Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Edgarmm81 (talk | contribs) at 13:31, 13 January 2018 (→‎Edgarmm81). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

    Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
    Shortcuts

    This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems.

    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

    Repeated Addition of Unsourced Material to List of Bible verses not included in modern translations.

    Our issue here is the repeated insertion of unsourced claims by Sussmanbern (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), in violation of Wikipedia policy WP:V, which states, among other things, "Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source." Sussberman continues to ignore WP:V despite various reminders over a period now a month long of weeks.

    A Timeline

    At 12:51 17 December 2017, User:Sussmanbern was told by User:Dimadick about the importance of making sure that all new additions to the article have proper inline citations, in order to avoid having the material deleted. (There had been earlier conflicts, among other parties, over the addition of unsourced material to this article, which can easily be seen at the talk page). Here is the diff of Dimadick's statement: [1].

    Sussberman asked for a summary of the earlier conflicts, "so tI know what to avoid doing." [2]

    Reiterating Dimadick's point, I told Sussmanberg that the thing to avoid doing was the addition of unsourced material to the page: [3] (31 December).

    Sussmanberg assured me that they "can appreciate the problem of additions without source citations." [4].

    At 04:18, 7 January 2018, I took a look at the article and found it to be filled with uncited claims. I removed a number of them: [5]

    At 19:50, 7 January 2018, Sussberman left a notice at my talk page announcing his ownership of the Wikipedia page, and that I am not allowed to interfere with anything he writes, "until Feb 14, 2018 . . . PLEASE DO NOT TAMPER WITH MY WRITING WHILE I AM WRITING."

    At 19:54, Sussberman complained that their Second Amendment rights were being violated at the talk page: [6].

    At 20:22, Sussberman posted a statement of WP:OWNERSHIP directly in the article text itself: [7].

    At 20:28, I replied at my talk page, notifying Sussberman about the contents of policy pages WP:OWN and WP:V. [8]

    Sussberman ignored my reply.

    At 20:35, Sussberman added more unsourced material to the page: [9].

    At 1:01, 8 January 2018, Sussberman added more unsourced material to the page: [10].

    At 1:22, Sussberman reverted my previous edit, restoring a great deal of unsourced content despite the previous repeated reminders about this: [11].

    At 1:36, I wrote a second reminder, this time on the talk page: [12].

    In the interests of avoiding an editing war, I asked Sussberman whether they were now willing to abide by WP:V, or whether I should seek dispute resolution. I have received no reply, and Sussberman continues editing away.

    I request that administrators take some kind of action — it doesn't matter to me exactly what — to ensure that the addition of unsourced material to this article does not continue. I do not want to edit-war here, so I can't just keep removing the stuff myself. Alephb (talk) 02:51, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Having received Alephb's comments, I am in the midst of adding citations to the text that he deleted. I am trying to find and transfer citations and links as fast as I can. Sussmanbern (talk) 03:54, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Even within the last few hours, even as I was adding citations, Alephb was still erasing my stuff - I found I was collecting citations for text that no longer existed, and he took particular pains to repeatedly delete a quotation WITH citation that I went to some effort to find. I am ready to dump this whole project. Sussmanbern (talk) 04:13, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    If it helps, I would be happy to copy the entire deleted text to the talk page or any piece of your userspace that you specify, so that you can add citations to it and then re-add it to the article. If I deleted anything that was properly cited, that was certainly a mistake, and if you just show me the quote, I would be more than happy to add it back in myself, if you like. Alephb (talk) 04:22, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    It is worth noting, at this point, that the continued addition of uncited material by Sussmanbern has continued even after the beginning of this ANI thread: [13]. The added material there speaks to the motives of the translators of various post-1880 Bible translators and editors. He added that to a previously correctly-cited quote from a writer in 1832. The quote is cited -- the additional material about what people were thinking several decades later is not. WP:V is still not being followed. In the interest of not edit-warring, I'm simply going the leave the uncited material there, but I would urge Sussmanbern to delete his claims about the motives of these translators until he can find a reliable source backing up the claims. And I would ask Sussmanbern to substantiate his claim that I removed a properly cited claim, or to strike out the accusation. One of or the other. Alephb (talk) 04:32, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Here's another edit by Sussberman, still as this ANI goes on: [14]. It purports to give the "Reason" that modern Bible translations omit a particular verse, but does not cite any source that confirms that the "reason" given is in fact the reason the modern translators have omitted this verse. This is also a violation of WP:V. I'm surprised to see this behavior going on MID-ANI. Alephb (talk) 04:42, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    And . . . here's a third WP:V violation, also made while this ANI goes on: [15]. The unsourced part is, "Both verses 44 and 46 are duplicates of verse 48, which remains in the text. Verses 44 and 46 are both lacking in א,B,C,L,ƒ<super>1</super>, and some mss of the ancient versions, but appear in somewhat later sources." What somewhat later sources? Why no citation? How difficult is this? Alephb (talk) 04:51, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    And now we have a fourth WP:V violation: [16]. It makes an uncited claim about what motivates modern translators, about what is written in the original handwriting of a particular manuscript, uncited claims about which manuscripts are more, or less, ancient, and an uncited claim that uncited editors "seem confident." Alephb (talk) 04:53, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Here's a fifth: [17]. It alleges that several books have been written on a particular passage, without citing any books written on that passage. Alephb (talk) 05:07, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Here's number six: [18]. It alleges things about "most modern versions" and their treatment of two passages, without a supporting citation. It also says the passages are supported by a "wide variety" or uncited sources, and the uncited claim that "there are strong reasons to doubt that the words were part of the original text of the Gospels." Alephb (talk) 05:10, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Here's number seven: [19]. It alleges that "some Italic mss" include a particular verse. No source is cited. Alephb (talk) 05:20, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    The "Reasons" that Alephb says are unsourced cite mss listed in the critical editions of the Greek NT mentioned by name in my Intro to the article (Souter, Nestle-Aland, etc.), having mentioned them anyone can find the relevant verses. As for not specifying "some Italic mss" and the like, these are (1) recondite and (2) the usual citation forms involve a complicated typography, often with layers of superscripts; as this article is intended for beginners in this topic (non-beginners would not need this article) it was not my goal to baffle the reader. Again the specific mss can be found in the critical editions I named. I had said in my Intro that I would cite only "four or five" of the leading mss evidence for inclusion or exclusion, and those motivated to dig deeper can look it up in the named critical editions. Listing all the mss evidence, including versions and patristic sources, as appears in those editions, would make this article very bulky, require some difficult typographic tricks, and make the article less reader-friendly. I would like to emphasize that this article lay fallow - useless and unrevised - for more than five years until I saw it a couple of weeks ago. Even Alephb had not attempted to improve it in those five years. But once I started, he could not contain himself for as little as five days. I am ready to let him roll this boulder up the mountain, while I play the critic. And could someone please ask him to stop misspelling my name. Sussmanbern (talk) 05:49, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    This is not the place to resolve your content disputes, that should happen on the article talk page, or in Dispute Resolution. Here, only behavioral issues are considered, and Alephb has presented fairly compelling evidence of your ownership behavior. I have left a comment on your talk page to explain in further detail why that is a problem, and why not editing collaboratively can lead to being blocked from editing. Please read that and the links it includes. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:09, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    No one is asking you to list every italic manuscript. It's just that, when you restore text that has been removed for not being sourced, we need an inline citation confirming that "some manuscripts" say the one thing or another. Just name whatever source you're copying the claims out of in a footnote. And likewise, when you make claims about the motives of particular people (some still living) you should find reliable sources for those claims as well. That would work fine. I can quote the wording about inline citations in WP:V again if that would help.
    The accusation that I made no efforts to improve the article prior to you showing up is false.
    Speaking of accusations, I am still waiting for you to show us the diffs of the properly cited quote that you say I "repeatedly" removed. Either that, or I would ask you to strike out the accusation. One or the other. Alephb (talk) 06:11, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @Sussmanbern: Have you considered drafting your changes in your sandbox or userspace? I hope that you are planning to add sources to the content as you said (I am in the midst of adding citations to the text that he deleted. I am trying to find and transfer citations and links as fast as I can.) - taking you at your word, drafting in userspace first would resolve this. Seraphim System (talk) 09:09, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    I give up. This article was seriously neglected and I was a volunteer trying to improve it, but ingratitude wins out. I leave it to Alephb to finish the article to his satisfaction. Sussmanbern (talk) 09:17, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    If you are serious about letting this one go, I think that resolves our problem. Given Sussmanbern's statement that they are no longer interested in working on the article, I would assume that it would not be considered edit-warring if I waited a day or two and then stripped all non-verifiable content out of the article. Given that the "other side" has thrown in the towel, and there's now no one left to edit-war with. Alephb (talk) 12:47, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    User has been indefinately blocked for threat of violence. I recommend we close this discussion. Alephb (talk) 01:28, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Actually he wasn't complaining about his 2nd Amendment rights being violated in that diff. I've blocked indef for a clear threat of violence. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 01:29, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Good eye. How'd we all miss that one? --Tarage (talk) 01:30, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't consider that a legitimate threat of violence, and a indefinite block seems harsh, and unwarranted. Paul August ☎ 18:41, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    There is no way in hell I'm letting "I'm gonna shoot you for reverting me" stand, whether it's "legitimate" or not. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:07, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, had he said: "I'm going to shoot you for reverting me", then it would have been a good block. Nice straw man. Joefromrandb (talk) 19:13, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, if you wouldn't summarize that diff the way I just did, then how would you summarize it? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:15, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I wouldn't have summarized it at all. I would have asked him what the hell he meant. Joefromrandb (talk) 19:21, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    No matter how much you WP:WIKILAWYER about it, there is only one possible interpretation of "this is why the Second Amendment exists" in that context. We don't give people a "get out of making a naked threat of violence free" card just because they don't use specific words to do it. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:58, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    The only one Wiki-lawyering is you, which I understand, as AN/I is filled with admins defending the indefensible, lest their own infallibility one day be called into question. Joefromrandb (talk) 23:11, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Given that casting of aspersions, I don't believe this conversation can go anywhere productive, so I'm out. - The Bushranger One ping only 05:21, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Given how obviously confused this user is about so much else, did it occur that he could have the 1st and 2nd Amendments confused, lamenting interference with his perceived right to free speech here? I ask this having more than once heard an (obviously confused) individual state: "the 1st Amendment grants us the right to bear arms". It just seems incredibly unlikely that this user would make such a giant leap from frustration to threats of murder so quickly. Joefromrandb (talk) 00:19, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    This edit on my talk page, where the editor says that they are "very angry", and claims that Alephb deliberately sabotaged their work, would seem to be pertinent. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:38, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Not to mention revoking talk-page access immediately, allowing the user no chance to even explain what was meant. I guess that was a prophylactic measure; less chance the user can complain about it if you shut them up preemptively. Joefromrandb (talk) 19:03, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    And yet, the user appealed the block and is currently able to edit. Funny how that works.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:05, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    It's anything but funny. Joefromrandb (talk) 19:10, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    User:Joefromrandb - Haven't you learned anything yet? Well, you didn't learn anything four years ago, and maybe you didn't learn anything two months ago. You appear to have jumped into this controversy that you were not originally involved in, just to dump on an admin or something. Four years ago you were asked to try to be less provocative. Two months ago OR and NYB made a last plea with you to try to change your behavior when Tomstar81 had requested arbitration. I requested that ArbCom take the case, not merely to deal with you, but also to define a procedure for dealing with editors who poke you, like poking a bear, and then try to blame you. However, in this case, you just came running into this conflict like a bear on a tear. This conflict didn't involve you, and you should have left alone, and, if you can't learn to leave things alone sometimes, you will wind up in a bearcage, known as an indefinite block. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:30, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    You've got one hell of a nerve. Please take your passive-aggressive pot-stirring elsewhere. Joefromrandb (talk) 10:14, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @SarekOfVulcan: I think you need to be less trigger happy. There's no way that statement deserved an indefinite block. Paul August ☎ 21:17, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I would have seriously contemplated an indef if I had seen it. That kind of implication is totally unacceptable here. --NeilN talk to me 22:16, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    It was a blatant threat of violence and was dealt with appropriately. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:58, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @SarekOfVulcan: Is there anything you feel you can say about why this block was lifted? I ask because it does not seem obvious to me. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:01, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    He was unblocked by User:Yunshui, who could perhaps shed some light on this, as I too am quite curious. Joefromrandb (talk) 06:26, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Happy to do so. The UTRS appeal made it clear that this was basically intended as a very poor-taste attempt at humour, not a deliberate threat of violence. The editor has said that they will not repeat it, and has also stated that they will step away from the List of Bible verses... article, which also assuaged my concerns about future edit warring. I checked with Sarek via email, and on getting his agreement, lifted the block, as it was no longer serving a purpose (the behaviour which cause the block is not going to be repeated). Yunshui 雲水 08:53, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    That sounds reasonable, thank you. Joefromrandb (talk) 09:15, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Yunshi: Thanks for that explanation. I hope that the editor's promises hold up. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:12, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Given that threats of violence results in being blocked for a shorter time-period than someone who violated 3RR once, I would like to take this opportunity to request an indefinite IBAN. I have been threatened not only with violence, but with more mundane retaliation as well: [20], and user who made the threats has not, as far as I can tell, offered any assurances that they will not carry them out. I think under these circumstances, an IBAN is warranted. And I'm not saying that because I want the user punished. I do not give the slightest shit whether the ban is one-way or two-way. If the user will not give me some assurance that I won't be retaliated against, I request that the community does so. Alephb (talk) 00:16, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Given the comments above, I'm going to take the assertion that there are no outstanding threats now at face value. Alephb (talk) 22:51, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    At least for myself and as of right now, I consider the personal threats issue resolved. What is not resolved is the continued personal attacks: i.e., [21], which was written just a few hours ago. But progress comes in steps. Alephb (talk) 23:54, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @Alephb: I don't think that S's final remark comes close to being a personal attack. It was snide, and completely unnecessary -- I've suggested to him that he strike it for those reasons -- but not a violation of WP:NPA. I think it would behoove S. to mind his P's and Q's considering that he just had an indef block lifted, but that's a different matter. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:18, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Because you are uninvolved, there's a good chance you have a more reasonable opinion on this than myself. Fair enough. Alephb (talk) 03:20, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Potential COI and disruptive editing

