Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

User:Waenceslaus

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

---

I have blocked Waenceslaus for one week for violation of topic ban on longevity imposed here on ANI in 2015 for their creation of Maria Roszak and edit related to it. Three edits since unblock by ArbCom, and all three are in violation of their topic ban. -- KTC (talk) 12:35, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

• We'll all be supercentenarians before we're rid of the plague of longevity crazies. Consider this snippet from three years ago [1]:

This is to inform you that, as per the consensus in the ANI thread referred to above, you are now indefinitely topic-banned from all edits related to longevity, including (but not limited to) all edits at WP:WikiProject World's Oldest People and discussions about it, as well as articles in its scope. This sanction will be listed at WP:RESTRICT and can be appealed as outlined there. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:25, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

So you went right ahead and broke the topic ban with this [2] edit? I won't block you for this one just yet, but do take this as a final warning. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:11, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

After that came the sockpuppetry, the further topic-ban violations, and the indef. There is no case on record of this longevity mania being cured, ever. Why, please, are we not now back at indef? EEng 13:25, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Hmmm...it appears we now have EEng's Law - also known as the Supercentenarians Law of Longevity Crazies. It was first proposed by Wikipedian EEng on November 30, 2018 at the height of an English dramafest and was carefully crafted to state the inevitable: After that came the sockpuppetry, the further topic-ban violations, and the indef. There is no case on record of this longevity mania being cured, ever. And so it was written of record in the anals of ANI with no right to ever be forgotten. ^{Atsme✍🏻📧} 05:50, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Good thing you put anals in italics because otherwise we might not have noticed the joke. EEng 07:43, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

_{Has anyone else noticed the longevity of the of this editor's issue with longevity? Best Regards, Barbara ✐✉ 15:39, 2 December 2018 (UTC)}

• I appreciate the quick block, but I also wonder, given they violated their topic ban right after it was imposed and right after the block was lift by ArbComm after an email appeal, why we have ANY thought they will not be back on creating pages about old people in a week? Legacypac (talk) 13:35, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
• In my opinion, an indefinite block would be warranted which could be appealed back to the community. Personally, I have been willing to grant unblocks to individuals who (1) express an understanding of what they did wrong and (2) make a commitment to not repeat those actions again. Waenceslaus met these criteria in speaking with the committee and they were given a second chance on good faith with editing restrictions put in place. Waenceslaus immediately violated their unblock conditions and editing restrictions as supercentenarian topics were a problem for them before and led to community sanctions. This demonstrates to me they have used up their second chance and are not ready to return. Mkdw ^talk 17:17, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
• Re-indef this “editor”. What on Earth was Arbcom thinking with this unblock? They certainly got played for fools, no need to waste any more time when he does it again in a week’s time. Courcelles (talk) 18:58, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
• Yeah, really ... I said at the current ArbCom case that the unblocking of the editor discussed there was one of the worst I'd seen ... but this might actually be worse. You've got an editor that was a 95% SPA on longevity issues, who insisted that longevity WikiProject was the sole arbiter of all such article, and also socked as an IP to "back up" his cases; who deliberately ignored the result of an RfC (and even asked for the desysop of admins who stopped him doing it), who was then topic-banned from longevity subjects, socked again with a named account to get round that ban, and was then indeffed. What exactly did ArbCom expect was going to happen when he was unblocked? He was a massive timesink for various people the first time, let's ensure he isn't this time. A week is pointless - just re-indef, please. Black Kite (talk) 19:17, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
• I'm fine with the one-week, if it's clear the next block will be an indef. This is so blatant a violation that there's not much time being wasted. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:30, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
• Comments: WOW! I hope others see that Wikipedia editors, admins, and apparently ArbCom, can seemingly bend over backwards to be lenient, to the extent of stretching second chances (3rd through 6th or more) in a effort to keep editors. I am not sure if the "Look, we are going to slap your hand for the umpteenth time" practice works but eventually, when enough rope is given, the end results have been consistent. I am just examining this in wonderment.

Using a WikiProject as an umbrella: I have seen several instances concerning editors operating within projects and claiming project superiority of "law". I didn't even know there was a "longevity WikiProject" (Looks newer and a stated replacement project for WikiProject World's Oldest People) but note there are notability and sourcing criteria consistent with policies and guidelines. I am a member of several WikiProjects but anytime I see evidence of an editor or a particular project operating on principles not accepted by the more broad community I have to interject. Anything "allowed" (wikilawyered etc...) by silence can effectively ignore the "rules" (subjected to clear Wikipedia improvement as well as consensus), but does not change or over-ride community accepted policies and guidelines. Any editors actions, wrongly, under a misguided assumption, or apparent unclear project recommendations or mandates, just creates community confusion and disruption.

Concerning this editor: It just seems that if an editor exhibits evidence, by multiple violations clearly indicating they are "not ready to return", then we are just giving them the extra-extra rope out of consideration? I guess that is not a bad thing but seems a waste if they keep throwing it down and are given another in a repeated cycle. Maybe we should examine advocating for a clear 3rd and last chance (as opposed to a 2nd chance times up to 6). Leniency here would be the third chance accounting for the community or ArbCom stepping in then realizing: It is possible to admit someone has jumped off a cliff without a parachute and that throwing them feathers won't stop the inevitable. Anyone caught using a sock should be indef'ed so that is certainly a monumental oops on ArbCom.

