Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

Sander.v.Ginkel

In the past, user:Sander.v.Ginkel was the subject to many discussions on this page due to his substandard work. See here, here, here, here and here.

Sander.v.Ginkel got an offer from a user:MFriedman to protect/improve articles something that made people unhappy. See also here. Still, MFriedman went on with moving articles back to main space from draft space, effectively circumventing/ignoring the clean up operation. So far, so good. And the name stuck in my memory.

Recently, Sander.v.Ginkel placed an article on the Dutch Wikipedia nl:Ilse Kamps. And out of the blue, after a 4.5 year hiatus, MFriedman showed up to vote for keeping the article due to the article being properly sourced. But MFriedman added these sources, after his vote. At that moment my alarm bells went off!
I requested a sockpuppet investigation and it came back positive. The Checkuser confirmed that Sander.v.Ginkel and MFriedman were identical.

So now we are confronted with a lot of articles that were never checked for the substandard editing of Sander.v.Ginkel moved back into main space by what turned out to be a sockpuppet of Sander.v.Ginkel, MFriedman. This is clearly misusing a sockpuppet to protect articles against thorough scrutiny.

What to do next? The Banner talk 15:55, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Checkuser needed I don't know what's the community consensus regarding accepting CU results on another wiki. If one of our checkusers confirms then I'm looking at indeffing both accounts. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:01, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Neil, the CU is stale as MFriedman has not edited on the English Wikipedia since February 2017. RickinBaltimore (talk) 16:15, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Exactly. At the moment, I wouldn't support a block for it would be against policy. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 16:22, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

(moved from AN) No need for an investigation. You can just ask me, and yes I'm using both accounts Sander.v.Ginkel and MFriedman. When the account Sander.v.Ginkel was blocked I used MFriedman, including review my own articles I created with. See that there are no main issues in the articles I reviewed and added references where needed. See as example here, here, here, here, here, here etc.. Sander.v.Ginkel ^(Talk) 16:22, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

I've blocked Sander.v.Ginkel for six months and the puppet account indefinitely. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:29, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

And how is Sander.v.Ginkel's block preventative in any way? Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 16:37, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

@Salvio giuliano: It prevents them from quite flagrantly violating basic policies whenever they feel like it. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:44, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

The thing is, the latest violation was one year ago. I agree that the sock could be blocked, but Sander's block to me seems punitive since it is so long after the fact. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 16:47, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

A year ago was when SvG also stopped editing before resuming this weekmonth. I do not believe he would have stopped socking had he not been caught last week on the Dutch Wikipedia. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:54, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Scores of his pages moved to Draft are coming up for WP:G13 after being tagged as promising drafts 6 months ago which lead to this discussion Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Draft:Pierre_Le_Roux Legacypac (talk) 16:25, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

• Back when this issue first came up there was pretty clear consensus to indef block this user. Unfortunately, that consensus was overruled in a pretty blatant supervote. If the views of the participants in that discussion had not been discarded and ignored on a whim, this ongoing disruption could have been avoided- as I said at the time. Reyk _YO! 16:34, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

• No issue with me if editors want to change my six month block into an indef. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:37, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Already requested a User_talk:Sander.v.Ginkel#February_2018 block review. My review is to indef. There are a lot of page moves that need to be checked again Special:Contributions/MFriedman Legacypac (talk) 17:10, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Some Wikipedians have already misjudged the likelihood that SvG would continue to be a problem editor. I think some editors have, in their misguided mercy, forgotten that WP:BLOCKDETERRENT is supposed to have deterrent value. If en-wiki is unwilling to halt the editing of problem editors, then it only encourages this sort of activity where crocodile-tears promises and the forgiveness of long-undetected misbehavior becomes the norm. Chris Troutman (talk) 18:01, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

• I've just noticed that MFriedman commented in the thread linked by Reyk above that somewhat swayed a few following comments! SvG claims he "wasn't aware how bad it is to use another account." It should be obvious that you shouldn't use an alternative account to support yourself. With this in mind, I'd support upgrading the block to indefinite. Mr Ernie (talk) 18:12, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

MFriedman discussed SvG as another person here [1] which is deceitful and suggestive we can't believe the statements in the unblock request either. It is pretty clear that their promotions of SvG pages back to mainspace were problematic from the talkpage. Legacypac (talk) 18:25, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

• Support indef- obviously. Reyk _YO! 19:32, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Having read through this past thread and noting SvG's assertion that he wasn't "aware how bad it is to use another account" [2] I believe more than ever that my six month block was justified. This isn't tripping over some Wikipedia policy, this is an indication of a lack of basic common sense and ethics. We cannot have an editor deficient in both areas editing freely here. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:34, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

• Is Beatley (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) likely to be another sock? Guy (Help!) 20:22, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

  I though Beatley is a confirmed sock of Slowking4.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:26, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, I just don't know Slowking4, I don't know if this could be one sockfarm. I guess not, though. Guy (Help!) 21:29, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

