more to look into but I should be done soon. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 18:42, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Alright, here's what I blocked:

114.5.0.0/16

60.50.0.0/16

120.188.0.0/16

36.84.0.0/16

114.4.82.83

That was as best as I could get without too much collateral damage and while verifying if these are open proxies. If I need to look into more ranges or if something doesn't look right, let me know and I'll take a look. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 18:57, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Legal threat

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

---

Phmoreno has made a legal threat here and has refused to retract it Galobtter (pingó mió) 18:56, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Looks like they have taken it down now. PackMecEng (talk) 18:58, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Ah, I didn't spot that before filing this Galobtter (pingó mió) 19:01, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

I applied an NLT block after seeing the diffs involved - especially their refusal, but removed the block after seeing that it had been taken down. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 19:07, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

• For the record, just because I saw this and I'm grumpy, I still object to our automatic use of blocks when someone violates (or seems to maybe violate) WP:NLT. We warn and discuss and explain for everything else, including vandalism, but this is somehow so deeply horrible we have to block immediately with no warning. Makes no sense. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:11, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
  • He was warned. The only reason I brought this to WP:ANI is because he was given sufficient warning and tried to play it off as "inform someone about what was said about them." Galobtter (pingó mió) 19:18, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Floquenbeam - Sorry this upset you. I felt that he was given a fair chance when asked to take it down, and he refused. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 19:24, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

It's not you, it's all of us. if you hadn't blocked, someone else would have. We should be focusing on preventing people from continuing to make legal or pseudo-legal threats, not forcing them to recant. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:26, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Floquenbeam - I agree. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 19:27, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

WP:NLT even says "Rather than immediately blocking users who post apparent threats, administrators should first seek to clarify the user's intention if there is doubt. Blocking for legal threats is generally not such an urgent need that it must be done before determining whether an ambiguous statement was genuinely a threat of legal action." RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:30, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

RickinBaltimore - Indeed. In this case there was no doubt that it was a threat. It was pretty clear... ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 19:35, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Right, and that's why they warned Phmoreno before reporting them here. I am inclined to contact the WSJ legal department about such comments is not terribly close to ambiguous. As Galobtter pointed out, would you contact a legal department for funsies?--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:37, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

I was highlighting Floq's overall comment above. In this case, it was pretty darn clear as a threat, just highlighting Floq's initial comment. RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:39, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

In Floqtopia, what would have happened is:

• Phmoreno makes a pseudo-legal threat (I would still dispute this was actually a clear legal threat, but only want to argue the main point, so for the sake of argument I'll concede this)
• Someone warns him about our NLT policy, not in a "withdraw it now" demanding tone, but in an explanatory tone.
• Phmoreno says "but it wasn't a threat"
• Instead of blocking at this stage (which is what happened), We explain how (some) people interpret it as a threat, make sure he knows if he does it again he might be blocked, and (in double plus Floqtopia) explain *why* it's a policy
• He either does it again, and gets blocked, or withdraws it and doesn't get blocked, or he simply doesn't do it again and doesn't get blocked.

--Floquenbeam (talk) 20:02, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

I disagree with "he simply doesn't do it again and doesn't get blocked", as I explain below. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:10, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

As they have removed it nothing to see. But it was not ambiguous, it was a clear threat to report a user to a legal department.Slatersteven (talk) 19:28, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

• I'll just point out that the purpose of an NLT block is not simply to prevent further legal threats, it's because people are not allowed to edit Wikipedia while such threats are outstanding. I do agree that we should be sure it really is a legal threat (I think it was in this case) and we should give people a proper explanation and sufficient time to withdraw the threat. But if they do not withdraw it when given the chance, they absolutely should be blocked, yes. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:06, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Even when the target of the "legal threat" says "LOL"? --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:18, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
    • As with everything here, it depends on individual cases and circumstances - my point is a general one, based on the need to end the chilling effect of an existing legal threat. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:22, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
      • Just to add that the chilling effect of a legal threat can affect more than just the person immediately targeted, and allowing someone to continue editing while it is still in effect sends the wrong message. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:26, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