When you add all the above up, including the 2nd sock, attacking the admin, continuing with no apparent plans to change (a good title for an essay "How to get away with it on Wikipedia") and others, I just wonder. Do editors get this much leniency when making attacks (especially egregious personal ones) or harassment towards others? If so then no wonder there are civility issues on Wikipedia. That would also seem to mean that before we even start we are ignoring WP:5P4 that can be an eventual detriment to Wikipedia.

I am not considered a betting person but would wager this editor likely has more socks in the drawer, any takers? If the above scenario plays out, yet another indef, an appeal to the community, I would hope it is not violating canvassing for someone to let me know. I would love to see how many feathers are tossed trying to stop a fall. Otr500 (talk) 14:56, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, I nodded off there. You were saying? EEng 05:16, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Sleeping a lot helps you live past 110, maybe, hopefully, except a lot of people die in bed so maybe not. Legacypac (talk) 05:52, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Well, he needs to stop getting his nods off here - this is not the place for it. ^{Atsme✍🏻📧} 06:07, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

• There not here to build a meaningful encyclopedia so just indef them. All they’re going to do after the week is carry on so what’s the point? IWI (chat)
• Arbcom un-bans the editor-in-question, then he/she immediately breaches his conditionally imposed topic ban? This appears to be a WP:CIR situation. GoodDay (talk) 06:04, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
• Reinstating the indefinite block has to be the way to go here. I do understand giving another chance but Waenceslaus clearly has no interest and isn't going to be editing outside of longevity. Since the topic ban was imposed back in 2015 Waenceslaus has made one single edit anywhere else. While making the single edit he was also running around with a second account trying to dodge the topic ban. Three years later and he's unblocked and what does he do? Violates the topic ban. He's too high risk to only give him a week long block since it's extremely likely we'll be back here in a week or so's time dealing with another edit he shouldn't be doing. CommanderLinx (talk) 23:55, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
• I support reinstating the indef block. The topic ban violations are a clear case of WP:NOTHERE. — pythoncoder  (talk | contribs) 00:28, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
• I fully support reinstating the indef block as the topic ban violations are a clear case of WP:NOTHERE and it is clear this editor is never going to change their ways. Newshunter12 (talk) 07:36, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Site ban?

• Comment Rather than dilly dallying with an indefinite block, just go straight for a site ban. --Blackmane (talk) 01:13, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Given the subject matter and how thoroughly predictable this was, I feel no compunction about posting the following:

The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 06:15, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

• Site ban per WP:NOTHERE and WP:I FOOLED THE ARBS, BWAHAHA. — JFG ^talk 11:37, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
• Site ban obviously. EEng 12:40, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
• Site ban for sure. GoodDay (talk) 17:33, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
• Site ban for using meatpuppet(s) Legacypac (talk) 17:50, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
• Support ban per my commentary in the section above. Courcelles (talk) 17:51, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
• Site ban per above. Comes right off an unblock by ArbCom after three years—only to return by violating their topic ban. ^Semi_Hypercube ✎ 17:53, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
• Site ban. Nothing else to say. — pythoncoder  (talk | contribs) 19:10, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
• Site ban. It's quite evident he isn't actually here to build an encyclopaedia, just spread his views. Wikipedia can do with far less partisans in EVERY single topic area. The fact that he didn't even bother trying to adhere to the topic ban suggests that he didn't think there were any repercussions for violating it. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 19:14, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
• Site ban. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:19, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
• Site ban. Not here to build an encyclopedia; end of. IWI (chat) 21:24, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
• Site ban. Clearly, I support a site ban, with an indef block to make it work. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:27, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
• Site ban per my comments above. Mkdw ^talk 21:49, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
• Support the Site ban for my reasons above. Too high risk he'll break his topic ban again and clearly has no interest editing outside longevity. CommanderLinx (talk) 23:44, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
• Site ban per my and others' comments above. They clearly will only continue to disrupt Wikipedia and had enough chances to prove otherwise. Newshunter12 (talk) 02:54, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
• WP:SNOW support for siteban. Frankly, I'm just plain blown away by the ballsiness here. This editor is lucky enough to have their unblock request granted by ArbCom, who go out of their way to point out that their topic ban is still in place, and the very first edits said editor makes are to exactly the topic area covered by the TBAN, when socking in relation to that ban was the reason they were indeffed in the first place? Honestly, one is left with the inescapable conclusion that ArbCom and the community at large are being trolled here. The only other possibility is the world's biggest case of WP:IDHT. Either way, I am in agreement with the clear consensus here that this user is WP:NOTHERE in the remotest sense. Snow ^{let's rap} 06:05, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

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

Possible sock? (More WP:MEAT)