As I said in that original ANI thread, I'm shocked that someone who is meant to be submitting a Master's thesis has such a poor grasp of copyright. The debacle is further evidence that they do not belong here. Using another account to mark their own work as "no problem", despite the extensive issues found, is akin to submitting an exam paper and giving it full marks themselves. Support indefinite ban Blackmane (talk) 11:05, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

• Permaban. Now. I checked the stats: Pages created 37,054 of which 22,482 since deleted, I don't think I have ever seen an editor with that many deleted creations before - and then add the blatantly deceptive sockpuppetry. Guy (Help!) 23:03, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
• I think the consensus is clear; given the deceptive sockpuppetry after they were very lucky to get away without an indef ban last time, I have changed the block to an indefinite one. This is required in order to prevent further damage to the project by an individual who clearly does not see the need to follow our rules, and who cannot be trusted to conform to the expectations of the wider editing community. I haven't had time to consider the question of this user's articles yet, but I think that is a discussion that needs to be had separate to this block. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 00:09, 15 February 2018 (UTC).
• Indef block - I am not impressed in the least by the Wikilawyering/WP:BUROish arguments presented above. WP:IAR is clear: when a rule is preventing you from improving Wikipedia, ignore the rule. Well, the rules cited above which supposedly prevent the indeffing of SvG are standing in the way of the project being improving by removing from its midst a blatantly problematic editor, problematic both in their behavior and in their content output. Wikipedia will be improved by not having SvG around, so let's stop gnashing our teeth and worrying about technicalities and get rid of him. Let WP:COMMONSENSE reign. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:01, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

• Are we considering Lankiveil's block a community imposed sanction? That will affect the nature of any future appeals. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:17, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

• That is my view of it, although others may have alternative perspectives. Given that nobody has objected or done anything in the past few days since I made the block I think we could also consider it a de facto ban. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:06, 21 February 2018 (UTC).

• Cross-wiki activity - This user has been blocked on Commons per the above CU results, the user has uploaded on both accounts mentioned in an act of sockpuppetry, uploading dozens to hundreds of files as "own work" while attributing real Olympic photographers names as the author. His crosswiki activity supports the indef block as discussed above. These files are now being nuked. ~riley (talk) 07:03, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
• Support indef ban lots of disruption, lots of deception.. Galobtter (pingó mió) 15:39, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

The articles

I started G5ing the article, but looking at it again, that may not be what's needed. Many were moved back while SvG was not actually blocked, though he undoubtedly would have been if this had been spotted. If they had remained in Draft, most would long ago have qualified for G13 as very few had any substantive edits at all other than the SvG sock (a few bots and formatting edits, and almost none with any edits in the last 6 months). The issues that led tot he move to Draft have undoubtedly not been fixed in more than a tiny proportion of cases, since there have been few if any edits to any of them.

Should I leave them nuked, or restore and move them back to Draft? Guy (Help!) 20:41, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

I somehow thought that at some point I nuked all the articles which were left in the draft, there were around 5K of them. I am surprised that there are still any left. Is it clear what the origin of these drafts is? Were they moved out of the draft and then moved back? On an unrelated note, I do not see anything controversial with the deletions, but delinking the pages from Olympic-related pages might be not necessarily the best idea - all Olympians are notable, and redlinks are way more visible than black unlinked text. Also, if an article is created by a good faith user, it takes a bit of time to figure out where it should be linked from.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:00, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Created by SvG, moved to draft during cleanup, moved back by MFriedman with comments like "checked" or "no SvG issues". Guy (Help!) 21:26, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

I see. I would say then indefblock and mass deletion. This is clearly evasion of sanctions imposed by community on SvG.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:34, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

They shouldn't be unlinked. There are several prolific creators of Olympian biographies, and this adds a time-consuming additional step if/when they create these ones. —Xezbeth (talk) 22:00, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

OK. will bear that in mind. Thanks. Guy (Help!) 22:19, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Suck's that a nuke had to happen and olympic medal winner's like Alec Potts end up deleted but i guess it had too happen, feel sorry for the poor soul who has to clean up the nuke's results. GuzzyG (talk) 23:26, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

@GuzzyG: - I'm happy to (re)create a stub for any nuked Olympians. If you (or anyone else) wants any doing, drop me a note on my talkpage, or list them at WT:OLY. I'll do this one later at some point. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 09:16, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

• All to drafts I am absolutely not convinced, because I have dealt with a bunch of SvG articles and have not found a problem that cannot be corrected easily. SvG did a lot of gnomic legwork that helps the wikipedia project, mostly by creating stubs and basic information about subjects that are less exciting to most editors but notable enough to achieve WP:N. Below, I have gotten harangued by all number editors with generalized complaints, while when I deal with the specifics, I seem to be regarded as the problem. I was criticized for approving SvG articles (and subsequently improving upon his start up), because I have NOT deleted any SvG articles. That is backward logic, assuming there is a problem. You have a predetermined verdict and will not tolerate hearing opposition. If I can, and I have done so, make the article a viable subject for mainspace, what is the crime here? Admittedly, I've only dealt with a couple hundred SvG articles in my area of expertise. All useable. The above editors complain about the number of SvG articles that have been deleted. Those ARE THE SAME EDITORS WHO DELETED MANY OF THEM. They created their own excuse. At this point, I don't trust them. Bring all the previously deleted content to draft status. Let real editors, with knowledge in those subject areas, look at those articles and decide if it is useful or not. This will take time a lot of time. We do not need an artificial deadline. While in draft form, the public does not see this content. There are tens of thousands of articles. Each one needs attention from someone with a brain. Bulk deletion is mindless and destructive. Maybe, eventually, you will see the cumulative merit to SvG's work. Maybe I will eventually see something he did that was worthy of deletion. We aren't there yet. Trackinfo (talk) 18:42, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