    TheCorageone1 seems to be a WP:SPA which was created to solely edit Defiant Wrestling. He has been an extremely disruptive editor and continues to add information to the article which goes against the stubify result from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Defiant Wrestling. He was twice been asked on his talk page about potential COI, including once here [22] which provided evidence that they did declare themselves the owner of the logo in question, which would make them affiliated. He has not responded yet continues to edit the page. Despite the AfD on the initial article they started three spin off articles which all resulted in delete at, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Defiant Championship, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Defiant Women's Championship, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Defiant Hardcore Championship. Despite the delete closing result, the information was merged and redirected by this user. We now also have 27 redirects to this page [23] and a template filled with redirects Template:Defiant Wrestling Champions.

    All of this for a wrestling promotion who barely passes GNG if at all. Of the 41 references currently on the page, 12 of them are YouTube, 5 are WP:PRIMARY, and 9 are from cagematch (which is an RS for stats but not for notability). This user has clearly not done anything to benefit the purpose of the stubify, only to fluff the article. - GalatzTalk 15:26, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    It appears that posting this here has gotten the user to stop editing the article as he has not made any edits in the past couple days, however some assistance on the matter would still be appreciated. Thanks - GalatzTalk 23:48, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I just want to chime in to back Galatz up. Corageone1 has been the main player here but this article has had a problem with other SPAs in the past. It would be helpful if others could add Defiant Wrestling to their watchlists to look for disruptive activity.LM2000 (talk) 00:48, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    It looks like the content added since the AFD either isn't referenced by a reliable source or isn't within the ruling of the AFD to keep the article short (which basically removed a bunch of what is being added now). Remove the content you feel isn't appropriate and link to the AFD page and cite policy in your edit summaries. If the user restores the content repeatedly and begins edit warring, and fails to respond to the relevant discussion on the article's talk page, then file a report at WP:AN3. Just don't engage in any edit warring; report violations when they occur, and stick to the article's talk page and continue to engage in the relevant discussion.
    TheCorageone1 - You need to participate on the article's talk page and discuss the changes you wish to make to the article - especially if other editors object to it. Failing to participate in the relevant discussion and after others have asked you to, and continuing to add content against consensus is disruptive. Before you add any more content, you need to discuss it and everyone needs to come to an agreement first. This is proper dispute resolution protocol and a policy that needs to be followed.
    Other than what I've written above directly to TheCorageone1, I don't see the need to take any action at this time. TheCorageone1 has been warned here (I'll also leave a message on this user talk page) - he must discuss his desired changes on the article's talk page and consensus must be reached first before (any) resulting edits are made to the article. Failure to follow these policies and practices moving forward can be fairly interpreted as disruptive now that the expectations have been made clear. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 02:29, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Done. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 02:37, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Maximiliano Korstanje

    etc.

    Maximiliano Korstanje is an Argentine sociologist. A small number of IPs and accounts have extensively edited his article, adding much resume inflation which has since been rolled back, and also editing numerous other articles to add his viws primary sourced from his own publications, again rolled back.

    Today I blocked 190.104.232.132, after the IP reinserted another mention of Korstanje primary-sourced to his published work. I blocked for:

    I think it may be time for a formal ban on the person behind these IPs and accounts. Style and meta-commentary makes it unlikely it's more than one person. Guy (Help!) 12:12, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Update: just also blocked 181.90.148.76 for the same crap. Guy (Help!) 16:29, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support formal ban on the person. I've also had experience of these IPs/accounts and assumed good faith of the account User:Noellesch9 till my eyes bled; then I indeffed. I agree it's probably all one person — as you say, a person that is... yes, closely associated with Korstanje. This comment from Noellesch9, their last, is interesting; it suggests the promoter has moved to the English Wikipedia because they couldn't get any traction in Spanish wiki (because all the editors who opposed their editing there were it seems "abusive" and "never intellectuals"). A formal ban on the person behind this would be morally satisfying, and I support it. Practically speaking, we'll also most likely have to semi the article Maximiliano Korstanje forever and a day. And how about a filter for keeping out Korstanje-related spam from other articles? (Said she hazily. I don't understand filters very well.) Bishonen | talk 21:45, 11 January 2018 (UTC).[reply]

    Hoax

    I've been ignored a few times, so now I'm "forum shopping" until someone explicitly tells me the only alternative is to revert manually until I get tired of it. Among other reasons why edits like this can't be true: no references that mention his name, and this similar edit where he claims a well-known title that hasn't been used since World War I. User:Abibmaulana been blocked, so now he usually uses a new IP address every time. We semi-protected The Blackstone Group, where most of the vandalism edit war can be found, so he moved to several similar articles about corporations until it expired. I've read about "range blocks", which might help because 19 of his IPs are in the range 120.188.4.122 to 120.188.95.142, but that doesn't include 162.217.248.203, 188.119.151.166, 114.4.78.231, 114.4.79.165, and 114.4.82.82. Wikipedia:Edit filter/Requested might help, but not for me - 3 days ago I emailed according to the instructions on that page's edit page, and the only response was that my request is being held because I'm not on some list. This must be a common problem, so what usually happens? Art LaPella (talk) 19:48, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    If you want some consolation, I've also dealt with people owning the World Bank[24], Sony[25] and numerous other companies. It seems to be a thing. We have constructed temporary edit filters for this type of thing before, and that shouldn't be a problem this time (filter 684 perhaps), but don't use the mailing list - drop the request directly at WP:EFR, and provide a few more links than you have here. But, you might still need to wait for more than 3 days. -- zzuuzz (talk) 20:34, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I haven't made such a request, as the word "temporary" above implies you don't want the overhead of a filter if we aren't using it, and the problem hasn't returned so far (thanks User:Drmies). Art LaPella (talk) 15:03, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Art LaPella: I investigated this in a fair amount of detail before indeffing this user. It seems clear to me that this is self-promotion of some sort. I know for a fact that there are filters in place to catch other folks who create articles including a certain name, so the same should be possible here. I'm afraid I can't find the filter at the moment: possibly Oshwah may be able to help. Regards, Vanamonde (talk) 14:37, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi there! There are a few edit filters in place to block and reject edits that add certain words to articles - I helped implement the filters to stop that "Ryan ross milk" vandalism that went rampant a few months earlier. Let me read through this ANI and see what I can suggest we do... ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 22:32, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Edgarmm81

    Edgarmm81 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Could somebody please evaluate if this user is here to contribute to encyclopedia, and, if yes, whether they are competent enough to contribute. Thank you.--Ymblanter (talk) 00:54, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Ymblanter - Looking now. Stand by... ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 00:56, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Ymblanter - I see the concerns regarding the edits made to Catalan independence referendum, 2017 that were reverted here and here citing multiple issues (such as NPOV concerns and replacing referenced content with different information). Looking at the article's talk page, on the surface it looks like the user made multiple edits to it that were not appropriate (1, 2, 3, 4) but some of them contain what appears to be an attempt to explain. "Although https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ymblanter (sic) and Spanish unionist may feel uncomfortable, this accusation is well-grounded. Let me show you some evidences and abnormal activities" - I'll give him the benefit of the doubt and assume that he was trying to explain, but it clearly looks like this user is driven to edit here and by a single-purpose. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 01:06, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for the analysis. Let us give them more rope then before blocking indef.--Ymblanter (talk) 02:04, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Ymblanter - You're welcome, and I agree - give him enough rope; the tiger will show its stripes and the obvious will come to light if the user's intentions aren't to build an encyclopedia :-). ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 02:49, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]


    Edgarmm81 (talk) 12:11, 12 January 2018 (UTC) I am not expecting that https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ymblanter shares my point of view. It is obvious his ideology and his intentions. But, unlike https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ymblanter, I am a witness. And I wish I could find articles for half of the things I saw![reply]

    But anyways, almost all of my references are excerpts from... UNIONIST MEDIA to keep it more objective and neutral!!! Who knows what would have happened if I had used pro-independence articles! Btw, would https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ymblanter dare to write this article just with pro-independence information?