I think this is as hyberbolisitc as the threat, no one took the threat seriously, they took it as the childish stamping of feet it was. That does not alter the fact it was a clearly worded (if I think very insincere) legal threat, one that was a tantrum aimed at mild intimidation.Slatersteven (talk) 20:35, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

If you mean the reply in the thread I took that to be "Yes, go ahead, like hell you will!".Slatersteven (talk) 20:23, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

I am concerned this is the second time we have a bit of a flare up because Oshwah has been too hasty to indefinitely block a longstanding editor, and has then had to back down and apologise. Oshwah, seriously, stick this on your user page, and unless the user you want to block is doing something very obviously wrong (like defacing an article with racial or sexual slurs), read it, count to ten, and only if you can answer all of it as "yes, they absolutely have to be blocked", then hit the button. For what it's worth, I take WP:NLT to mean you cannot edit Wikipedia while you have a legal case against the Wikimedia Foundation; telling the Wall Street Journal they may want to take action against potentially defamatory comments on Wikipedia is not directly what I see the policy as covering. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 21:40, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

No, I'd say that calling the WSJ lawyers definitely falls under a threat to engage in an external (real life) legal or other governmental process. Threatening to sic lawyers on someone has an unacceptable chilling effect, regardless of who's actually bringing the case.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:52, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

He didn't actually say he'd done it though - he said he thought about doing it, and for all we know, it could be just a flare up of anger and over-reacting, in the same way that Trump wanted to lock up Clinton in a dark cell and throw away the key (and then didn't). Until we actually know he is directly involved in legal action against the WMF via the WSJ, it's not blockable in my opinion. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 22:00, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Then that's not a legal threat, it's legal action, and that's definitely not what the policy says. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:03, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

No, but it was worded as a threat (and no he did not say he thought about it, he said he was thinking about it (present tense) and that (in effect) if you want to avoid it withdraw the statement, that is using threat of possible legal action to bully a users). It was not (i agree) blockable, but it did need a warning.Slatersteven (talk) 22:12, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with making threats toward the WMF. If Sarek's highlight above would have carried on to the end it would have said a threat to engage in an external (real life) legal or other governmental process that would target other editors. No definite legal action needs to be confirmed if the chilling effect of a legal threat is in play. Instead of threatening to contact legal dept., he should have contacted an admin or posted to a noticeboard.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 23:38, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

The original post [15] was definitely a legal threat; it has since been retracted. Regarding the procedural "do we block for NLT", I think that perhaps a 24-hour discussion/cooldown period prior to the block needs to be the standard (if not the official policy) here. power~enwiki (π, ν) 23:35, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

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

German year drafts?

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

---

I've noticed a lot of Year in Germany drafts recently. That's fine, but what's weird is each one is created by a different brand-new user: [16][17][18][19][20]. Is somebody generating throw-away accounts for each new article? Or is this some big class project at a school? -- RoySmith (talk) 20:55, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

RoySmith - They seem okay. I'd be much more concerned if these creations were within only minutes or even seconds of one another, but there's at least a few hours between creations, so it's being done by humans and not by bots. So far, I don't smell anything that's sending off any alarm bells in my head. It could be a collaboration or a class... ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:18, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

It seems a checkuser disagrees. Natureium (talk) 21:27, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Yeahhhhh I figured they were from the same place, but I try to give the benefit of the doubt wherever possible... even though I probably do so too much... ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:30, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

• This is Europefan (talk · contribs · count). If this arises again, admins can look at the history of the drafts/articles and readily see what is going on. Many of these have been G5ed multipled times.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:33, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

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

Miriam Tey de Salvador

Dear Administrators, I would like to bring your attention to the following talk page [[21]] of the entry https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miriam_Tey_de_Salvador. I am not so much experienced in wikipedia and therefore I would like to have your advice. I was reading about the wikipedia policy about biographies of living people [[22]]. It is not completely clear to me which are the limits for a reliable source WP:BLPRS and whats is relevant infomartion about a living person who is not just a famous person but addtionally a professional in some field. Is in this case relevant an affair of this person? There are sources about this affair but how can you proof it and be sure that the sources are reliable or are there really separate sources or the same? there is even a sources in the article about a marriage after this affair. Could you please me tell me if the sources indicated in the article are relevant or it is just tabloid journalism? Is it relevant if this person, who is known for other things (Editor, etc.), had an affair with someone else? .Is relevant who are the supporters of an organisation CLAC she founded? Thanks for your help, --Manlorsen (talk) 20:59, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