I looked at this article. The version SvG moved into article space had four sentences, one of which was an obvious BLP violation [3] (admins only). How can they have missed this? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:36, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Between you and me, I don't think the sports fans necessarily look very hard - they are generally looking to have as many articles as possible, and any article that has superficial referenciness gets pretty much a free pass. Hence the massive problem with SvG. They mean well, but their inclusion standards are, IMO, well below the norm for Wikipedia. "Competed in X" suffices even if nobody wrote about the person in any way at all other than in the results table. Guy (Help!) 13:13, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Pageant fans have the same or bigger issues. High school students blessed with classicly attractive genes get articles - often with zero references - while we regularly reject pages on business people that spend years building up companies, employing thousands, creating new innovative products and driving the economy forward. Legacypac (talk) 17:50, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

I posted a list of SvG drafts tagged as "Promising Drafts" on User_talk:Legacypac#SvG. They have the same issues that the others do, and should be deleted. Legacypac (talk) 20:29, 15 February 2018 (UTC) (now resolved). Legacypac (talk) 17:50, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Sander v. Garfinkel

-EEng

• Are we done now? EEng 07:35, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

I don't see a list of Promising Drafts. Out of the thousands of articles deleted, none are promising? And EEng#s, that was an appropriate picture, right?

To the more important point above. Promising drafts, vs junk. You don't really know the difference, do you? I don't think the sports fans necessarily look very hard - they are generally looking to have as many articles as possible, and any article that has superficial referenciness gets pretty much a free pass. Hence the massive problem with SvG. They mean well, but their inclusion standards are, IMO, well below the norm for Wikipedia. "Competed in X" suffices even if nobody wrote about the person in any way at all other than in the results table. What that exhibits is a lack of respect for the content and thus the editors who created it. Just last night, I stumbled over one of those stub articles, not created by SvG, but a similar kind of "junk" stub. Its been around for over 5 years and looked like this. After I put a little effort in, it looks like this: Robert Poynter and transcludes in multiple places. This is what I refer to as the chain of knowledge. Nobody knows what lies behind each of these useless stubs until someone with a little knowledge about the subject applies themselves to editing it. It has to be there to be found. In our notability standards, we assume there is more of a backstory to all of the subjects achieving the standard. The above statement disrespects those standards. It is that same disrespect for our notability standards that leads to this thoughtless mass nuking of SvG content. Trackinfo (talk) 21:00, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

User:Sipos111 for WP:NOTHERE and WP:OUTING myself and Niteshift36

Sipos111 (talk · contribs) recently joined to push content related to the recent shooting in Florida. While I understand the wish to add recent content that doesn't excuse outing Wiki editors, myself and @Niteshift36: on an external website. [[4]] Here is where Sipos111 tells another editor that he is involved in the external posting. [[5]] Springee (talk) 22:23, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

That article is from April 2017 (10 months ago), doesn't appear to engage in WP:OUTING, and doesn't appear to be by Sipos111. power~enwiki (π, ν) 22:26, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

No outing here, and the majority of Sipos111's contributions have been constructive. - TNT^❤ 22:33, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

I missed the date. The new editor posted The link today and based on the accompanying statements I assumed it was recent. I would still be suspicious that a new editor would post such an article their first day here. Springee (talk) 22:39, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps - best if we just let them get on with contributing and see where that leads, at least for now? - TNT^❤ 22:41, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

I have no opinion on the outing, I didn't read the full article in the external link. However, based on Sipos111's behavior, I have to agree they are WP:NOT HERE to build an encyclopaedia. Rather, their only goal here seems to be pushing an anti-gun agenda. I've tried to advise them that WP is not a WP:SOAPBOX, but there may also be a WP:CIR competency issue. They don't appear interested (by their own comments) in learning WP P&G or contributing effectively. If all they want to do push an agenda and disrupt articles of sporting good manufacturers in pursuit of that agenda, then that makes them an SPA and we really consider the value of keeping their account active against the stability of the project. (my 0.02¢) - ^theWOLFchild 23:03, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

• It's not outing. However, it is a personal attack. I also wonder how the user found the article.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:22, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