    Never mind, let's focus and let me explain my points in more detail:

    Like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Crystallizedcarbon says, he's right when he says "like the video of an officer hit with a chair". But that policeman is one of the 12 wounded policemen reported by the Catalan Health Service. Besides, the man who threw that chair was arrested[1].

    Moreover, there is another video of a policeman bitten during a charge and another one of civilians throwing stones at a armoured van leaving Sant Carles de la Rapita (after causing 40 wounded people), which has no consequences for those policemen health. Anyway, what I was trying to point out is the incongruence when saying it does add up to 431 (like the Minister said), especially when there were reported just 39 that night by the same Minister(so it makes nearly 400 new injured during that night), and above all, because there are no clinical reports beyond the 12 policemen attended by the Catalan Health Service, no further documentation, just speculation of newspaper in the heat of the moment. Furthermore, the coordinator of all the police bodies during the Referendum, Mr Diego Pérez de los Cobos, said "the police was received with direct violent actions", but "there were only 5 arrests"[2]. Sorry, it is impossible to believe that after 431 wounded policemen, there were just 5 people arrested... And I have to say that, obviously, it is likely it could be more wounded people, but the ones who were not attended by any hospital were because they had superficial injuries. And that applies to both sides! (policemen + civilian, not just policemen).

    On the 11/jan/2018, the Spanish Police (Policia Nacional) sent to the Permanent Instructional Court number 7 of Barcelona an internal report saying that there were 40 injured antiriot policemen, the most severe suffering from a sprain of wrist and a broken finger. 5 policemen were recommended to have off days.[3][4]

    That makes a range between 12 and 40 injured policemen. Far from the 431 policemen that Wikipedia is currently reporting. (Please, remember that there were 39 injured, but then, overnight, 431)

    Like I said, this article is clearly biased on the Spanish point of view and it has generated indignation among Catalans. And what's more, when you try to expose the other point of view, the censorship appears, as usual in Spain, and that's what https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ymblanter is trying to do.

    Please, keep in mind the report about lack of plurality and indepenence of the TV collaborators in the public RTVE for the whole 2014[5]... and it keeps working like this and then it was extended to the private TV[6]). Therefore, please, expect overreactions from the Spanish side, as they are not used to dealing with contrary opinions[7], and that's why they struggle and reject it, by calling the Catalan information as "biased", "sensationalist" and other words that I will not say.

    Long time ago, I wrote a neutral NPOV in which I explained the difference between legality and legitimacy of the referendum. And the reason why Spain grabs legality and why Catalonia grabs legitimicy... but you did not publish it, either.

    Please, accept my apologies because my English is not that good and I try to explain it the best I can. Besides, I am a newbie on Wikipedia, and I struggle. For this reason, there are so many edits. Please, take into account just the last version!

    Another point highlighted by by https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Crystallizedcarbon: Regarding the issue "the Spanish Ministry of the Interior instructed the Spanish Attorney General to investigate whether the accusations of police sexual abuse against protesters made by Mayor of Barcelona Ada Colau, who had mentioned the councilor's statements, could be considered a legal offense of slander against": It is true that the Ministry instructed it, but you forgot to say that it has been reported that the Mayor of Barcelona was going to sue the Spanish police for some sexual improper behaviour. This is relevant and you forgot it[8]... You are biasing the article by omitting why the Mayor of Barcelona made that accusation!!! Furthermore, it is false that the case of Marta Torrecillas (the woman of the broken fingers) was found far-fetched by an investigation, but because Marta Torrecillas modified her statement the following day, as I have reported several times[9]. But this case is one of the most important points that the Spanish unionism use to discredit the Referendum, so that's why they omit that rectification, and Wikipedia is working like a unionism abettor unintentionally (bias). So, please, modify the current explanation on Wikipedia, since it is deceiving. If you like it, put it under the heading of "Other controversies" and provide the full explanation, or else, just remove it, as you are not explaining all the wounded people, individually.


    With reference to the elections results (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Crystallizedcarbon), it is relevant to give an interpretation of the results, as readers are not experts on Catalan nor Spanish elections. It must reflect that:

    1) The pro-independence parties confirmed the majority of seats. 2) The Spanish ruling party was severely punished, becoming the seventh (and last) party in votes and seats, achieving just 4 seats in the Catalan Parliament out of 135 (insufficient to constitute a Parliamentary Group). 3) Although the Spanish government claimed the Catalan Referendum had no guarantees, had several irregularities and, even, people voted several times, the number of pro-independence votes in the Catalan elections (that took place on the 21/12/2017) was greater than in the Referendum.

    Please, notice I gave you a reputed British reference.[10].

    I would also like to point out that this article is full of speculation. Being investigated or suing is a National Sport in Spain. There are lots of reciprocal accusations, and there will be more in the future. Besides, it has been the stategy of the Spanish Government since the beginning of the Catalan affair, as there is no separation of powers in Spain (10/12 of the Tribunal Constitucional judges are appointed by politicians[11], for example).

    And what's more, until the judge makes a decision, you are reporting just an specualtion. And this article has plenty of that. Under investigation: Mr Trapero, Mrs Colau, the police for sexual harassment, politicians, judges malfeasance and some you are not including... Please, remove it until you find real evidence, it looks like a tabloid, instead of an objective article.

    Finally, keep in mind that those biases and speculations have been on this website over 3.5 months, and the most visits took place in the following days after the event. You should have been more objective, but in fact you have been releasing a very biased Spanish unionist point of view for long, enhancing sensationalismt, delivering opinions and no contrasted information, providing speculations and inaccuracies. Please, beware of that next time.

    1. ^ http://www.lavanguardia.com/politica/20171025/432345126624/detenido-silla-guardia-civil-sant-joan-de-vilatorrada.html
    2. ^ https://www.eldiario.es/catalunya/politica/Interior-acabaron-votantes-formaron-parapetos_0_727927956.html
    3. ^ http://www.eldiario.es/catalunya/politica/Policia-identificacion-antidisturbios-desplegados-Barcelona_0_728277752.html
    4. ^ https://www.ara.cat/societat/Camel-Lobo-Cobra-Jaguar-nom-policia-1-O-Barcelona_0_1941405993.html
    5. ^ https://www.media.cat/2014/11/06/informe-l%E2%80%99espiral-del-silenci-a-analisi/
    6. ^ https://www.ara.cat/en/Only-independence-Spains-TV-Catalonias_0_1916208565.html
    7. ^ http://cadenaser.com/ser/2017/09/10/politica/1505067486_613847.html
    8. ^ http://www.lavanguardia.com/politica/20171002/431742168473/ada-colau-denuncia-agresiones-sexuales-policia-1-o.html
    9. ^ http://www.lavanguardia.com/politica/20171003/431770520587/marta-torrecillas-roto-dedos-inflamacion-referendum-1-o.html
    10. ^ https://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2017/dec/21/catalonia-voters-results-regional-election-spain-live
    11. ^ https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tribunal_Constitucional_(Espa%C3%B1a)
    Those to whom "my ideology and my intentions" are "obvious" probably should get less rope. Today I was already accused in being Slovakian nationalist, Spanish nationalist, someone who can not see obvious consensus, someone who does not speak English, and someone who must be deadmin for behavior unbecoming for administrator. To be honest, this is becoming too much for me.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:02, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Calling names to editors is out place and insistence on it should have whomever does that blocked, I have gone through that myself (and worse). Now I have this article on my watchlist and seen how just having the parliament of Catalonia mentioned at the beginning of the article was a struggle and a torment, despite being one of the five Ws, which eventually led me to largely abandon this article out of tediousness.
    So I have not looked through all the details of this dispute, but I have seen deceptive edits summaries and misrepresentation of sources in this article that I have pointed other times, which honours the claims of Edgarmm81,like this gratuituous removal edit, or the mass removal of sourced information and no attention to detail I reverted myself, polishing it next.
    The editor's behaviour is coarse, that is true, but his/her claims in form (but also in content) seem to be well-grounded and constructive. A didactic approach applies, since s/he does not seem to be familiar with the rules of the EN WP. Iñaki LL (talk) 21:15, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I am not defending the article at all, and, as a matter of fact, have absolutely no affiliation with any side of the conflict. I just seriously doubt that Edgarmm81 can achieve anything in this way, and that they are willing to learn. For the time being, they are just a single-purpose account, they do not have any other edits to Wikipedia.--Ymblanter (talk) 01:00, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ymblanter, you are scared because I am unveiling the lies that the Spanish Government has been systematically spreading. And what's more, it is so weird that you permit those manipulations and, now, you feel so offended, nervous and trying to censor and boycott my work... even though I provide clear unionist references... Like I said, this article on Wikipedia has caused a huge indignation among the Catalans, because of its bias, partiality and lack of objectivity, and that's why I opened this account, to shed light on it and correct all the misinformation and manipulation. By the way, I wish I hadnt had to do it...