You are edit warring. Stop. --Tarage (talk) 22:12, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Like was stated above, Manlorsen, you seem to be engaging in edit warring, which is a swift path to a block. It's crucial that you slow down and stop editing the page for now. Instead, continue the discussions you are having on the talk page and reach consensus before implementing controversial or challenged content. Taking a break from the page for a few days may also help.

From what you said above, this seems to be a content dispute, in which case you should seek dispute resolution if necessary. This page is for discussing the behavioral problems of other editors, including long-term abuse cases. This is not the place for content disputes to be worked out, which is what talk pages and noticeboards are for. As is said in the dispute resolution documentation linked above, you can seek a third opinion or even initiate a request for comment (RfC) as a last resort, which might help resolve the content dispute. Please keep in mind that the problem here may be your behavior and position, so be sure to consider whether that is the case. Moreover, if it seems consensus is not on your side, it may be best to just accept that and drop it for now. Consensus can change, after all. —Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 00:08, 5 September 2018 (UTC); edited to add {{Non-admin comment}} at 00:12, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

This shouldn't be closed out of hand; there are certainly language issues here as well as WP:BLP issues, and this is an acceptable forum to resolve the situation (though a move to WP:BLPN may be necessary if there isn't a quick fix, such as a block, needed). power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:14, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Manlorsen's contributions at Miriam Tey de Salvador and Societat Civil Catalana have been somewhat disruptive, and they have not edited any other pages substantially. They are very close to a block. Perhaps a Spanish-speaking admin could give them a final warning? power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:25, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

The BLP issue is whether a statement that Miquel Alzueta and Miriam Tey de Salvador were in a relationship should be in the article. There's extensive discussion of that on the talk page. power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:29, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Talk:Flint water crisis

2601:1C2:4E02:3020:4146:2231:C4F1:8E76 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) has repeatedly accused me of bad faith on the above talk page, saying things like "Such behavior is manipulative and malicious", "I am against you trying to manipulate this page by concealing... the history of this Talk page" and that old issues were "resolved in your favor" and accusing me of owning the page. Someone please intervene. I consider this a personal attack. TomCat4680 (talk) 22:07, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

(non-admin response) I took the time to read through the first archive. I can’t see anything I’d call a personal attack per se. There’s definitely a dispute about editing practices and archiving though and it’s getting a bit dicey. In this case, do you think you could offer a concession by asking the involved editors what article related subjects need to be discussed and refrain from archiving until consensus is reached? This would in part be a show of good will, and would also allow the issues to be re-aired. Even if the donkey is starting to hum a bit, it would probably do the article no harm to go over whatever’s being disputed. Edaham (talk) 23:50, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

He doesn't seem to have a content dispute, he just thinks the talk page was archived too early and I disagree. He thinks anything less than a year old should stay on the talk page, even if the issue is long resolved. For some reason he think archiving equals "concealing" which is over course utter nonsense since they're still accessible and readable to everyone.TomCat4680 (talk) 23:53, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Have you considered ignoring it? --Tarage (talk) 00:11, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Not if he's making false accusations against me. I have nothing but good faith but he's accusing me of bad faith and I find this extremely offensive.TomCat4680 (talk) 00:13, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

There talk page shows that this isn't the first time they've been asked to tone it down. The anon seems to get fired up easily... usually over little things. Blackmane (talk) 00:30, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

This IP does have a history of sealioning, does not AGF, and is deaf to consensus, and prone to personal attacks. (User:Dennis Bratland wrote that)

That's why I don't understand why he hasn't been indefinitely blocked. That kind of behavior obviously doesn't belong here and shouldn't be tolerated. TomCat4680 (talk) 03:05, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