• I suppose you were not able to answer your own question, Bbb. FYI, one of the things that the Lightbreather case taught me is that there is a TON of off-wiki collusion (NO COLLUSION NO COLLUSION HERE FOLKS NOTHING TO SEE), so I'm not surprised to see LB's musings pop up here. Also, well, a whole bunch of people got killed, and some are upset, including me. Drmies (talk) 00:53, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Agreed (mostly). ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 00:17, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

I must be missing the personal attack then - could someone point me to it? - TNT^❤ 00:30, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

I call it more "uncivil" in my opinion. Their messages here, here, and here make unfounded accusations of one's "agenda" and are indeed absolutely unnecessary and un-collaborative in nature. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 00:38, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Agree with that - TNT^❤ 00:41, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

• Sipos, make up your mind. If you want to get blocked and brag about it, just continue to do what you're doing. If you want to edit Wikipedia, get serious. Drmies (talk) 00:53, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Drmies - Regardless, I'm pretty much prepared to impose an indefinite topic ban on Sipos111 from anything related to firearm ownership on this project. This user's edits on this topic clearly show personal bias and POV-pushing, and it would benefit this topic area if this user were prohibited from participating there. This user has been alerted, and as far as I'm concerned - he's fair game to have editing restrictions imposed. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 12:30, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

• I believe that an indefinite block is warranted. It's clear that he was recruited by Lightbreather, to come to Wiki for the soul purpose of causing disruption and adding a political agenda. Please see https://twitter.com/Lightbreather?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor for more information.--RAF910 (talk) 19:07, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
  • I see Lighbreather retweeted Feinstein--good, Feinstein deserves a medal. I don't take the "recruiting" part very seriously, not until we have proof of collusion (I know how that sounds, haha). It's entirely possible that Sipos came here because of that, but that doesn't invalidate Sipos as an editor; we all came here one way or another. This is not leading to a block right now, but let's see how they continue. If they're fine, fine. Drmies (talk) 20:33, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

These responses left by the user here and here might be a sign that this user is reading the concerns expressed (either here or expressed to them directly) and might be taking it to heart and wising up. While this is nice to see, I would very much like to see Sipos111 respond here as well... ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:10, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi all - this has been an education. I honestly learned a lot about how this whole wikipedia thing works, which is fascinating. And ugly. I now understand a bit about why things areset up the way they are, and I can't say I could design better conventions, internal politics and power trips and ways to game the system included.

I'll freely admit I came here pissed off. I have two young kids, and when they start school they'll soon be going through active shooter drills. I can only hope that's the most my family ever feels as a result of this epidemic of mass shootings. And imagining what kids all over this country go through is a nightmare. This is going to happen again soon. Maybe today. Maybe next week. Nothing is happening to stop it. Gun manufacturers have an incredible amount of power in this situation. They could help. Instead, they give huge sums to the NRA, which is very effective at preventing any sensible gun legislation from getting through. And why would they help when gun sales jump after every mass shooting? I'd argue that if you're not pissed then something is wrong with you. It isn't right, and I don't think it has to be this way.

Personally, I think the standard set by the firearms group sets the bar for mention on the corporation's page way too high. If a corporation's product is used (to kill 17 human beings) in an event that is a national news story, then that seems worth mentioning on the corporation's page. If the event warrants its own wikipedia page, then connecting the corporation to the event seems appropriate. Mass shootings and other prominent usage (illegal or otherwise) of a coporation's products clearly have an impact on that corporation (e.g., negative publicity around illegal usage played a role in S&W rebranding itself), and understanding this can help wikipedia readers to understand the corporation and it's place in history. And mass shootings are an important fact of our modern history. As I've said, I don't have the time or the mental energy to be active on wikipedia. I'll leave it to you all to debate this, if anyone here cares to.

As most or all have figured out, I didn't write that lightbringer article, nor did anyone send me. I just googled the user who undid my changes, and I saw laid out in that article what appeared to be a clear pattern of biased edits in favor of gun manufacturers. I think there may very well be good faith intentions behind that activity (who knows? or maybe half of you are paid shills for corporations. Or maybe we're all just Russian trolls.) But I saw in this thread the suggestion that someone with a strong bias shouldn't be allowed to edit within a topic. Well, if the community actually cares about that, then I think the lightbringer article warrants more attention. Personally, I think you'll have a hard time finding anyone who doesn't have strong feelings about many of the articles they choose to edit, especially if the articles have any overlap with a political topic.

Thanks to all who offered me advice. And thank you all for your work on this project that is wikipedia.