    72.185.108.110

    Going through their contribution history, they seem to be adding unnecessary cruft[26][27], removing content[28][29], and generally being a nuisance.[30][31][32]. Their intention to disrupt couldn't be more clear. Boomer VialBe ready to fight the horde! • Contribs 00:55, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Those last three items, deleting from one's own talk page, are within the IP's rights. In fact, restoring them was not appropriate. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:20, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Baseball Bugs Yes, but it gives off an WP:IDHT mentality on the editors part. Especially considering how they keep doing what is getting them warned. It also may be to circumvent a block being given multiple level one warnings, rather in the typical fashion (1, 2, 3, 4im). Boomer VialBe ready to fight the horde! • Contribs 01:36, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    The IP's other edits look questionable. But I recommend you strike the complaint about him deleting stuff from his own talk page. That's permissible; it's not "being a nuisance". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:43, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    It can be considered a nuisance, taken into account how they are abusing the privledge to remove warnings from their talk page. I stand by what I said. Boomer VialBe ready to fight the horde! • Contribs 01:56, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    The IP is free to remove warnings from its talk page, and reposting them is disruptive behavior. Concentrate on the questionable content, not on what they are permitted to do. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:54, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Anyone who adds a warning to a talk page should probably check the history of the page before adding it anyway. It's better than saying "You can't remove X from your talk page." --Tarage (talk) 01:42, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Unfortuately, a majority of vandal-fighters do not do so. That, or they are using an semi-automated program that leaves a warning corresponding to the last warning on their talk page. If a warning is removed, it defaults to level one. Even ClueBot NG has this issue. Besides, I never said they cannot remove warnings from their talk page, I was pointing out how they were being generally disruptive and abusing the priviledge to do so. Boomer VialBe ready to fight the horde! • Contribs 01:56, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    It's a right, not a privilege. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:55, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Fine, I still stand by what I said. I used their removal of talk page warnings as an example of probable suspicion that they have a intent to disrupt. Especially given the persistent removing the warnings in such a short time span. Getting back to the point of the reason I filed this. Their edits seem to be, for the most part, questionable to outright disruption. As I said originally, it's clear that building to the encyclopedia is not their intention. Boomer VialBe ready to fight the horde! • Contribs 03:18, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Arcarius

    Arcarius has been editing for a decade, but the same issues persist. They do not usually respond to messages from other editors, even when it is clear questions and repeated concerns being raised about the same issues: mainly referencing. You can see at [33] the many messages many editors have sent. I see my name is on the page 72 times - none of the messages were responded to. I have directed Arcaruius to WP:BURDEN and WP:Communication is required and tried many times to engage Arcarius in a discussion about their editing, to no avail.

    Arcarius has been editing too long for this, and also did edit their user talk page back in 2016, so does know how to use the page. I would like Arcarius to join a discussion here and show that they understand Wikipedia is a collaborative project where it is required that you respond to editors when they raise concerns. I would also like Arcarius to show a good understanding of WP:V and to realise that if mann issue with sourcing, this should inform their future article creations. Some of the redirects are concerning too, redirects from terms which are not mentioned in the article at all. I'm not sure how else to get Arcarius to engage. Boleyn (talk) 09:50, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Is there any current ongoing disruption or any edit disputes in progress that requires this user's input to resolve? I see that you're concerned about ongoing issues over time, but I'd like to review any current issues that are in progress. Someone not responding on their talk page isn't something I can force this user to start doing... obviously :-). But if there are current disputes and issues where communication and his participation are needed and disruption is occurring in lieu of this (such as edit warring), then that's another matter. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 12:56, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I disagree. There seems to be a history of failure to engage. And there's a new issue where we can see if they respond. He's just edited an article[34] adding 2 section headings with underneath them "TO BE ELABORATED FROM THE ITALIAN WIKI". I'll try to get him to respond about that, but I'm also concerned about his continued failure to source. Doug Weller talk 14:36, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think I'll bother to post on his talk page. He's been busy editing since he got the ANI notice (at least 10 edits) and still hasn't responded here. I don't have time to waste. Doug Weller talk 14:39, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    As a long-established editor he doesn't seem to know about date formats - see grotty recent additions to Tharros. PamD 15:43, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    The ongoing issue is the lack of sources in articles Arcarius has created, discussion about the seemingly misleading redirects etc. They are also going against the policy at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution#Discuss with the other party: Talking to other parties is not a mere formality, but an integral part of writing the encyclopedia...Sustained discussion between the parties, even if not immediately successful, demonstrates your good faith and shows you are trying to reach a consensus...Talk page discussion is a prerequisite to almost all of Wikipedia's venues of higher dispute resolution. Boleyn (talk) 19:45, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Arcarius, we can see you are still editing, can you please contribute to this discussion? We are just trying to resolve these issues, and we can't do this without you. Please be aware that if you refuse to engage with this discussion, you risk an indefinite block. Just talk to us. Boleyn (talk) 08:16, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Prevent vandalism of referenced content on Alexandra Borbély article

    WP:BOOMERANG. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 13:44, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Please add an edit ban on a user who removes my NEUTRALLY referenced edit. He keeps reverting it to a non-referenced version and leaves insults in the messages ("Stop fucking bullshit") The user is User:Ymblanter — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.92.119.59 (talk • contribs) 13:42, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Alexandra Borbély

    Resolved, thanks @Oshwah:--Ymblanter (talk) 13:48, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Since my 3RRN report was ignoored by everybody but Lugnuts, who is always happy to throw mud at me, may be someone can help me here. I am constantly getting reverted by an IP (seven reverts by now) in the article which I created about an actress of Hungarian ethnicity who is a Slovakian citizen. The IP wants that she is called a Hungarian actress in the article and not prepared for a compromise. They even found sources which say she is Hungarian actress, but this just means she acts in Hungarian films. (WP:MOS says the nationality must go to the lede). They completely ignore my arguments that she is a Slovakian citizen. May I please also remind to the community that in a similar situation, when I tried to change a lede of Mariam Mirzakhani which defined her as "Iranian mathematician" (Mirzakhani did not work a single day in Iran) I was booed at the talk page by a crown who did not even allow me to write in the lede that she worked in the US. We should be consistent and follow policies, right? My apologies for going there, but I somehow feel myself hopeless in front of a blatant POV pusher, I can not protect the article and I can not block them.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:46, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    I apparently edit-conflicted with the previous topic, it was not there when I started writing my message.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:47, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Possible canvasing and meatpuppetry

    This has recently been bought to my attention [[35]] with comments like "I signed up to Wikipedia -for this, can I influence somehow?" and "Good news, Yair: the article passed editor review! But *just* barely. Still need some editors with knowledge to fill out the article and expand it with info." This was raised here [[36]], which in turn was a response to this [[37]]. The AFD did seem to feature a number of almost inactive or fairly new accounts.Slatersteven (talk) 13:57, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Slatersteven - For sake of clarity here, we're talking about Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hillel Neuer, correct? ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 14:37, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I would have thought reading the twitter feed would have told yo, it is a resolved AFD here [[38]] however (apart form the fact it was not raised here at the time) it seems like it may still be a possible issue (given some of the comments (on the twitter feed) with the article Antisemitism in the Labour Party. But it seems it may well be a wider issue then one article or AFD.Slatersteven (talk) 14:41, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) Slatersteven - Ah, thank you. I saw the twitter feed but got distracted and didn't get to read through the whole thing. I'm going through the AFD now... ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 14:46, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    A, It was no consensus.
    B, As I said above this may not be a resolved issue of canvasing, it may still in fact be having an impact.
    C, The "threat" of (for example) making changes to the article to better reflect "the facts" means that there is still the possibility of disruption. It also seems that it is not occurring on just the one AFD, thus is (clearly) an ongoing issue.Slatersteven (talk) 14:53, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    No consensus is equivalent to keep for AfD purposes, so that argument is irrelevant. If you have an issue with the way the discussion was closed, the proper way to resolve the dispute is to discuss it with the closing admin, and then to take it to WP:DELREV if that doesn't resolve the dispute. Iffy★Chat -- 15:32, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I was replying to DS's claim that it was a vote for keep (it was not)due to policy based arguments (in fact it was made clear both sides had valid points). Also this is a wider issue then the one AFD (as I also say in my reply to DS). IN fact it was (as I think it should be clear from my OP) that I am more concerned about further potential disruption in article spaceSlatersteven (talk) 16:09, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • All that really shows is E.M.Gregory watches this Yair Rosenberg's twitter feed, saw his piece, and decided to troll everyone at the talk page by calling them POV editors -- with that as "evidence". I am more concerned about the AFD process being disrupted on more than one occasion by a twitter handle.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 15:16, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is nothing wrong with having a bias, we all have one and it's real silly to say you don't have one. But your comment did not come across as something neutral and AGF. Maybe I misread it but it seemed to me to be a little off. Sir Joseph (talk) 16:02, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    So how would you have described E.M.Gregory's comment about "POV editors making Wilipedia look bad"?Slatersteven (talk) 16:17, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with it 100%. There are POV editors and they make Wikipedia look bad. In this case, (both Neuer and Antisemitism) we have clear notable people or subjects that warrant 100% inclusion. There are certain topics in Wikipedia that for some reason or another, many people want to hush up. I also don't get why you're asking me this. I'm not the one who called someone "trolling." Sir Joseph (talk) 16:21, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Really so having 2 articles that mention something is "hushing it up"?. I am asking you because you have tried to defend a blatant attack on other editors. Oh and I do agree it was trolling, what else is linking to an inflammatory article (on an articles talk page) and using it to attack other edds without actually making an constructive suggestion as to how to use the linked article not trolling?
    Not only does it violate rules about making PA's but also ones about what article talk pages are for, and maybe even a few other rules for good measure. It was nothing but a disruptive act of soapboxing. Perhaps we need to ask admins if this was a rules violation?Slatersteven (talk) 16:30, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • 1.) It is entirely routine to mention the fact that an article has received media attention on the talk page of the article. 2.) It is absurd to suppose that we can prevent Tablet (magazine) or other media from covering our editing process. Nor can we prevent such coverage from inspiring people to become Wikipedia editors. Such inspiration is not meatpuppetry.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:50, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    It is not "entirely routing" to attack other editors o POV pushing and bringing Wikipedia into disrepute on article talk pages. And there are things we can do to mitigate the effect of of Wiki canvasing. That (by the way) is my main concern here, to mitigate the potential effects of of wiki canvasing (for example is there a link between the author of the tablet article, and any edds who have edited those pages, and if so should that user get a ban?).Slatersteven (talk) 17:02, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Just to be clear, we are talking about a man Yair Rosenberg, with over 53,000 twitter followers who writes for a popular magazine, Tablet.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:25, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • User:TheGracefulSlick certainly does, as User:Sir Joseph writes above, have political biases that lead her to behave towards me - and towards other editors with whom she disagrees - in an aggressive, WP:BATTLEGROUND manner.
    • Here she follows me to other users talk pages just to be gratuitously nasty, belittling, and assume bad faith (I found this because she pinged me) : [40].[41], presumably to "improve" her stats at AfD. She certainly knows how to strike a comment properly [42].
    • Here: [43] TGS follows an editor with whom she regularly disagrees on terrorism-related AfDs to an arcane American history article, a topic she rarely if ever, and makes a false assertion: "On further examination, the sources Icewhiz provides here are passing mentions, not indepth coverage." In fact, the editor she accused had specifically brought to the page and flagged at AfD an INDEPTH 2013 article in the Saturday Evening Post.[44] To GracefulSlick, the point often seems to be "winning," even by means of making false assertions that appear to discredit fellow editors.
    • Here: [45] she was canvassed by an editor to come to his defense at ANI, and she complied, accusing me of being "someone who 'may' have it out for you." In fact, it was my third comment in that thread; my first two were defending the work of the accused editor.
    • Here she makes a series of gratuitous attacks on and complaints about fellow editors, here: [ https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/7700_16th_Street_NW&diff=813949404&oldid=813866725]; [46]; [47], [48], [49], here the slurs and innuendo are about a page that I found at AfD and almost completely rewrote [50], she then improperly changed her iVote to a "comment". E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:21, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • May I remind you the last time you made these accusations (at an ANI thread for your behavior) on the same flimsy "evidence", the admin quickly disregarded your frivolous claims. Taking diffs out of context doesn't prove I have a political bias; it does, however, prove you handle your own personal issues with editors by trying to deceive others. Now, if you haven't noticed, this is a thread on canvassing and meatpuppetry. If you want to file something against me, I encourage you to do so.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 17:36, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Disruptive edits