On the archiving question, in April 2016, an editor increased the original archive time from 28 to 180 days. In January 2018, deceased it from 180 back to 30 days, then after IP 2601:1C2:4E02:3020:4146:2231:C4F1:8E76 complained in April 2018, TomCat4680 increased it to 60 days. It's true that the guideline WP:TALKCOND says not to unarchive threads that are closed in order to prolong the discussion, but rather start a new discussion. But the resulting page was only 3.8 kb, nowhere close to the rule of thumb 75 kb in the guidelines. There's hardly a strong reason to feel compelled to archive anything. Why fight a battle with anyone who wants to delay archiving? Sooner or later the bot will archive it again. This edit summary, "illegal to un-archive talkpages. if you have a unresolved issue, start a new section." isn't correct. Ignoring a mere guideline, especially when the outcome isn't an unreasonably large talk page, isn't something to to go war over. Guidelines aren't laws.

Regardless of that, 2601:1C2:4E02:3020:4146:2231:C4F1:8E76 isn't someone you can compromise with, and they will never be happy. In the end it's like talking to a wall, and it will turn ugly. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 01:57, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

If that's the case I'd definitely recommend just not responding to anything which seems overly fired up and only reply in threads which are actually related to article improvement. Edaham (talk) 02:49, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

I said this on the talk page but it bears repeating: the IP is ignoring the second half of the archiving rule: The talk page guidelines suggest archiving when the talk page...has multiple resolved or stale discussions. He resurrected an old archived thread from April about the same issue. TomCat4680 (talk) 02:23, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Point taken. Archiving seemed the sensible thing to do. I still recommend a subject change on the talk page. Can I on a side note mention that we share a birthday. I'll write more about that on your talk page, but I find it to be a nice coincidence and it is endearing that you mentioned people who share your birthday on your user-page. Edaham (talk) 02:48, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

U.S. national anthem protests (2016–present)

Maybe some of you aren't as jaded as I am. Please have at it. Drmies (talk) 01:34, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

• DynaGirl, thank you, but you've been reverted. There's 2601:283:4100:B50:5C8:A9E0:7129:CB74 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and 24.8.22.172 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), but they're the same person; see this--the one IP remarks on the process started by the other IP. They continue to edit war (5R now, I think) and have extended their crusade of disruption at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard. Drmies (talk) 03:06, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
• FWIW, I've given 24.8.22.172 a 3RR warning.—Bagumba (talk) 04:11, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
• 5 albert square, thank you for the one block, but 2Sal (talk · contribs) is the same person as that IP, methinks. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 05:03, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
  • It's been semi protected for 2 weeks by Alex Shih which should calm things down. Fish+Karate 08:49, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

List of goldfish varieties

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

---

And here's another one. ZeZeNapsid002 (talk · contribs) is convinced a. they don't need to source their edits, b. they are capable of correcting others' grammatical errors (even when there are none there), c. well I don't know. They have a habit of edit warring too, and have been blocked before, and I'd go into greater length but I'm watching Friends reruns. Drmies (talk) 01:44, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

everyone knows that goldfish fanciers control the illuminati ... power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:46, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) These edits[23] [24] [25] are not encouraging. Tornado chaser (talk) 01:52, 5 September 2018 (UTC) updated 02:13, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

And they just tried to delete this ANI case[26]. Tornado chaser (talk) 02:13, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

I blocked them for a week. I would not oppose an indef. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:08, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

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

Bad content about health effects of food

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

The entire thrust of their editing about food. They do OKish if it is just about food (e.g. this editto Ketchup or but when it comes to health effects they go off the rails, especially if it is about "functional foods" or "superfoods" or any of that crap that the internet is full of.

If you look at this person's talk page you will see warning after warning for bad editing about alt-health foods. (they just delete stuff, so you have to look at the history).