Take care! Sipos111 (talk) 16:34, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

• Based on Bbb's comments, the diffs above, and Sipos111's own comments, it's very clear that Sipos has a strong agenda. Clearly not NPOV and should be no where near these articles. Regardless of whether they are truly leaving, or disbanding this account for a sock, a ban should be established.--v/r - TP 01:36, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

TParis - Well, since this topic is currently under discretionary sanctions, applying an article or topic ban only requires the action of an uninvolved administrator... ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 18:18, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Although I am not involved in this matter or the participants - many people would describe me as having a point of view that is incompatible with acting as an uninvolved administrator. While I disagree and believe that I have the objectivity to act fairly, there are plenty of available admins that it isn't justified for me to cause the drama that it would if I were to act.--v/r - TP 20:55, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Since no one seems to have mentioned just a reminder that if the external link really did contain outing, you should not have been publicly linking to it here without asking Niteshift36 first. (It's generally suggested you don't link pages which out you either since that effectively means discussing any info contained there here on wikipedia is no longer outing, but that's ultimately your choice.) Also as said the blog appears to belong to another editor, currently banned as result of an arbcom case. Note that you also need to take care not to out other editors, regardless of whether they may have outed you or others, by linking to their work elsewhere. It often doesn't matter even if they disclose who they are here on the other site or it's fairly obvious due to the same name, what matters is what they disclose here. However in this case it seems the blog is linked on meta Meta:User:Lightbreather (not sure about here), so that's probably not really a concern. Nil Einne (talk) 13:17, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

• I'll say little here except that I wouldn't exactly call this outing, although LB has a history of that with others. I've been aware of it since last year. While it may target me, it falls short of outing. As for the collusion, who recruited whom or how editors feel about the topic.... I'll leave that up to the rest of you. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:21, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Born2cycle

Born2cycle (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (B2C) clearly feels very passionately that the title of the article Sarah Jane Brown is incorrect, but I think he needs to be removed from the RM debate.

• [6] edit summary "Why is this so hard to understand?" is one of several asserting with varying degrees of stridency that Sarah Jane Brown is "NOT HER NAME" (it literally is)
• [7] edit summary "There is zero basis for using Sarah Jane Brown' as the title of this article" hypothesises "Sarah Jane Brown is not obviously her name. The reference from SnowFire shows that her name prior to marrying GB was Sarah Jane Macaulay - that is what is not in dispute, but this does not mean her name after marrying GB became Sarah Jane Brown. By ALL accounts, without exception, her name since her marriage has been and remains, simply Sarah Brown." This is a bizarre attempt to assert that, without any reliable source noting it, she dropped her middle name on marriage, which is not I believe permitted by Scottish law (or as B2C puts it, "British law", which of course does not exist as such).
• [8] edit summary "And the opinion expressed by reliable sources is the only one that matters here, not yours or mine." asserts that because most sources discussing Ms. Brown do nto feel the need to use her full name, thus it is misleading (explicitly and repeatedly stated as a theory by B2C throughout the debate) for us to do so, on the admittedly novel premise that it somehow falsely implies that this is how she is usually known. As if anybody is usually known by the disambiguated title we give them on Wikipedia. A newspaper can use a name that is unambiguous in context, even if globally ambiguous, we clearly can't, which is literally the entire point of the entire never-ending farrago.

Anyway, I think B2C is by now on a path to burnout and undoubtedly shedding way more heat than light on this.Others on the page are equally passionate without the same recourse to hyperbole, and the same need to reply to huge numbers of people. His point is made by now I'd say (including at least one point which is objectively false despite repetition and failure to strike) and does not require further reinforcement. This is very close to WP:CIR territory. Guy (Help!) 23:38, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Normally, an article is titled by the best known name of an individual. That's why we have an article on Jack Benny rather than on Benny Kubelsky. Still, it seems a strange thing for an editor to get so worked up about. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:26, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Yeah. Sarah Brown (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is taken. So this is about disambiguation, and has been going on for years. Guy (Help!) 17:10, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

• I see his sig "В²C" 79 times on that talk page (not counting hats). I see yours 47 times, although yours is in a lot of different places, for different reasons. Lots of talking "at" going on. If memory serves me right, renaming this article is a perennial topic. He does seem to be WP:Bludgeoning the discussion a bit, and catching some grief for it from all sides. I don't see enough that a single admin can block him and the article isn't under WP:DS so anything that went down would have to be a community decision. My preferred solution is for В²C to agree to avoid the RFC altogether until someone closes it. Seriously, by now, I think everyone already knows how he feels so continuing to beat the same horse seems pointless and begs for the community to topic ban him for a few months. One thing we WON'T do is discuss which name is best here at ANI... Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:38, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Most of my comments on that talk page are !votes in the RfC. No fewer than 22 titles have been listed, most of which have been soundly rejected in multiple prior RMs. That's half of all my comments there. About half the others are responses to direct or indirect questions (e.g. clarifying that, yes, Companies House is a reliable source, and the fact that there are two potential legal frameworks, which have subtly different methods for changing a name. And only one of us is asserting falsely that someone's legal name is not their name, or engaging in bizarre speculation about possible changes of name, with absolutely no actual evidence. That's the issue. There are plenty of argumentative types on that page, as expected given years of failed RMs, but one of them, B2C, is inserting bizarre conterfactuals. Guy (Help!) 17:09, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

• I suppose that, after this showed up at WP:CENT and User talk:Jimbo Wales, it was inevitable it would show up here as well. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:39, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I'm hearing the whirring of boomerangs. It seems to me that both of them could back away and let someone else fight this battle rather than bringing it here. Mangoe (talk) 14:28, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