User:Wenzeslaus M.D. appears connected as the creator of List of Polish supercentenarians which this account edited, and name similarity. Now User:A massive zebra just came off a 6 year break to vote Keep on the Polish article. The zebra knows a lot of Wikijargon considering their editing history and wants me topic banned. Perhaps unhappy I CSD'd the page on a Polish supercenturian they created right after Arbcomm lifted their block. Makes one wonder if the blocked user is socking again. Ping User:KTC Legacypac (talk) 20:48, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Past behavior, points to more socking. GoodDay (talk) 20:49, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

User:Wenzeslaus M.D. and User:Waenceslaus don't overlap; the latter only started editing after the former stopped. They are probably the same person, but this looks more like someone forgetting their password and starting a new account. Meanwhile, I'm pretty sure that Waenceslaus and User:A massive zebra aren't the same person - someone in a current AfD mentioned this longevity forum, and there are clearly two users there, in different countries, called Waenceslaus and A massive zebra. Obviously that doesn't mean that there couldn't have been off-wiki canvassing, as they probably know each other from this forum. Black Kite (talk) 12:06, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

That would not be surprising. The 110 club forum has a very long history of off-Wiki canvassing. CommanderLinx (talk) 12:39, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

See Courcelles' comment at Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee/Noticeboard#Waenceslaus_unblocked_following_successful_appeal. Your ping didn't work by the way. -- KTC (talk) 12:27, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

I don't believe Waenceslaus and Zebra are the same person but at the very least he might be a meat puppet from the 110 club. CommanderLinx (talk) 12:39, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Yes I posted about possible socking here before info about the forum and locations came up. I believe this is more likely off wiki canvassing, as it is pretty unlikely an account dormant for 6 years that has never been to AfD just happened to find this AfD. Pretty clear the similarly named accounts are the same user but they are not socks. Legacypac (talk) 17:16, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Ling.Nut

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

---

• Ling.Nut (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Lingzhi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Axylus.arisbe (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Reflets.dans.l'eau (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

These clean-start (although it's not a secret) accounts belong to the same person, who told me here that they plan to use more accounts in the future. This is not a clear violation of WP:BADSOCK, so I'm asking here because I don't believe this behavior falls under WP:VALIDALT. The problematic thing here is the fact that this editor doesn't like the FA process, and has participated in a RfC with the newest account, and the RfC was about the FA process. Reading WP:CLEANSTART, I see that it is unacceptable to deceive users in controversial areas. This editor is probably aware of all of our policies, as s/he has run for adminship in 2010. If this is deemed unacceptable, I propose banning the editor from using more than one account, and blocking the accounts older than the most recent one indefinitely. wumbolo ^^^ 14:00, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

• I would say "Wake me up when this is done" but no need. I don't care about any rules cited. I don't care about rules in WP on any context. I am not disruptive. So your best bet is "Nothing to see here, move along". [OH PS Ling.Nut is password scrambled... Lingzhi is scrambled... axylus.arisbe is scrambled... But....actually IIRC I think this one is scrambled too, but I haven't logged out yet.. so... whatever.]Reflets.dans.l'eau (talk) 14:48, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Ling.Nut is a long time and respect editor who is now disillusioned with the project after a few fairly major set backs on an article he poured his heart and soul into and hoped to get to FAC, but was met with a lot of varied resistance that had the accumulated effect of total and utter disenchantment. For each of the incarnations, its pretty clear who it is, and he is very open; by habit and nature. I dont see any need for possible sanction, though I would like my old friend to return to the familiar Lingzhi account...he last edited as Ling.Nut in 2011!!! ps, far as I know accounts can be unscrambled...or effectively usurped...didn't we do this for Giano? Rather than harass valued editors with silly rule waving, we should be reaching out to restore thie faith and place in the community. Ceoil (talk) 15:08, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

• This seems like awfully WP:POINTy behavior, whatever its cause; disillusionment is no excuse for disruptive behavior, and " I don't care about any rules cited. I don't care about rules in WP on any context" is a clear indication of the editor's willful disinclination to follow community rules and norms. I would support requiring the editor to pick one of their accounts and stick to it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:06, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

• Just incase anyone was confused and/or cares, this account has nothing to do with me. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 17:51, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

  ​ lol I was just about to comment with a ping to you. —usernamekiran(talk) 22:08, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

• Ling, while I don't think it was either disruptive or deceptive, the combination of "a new username every month" and "I don't care about rules" is inevitably going to awaken unhappy memories in some of the honest people still left at FAC. Disillusionment hasn't made you less intelligent or insightful, and if you want to limit your activity to being a very occasional voice of institutional memory, I think that's a perfectly respectable and healthy thing for you to do. Creating a new account whenever the spirit moves you is just going to encourage pointless drama by the rules-minded. Why feed it? Choess (talk) 23:13, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
• You cannot be serious with this. Read the goddamn box at the top of this page: This page is for discussion of urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems. This is none of those things; if it is even a thing, it is the smallest of things. Fatuous is quite right. Mr rnddude (talk) 07:33, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

If for nothing else, I hope to be remembered for fashioning that phrase. EEng 07:50, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