I tried to have a discussion with them -- see here -- and they wrote But the short of it is that I am not employed or receiving compensation from any company involved in the space... but as of yet it remains an interest and a hobby of trying exotic foods with purported health claims. I am also potentially seeking to create new products out of so-called beneficial ingredients and so to get to the bottom of any health claims and to understand why marketing is or is not false. I suppose some of my recent edits were a bit of a statement made against any existing conservative bias I see in the article. I feel that it can be explained how things are marketed without selling it on wikipedia. I may have to take my edits elsewhere on the web, but now with your latest revert I feel you lost some critically useful information: that superfoods often pick out omega 3, antioxidants, etc. The "economics" section is a mess and moreover, with the discussion of the marketing of bananas, I see that may be outside the narrow scope of a "superfood" article and more towards the marketing of "health foods". I come to the article to understand why the superfood label is used and what it means and the article is lacking examples.

I replied: I think it is great that you are trying to understand the market for "superfoods" on a very practical level and want to share your learning in WP as you go. I do this sort of thing all the time, as well. There is just a very fine between describing accepted knowledge about the market and how people have been addressing and growing the market, and replicating the hype within that market..... you are crossing over into the latter a bit much

They have continued unabated. Some sample diffs:

• edit to Sugar substitute
• creating Category:Health drinks defined as "Drinks that promote health". Dogshit health food marketing.
• 1st set of edits to Kombucha; toning down dangers, emphasizing potential benefits. Adding unsourced/badly souced content.
• 2nd set of edits to Kombucha, more aggressively citing putative health benefits using bad sources
• 3rd set of edits to Kombucha, adding a bunch of brand spam via images.
• 1st set of edits to Chocolate with badly sourced health content
• 2nd set of edits to Chocolate, as before but now just blowing off sources altogether
• 3rd to Chocolate (see bottom-most, same as before)
• 4th to Chocolate, better in parts but still bringing in primary sources and unsourced
• 5th and 6th to Chocolate, still with the unsourced content.

There is too much work to do here in WP, to be cleaning up after somebody who is this aggressive and who ignores MEDRS so persistently and willfully, and even when they do pay it some mind, skews the content in a marketing way.

Please topic ban this person from editing about food and health. (I don't know how to tailor it more narrowly). I thought about doing this more narrowly to just health (so they could still do edits like the potato one) but I don't want to waste people's time further or get into the boundary issues of "nutrients". So let's be done with this. Jytdog (talk) 01:57, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

User Bodhi Peace seems particularly vulnerable to accepting spam, marketing or personal experience as the basis for changing content on several food and health articles, and has often cited healthline.com as a source (it is a multiauthor, non-expert blog, remote from WP:MEDRS). This talk edit is an example of where a childhood observation led to several reverts and source checks. Each of the user's edits has to be monitored for fact and quality of source, often resulting in reversion or rewrites, and finding a quality source. Rarely does the interaction feel collaborative and productive. I support the topic ban. --Zefr (talk) 02:47, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

A ban from "Health and nutrition, broadly construed", perhaps? It seems such a thing is needed, since they've proven unable to take polite advice. Icarosaurvus (talk) 03:21, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

I am just passing by this thread, being completely unfamiliar with the situation; however, I do want to interject here on a minor issue, since I have witnessed this become a rather contentious ambiguity in at least one prior topic ban of a user. Namely, it may be important to explicate whether "health and nutrition" here is restricted to human health and nutrition or includes the much broader interpretation of animals (organisms?) more generally. This seems mainly limited to human matters, but it may be best to clarify that now before it serves as a potential problem in the future.

For the record, I maintain no position on the topic ban or this issue, since I am not involved in this issue and have not evaluated it whatsoever. —Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 05:24, 5 September 2018 (UTC); last edited at 05:37, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

If a topic ban is necessary, and I am not convinced of that yet because parts of the edits seem okay, perhaps constraining it to adding primary sources and information based on primary sources to medical articles would be adequate. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 05:44, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

It's that "parts of the edits seem okay" which makes it such a time-sink for other editors to fix, as teasing out source misrepresentations takes a lot of time. The fact there is no proper engagement on the Talk page makes it worse. Alexbrn (talk) 06:20, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