That's strange: are you used to cheap knock-off boomerangs, the kind that fly in a straight line? Because, really, that's the only way your analogy really makes much sense. --Calton | Talk 17:46, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

• Holy shit, this again? I swear, the Sarah Jane Brown RM debate is like the zombie apocalypse of all RM debates. You cannot kill it; it just keeps coming back. 14 move discussions in 11 years; it's getting silly. --Jayron32 17:18, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Getting silly? I'd say we're well past getting. EEng 17:27, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Let's just change her name to Zarajanovic Braunislav and be done with it. Seriously, though, has anyone thought to contact the subject and ask what her preference is? Her response (if any) would need to be certified by OTRS, but maybe it would break the logjam. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:32, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

So do your duty! Grit your teeth, go to the current requested move and sprinkle brief support/oppose comments to taste. Uninvolved people are needed. (BMK: See "I wrote to Sarah, care of Gordon Brown, in June 2013. I received no response" at the link.) Johnuniq (talk) 23:36, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm not current on this person - is she still a principal in a PR firm? Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:38, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

• Frankly, B2C's comments there are approaching WP:CIR status. Are you ready for this? "Sarah Jane Brown is not obviously her name. The reference from SnowFire shows that her name prior to marrying GB was Sarah Jane Macaulay - that is what is not in dispute, but this does not mean her name after marrying GB became Sarah Jane Brown". Yes, that's seriously what he wrote. Black Kite (talk) 23:43, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

• Ha - I see that's been quoted above, but frankly it bears repeating as so utterly fucking ludicrous that a topic ban is the least of what we should be considering. Black Kite (talk) 23:45, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

• I'm not seeing what's ludicrous about it. Many women when they marry, keep their maiden names (as both of my wives did). Many women, when they marry, drop their middle name, but keep their maiden name as their middle name. Many women take their husband's name but also keep their maiden name becaause they are known by it professionally. My mother, when she married, dropped her first name (which she hated), and started using her middle name as her first name, and her Roman Catholic confirmation name as her middle name. There are many options available, at least here in the US, so unless there is something in English law that requires that a woman keep her middle name and drop her maiden name when she marries, I don't see where B2C's statement is incorrect. Would someone care to educate me? Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:04, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

• @Beyond My Ken: It's actually Scottish law (not English) that is relevant, and while I'm not very familiar with the latter I'm not aware of any prohibition on changing names in any of the ways you describe. However, culturally in the whole of Great Britain it is very unusual for anyone to change anything other than their surname at marriage so the burden of proof is on the person who is claiming that she did something other than that. This is also far, far from the first time that Born to Cycle has exhibited obsessive behaviour about page titles - see the history of Yogurt for just one example. Thryduulf (talk) 01:18, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Actually as far as I can see Scottish Law only allows for a change of surname on marriage. To change given names requires a separate process. Regardless, B2C's theory was pretty bizarre. Guy (Help!) 09:31, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

While you're at that, see User:Born2cycle/Yogurt Principle. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:34, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

• @Beyond My Ken: from beta.companieshouse.gov.uk: Sarah Jane Brown. That is her name. SarahSV ^(talk) 01:27, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

• Then why do the three charities the article says she's intimately connected with all use "Sarah Brown"? [9]. (Honest question.) You'd think they would know what she wants to be called. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:06, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

• Because that's her name. Her full name is Sarah Jane Brown. B2C is trying, ridiculously, to claim that when she married Brown her middle name mysteriously vanished. Black Kite (talk) 08:13, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
  • To be clear, it did disappear, in reliable secondary sources. Until the last few days, nobody in ten years of discussion on that talk page even produced a single primary source that used her middle name. In any case, her middle name is not widely (if at all) used in reliable secondary sources. Isn't that what our titles are supposed to reflect? In any case, is that such an unreasonable position for many (not just me) to take? --В²C ☎ 21:34, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

No, her middle name rarely, if ever, appeared in sources at all. That i the nature of middle names in the UK. They are used only in official records or where it is necessary to publicly disambiguate. In the same way, sources don't parenthetically reference the souse's name, the father's name, the year of birth or whatever, unless it is necessary in order to disambiguate. Exactly the same reason you use for rejecting her full legal name, applies to all the suggested alternatives. This has been pointed out to you, and yet you carry on. Which is why we are here: you are obsessive and you don't seem to care overmuch how you get the result you want. Guy (Help!) 19:23, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

I've not seen it mentioned above (apologies if I've missed it) but B2C was a party to the 2012 Article titles and capitalisation arbitration case, where he was the subject of a finding of fact "Born2cycle's editing on the disputed pages and related subjects has hampered efforts at resolution, specifically by excessive responses and not following the spirit of WP:BRD." and a remedy "Born2cycle is warned that his contributions to discussion must reflect a better receptiveness to compromise and a higher tolerance for the views of other editors." If there really has been no significant improvement in the intervening 6 years then I think it's time for a topic ban from the request moves process (indeed I have a feeling this has been proposed on more than one previous occasion but I can't immediately find where). Thryduulf (talk) 01:24, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm aware of B2C's background, and, believe me, I'm not taking a position on this based on B2C - if anything, I'd be inclined to disagree with anything he says. As I said on the talk page, I don't know Sarah Brown from Adam's Off Ox, and I have no dog in this race, but I'm getting at least a whiff of an impression that some people are fighting "Sarah Brown" not because of any particular evidence, but because B2C supports it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:10, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