In fact, I thought you did fashion it, oh great one, because at first glance, my mind, in its oft rather bizarre workings, homonymously saw flatulence ...ahhh, the things we see during Happy Hour.🧚🏻‍♀️🙈🐘 ^{Atsme✍🏻📧} 15:25, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Please report to the repair bay for adjustments to your positronic brain. EEng 07:45, 3 December 2018 (UTC) P.S. The phrase was urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems

• @Mr rnddude:I agree with you, this discussion fits in with what the regular AN Main noticeboard is for. I think the user who initiated this section should move this to the Main AN. Aceing_Winter_Snows_Harsh_Cold (talk) 22:59, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

• This is both a chronic and an intractable problem. wumbolo ^^^ 12:23, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

• Since there are multiple instances of the behavior described, and since the editor involved has disclaimed any inclination to adhere to Wikipedia's rules, I agree. Beyond My Ken (talk) 12:42, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

• The multiple, chronic, intractable problems are: 1) Creates a new account, leaves a few comments, promptly abandons the account. Rinse and repeat. And 2) Issued a proclamation of, I paraphrase, "fuck the police, coming straight from the underground", and then promptly left. I repeat: if, if this is even a thing, it is the smallest of things. This is in combination with not even a hint of account misuse (except the creating of accounts apparently), or of disruption. Let me know when this thread succeeds in either a) protecting the encyclopedia, or b) improving it. My money is on never. Mr rnddude (talk) 15:56, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

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

Conflict of interest / Sockpuppet

• Crisis Group (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Msunnucks (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Dear admins, I believe this requires an urgent case of attention, namely because it deals with an issue of COI, as well as possible sockpuppetry.

On the article: International Crisis Group, on 14 June 2018, there was an edit by a username Crisis Group.[3] It was subsequently banned by Alexf

However, looking through the edit history, I've noticed another user by the name of Msunnucks in 21 June 2018 editing the article, who, as part of his uncited updates also happened to purge the article of criticism (citations including Human Rights Watch, CFR, etc).[4] I'm surprised this was overlooked and not reverted. This looks like a pretty bad case of conflict-of-interest and outside censorship. –DA1 (talk) 22:01, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

User should be blocked with the same criteria as Crisis Group, with SPI needed. Both are same person, probably. Oshawott 12 ==()== Talk to me! 05:08, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Even though they've not edited since June, Msunnucks is still entitled to be notified of this thread. I've gone ahead and done that. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 18:26, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

P.S. a coupla people have done some cleanup on the article. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 18:27, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

User redirecting pages for no apparent reason, abusing sandbox

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

Today he redirected the sandbox [5] and the article Taki Taki (song) [6] without providing any reason why. And as many of you know the sandbox should never be redirected. He also seriously misused the sandbox long before, including inserting offensive material and user warnings [7]. Looking at his talk page, he has gotten many warnings in the past, but has either not adressed them or gave some vague response (like to my warning [8]), violating WP:COMMUNICATE. funplussmart (talk) 00:53, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Saying “excuse me” is violating communication rules? Where are you when I keep replying to your warnings on my talk page? And what was the reason for opening a discussion about this.. Sidetosice (talk) 01:05, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict)@Sidetosice: Even if you receive a warning for disruptive editing, and respond with "excuse me", you should try to do as the warning says, and not just continue. The discussion was started because funplussmart's attempts to stop your disruption failed. See WP:IDHT and WP:CIR. ^Semi_Hypercube ✎ 01:11, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

I mean I do understand but I didn’t edit anything else after I got the warning Sidetosice (talk) 01:12, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

@Sidetosice: I think funplussmart wasn't very clear in referencing that there is a history of disruptive editing, and not just those warnings today. ^Semi_Hypercube ✎ 01:15, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Well I mentioned how his talk page has a long history of warnings he seemed to have ignored, and I may not have made that clear enough in the original comment, but that is my major concern about this user. funplussmart (talk) 01:20, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps give a few more diffs of disruptive editing. I have more important things to do in life, I've said all I have to say. I'll just let others comment on this. ^Semi_Hypercube ✎ 01:25, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

I don't normally comment here, I like to avoid Wiki drama, but I am willing to comment about Sidetosice as I have experienced their disurptive editing. For example, when the page Lati K was going to be deleted (which they created), they repeatedly blanked the page (as you can see from the 3 2 warnings on their talk page) and after it was deleted did this to the AfD for some reason... I do see this leading to WP:IDHT and WP:CIR but I don't know if all this is warranted for an ANI. I guess I'm a pacifist in that sense but I can vouch for funplussmart. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 01:57, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

UPDATE: Acroterion has blocked Sidetosice. [9] funplussmart (talk) 14:23, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Terryfirut

• Terryfirut (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log)

The user disrupt Wikipedia by making a lot of edits in a short period of time, and those edits were reverted by others. Pinging @Ad Orientem: as the admin has followed this user.--158.182.174.219 (talk) 02:30, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

User notified. - FlightTime (open channel) 02:34, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Indeffed Very likely some specie of socking/block evasion. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:38, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Taking a closer look, their editing history is odd and indicative of someone with experience but there may be other explanations. I am going to err on the side of caution and unblock pending input from Bbb23 who handled a recent SPI. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:56, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