    Reported user has been blocked. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 19:47, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Update: Now blocked indefinitely for evading the block as User:KingRomero10. Mz7 (talk) 05:10, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

    User:KingRomero14 appears to be an account purely for non-constructive edits. They were blocked last month for it, yet continue to edit in the same manner. For example, this edit here [51] is them just randomly adding an event that has even been mentioned will not occur this year by a WP:RS. Looking at their edit history I see almost nothing that they have posted that wasn't immediately reverted. - GalatzTalk 14:40, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked a week. --NeilN talk to me 15:21, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Interaction ban violation

    WP:BOOMERANG was applied and the OP blocked as a result of this discussion. To clarify as a closing comment: Stating that you have an interaction ban and that your participation in an article or discussion needs to stop because of this - is not itself a violation of an interaction ban. So long as no attempts are made to actively interact with the other party, there's no harm in disclosing that fact to other editors. Darkness Shines - I'm sorry to see that this had to end with you being blocked; I understand that you believed this to be an interaction ban violation and creating an ANI report with this legitimate belief is fi Ine... but when you're repeatedly told that it wasn't a violation and you respond with continued rebuttal, and when you continue to press the issue further despite being warned and asked to stop, imposing action was the logical next step. If you have questions about any of this, please feel free to contact me and I'll be happy to answer them and help you. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 15:59, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

    This is an interaction ban violation by C. W. Gilmore, as he is linking to my edits on an article I created in that post. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:57, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    And you just commented here immediately after he did. I think he did indeed violate the interaction ban, and you are skirting very close to it.Slatersteven (talk) 14:59, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I had three edit conflicts, I did not respond to him, I was commenting on what you wrote, and given I created the article in question I think I have reason to comment on the issue raised. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:04, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    No, responding that you can't participate in a discussion because of an interaction ban is not a violation of the interaction ban.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:06, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    How is linking to my edits not a violation? Darkness Shines (talk) 15:29, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    In fact the IBAN Policy says, "make reference to or comment on each other anywhere on Wikipedia, directly or indirectly" I'm pretty sure linking to me edits on an article are covered by that Darkness Shines (talk) 15:32, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    He was simply stating that he couldn't participate further in making contributions to an article because of the interaction ban - that's not a violation of an interaction ban to say this (in fact, it's good that he disclosed that so that others understood). He wasn't violating the interaction ban by attempting to actively interact with you. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 15:38, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    How is linking to my edits like this not an violation? Darkness Shines (talk) 15:39, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) Linking to your contributions can be a violation of an interaction ban, sure - but it depends on the situation and the context. In this situation, I wouldn't flag this as "encroachment over the line of scrimmage here" - he was just saying, "hey, I have an interaction ban and he's made edits here, so I need to back off". That's perfectly reasonable to do - he's trying to honor the sanction. Give the guy a little credit here :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 15:45, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I hate to be the "bad guy", but I agree with SarekOfVulcan here. The discussion and over-reaction to a simple statement is going way beyond and into IBAN territory on your end than with what C. W. Gilmore intended to do in the first place. Let's just step back, understand that it's okay and that he didn't step over the line, and lets just move on peacefully and take this as a learning experience - okay? There's no need to be frustrated or upset :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 15:51, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I have precisely zero expertise or authority here, but I feel compelled to speak up. As a wise man once said, de minimis non curat Wikipedia. I have watched this little imbroglio from afar, and I have certainly seen times when I thought Mr. Gilmore was in the wrong. This is not one of them. Happy Friday all. Dumuzid (talk) 15:52, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
    Euryalus runs ArbCom so you know. Plus, der Floq is on the case. Drmies (talk) 02:54, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

    As multiple users (including the first-person singular) have opined the block is a clear violation of WP:INVOLVED, this should be reopened, or a new thread should be started. Joefromrandb (talk) 21:11, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    One important caveat is that an administrator who has interacted with an editor or topic area purely in an administrative role, or whose prior involvements are minor or obvious edits which do not speak to bias, is not involved and is not prevented from acting in an administrative capacity in relation to that editor or topic area. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:20, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Perfect! Thus, you are clearly involved, demonstrated by the text you highlighted. Joefromrandb (talk) 21:25, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    ...right. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:27, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Your previous involvement is not "minor", and it most certainly "speaks to bias", as you've previously blocked this user inappropriately for the same "infraction". It baffles me that you would highlight that text, as it speaks to the very essence of WP:INVOLVED. Joefromrandb (talk) 21:37, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    "Minor" is irrelevant. "Purely in an administrative role" is the governing clause there. It wasn't the "same" infraction, and it hardly "speaks to bias", since I've blocked both of them for poking at the other. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:42, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    "Minor is irrelevant"? Are you fucking kidding me? It's part of the text that you highlighted as evidence of your innocence. "Minor is irrelevant". Yeah, he really did say that. Wow. Just wow. Joefromrandb (talk) 21:48, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Considering it's on the wrong side of an "or", yes.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:50, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, shit, you got me there! "It's on the wrong side of an or"! Joefromrandb (talk) 22:01, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    A second administrator has agreed with the block though. I for one also agree with it. --Tarage (talk) 21:14, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    It doesn't matter if a hundred administrators agree with it. WP:INVOLVED is quite clear. Joefromrandb (talk) 21:28, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) It's a bad block. Period. It prevents nothing and is further questionable given that Sarek is involved, despite his poor attempts at convincing us otherwise. It's also not his first poor block on this user. Nihlus 21:29, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    An admin should've instantly closed the thread as no violation and then went to DS's talkpage to state why it wasn't a violation ..... instead he was allowed to question it here and unfortunately came across as not being able to drop the stick (a stick he may not of had to begin with), The block was piss poor .... A 2 day block sure he can live with that anyone can but a 2 week block all for questioning why it wasn't a violation is heavy handed to say the least. –Davey2010Talk 22:01, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    When a user nibbles at the edge of their IBAN, it's bad faith, and they have no one to blame but themselves when they get blocked for it. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:03, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    His first block for violating the IBAN was a week. I blocked him for disruptive editing for 1 week in December. After that, I blocked him for an IBAN vio for 2 weeks, but was overturned after ANI discussion. This one was the same length. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:04, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Except that this one is going to wind up being overturned too. Joefromrandb (talk) 22:08, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict)Struck my original mischaracterization of that block. My apologies. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:10, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Personally I don't see it that way I just saw it as him trying to get answers but then again without sounding disrespectful I don't really know him like others here. –Davey2010Talk 22:17, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    This is very quickly turning into a clusterfuck, if it hasn't already. --Tarage (talk) 23:01, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    You think? Joefromrandb (talk) 23:04, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    While I generally disagree that this was an involved block, I have to recommend Sarek lay off the constant replies to DS. It is not improving the situation in the slightest. --Tarage (talk) 23:41, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure "constant replies" is a fair characterization. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 23:47, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    This could all have been avoided if DS had communicated with his most trusted admin via email instead of bringing it up out in the open. And also if DS weren't actively looking for violations. What he should be doing is pretending the other guy does not exist. If one is in an IBAN, it must be fully embraced or it won't work. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:52, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    It sounds like he doesn't have a trusted admin, based on his talk page. --Tarage (talk) 00:08, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    If not, then he's painted himself into a corner. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:40, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    It also could have been avoided if SarekOfVulacn had observed WP:INVOLVED, which he instead chose to ignore. Joefromrandb (talk) 00:04, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Joe I hate to say it, but this drum you are beating isn't helping. Several admins have commented on this, and nearly all of them are in agreement. I very much doubt you are going to her this ban overturned. Lessened maybe, but that's about it. I don't think bludgeoning things as you are is going to help. --Tarage (talk) 00:11, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not "bludgeoning" anything. If Sarek owned up to his infraction and fixed his mistake, and then I continued to berate him, that would be bludgeoning. For now, at least, he's refusing to accept responsibility for his actions. Joefromrandb (talk) 00:17, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    2 admins have commented, and one was involved. Also you’ll rarely see an admin side with a mere editor in a dispute with another admin - especially not an editor with a block log. Mr Ernie (talk) 00:20, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    No, you two are bludgeoning, and it's becoming obnoxious. We get it. You think he was involved. You've said as much about 10 times now. You clearly are not going to get the apology you want, so why not step back and let other people look into it? Replying to every damn statement he makes with "Y U NO ADMIT WRONG" is not helpful. --Tarage (talk) 00:20, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    You don't get the first thing. I don't give a good rat's ass about an "apology", and I don't "think" he was involved; I showed, citing policy, that he was involved. Now you're bludgeoning me, so knock it off. Joefromrandb (talk) 00:26, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    You don't understand what that word means do you. You are not helping your case, I hope you know that. --Tarage (talk) 00:27, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • "you've previously blocked this user inappropriately for the same "infraction"" - this does not mean additional blocks for the same infraction are WP:INVOLVED violations. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:29, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Question: Has anything changed since I NAC re-closed this thread as "more heat than light" and someone (I haven't look at the history) re-opened it? I don't think anything has changed at all. Basically the same things are being repeated: the same people are saying the same stuff and being responded to by the same people who responded before. It seems extremely unlikely that Sarek is going to undo his block as a result of this discussion, or that Joefromrandb is going to change his opinion that Sarek was INVOLVED. Darkness Shines has filed an unblock request, so an uninvolved admin can weigh in on it. If anyone really, really feels the need to keep expounding on this, there's a thread on User talk:Darkness Shines.
      I would recommend that someone, preferably an admin, re-close this before someone says something that will get them blocked. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:42, 13 January 2018 (UTC)      [reply]
    Second. The fact that no other admin has reversed the block is telling of what the outcome will probably be. --Tarage (talk) 00:47, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I tried closing the thread, but Joefromrandb had other ideas. Lepricavark (talk) 01:11, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm considering reversing the block, so that's not a good reason to shut down the thread. I suppose a case could be made that a good reason to shut it down is that everyone is saying the same things over and over again, just louder and more insistently. What would be fantastic is if instead of closing it early, everyone chilled a little. But there is an unresolved issue here. How about this: those of you who think Sarek is "involved", consider me to have taken over the first 12 hours of this block (those who think he isn't involved can ignore). So for 12 hours, there isn't going to be any unblock for INVOLVED reasons. Now, anyone have any thoughts that haven't been repeated 3 or more times already above? --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:04, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes: thank you. Joefromrandb (talk) 01:07, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • Given that DS still does not understand why he was blocked, is not ready to be unblocked. I don't think he needs to be blocked for the full two weeks, but it would be helpful if he showed some understanding of why he was blocked in the first place. Lepricavark (talk) 01:11, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, Floq, in that case please file this for later use somewhere--I typed really hard at it. "Sorry Joe, but there is clearly no agreement that this is somehow an involved block; the one diff DS lists does not make involvement with all-caps--and the "pound of flesh" is way too vindictive: sorry, but that's a low blow, and I don't see any evidence of it. DS, there may be reasons to disagree with the block, and arguments/statements to make in an unblock request, but that Sarek is involved and thus should stay out of it is not a good one. I'm closing this: if anyone wants to bring Sarek up at ArbCom they are welcomee to, and DS doesn't need this for an unblock request." I was closing this... Drmies (talk) 01:16, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • It is inherently impossible for editors who think they were unjustly blocked to show some understanding of why they were blocked. An admin should have shut down the original report with a simple “closing as no violation.” If Darkness Shines continued to persist after that then a block may have been an option. It is not beneficial to the project to be blocking editors as a first step. Sarek’s participation fanned the flames due to DS’s perception that he had been unfairly treated by Sarek before. Let’s please use common sense and compassion before blocks. Mr Ernie (talk) 01:20, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • BTW, I don't think I would have blocked for two weeks, and I might not have blocked at all, but these are always judgment calls. The snark was certainly counterproductive, and telling the blocking admin they don't know policy (and I agree with Sarek that C.W. Gilmore's comment was not an IBAN violation) and continuing to yell at him is also not helpful. I do not agree that the block was punitive, or that Sarek was involved. For the record, I am well aware of the history between DS and C.W. Gilmore, and I suppose I've yelled at both of them.