It occurs to me that I really don't want to get any deeper into a dispute that has lasted over a decade, which I really don't care about, and in which there are obviously extremely entrenched positions, so I'm bowing out. Have fun! Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:12, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

• It's all explained. Preferring Sarah Jane Brown (the subject's full name) for the article title instead of Sarah Brown (wife of Gordon Brown) is "political correctness overriding usage in reliable sources"—see WT:Article titles#WP:COMMONNAME vs Political correctness. The conflict is due to the fact that several notable people are named Sarah Brown so that title is a DAB page. Johnuniq (talk) 09:22, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
• @Johnuniq and Beyond My Ken: I really don't care what the article is called, and this is not the venue to discuss it. What matters is whether B2C's behaviour is such that sanctions are required. The more I look at the behaviour and previous instances of the less justification I'm seeing for not topic banning him from all discussions about page titles. Thryduulf (talk) 10:52, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
• I've long felt that B2C's way of approaching article naming issues (doggedly insistent, dogmatic about his interpretation of guidelines, bordering on fanatic) often does more harm than good, and I'm sure I've said I'd support a topic ban on earlier occasions. And I'm saying this as somebody who has probably agreed with B2C as often as I've disagreed with him on on any particular issue we've crossed paths on, and as somebody who generally respects B2C's knowledge and command of policy in these questions. Unfortunately, a topic ban from naming discussions would pretty much mean a complete ban for this editor, since that seems to be the only thing he's interested in. Have we tried a quantitative restriction before? Like for instance: being restricted to one or two comments (of a given maximum length) per naming issue; banned from re-initiating new move requests on articles that have had RMs before...? Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:14, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose sanctions. B2C has put a lot of effort into a complex issue, and deserves credit for it. It's a tough question (disambiguation of the article title from "Sarah Brown" is necessary; the obvious one used by reliable sources seems sexist, while the other ones are rarely used) so some discussion is needed. While B2C may be getting a little heated, they haven't reached the level of needing to be sanctioned for it; they have made no personal attacks on the page, or even close to it, and neither are they monopolizing discussion, all voices are being heard. Note the original poster is the only to bold Vehemently in their opinions on the page, 8 times, and yet is complaining about B2Cs passionate feelings. I personally still think the best option is to write to the article subject and ask her politely to change her first name to Seraphina, to settle the issue ... once and for all! --GRuban (talk) 15:28, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

• disambiguation of the article title from "Sarah Brown" is necessary - I would think that absolute statements like this are the heart of the problem, particularly as many have opined that the current name, being her actual name, is just fine. ValarianB (talk) 16:06, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

• Er ... yes. You'll notice the current name is not "Sarah Brown"? --GRuban (talk) 21:16, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes. Did you have something resembling a point? --Calton | Talk 06:14, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

• I don't really know the background of this particular naming issue, although I'm aware of having seen it on this page before. I squared off with B2C a couple years back at Kim Davis (see all the RMs and MRs noted on that talk page) in which I described his approach as "drag[ging] it through as many venues as possible until enough people get tired of it that it looks like support for [his] position." At the time he maintained a list in his userspace of past move discussions where the right (in his opinion) thing was done only after discussions were re-hashed over and over again, essentially frustrating all of the opposition into conceding just so he would go away. While I do respect B2C's familiarity with the naming guidelines and have sought his opinion on unrelated matters even since the Kim Davis discussions (which I still describe as a clusterfuck) his approach to controversial discussions is quite poor. I also wouldn't want to see him banned from those discussions entirely, so if I were going to suggest a restriction it would be on posting move requests which have already been discussed say in the past two years, i.e. if there has been a move discussion on Sarah Jane Brown in the past two years, B2C may not start a new discussion. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:02, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

  I'd go with a topic ban that says he may not:

  • Start a requested move for any page that has had any move discussion in the past two years; and
  • Comment on a requested move discussion initiated within 3 months of a requested move discussion for the same page (at any title) in which he commented. This excludes relisted discussions and discussions reopened or restarted after a move review discussion.
  • Make more than three short comments in any single requested move discussion; after these they may make a maximum of 1 short reply per direct request for clarification or similar direct request.

  "Short" means not longer than approximately 150 words (excluding links that directly support the comment). Comments made on other pages and transcluded or linked to in a requested move discussion count towards this word limit.

  Relisting or reopening a discussion does not change the comment or word limits (i.e. it's 3 comments of up to ~150 words per discussion, not per listing).

  Violations would result in a complete topic ban from all requested move discussions, starting at say two weeks with a say 5th violation being indefinite. Violations of a complete topic ban will result in a block of up to the same duration as the ban violated (e.g. a violation of 3-week topic ban would mean a block of up to 3 weeks).