@Ad Orientem: Other than their blocked so-called Alt account, I don't see any evidence of socking.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:38, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Bbb23. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:44, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

User:Sansonic's unsourced additions (again)

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

---

Following a recent report here, Sansonic was blocked for a week for persistently ignoring warnings about unsourced additions. The block has now expired and Sansonic is adding unsourced POV material again. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:06, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

• Blocked for a month this time. Courcelles (talk) 20:19, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Topic ban

I'd like to formally propose a topic ban for Sansonic from all pages about Pakistanis in Britain, broadly construed. Courcelles (talk) 20:18, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

• Support as proposer. Courcelles (talk) 20:18, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
• I'd support that, and suggest adding British politics to the scope. Sansonic appears to be pursuing a political agenda, for example replacing a photo of a very prominent Labour politician with a much less prominent one, adding an irrelevant image accompanied by a trivial fact about a Conservative politician, adding unsourced material critical of the Labour Party and adding unsourced positive material about the Conservatives. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:35, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
• Support. There's some ridiculous nonsense here that has to stop. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:38, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

  I support a wider tban too, as suggested below. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:27, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

• Comment Broadly construing an intersection of topics ("Pakistanis in Britain") seems like a recipe for trouble. Suggest expanding it to anything related to Pakistan or Britain; that leaves plenty. The idea is to steer well away from temptation. EEng 21:48, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
  • I'd also support that, but I don't feel comfortable changing the original proposal after there are support !votes... Courcelles (talk) 21:58, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
• Support or something to its effect ^ IWI (chat) 21:53, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
• Support I concur with the proposal above in extending the topic-ban to Pakistan-related articles.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 01:11, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
• Support EEng's version His idea is better, since the disruption could likely extend to either one. ^Semi_Hypercube ✎ 01:31, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
• Support, and more British politics in India should be in the block as well. Oshawott 12 ==()== Talk to me! 02:02, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
• Support' EEng's version. Just looking at their recent edits, I'm seeing some quite trouble signs. And the historic stuff is just as bad. Nil Einne (talk) 05:37, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
• Support' EEng's version. L293D (☎ • ✎) 13:44, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

• Closing comment - there's clearly consensus for the ban as amended and so I have enacted it. Since this is a very broad ban, I looked for myself to see what kind of edits Sansonic has made outside of the ban scope, and it's not promising. There aren't many, but the few that I came across are very often adding unsourced commentary, much of it negative. Examples: [10], [11], [12], [13], [14]. There's also the downright strange, like adding a see-also link to British Pakistanis from Mexican Americans, and these edits changing the caption on an image of a Banksy artwork on the Israel-Palestine border wall to say it was an image of the Indian border with Pakistan, which stayed in the article until I reverted it just now. This editor is on course for a site ban and picking up speed. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:27, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

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

• Just to be abundantly clear: [(Britain) or (Pakistan)] is the TB, not [Britain and Pakistan], yes? Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:07, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Gross incivility from Filipjako

I did not particularly enjoy being profiled by Filipjako, nor did I appreciate his conclusion that my supposed ethnicity, which he somehow inferred from my user page (?), prevented me from properly contributing to Wikipedia.[15] My initial attempt to bring WP:PA policy to his or her attention was met with the conclusion that I have "a lack of historical knowledge and abundance of ignorance and stubbornness". I do not recall the last time I started a thread here, if ever, but I cannot help feeling that this behavior will persist, and I am rather disgusted by it. Surtsicna (talk) 22:00, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

I also think this qualifies as a personal attack so a block will be needed IMO. IWI (chat) 22:07, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Admins this is getting a little urgent now; they won't listen. IWI (chat) 22:28, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

I'm trying to figure out why you think you're immune from an edit warring block. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:29, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

• I've protected the page for 3 hours to allow for people to calm down. In the mean time, @Filipjako:, you have to stop with the edit warring and the name calling now, or you will be blocked from editing for a long time. @ImprovedWikiImprovment: you are edit warring too, stop it. Conversation thru edit summary needs to stop, conversation on the talk page needs to start. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:35, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

The formatting was wrong against guidelines; it's not just me who reverted them, although I can see a WP:BOOMERANG coming my way. I'm no threat to this project; they are. I, despite what I thought, didn't break WP:3RR either. I will now back off now that admins are aware. IWI (chat) 22:36, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

If you do not think that you broke 3RR, then you are not clueful enough to be inserting yourself into other people's conflicts. Your presence here made the situation worse. Please find something else to do, besides finding conflicts at ANI you can wade into. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:39, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Understood. I'm out. IWI (chat) 22:45, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

User:Aankan Das

I am just letting you know that the user had repeatedly uploading images that's is clearly a copyright infringement, having look at upload log as all I see is deleted per F9, apart from one which is going through Files whenever would be deleted which I vote for Speedy Delete anyway. Not only he uploading copyvio images, he has a history of disrputive editing, especially violating WP:BLP, which he was blocked one for 31 hours back in September, and again week later for copyvio for 2 weeks, all by the same admin. Sheldybett (talk) 00:30, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Let's see if the simple fact that you've brought this to ANI is enough to stop the problematic uploads. @Aankan Das: You have had many warnings, any further dubious uploads will likely result in you being indefinitely blocked. Fish+Karate 09:27, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Malcolm Kendrick canvassing

Issues of canvassing and socking on Malcolm Kendrick's deletion discussion since he advertised it on his [16].