        Mr Ernie, we can hardly take into account every time we block how the person we block might feel about that. And the block wasn't for not showing understanding why they were blocked--it was for not understanding, or refusing to understand, that their invalid report of an iBan violation had kind of turned into a violation of the iBan. Drmies (talk) 01:26, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

      • I would say: Unblock DS. Tell C.W. Gilmore not to link to DS, mention him ect. Tell DS dont come here BEFORE talking to a trusted admin. Everybody else shut the hell up and get back to work and CLOSE this thread now....buts thats just me, your mileage might vary. --Malerooster (talk) 01:28, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • What Malerooster said, re closing this thread. The next meaningful admin action in this saga is determining the current unblock appeal on Darkness Shines' talkpage. Theres no benefit in holding this conversation here and there simultaneously, and "there" seems a more logical venue at this stage. -- Euryalus (talk) 02:02, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Nigeria Prizes for Science and Literature

    WP:Content dispute. Now that discussion has started, it can continue on relevant article talk pages with the aim to achieve WP:Consensus using whatever forms of dispute resolution may be needed, none of which should involve ANI. Nil Einne (talk) 04:29, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Hi, the article Nigeria Prizes for Science and Literature used to look like this. It's a combo of two related prizes, The Nigeria Prize for Science and The Nigeria Prize for Literature. User:Ammarpad has chosen to split it into two articles Nigeria Prize for Science and Nigeria Prize for Literature and delete the former article by way of a page move. I asked to discuss and/or use Drafts as I disagree this prize needs two articles for various reasons. However they ignored the discussion and reverted back to the split: revert 1 and revert 2 breaking the WP:BRD cycle. I'm asking for help because the editor is not interested in discussing and it seems like the right course of action would to be to restore the original article, create Drafts of the proposed split (the current split articles are not complete and contain problems) and start a discussion on the talk page before making the split given that it is controversial. -- GreenC 20:10, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    I never said I did not want discuss, so I don't know where you got that. Also I got this ANI notification while I was drafting response to your comment which is not true. You reverted to your preferred style immediately after you posted at my talkpage before I can even be able to see it, and now without any discussion within minutes you post here saying I didn't follow WP:BRD. Honestly I don't know what you mean –Ammarpad (talk) 20:20, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I just want to say that when/if this discussion goes to the talkpage for an RFC, I will vote in support on splitting the prizes. If we look at this in a strict mode, there is no award registered as Nigeria Prizes for Science and Literature. Encyclopedically, that could include other scientific and literature prizes in Nigeria. What is written in the official site for the awards is Nigeria Prize for Science and The Nigeria Prize for Literature, It also makes more sense for them to be separate as a scientific writer is different from a literary one. This is not a comment on the processes the led to the ANI though. HandsomeBoy (talk) 20:33, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    The problem is the science prize will not pass WP:NOTE or WP:AFD. Without a combination it is hard to justify a standalone article. Both prizes are run by the same organization they are not really separate at an organizational level. -- GreenC 20:48, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    That is not a problem. If it cannot pass AFD, then it is not notable and should be deleted. –Ammarpad (talk) 20:54, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    That makes no sense and fails WP:PRESERVE. There can be a place for this award on Wikipedia. -- GreenC 20:59, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    It makes sense. It already has a place –Ammarpad (talk) 21:09, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    If it is not notable, it should be merged. But we are not certain if it won't be notable. HandsomeBoy (talk) 21:01, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @HB: They are both notable individually, they are distinct and have plethora of sources for expansion (I have saved up to 20 news reports and analyses on that and intend to expand them) especially criticism of the years they're not awarded and total restructuring of the Science award which make it even more distinct. I responded to him that way, perhaps he have confidence it will be deleted so he can nominate it for AfD, even me I don't support keeping non notable stuff whatever they are –Ammarpad (talk) 21:17, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with you, the prizes are huge. The first time I heard of it was when it was being analyzed on radio some years ago. They definitely deserve standalone articles. They are the first of its kind in Nigeria. I'm happy with the innovation by its creators and sponsors.HandsomeBoy (talk) 21:31, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, Nigeria Prize for Literature was never article before, it was redirect to combined page when the prize was not so influential. So I never delete any article as you accused me here. I don't even have access to do that. –Ammarpad (talk) 20:31, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @HandsomeBoy: Not only that, they are separate prizes, they are awarded different time, different place, they just share name and sponsor. Moreover, although the cash reward is the same, over time, that for Literature gained more prominence as you can see by simple search. Moreover it is now the richest literary award on whole African continent, imagine to say it cannot have standalone page. See Category: literary awards where minor awards as per as $1000 have their own standalone page. I just don't know what he mean, as it seems, he is not even confident in himself that they can't have separate page, just he want me to use draft first which if he had checked well, he will know that I first drafted it in draft and later move it to redirect page, not any page as he alleged. The draft redirect is still there, this is not something hard to find. He just started this thread barely a hour after notifying me and few minutes after I log in, before I even be able to give him meaningful response–Ammarpad (talk) 20:40, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    That is what I am saying. They are separate. I was just trying to explain that even NLNG uses "and" whenever they want to mention them in a sentence. Not sure if I can remember my parts of speech well, but there is a type of noun used for proper legitimate titles, "Nigeria Prizes for Science and Literature" is not a perfect example of that noun, so we shouldn't forcefully make it an article title.HandsomeBoy (talk) 20:52, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    They aren't really separate though the URL says http://www.nlng.com/Our-CSR/Pages/The-Nigeria-Prizes.aspx ("The Nigeria Prizes"). Lots of awards have separate prizes under the same award, where award is the legal body. Both share the same official webpage. -- GreenC 21:04, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    What a contradiction! So you quoted their website where they confirm they are separate prizes but you want them merged as you preferred! Apart from all the media reports I read never mixed them; see this category Category:Aurealis Awards, where not only they separate awards which are broadly and naturally different (Arts and Science) but every genre has its own standalone page. And the top award is no more prestigious than this–Ammarpad (talk) 21:23, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    ... so, now that discussion has started, wouldn't it be better to continue at the article's talk page? –FlyingAce✈hello 23:20, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

    User:Flyer22 Reborn

    Let's not turn a straightforward issue that was solved 2 minutes after posting (and solved again 7 minutes after posting) into unending sniping between old foes. Sebastian, put Flyer 22 on mute. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:33, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Hi. This wasn't supposed to be a big deal, but still Flyer22 Reborn acts rudely. When I made an edit on Draft:Star Wars The Last Jedi audience response, my edit was reverted with an edit summary. I saw that I was wrong, so I moved on. A while later, I got a notification from Flyer22 Reborn, who pinged my nick in a message on the draft talk. They were mostly talking about something else, and the prolem was fixed. So, I notified Flyer22 Reborn on their talk message to not ping me. He replied and pinged me again with a message that starts with "...at the risk of subjecting myself to your wrath,...". I was done with them, so I, again, sent a message to not ping me again, which I found very discomforting. He replied and accused me with being some kind of a puppeteer by stating: "...unless, of course, you edited Wikipedia as a different account and I offended you in that way...". I was disturbed so I changed my preferences because of them, and sent a message to let them know and to move on, to mind their business. They replied with an unkind manner, telling me what to do by moving "the hell on". They claimed that I was "harrasing" them. So, I came here to report my "silliness", and I want them to take a necessary warning. Thank you! Sebastian James (talk) 20:55, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    While I welcome the information, really, if an editor doesn't want you to ping them, don't ping them. It's not asking THAT much and Flyer comes off as childish here. No comment on James' behavior, I haven't looked that heavily at it. --Tarage (talk) 21:04, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, of course, your opinion is soooo unbiased. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:38, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    If someone asks you to stop pinging them, you stop pinging them. Flyer, please respect other people's wishes. --Tarage (talk) 21:01, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Also you HAVE to notify people when you talk about then in ANI. I'll go ahead and do it for you... --Tarage (talk) 21:02, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Sighs. Like I told Sebastian James on my talk page, "WP:Pings are used for communication and collaboration and that includes explaining why you were reverted on this matter. They can save one having to go to an editor's talk page, prevent miscommunication and WP:Edit warring. If you do not want to be pinged, I suggest you disable your WP:Ping option."
    There is no valid reason to state that an editor should not ping another when the other has left a post on that editor's talk page, as if the poster is supposed to get the last word and explain their point of view and the other editor is not supposed to do that. Sebastian James fails to realize that Wikipedia is a collaborative community and that editors will be pinging him unless he disables that function. There is nothing at all to support his demand that I do not ping him on my talk page to reply to him. He should not have pestered me with his complaint in the first place. He should have moved on. His demand is akin to stating editors should not post on his talk page when an issue arises, and that type of thing never works out on this site. I note on my talk page that I would rather editors not post on it unless necessary, but I realize that editors will post on it for important issues. I also ask that editors do not ping me when I am already watching an article, but I do not ask that editors never ping me. If I wanted that, I would simply disable the pinging option. I could see not pinging Sebastian James if we had past tempestuous history and/or if there was an issue of me trying to harass him, but that is not case. I pinged him once on a draft talk page about an edit he made. Then he came to my talk page demanding that I don't ping him, and asserted that I alone should never ping him. If editors want to entertain this silliness, be my guest. But I will not. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:22, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    You pinged him in every single reply you made. Clearly he is watching the page if he's posting on your talk page. You don't find that the least bit petty? Grow up. --Tarage (talk) 21:26, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Like I stated on my talk page, you are not an unbiased commentator on this matter. And there is no "clearly he is watching the page if he's posting on [my] talk page." All his replies indicate is that he read my message due to me pinging him. You are blowing this matter up for no solid reason at all. Growing up includes not using a dispute between two editors to continue a grudge against another. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:38, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Also I like how you flat out ignored Floquenbeam's statement that you needed to stop. --Tarage (talk) 21:27, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Not at all. I have not pinged him again. And Floquenbeam was quick to note, like I noted, that Sebastian James can turn the ping option off. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:38, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    BLP concerns on school article talk page

    See content at Talk:Hamilton High School (Chandler, Arizona)#Coming Down The Pipeline by AZOperator (talk · contribs) ... specifically the statements "is a controversial attorney"; "are looking for headlines", and "is looking for anyway out of spending his adult life in jail" (I have intentionally avoided copying individual names to this page, but they are listed on that talk page).