• I support this ban, with some appropriate time limit, as I too have had to waste time reviewing and fixing this editor's work in this area. They mean well, but have simply not grasped the requirements for writing about health and nutrition related matters in an encyclopedic manner, and certainly not in accord with WP:MEDRS. (The ban should include animal related matters as well, having had to fix some material on dogs and chocolate.) However, I think they are capable of learning, given some time. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:31, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
• Support for at least some months, this is into WP:CIR territory given the number of warnings. Guy (Help!) 13:49, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose I see no attempt to engage the editor and explain at the talk page of the three articles Sugar substitute, Kombucha and Chocolate why these edits are so problematic. --David Tornheim (talk) 17:07, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Legal threat by IP editor

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

---

202.141.210.102 recently make an edit to Michael Greger with the edit summary "Leave as is. Have balanced it to be fair. Do not remove this anymore! I will engage lawyers if you continue to reverse my changes." I am pretty sure this is considered a legal threat. Greyjoy ^talk 05:45, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

They're also obvious block evasion of Special:Contributions/119.17.33.134 Galobtter (pingó mió) 06:02, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

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

Revoke TPA

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

---

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

This user was was blocked by Alex Shih as a LTA sock and is abusing his talk page. Can somebody revoke his TPA ? Kpgjhpjm 08:41, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

 Done--Ymblanter (talk) 08:46, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

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

Persistent disruptive editing

• Special:Contributions/Mozart834428196

This user has been making edits relating to the Catholic Psychedelic Synth Folk, which is either a hoax or something made up. The user made an article about the subject, but it was deleted. Next he redirected the page to Psychedelic folk and made an edit to the page [27]. He has also been inserting related material into other articles [28]. While it appears that many of this user's other edits may be constructive, this behavior needs to be looked into. funplussmart (talk) 12:19, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Long term copyright violations and other issues with Nauriya

Nauriya has been engaging in mass copyright violations since 2013. See Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Faizanali.007.

Though it was revealed only in 2018 that Faizanali.007 is his account, after I had seen him making suspicious edits in the area of India-Pakistan conflicts and filing of SPIs against the opponents editing India-Pakistan conflicts with whom he never interacted before, I discovered in July 2018[29] that Nauriya is sock of Faizanali.007 (talk · contribs) and has abused multiple socks throughout these years.

The SPI ended up with a warning that any more instances of "socking/meatpuppetry/copyright violation" will result in block.[30][31] Though the decision was very gracious but has failed to bring any change. Neither meatpuppetry stopped,[32] nor the copyright violations.[33]

Just yesterday (on 4 September), he created Economic Advisory Council (Pakistan),[34] where he violated copyrights by copy pasting large chunk content from other sources. It is worrying that this happened only 3 days after he was warned already on 1 September where the warning noted that "Please be more careful, or you risk being blocked from editing".[35]

Apart from all that, some other recent violations include the upload of File:Pak Serzameen Shaad Baad music sheet.jpg from 23 August.

To this day, majority of his image uploads have been deleted for infringing copyrights.[36][37][38]

I am also concerned with the articles he has created. For example his two times creation of Wasi Shah with his both accounts (Nauriya, Faizanali.007) with both versions using POV tone and unsourced or poorly sourced statements and praises about the non-notable individual. The recreation has been salted because it was frequently created by socks. Nauriya later created article about Bhool where he referred Wasi Shah as "veteran writer and poet Syed Wasi Shah".[39]

His recent edit on WP:ITN reads "Previously Imran Khan blurb was not approved and now this. Pakistan is not a small country to be ignored like this. All British smallest elected/selected members gets INTR and when it comes to this, it becomes ceremonial. Then why Geremany blurb was posted."[40] Apparently the points he made were proven to be misleading.[41]

Nauriya has been indeffed two times for copyright violations,[42][43], none of which were ever successfully appealed since he switched to sock with another account after failing to appeal the block for copyright violations.[44][45] Given the long term recurring copyright problems as well as other issues, and gazillions of warnings for multiple issues, it seems that these blocks and warnings have failed to bring any improvement. Lorstaking (talk) 12:33, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