Please see Malcolm Kendrick deletion talk, there are twelve accounts there, and others on the deletion discussion. Yet no admin has taken action. Absolute madness. Skeptic from Britain (talk) 02:53, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Don't panic, the closing admin will see through all that. It might be useful, though, for someone to volunteer to oversee the discussion starting now -- it really is a doozy. EEng 05:32, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

My eyes are bleeding from that... wow, at a very minimum someone with a bit of subject knowledge should make liberal use of collapse boxes there. Ouch. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 06:40, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

The canvassing suggest to me like it's probably meatpuppetry rather than socking. I do have concerns about the sentiments in this edit which seem to suggest the editor may try and engage in a WP:OUTING attempt [17] although the statement itself is confusing since it first says ask the readers of your blog if they can throw light on who is trying to unwrite you from history ..... His sole interest in the matter is who you are but then says No-one is trying to find out who you are. Nil Einne (talk) 07:30, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

I declined a protection request at RFPP for Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion/Malcolm_Kendrick, because in my view as long as the IPs keep civil it isn't hurting anyone if they want to post messages there. If someone else disagrees feel free to protect the talk page. As far as the AFD itself goes, the meatpuppetry header says all are welcome to state their views. The closing admin will sift through all the gubbins. Fish+Karate 14:14, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Reading more carefully it sounds like the editor is suggesting the subject of the article wanted that, but no one including them is trying to do it. I don't understand how they can say it's 'not unethical' if they seem to recognise that canvassing to out someone are in fact viewed far more harshly and 'unethical' than ordinary canvassing here regardless of whether the people canvassed follow the call or instead just !vote on the AFD. But whatever I guess. Nil Einne (talk) 10:08, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

• Buried in the "Dr. K" blog (linked by the OP at the very beginning of this thread) is an exhortation to "closely monitor appropriate articles and make sure the alternative story gets out there", listing these:
  • Lipid_hypothesis
  • Statin

Editors with an interest in this kind of thing may wish to watchlist. EEng 01:27, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

2602:30a:c0f1:e8a0:dc24:cda1:35d0:21e8 & SSROnTop

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

---

This user has been repeatedly vandalizing SSR under his IP account and was given three warnings. He makes a new account under the name "SSROnTop" and continues to vandalize with that account. CrispyCream27 • talk • user page 04:24, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

IP and account blocked for promotion. Acroterion (talk) 04:28, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

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

MarnetteD

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

---

• MarnetteD (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log)

My edtis at [18] [19] [20] and [21] were reverted by MarnetteD. Please report him to Administrators and don't let revert or rollback my edits. Thanks. 36.83.67.115 (talk) 07:24, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Your changes all appear to be unsourced, refer to WP:V and WP:RS. Secondly, your changes were reverted, so accoring to WP:BRD you should now be trying to discuss these matters on the article talk pages. This is not matter for AN/I at this time. - Nick Thorne ^talk 08:11, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

And you forgot to notify MarnetteD about this thread. I've done that for you. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 08:21, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

But I mean, MarnetteD is a furious user who reverts my edits in 5 pages. So I have revert MarnetteD's edits in 4 pages. 36.83.67.115 (talk) 08:34, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

(EC) If you're confessing to retaliatory reverting another editor when there was no actual problem with their edits, you should expect a WP:boomerang block per WP:point especially since you don't even have an actual worthwhile point. Nil Einne (talk) 08:52, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Drmargi

• Drmargi (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log)

Same as MarnetteD, Drmargi also undoing my edits in 4 pages. 36.83.67.115 (talk) 08:51, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

I've converted this to a subthread of the previous discussion. You just told us you didn't actually have a reason to make those reverts, so reverting you was quite proper and I was planning to do the same. Nil Einne (talk) 08:53, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Editor reverted again so I reverted and was going to report but already blocked. Nil Einne (talk) 09:00, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

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

User:Surtsicna

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

195.77.253.82

195.77.253.82 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) Shared IP that has engaged in repeated disruptive editing and vandalism despite several warnings. --Jamez42 (talk) 13:32, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

• The user has two edits today and has been warned once. If they continue, please file a report at WP:AIV. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:35, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

User:Dr Silverstein

User:Dr Silverstein is sending emails to admins mentioning serious issues on Wikipedia. Then does not react to returned emails. See user's talk page for a few reported cases. Olivier (talk) 16:20, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

One of the users is not an admin. I don't think, as Olivier suspects, that the e-mail are "bogus". The user has some very strange ideas. I've received two e-mail from them (see "my" section on the user's talk page). It would help if the editors who received the e-mail disclosed the contents. I don't see how they can be considered private at this point, but if you prefer, you can forward me the e-mail.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:29, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

I have replied to Olivier. I prefer to make sure that an admin is interested in hearing me out before I write up my thoughts to them. Sorry if it has inconvenienced the administration. Thanks. Dr Silverstein (talk) 00:43, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

I have replied to User:Dr Silverstein and suggested them to report issues on this noticeboard or refer to Wikipedia:Responding to threats of harm if the issue they are referring to (but not detailed) is really serious. Olivier (talk) 09:12, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

85.190.76.192

Special:Contributions/85.190.76.192 Repeated vandalism / removal of content plus referring to moderators as homophobic slurs. CrispyCream27 • talk • user page 22:33, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Personal Attack on Me by HafizHanif

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

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

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

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

So I note two things:

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

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

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

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

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

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

User:GiantSnowman bot-assisted rollback of good-faith edits

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

---

I came across this while patrolling RC.