    I considered reverting and revdel the post myself; but would like to request additional review due to the user's failure to recognize their own repeated policy violations that resulted in the prior block I had given them (see here and here, as well as the prior ANI discussion). The user has also had comparable issues at WikiNews project. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 21:30, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    I removed that section, but didn't revdel. I don't have any good sense of what further action is required. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:36, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Not sure any additional action (besides eyes on the article and talk page) are needed at this time. But, given how the user is attempting to portray actions of John from Idegon as a personal issue,[53] I thought it best to have a different admin than myself review/resolve the current concern was the best way to avoid any further mistaken impressions. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 21:56, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    And so it begins, John complains about me and like blinders no one has the ethical capacity to look at every angle. The whole, he did first and that negates my actions somehow justifies it - is very interesting. AZOperator (talk) 22:26, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Also if you actually look at the Wikinews discussion, they said my "sandboxed" content was clearly news which should be followed, but they lacked the editorial tools to go through the massive amount of information for verification. There was no reprimand, that was a incompatibility issue and was dealt with no penalties - no hard feelings on any side. AZOperator (talk) 23:06, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    AZOperator The 'Coming down the pipeline' comment has been correctly removed by admin SarekOfVulcan as a BLP violation, and it would indeed probably be best revdel'd. Wikinews has got nothing to do with Wikipedia, it's a totally different WMF project and citing it is simply a red herring and wasting our time. Those of us who have worked regularly for years to maintian the WP:WPSC project have always maintained that Wikipedia school articles shoud be neutral, devoid of of both propmotional and negative WP:UNDUE content and should strictly only mention the names of people who are deemed notable by Wikipedia standards (WP:BLP, WP:LISTPEOPLE etc.). Just because things can be sourced does not mean thjey have to be included: WP:COAT.
    There has been a recent spate of editors with a single agenda to add 'controversy' sections to school articles. It needs to be made clear that the Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a Good (or bad) Schools Guide. That said, all this is a content issue and as Barek sugests, ANI might not be the best venue or it. I have every confidence that John from Idegon does a correct job of looking after the school Schools project as one of its trusted coordinators, and that if he often returns to the same articles, as I do, it's part of the work there. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk)
    In all fairness to AZOperator, I'm the one who first mentioned WikiNews, and they responded to that. As you point out, it's a separate project - and while I have a different interpretation of events there, I should have just left that comment off my initial post. I apologize for the tangent, and am willing to strike it if that simplifies the main point of this thread (ie: the BLP concerns on the post that has now been removed from the article talk page). --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 02:46, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    With that BLP concern now removed; what remains now returns to being a content dispute - so I support just closing this thread so discussion can return to there. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 02:48, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hamilton_High_School_(Chandler,_Arizona)&diff=820061546&oldid=820056915

    Probable sock

    ItsBlockingTime. - The Bushranger One ping only 01:44, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

    User:MTNbw is harassing Montanabw and SlimVirgin. They are probably a sock of User:ItsLassieTime, who has been creating new accounts threatening various editors lately. White Arabian Filly Neigh 22:43, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    That account was already blocked –Ammarpad (talk) 22:50, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I just noticed that. I had only looked at the userpage and the block was on the talk page. Sorry. White Arabian Filly Neigh 22:53, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Is that ILT, for real? Holy moly. If true, he's been at it for at least 9 years. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:38, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    "Extreme docufiction"

    A few days ago, I removed sections on "hybrid pictures" and "extreme docufiction" from the article on docufiction, on the grounds that the content was poorly written (sample text: "On the other hand, persons playing their own roles in real life and in real time is another that gave basement to it.") and difficult to parse exactly what it was trying to say — and, in fact, it appears to be edging into an original research essay, as its content isn't actually supported by its sources. For example, the sentence "The stories these adventurers tell about such encounters are cryptic and highlight an uncomfortable paradox that haunts them all in different ways" was sourced to this very basic "filmmaking 101" definition of the difference between script-based feature film and documentary film which says nothing about adventurers being cryptic or paradoxical or haunted, or anything else whatsoever about the concept of films that blend documentary with fictional elements. None of the other sources were any better at actually reflecting the statements being sourced to them either, so I simply removed the section.

    But a few days later, the section's original author Tertulius challenged me on the article's talk page, making the questionable claim that his addition was itself responsible for a manifold increase in the page's popularity and demanding that I reconsider my decision and "find a reasonable solution" (by which presumably he meant "leave me alone to do whatever the hell I want", because there's no "reasonable solution" other than deletion, to a poorly written section that isn't actually supported by its references), before readding it to the article himself. He added one new source this time that wasn't present in their prior version, but it still doesn't actually support any of the content either — nowhere in that entire document (an academic thesis) does its author define any such thing as "extreme docufiction" whatsoever. And if I try to Google the phrase "extreme docufiction" to look for other sources, it literally exists nowhere but Wikipedia and its mirrors. Simply put, it's either an outright hoax or Tertulius' own new original research theory that he's trying to use Wikipedia to advance — it is simply not a recognized thing that real-world sources discuss at all.

    This has happened on at least two prior occasions, further: a few weeks after Tertulius first added it in 2015, an anonymous IP removed it on the grounds that it was incoherent and horribly worded, following which Tertulius readded it again in early 2016, and then just a few months ago Beland removed it on the grounds that it has an inappropriate tone, following which Tertulius again readded it himself. There seem to be some real ownership issues here, in that Tertulius seems to be unwilling to discuss anybody's concerns about the content's suitability for Wikipedia — on two of the three occasions that it's been removed, he simply restored it without any discussion at all, and on the third he just asserted without any real evidence that the content was "popular" and then readded it again. But if he restores it again, I'm not going to be able to revert him without tripping the WP:3RR wire, so I wanted to ask for some outside assistance. Bearcat (talk) 23:37, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Bearcat - I agree that the sentences you quoted at the beginning of your discussion statement are grammatically poor and need clarity or improvement to reflect their intended assertions. Someone who refutes your removal of poorly worded content because they're not fond of it isn't valid - sure, they attempted to add sources, but if they don't reflect the content in the article, then it's useless... I'm reading into this more and will update afterwards. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 07:47, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    WP:SPA evading block via an IP

    Done. Maybe Aaroncmusic should be blocked for longer if this continues. Drmies (talk) 02:55, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

    I reported Aaroncmusic (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) at WP:EWN for repeatedly adding content about a non-noteworthy cover at Toxic (song), which seems to be the account's only purpose. They were blocked 24 hours by NeilN but are now using an IP, 192.154.116.202 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) to evade the block [54]. Therefore, I'm requesting a temporary block for the IP and a longer or indefinite block on the account, as they won't take no for an answer. Home Lander (talk) 00:08, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

    User:Keith-264

    I hate WP:Dramaboard, but when things come this far... User cited above has:

    1. Modified other's comments on talk pages without their approval, and then attempted to claim the now "modified" comment as their own. [55] [56] This is in clear violation of WP:TPO

    2. When faced with a request not to do so, reverts and claims "vandalism". [57] [58] This probably borders on a violation of WP:3RR or at least breaches the spirit of that policy.

    3. Instead of moving on and trying to participate in the subsequent constructive discussion Talk:Fifth_Battle_of_Yores#Fifth Ypres, user simply keeps reverting and reinserting his modifications. This shows at least a lack of understanding of WP:BRD.

    4. This, in addition to an ambiguous attitude (akin to filibustering) towards a (earlier, unresolved) content dispute, often making slightly annoying remarks, dismissing whole paragraphs with detailed explanations as "spurious" and trying to impose a point of view which does not appear to be consensus. [59] 198.84.253.202 (talk) 03:07, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm very confused about number 1 and looking at the edit history doesn't help things. Am I right that this dispute started because Keith-264 moved an IP's (I think you) comment from their talk page to the article talk page and noted they'd done so with a brief unsigned notice before the comment which amongst other things said "in error", and the dispute then started because said IP insisted that the note should be modified and you both then edit warred over it for ages with Keith-264 eventually trying to take over your comment after you tried to delete it?

    If so, I would call for a major sharking (I don't think a trout is big enough) on both sides.

    First it's generally accepted that if some leaves a clearly delineated notice before the comment when moving it, even if unsigned, it's obvious this is not part of the signed comment any more than the header is so it's not considered modifying the comment, meaning you had no real reason to modify it. If you felt so strongly about the note, a simply comment below mentioning the note was not part of your comment (unnecessary) and mentioning that it was not posted 'in error' (which I guess is your major objection) would have sufficed. That said, once you objected and modified the note and since it was unsigned, Keith-264 should not have edit warred to restore the original note. Although since there was no real reason for the edit in the first place, there was also no reason for you to edit war to your modified note either.

    As for later claiming the comment, technically per the licence terms they are allowed to do that even if it is weird. However they should remove the signature completely and mention below in a signed post that the comment was originally posted by someone else who wishes it to be deleted so they're now claiming and signing the comment as their own.

    I would put Keith-264 a bit more in the wrong but unless I've missed something the dispute is so silly that I still think we need a major sharking. I don't know if there's anything in 2-4, for me this is a classic case of one (first in this case) of the complaints is so silly that I didn't see any point looking at the rest.