The SPI you filed seems to have been closed as unconclusive by @Bbb23: who also cautioned you about mudslinging at the time, but I'll ping them in so they can verify. Regardless, it seems like you have a long-term grudge with this editor and are forum-shopping to get them in trouble. Simonm223 (talk) 12:40, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Have you missed the self-admission of Nauriya where he admits the named accounts to be his own, "I have been assessed for all these accounts. And they were all when"[46]? In any case, stop derailing the sensible report. GenuineArt (talk) 13:41, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

You mean the bit where Nauriya confirmed that the socks (which at this point have all been inactive 5 years) were a mistake they wouldn't repeat? It seems like the Standard Offer would have long since applied for any blocks involved; but I'll leave that to the filing clerk on the investigation, who I pinged. It seems strange you'd call something like that disruptive when there's some evidence to suggest hounding (IE: trying to dredge up five year old mistakes in hopes of getting somebody indeffed on flimsy ground.)Simonm223 (talk) 13:55, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

It was a strange decision to let him off even after discovery of sock puppetry. Copyright violation did occurred and in a deliberate manner. GenuineArt (talk) 14:05, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

• My previous mistakes has already been discussed and I have given my explanation. You don't have to bring that again and again to prove that I am disruptive or not good for Wikipedia. Regarding copyrights, I admit it is my mistake, and for recently I have removed the copyrighted part, and I already saw the conversation on the talk of admin you started, and Diannaa has said to watch me for my edits. Other than that it is a case of hounding as if you are watching me, after you failed to get me blocked previously. I really don't know what to say in my defence, because this is a pattern you are following and trying to get me blocked. It is nothing but a grudge and trying everything to get me blocked. For copyrights, I will accept admins decision or punishment, but you are not only hounding but harassing me by doing such things. Please stop hounding and if it is my mistake ask me to make it correct, but instead you always go for block. Previously this editor has also hounded me like this, and he was warned for this, but clearly he and might be others are watching me for any mistakes I make in future, which eventually would help them get their agenda. Please I ask admins to look into this. Nauriya, Let's talk - 15:42, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

• No one has the time to keep asking you to "make it correct" when you are being a long term unrepentant copyright violator with apparent behavioral problems. GenuineArt (talk) 13:43, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

• Just to weed out the conclusion from the mess of an SPI that Lorstaking linked to: Nauriya and Faizanali.007 were found unrelated ([47]) - they are not socks, the previous copyright investigation was for a different user. Lorstaking has a weird history of insisting that their sockpuppetry allegations are infallible even after many users tell them they're wrong, and it's true that I recently warned them to knock it off, though that was related to a different case. (struck per subsequent discussion, turns out I just made more of a mess Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:28, 5 September 2018 (UTC)) That said, copyright is serious, and while Diannaa has already said she's going to keep a close eye on Nauriya's editing, I do tend to agree with DBigXray's suggestion to remove Nauriya's autopatrolled and reviewer userrights since it seems they can't be trusted to respect copyright. But the linked investigation from five years ago is entirely irrelevant. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:56, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

• @Ivanvector: Nauriya admitted to be Faizanali.007 and in fact "all these accounts" that were suspected per his own admission.[48] Bbb23 found Nauriya to be unrelated to International Editor Shah,[49] who is not Faizanali.007. GenuineArt (talk) 14:06, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

• @GenuineArt: Regardless of whether or not any of those accounts were linked by SPI to this user, none of these accounts have been active in half a decade. It's not a strong case for any ongoing disruption. Simonm223 (talk) 14:08, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

• I find all above diffs to be very recent though. Given indef blocks were tried earlier, this time we need to think of a more stricter measure to deal with this severe issue. GenuineArt (talk) 14:12, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

• Comment I agree with Ivanvector's suggested course of action. To wit:
  • The socking issue is really old, and just muddies the water here.
  • The copyvio issue, on the other hand, is current and serious. Nauriya should understand that further excuses are not going to carry much weight, and any future image/text copyvio is likely to lead to a indef block. Thanks Diannaa for offering to keep an eye on the user's contributions.
  • In the meantime, I support removal of auto-patrolled and reviewer user-rights given Nauriya's weak understanding of the copyright policies.