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

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

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

I am concerned about this at five levels:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

He has reverted my good faith edits as well, including correcting "men's" to "women's" under "women's competition" here: [22], and a researched change to Fuad Ibrahim, which he realized was correct... [23] ater reverting three times and telling me I would be banned from Wikipedia because of vandalism: [24]. It's awful "administrators" like him that give Wikipedia a bad name. Thank you! 70.21.191.151 (talk) 00:10, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It seems you did the same yesterday to User:Jamieroot11, reverting 32 edits in one minute, with a vandalism warning, only to have to remove your warning and apologise, while still blaming the editor because they didn't use a good enough edit summary[25]. In reality, they were updating stats in the infobox with the edit summary "Updating bio stats"[26], so it seems strange to blame thee edit summary for any confusion.

On 2 December you reverted some 40 edits by User:Footballinbelgium and gave them a final warning for adding unsourced content. Too bad that the things they added were to the infobox (where everything or nearly everything is unsourced) and were correct, e.g. Sam Valcke[27] really is 1m88cm according to Soccerway, and Marius Noubissi really is 1m80cm according to The final ball, in both cases sources already present in the article.

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

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

With this editor, I see you giving them warning after warning, going back for months, even though they made correct edits all the time. These football articles are sourced to soccerway and the like, as you well know, and there is no need to add a new source to change the match statistics, nor to reflect a new club if that is updated in soccerway as well. I mean, it's not as if you add sources for your changes[28][29][30].

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

On 27 november, you rollback 50 or so edits by User:Cipow, including stuff like this? This, again an editor adding correct info according to already present source Soccerbase[31] (and who does update the date parameter in the infobox)? Like the editor said to you: "It's very simple - You saw one or two articles with no references and reverted 20 odd perfectly referenced articles."

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Question re the rollback tool

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

GiantSnowman's voluntary restriction

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

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

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

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

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

• It should be clear that this report documents an admin engaging in the repeated abuse of mass rollback. They have not given a response that suggests that they appreciate the gravity of the situation, and they have not provided a convincing resolution, and have only vaguely stated that they "will be more careful". In this context, a unilateral close of ongoing discussion, with a declaration that the issue has been resolved voluntarily, is concerning, and reeks of the admin corps protecting itself. Mind you, I'm a believer in admin solidarity, but not if one of us is repeatedly behaving like an idiot and then completely dismissing the community's outrage. I would simply like to make my dissent to the closing statements known for the record.  Swarm  talk  08:32, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Daiyusha and CSDs

Hi all,

I'm afraid I've got a problem with Daiyusha (talk · contribs). He's got the New Page Patrol bug and has been helping out at the backlog, but has made too many incorrect calls on CSDs. A more comprehensive list is available on his talk page, but in a brief summary, I can see notifications of declined speedies on Christopher T. Adams, Sid Saab, Spencer Zimmerman, Edificio del Seguro Médico, Havana, Wolfgang Glöde, Sunil Kalda, Angry Ferret, Jora.com, Sejal Kumar, Draft:Dewan Singh (with a rationale of "fails BIO1E" which isn't a CSD criteria) and Stafford Crossman in a little over two weeks. Given that since WP:ACPERM we get far less legitimate CSD A7 candidates these days, this is a significant number in my view. Despite giving him a clear heads up to stop it and getting an assurance that they would, I still see notifications of declined speedies. So, I'm asking the community if it's time to think about some sort of sanction, such as a topic ban or restriction from CSD tagging. Your thoughts, please. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:36, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

You could try a 'final' warning on their talk page. Explain to them as clearly as you can why what they are doing is not right, using the examples you've mentioned here. They clearly want to help so we should be trying to guide the user, not topic-banning them. It may be worth suggesting they move to AFD work for a while, that often gives people a clearer understanding of deletion policy. Fish+Karate 11:50, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Well, Christopher T. Adams and Sid Saab indicate they have not even understood WP:NPOL which both clearly meet as elected members of a notable parliamen and Edificio del Seguro Médico, Havana was extremely hasty in violation of WP:A3's waiting period, so that's certainly bad. That said, I think a topic ban is not (yet!) required since they seem to have slowed down now, although they should be advised to take their time when making such edits. If the problems reappear, we can and should consider a ban from deletion tagging. Regards SoWhy 11:54, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