    Nil Einne (talk) 06:16, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    • I deleted a comment by another editor on my talkpage and added a comment on the article talk page with a note, the whole signed thus ,nowiki>Keith-264 (talk) 09:27, 13 January 2018 (UTC)</nowiki> It was my comment, which is why I signed it and added a gloss to explain why. Another editor has taken exception to this, claimed ownership of my edit on the article talk page and vandalised the edit several times, which is why I s-/s his signing. Quite3 why anyone thinks that I didn't sign 'my edit on the article talk page I don't know. PS what is a sharking? Regards Keith-264 (talk) 09:27, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Article WUWN and user Famous54

    Please could someone who carries more authority than I do explain to Famous54 the error of his ways? Philip Trueman (talk) 04:32, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Error of what ways? Without diffs, we have no way of knowing what, exactly, is being asked here. - The Bushranger One ping only 04:56, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Umm, like every diff (so far) in his contribution history, which I linked to? Philip Trueman (talk) 05:03, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Template hijacking

    A template (not sure which one) has been vandalized to redirect clicks anywhere on certain article pages that use it to a Youtube live feed ([60]). One of the affected articles is Barack Obama. To demonstrate the issue, navigate to that page, then attempt to click on any blue link (or even in the white space of the page, as the exploit actually uses a transparent overlay). General Ization Talk 04:34, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    I can't seem to reproduce it on mobile ... maybe fixed already? Or just not working on my browser? --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 04:40, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Apparently not working on your mobile browser. General Ization Talk 04:41, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Doesn't work on my desktop either.
     — Berean Hunter (talk) 04:42, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    This was fixed; see the VPT thread. {{Excessive citations inline}} had a overlay element added to it. Enterprisey (talk!) 04:47, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Apparently fixed now -- either undone by the initiator of the hijacking or corrected by someone else. General Ization Talk 04:44, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    See my recent contribs. -- zzuuzz (talk) 04:45, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I have seen this same exploit before (redirecting clicks, as I recall, to the same webcast). I won't say more because last time it was all revdel'd so as not to give anyone ideas (WP:BEANS). General Ization Talk 04:46, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Spam blacklisted. SQLQuery me! 04:46, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I noticed a few templates in my watchlist getting protected the other day; apparently this process needs to be speeded up. - The Bushranger One ping only 04:55, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    One of these templates had 8 transclusions. Whatever standards are applied, a template like that is probably not going to be automatically protected, and even if it was there'll probably appear an autoconfirmed sock. However feel free to join the discussion at WP:VPR. -- zzuuzz (talk) 05:02, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Akhiljaxxn

    Warned him before[61][62] that if he continues his disruption he will be taken to ANI and it seems that he wishes to continue it. One can agree that he speaks very bad English, and he claims on his userpage that he is "a native speaker of the English language".[63] There are many competence issues. He has been disrupting the articles about Michael Jackson, sometimes creating WP:POVFORKs by violating WP:COPYVIO,[64][65] and removing what he believes to be negative against Michael Jackson.[66][67]

    He was blocked months ago for sockpuppetry[68] and recruiting people from social networking sites to help him on-wiki,[69] but he made his way by "canvassing different admins via email",[70] with one admin that he canvassed from Malayalam Wikipedia would assure that the user will "be carefull editing articles".[71]

    During debates, he usually posts his opinions and turns talk pages into WP:FORUM.[72][73] Also prefers to edit war about the things where no one else would ever agree with him and he reverts[74][75] until there are multiple editors to revert him. (also see last two diffs of first paragraph) Also contrary to WP:BRD, he will never start the discussion on talk page.

    And I have just checked that he reverted one of recent my edit, calling it a "rv possible vandaliam"[76], contrary to WP:NOTVAND, and has been warned about that before as well."possible_vandalism?" I believe that a block or any kind of other sanction for this disruption is warranted. Excelse (talk) 05:11, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    It appears that most of the diffs are several months old. Besides reverting one of your edits, what has Akhiljaxxn done recently that you feel deserves a block? Billhpike (talk) 05:39, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah. I agree the editor should not have called your edit vandalism but it seems unlikely it's enough to warrant sanction due to months old misbehaviour in different areas. Nil Einne (talk) 07:13, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Fegut is NOTHERE

    Trolls gonna troll, admins gonna block. - The Bushranger One ping only 07:12, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Requesting an indef NOTHERE block for Fegut. All edits thus far are questionable at best. User page is trollish. Noticed user by this edit

    Main problem edits, changes in bold:

    EvergreenFir (talk) 06:38, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

     Done. El_C 07:09, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

    User:Dilpa kaur

    Could an admin take a look at the contribs of this WP:SPA account, especially these diffs here which clearly show that this account is engaged in meat puppetry. —MBL Talk 08:06, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes it's a disruptive meat puppet. See [77] filed a report just after JosephusOfJerusalem (another SPA) had his report rejected.[78] On report he writes, "Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:Arbitration enforcement log#India-Pakistan_2: A civility restriction. Any suggestion that any editor is not editing in good faith will lead to an immediate block."[79] Same green font and sentence that JosephusOfJerusalem had applied, "Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:Arbitration enforcement log#India-Pakistan_2: A civility restriction. Any suggestion that any editor is not editing in good faith will lead to an immediate block."[80]
    Few things are clear here, they both are obsessively trying hard to get me blocked/banned, and using same templates/style/words and they are edit warring in tandem. Such deception needs to be dealt with indef block, because these accounts are WP:NOTHERE, all they care about is their disruptive ethnic agenda. Anmolbhat (talk) 08:34, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @MBlaze Lightning and Anmolbhat:--Hmm..Some similarity at the AE report but I ain't seeing much meat-puppetryin light of Ammarpad's evidence, the overlap looks to be strong except the hazy overlaps which is not uncommon, given the highly polarised editing atmosphere at your main-space overlaps with Dilpa.You can file a detailed SPI report, including relevant diffs etc.And, Anmol, it's best to comment on content and not on contributors, at article talk-pages.Winged BladesGodric 08:42, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @WBG: I don't think it is ripe for SPI but I believe the above report is beyond talkpage comments. Do you think this is also mere happenstance? Dilpa kaur (talk · contribs) removed content with claim of MOS violation. Reverted by Raymond3023. See the next edit –Ammarpad (talk) 09:01, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I ran Interwine but missed the diff.Thanks:)Winged BladesGodric 09:07, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Saving a template from the preceding report, working on it when the reported person displays more bad behaviour, as is the case here with Anmolbhat, is not meatpuppetry. Your other diffs [81] are a misrepresentation, sometimes i struggle with making my pre-planned edits on my mobile because it gets frozen and goes haywire and copying from my phone notes and pasting and saving becomes a hassle. This[82] was a temporary notice on my part on the page to underline the issues with the text I was trying to remove, until I could fix the text properly when my phone improved, which I did within 5 minutes[83]. This seems like a detraction from the current AE case against MBlaze Lightning's friend Anmolbhat who has just broken the civility restriction. My guess is that when I by mistake pasted my report on Anmolbhat by mistake in the wrong place and came back to insert it in the right place later, during that time MBlaze Lightning started planning a diversion from the AE case against Anmolbhat. What should be looked into is the long-term tag-teaming between MBlaze Lightning, Anmolbhat, Capitals00, Kautilya and some others. Dilpa kaur (talk) 09:42, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    You can make up whatever you want to but we have already understood that you and other disruptive SPAs are meat puppets, with nothing to do here except edit warring in tandem and pushing your disruptive ethnic agenda. According to you, we should investigate long term editors like Mblaze, Kautilya3, Capitals00 so that your meat puppetry can be justified. You make no sense. Anmolbhat (talk) 10:10, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Just a comment from somebody who has closely watched this go down for the last few weeks but has mostly been a bystander. I have not directly interacted with Dilpa kaur (talk · contribs) or JosephusOfJerusalem (talk · contribs) but have noticed their edits and their editing behavior so far has not been typical of a Wikipedia editor and raised some doubts in my mind. There was a RfC at Talk:Kashmir conflict recently and there seemed to be a Wikipedia:Vote stacking on that page. Now this might seem typical of India-Pakistan pages given the different views. But quite a bit of editors participated in that RfC with little or no edits on the actual page. What was even more concerning was the fact that many of these editors had been dormant for quite some time before the RfC, commented on the RfC and went back to their dormant selves. This behavior clubbed with the behavior on recent articles like Kashmiris, Exodus of Kashmiri Hindus, 1947 Poonch Rebellion, Violence against women during the partition of India is concerning. In these cases editors have been recently created (past 1-2 months) accounts who have very little editing history on Wikipedia and most of it resolves around a limited set (4-5) of India-Pakistan pages and seems to be pushing a certain POV. An editor was recently blocked for a week for violating the 1RR block for their edits which they falsely claimed were copy-right violations. In my opinion, the administrators need to have a closer look at this since there seems to be something more than what meets the eye. Thanks. Adamgerber80 (talk) 10:28, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Need an admin to oversee an AfD case

    An editor has recently nominated List of 1971 box office number-one films in the United States for deletion on the grounds of the data being, well, complete bollocks. There are four editors involved in the discussion now and we have drawn to the conclusion the data is not just incorrect, but fabricated. It gets even worse. It affects the whole family of articles ranging from List of 1960 box office number-one films in the United States up to List of 1981 box office number-one films in the United States. The articles will probably have to be deleted or completely redone. The more troubling aspect is who is behind the fabrication. In every case Simpsonguy1987 created these articles and installed the data. There can be only two explanations: he copied the data from somewhere in good faith—but unfortunately did not provide a source—or even worse, he is behind the fabrication. I don't want to accuse an editor without evidence (at this point I hoping this is just a horrendous mistake) but the editor's talk page is littered with warnings addressing the lack of sourcing. I have asked him to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of 1971 box office number-one films in the United States so we can get our facts straight.

    I think at this point an admin should take charge of the investigation. We have 22 articles of fabricated data that are going to have to be deleted, and we need to get to the bottom of what has happened here. It is crucial that the editor behind this gets a fair hearing, but if this is the result of editor misconduct then it could affect many more articles. Betty Logan (talk) 12:36, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    • I noticed he is using boxofficemojo.com for sourcing on Chinese box office figures, which is owned by IMDB.com. I have some reservations about that as a WP:RS for box office figures. But regardless, an admin would only come into play if there is a behavioral issue. You could list all of them in a single AFD or on a RFC and get them nuked (which is a reasonable discussion to have), but the editor Simpsonguy1987 (who we are really talking about) isn't a heavy editor, and wasn't been notified of this discussion, something I fixed. We need some evidence of intentional wrong doing, WP:CIR or other policy violation before we start swinging the admin tools around. I completely get why you would at least be suspicious, but we need evidence first, and that doesn't require the admin tools. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 12:55, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=820175887"