Abecedare (talk) 14:54, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Proposal: upload ban & revoke userrights

I don't want to step on Diannaa's proposal, but I'm hopeful we can head off another thread of partisan mudslinging with a quick solution. Since Nauriya (talk · contribs) seems to be either unwilling or unable to abide by our copyright policy, as evidenced by recent (not five-year-old) violations, I propose that their autopatrolled right be revoked (due to creating a page this week that was a copyright violation) and that they be banned from image uploads indefinitely, subject to the usual appeal process.

• Support as proposer. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:55, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Note: I edit-conflicted with what Abecedare wrote above. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:59, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

• I removed the user's autopatrolled and pending changes reviewer rights before I saw Ivanvector's proposal. I am assuming those removals will not be controversial; frankly, Nauriya should consider themselves fortunate to be getting this "last, last warning" rather than a block. Abecedare (talk) 15:05, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Well, what's done is done, I'm not going to nitpick. When I wrote the proposal I elected to leave out reviewer because it's less related to creating copyvios, though I suppose if the issue is that Nauriya can't spot a copyvio (rather than deliberately adding them) then we also shouldn't trust them to review other users' creations. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:16, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Ivan, as you guessed I removed Nuriya's reviewer right with the view that an editor whose contributions need so much oversight, should not be reviewing/clearing others' edits. Abecedare (talk) 16:25, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

• Was going to Support and see Abecedare already did it anyway. So... That's fine. Simonm223 (talk) 15:07, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
• Comment Like Abecedare said above that the copyright issue is current and recurring for large period. I propose adding the line to the above proposal that "any future image/text copyvio is likely to lead to a indef block",(per Abecedare) which can be appealed only to community. Accesscrawl (talk) 15:20, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Generally that's implied for this sort of sanction, but I would support stating explicitly that any future copyright violations will result in blocks. I'm not in favour of specifying that such a block must be indefinite (I prefer admin discretion) but Nauriya ought to realize by now that indef is likely to be the case, given all these warnings. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:28, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

• Support indef block with proposed restrictions. Nauriya's own comments above gives lack of confidence that why copyvio won't occur again or if they understand the basics of this issue.[50] Proposed restrictions should continue to remain after successful unblock. शिव साहिल/Shiv Sahil (talk) 16:17, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Chika Nwobi Page

There has been some back and forth regarding this page. Recently, the majority of the page's sources were removed because the main reviewer found them to be too promotional. With all of those sources deleted, I'm afraid there's no use for the article because it will then be improperly cited. You can find discussions about this topic: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chika Nwobi‎ and User talk:GSS. Leapsandbounds (talk) 14:28, 5 September 2018 (UTC)Leapsandbounds 15:28 5, September 2018

Not clear why this is on ANI. Since the article is at AfD, presumably whether it is kept or not will be taken care of there?--regentspark (comment) 17:11, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Disruptive editing by User:CheekyboyOli

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

---

CheekyboyOli (talk · contribs) seems to be engaging in disruptive editing on articles regarding pop songs/albums/artists, which mainly consists of changing genres in infoboxes. In most cases, they do not cite sources and their edits get reverted as they go against established consensus. In one case, they referred to some unspecified MOS guideline as a basis for their edit, but they didn't explain what they meant. Despite warnings on their talk page, as well as requests to engage in discussion, they behaviour continues and it seems that at no point did they try talking to other editors regarding the changes they were making. They had already been blocked for edit warring – since then it seems they did not violate the 3-revert-rule, but they still edit to change genres in articles. They have been served with a {{uw-genre4}}, but this did not stop their editing. This is the first time I'm starting a discussion on ANI—I am doing so in good faith and I hope that my understanding of what this board is for is correct. — bieχχ (talk) 16:38, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

I think they should be notified of this at User talk:CheekyboyOli. Bus stop (talk) 16:44, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

I've already done so. — bieχχ (talk) 16:48, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Indeffed by Bbb23 by the looks of it. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:53, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

So this can be closed? — bieχχ (talk) 16:57, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

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