I've left a message on their talk page to try and help. Fish+Karate 11:57, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Okay , I'll only tag super obvious CSDs, or else i'll ignore them, have been ignoring many such articles for a while now, I am tagging about 4-5 articles a day, you can see that I have clearly decreased the number of CSD decline notices have decreased from 2 a day to about 1 every 3 days. As per your advice, i'll stop my CSD tagging for a while unless its super obvious, and proceed with PROD and AfD tags then. Daiyusha (talk) 12:02, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

I would take Fish&Karate's advice and switch your focus to AfD. You'll get experience in what the community considers an acceptable article for the project, and by the time you've got some experience there, you'll find your CSD tagging should improve. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:04, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

@Daiyusha: The whole point of CSDs is that it must be super obvious. Speedy criteria allows any 1 sysop to delete an article without a discussion first. Since we do everything by consensus, the only way a sysop is allowed to do that is by utilizing the prior consensus at WP:CSD. However, that prior consensus covers very strict criteria. Any deviation from that strict criteria, and there is no consensus to delete which means we must PROD or AFD the article instead. Keep in mind, too, that notability is not the threshold for CSD:A7. Claim of notability is. That's a much lower threshold. "I'm a badass Wikipedian and I've been mentioned in two news articles" is a claim of notability. The fact that it were a mere mention and not even by name and I'm not really that important is what we discuss in an AFD.--v/r - TP 15:52, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Surely you mean "indication of significance or importance"? But yeah, TParis is right when he points out that only clear-cut cases should be tagged for speedy deletion. Basically, if the article contains any claim that might constitute a credible reason why this subject might stand out from the crowd, no matter how slightly, use PROD or AFD instead. Regards SoWhy 16:06, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) And this compounds a problem, which is not your fault Daiyusha, that some admins see a CSD-tagged page and immediately delete it without checking that the tag is valid. I echo the recommendation to build some experience in one of the participatory discussion venues (WP:AFD, WP:CFD, WP:RFD, WP:MFD, etc) where over time you'll see how speedy tags interact with our content policies. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:08, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

@Daiyusha: to repeat the point several other editors have made: I'll only tag super obvious CSDs is the right option. If it isn't super-obvious, use AFD. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:46, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

116.97.246.210

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

---

Suspected sock of Albertpda is edit warring a request that was declined from his old account. A block is needed; they are obviously a sock. IWI (chat) 13:49, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

 Done--Ymblanter (talk) 14:33, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

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

Azerbaijani POV pushers and WP:NOTHERE

Bahruz Aghalarov (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

In the area of Armenia-Azerbaijan conflict, which is unfortunately severely understaffed, we got two new POV pushers today. I blocked one, Nargiz.ahmadzada, indef per WP:NOTHERE, and I believe this block is completely uncontroversial, and I was in no way involved before I noticed the edits of this user. All of their edits were reverted (mostly not by me), and the profile is clear. However, I am in doubt concerning the other one, Bahruz Aghalarov. Most of their edits were reverted as well, but they also made a couple of edits which in principle could survive. By a very strict reading of the policies I am involved since I reverted their edits previously (though I did not remember this, and only discovered it when I started to go through their contributions). Therefore I will appreciate if an administrator could have a look at their couple of dozens of edits and decide whether the user should be blocked indef or given some rope (though so far they never made any edits outside of the article space).--Ymblanter (talk) 17:34, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

I concur that Bahruz Aghalarov (talk · contribs) should be indefinitely blocked per WP:NOTHERE. This is nationalist POV-pushing of the kind that might be handled more slowly at AE. See this diff, which adds 'aggressor Armenia' and 'barbarian occupational policy of Armenia' to the text of the encyclopedia. EdJohnston (talk) 18:02, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

I checked their recent edits, all of which are anti-Armenian POV pushing. I gave them an indefinite block. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:46, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

@Cullen328: Sarah 2019 (talk · contribs) has been doing the same thing; again WP:NOTHERE. IWI (chat) 20:09, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Thank you EdJohnston and Cullen328. I also blocked Sarah 2019, I have never seen this user before and I am not involved in any way.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:28, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Problematic username

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

---

I've just blocked I want to fucking end it all (talk · contribs). I doubt whether this is a serious threat of anything, and very likely an LTA at work; however, I'm just noting this here, in case it needs reporting further. -- The Anome (talk) 19:11, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

The Anome Threats of harm (whether self-harm or against someone else) should be sent to emergency@ per the instructions at the top of this page and in the pink edit box. The folks there can judge the credibility of the claim.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 19:16, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

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

Simon Wessely

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

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

So that's the backstory.

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

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

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

Response to Guy from Rainydaywednesday

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

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

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

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

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

The Independent article I was citing states:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

References

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

That not is dispute. I take it the issue is whether or not the op-ed in Independent is a reliable source for Wessely having said that. I suspect at least that the report, being activism, is shorn of context. Rainywednesday's repeatedly bombing it into the article lede here strikes me as problematic. [Add: so here's a relevant tweet from Wessely[32] Yes, he wrote these words - but he now says they are too crude ... so putting this front and centre in his bio certainly is problematic.] Alexbrn (talk) 08:19, 6 December 2018 (UTC)