I don't claim these to be perfect, only a starter for discussion. An obvious question is should these limits also apply to move review discussions? Thryduulf (talk) 17:20, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Good question. I just took a read of his userpage based on comments above. He had noted the expiry date of the RM moratorium for this article: clearly it was a case of keep asking until you get the answer you want. He is proud of persisting for years with requests until they are "correct". His examples of great RM closes include moving Chelsea Manning back to Bradley Manning, and moving Westminster clock tower to Big Ben, which is categorically incorrect, as not ony has Big Ben has only ever been the bell, it's now officially the Elizabeth Tower. I think the fixation on moves, the America-centred worldview of some of his hit list, and absolutely never accepting the "wrong" answer, is a defining characteristic. Guy (Help!) 23:31, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

If anyone feels I'm in violation of any policies or guidelines in anything I do, please bring them up on my talk page. If we can't work them out, then we come here. Right? Isn't that how it's supposed to work? I don't understand why you're starting here. It doesn't feel nice, civil or welcoming to me. Yes, I have opinions. Yes, I'm open about how I think WP can be improved, especially in the area of titles. I explain in great length why I hold the opinions I do. I understand not everyone agrees. Of course. I'm also very open to criticism and suggestions for improvement. But I find this approach to go straight to AN/I to be very confrontational and feels like you're seeing and treating WP, or at least your approach with dealing with me, as a WP:BATTLEGROUND. I suggest that you review WP:DR for ideas on how better to deal with this situation, however you perceive it. Thanks. --В²C ☎ 00:34, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm not in favour of word limits, unless we're about to nominate a team of clerks to follow him around. I prefer that he may make one unrestricted comment in any requested move (including the nomination if he is the nominator) or move review, and reply to any question directly asked of him. And while he may not start a new move discussion within two years, he is free to comment if someone else does (under the same one-comment restriction). This allows B2C to give his input (which I think we all more or less agree is valuable) without bludgeoning the process (which is not valuable), and allows for cases where other editors besides B2C perceive a titling issue needing discussion, rather than discussions being repeated over and over again just because B2C didn't get the answer he liked the last time. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:05, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

The reason I stressed that the word limits were approximate was that I had no intention of them being applied strictly. The aim is to encourage concsision, with the requirement that they be "short", with 150 words being a very rough guide to what that means. There would be penalty for 153 words nor for 190 words but 300 would attract one. If others prefer 1 longer comment though then OK, but I don't support unrestricted without some way of avoiding gaming that by continually adding material to the single comment. 14:22, 22 February 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thryduulf (talk • contribs)

By "one unrestricted comment" I meant for that to be whatever he could say in a single edit, maybe excepting very basic copyediting or repairing obvious errors in his single comment or reply. Adding material to that single comment would violate the restriction. At any rate there doesn't seem to be any overwhelming desire for any action here. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:26, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Folks, short of notification about this discussion on AN/I, my user talk page is devoid of anyone approaching me about any issues with my behavior on Sarah Jane Brown, and I've been trying to help get a community consensus solution there for weeks. I started with a simple RM, was convinced by others that a multi-choice approach would work better, so I closed the first RM (per obvious consensus) and started the current multi-choice one, the format of which was altered by another editor, and which looked promising in terms of finally identify a consensus-supported title there. That said, I recognized I was no longer helping and backed off days ago, before this AN/I was even filed, as the history on that page shows. My specialty is title policy and especially resolving controversial RMs, all of which is explained on my user page and linked FAQ, which unfortunately leads to me being involved in many disagreements. I see a lot of familiar user names above - people who have disagreed with me in the past - not sure how fair it is to have them judge my behavior here, especially with nobody first trying to reach out to me on my user talk page. I understand people are frustrated about this, but the fact remains that there are large numbers of editors who are strongly opposed to the current title - it's clearly not a stable title supported by community consensus. If 10 years of controversy doesn't make that clear, I don't know what can. But right now what we need is ideally a panel of three unininvolved editors to review the lengthy discussion there and decide what title would work best. Thank you. --В²C ☎ 20:52, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

• В²C, for starters, you could read WP:BLUDGEON. Next, you could make a pledge to avoid that talk page completely until the RFC has completed. I think it is safe to say that everyone already knows your opinion on, well, everything, so a lack of participation on your part is not likely to prevent your opinions from being noted. If you made that pledge and lived up to it, sanctions would be moot. I've been debating stepping in unilaterally, so now is a good time to make that pledge. Finally, Guy, I wasn't trying to pick on you, just saying it was hard to tell by count of edits alone. You have been busy, but even I noticed it was all over the place. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:47, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Again, I had already chosen to stay away days before this AN/I was initiated, and have done so. That said, I still feel there is room for me to clarify my (updated) position about the dearth of reliable sources using her middle name since her marriage to GB (it turns out it's not zero after all but the first (AFAIK) source was brought to that talk page after 10 years of controversy just in the last few days), which is key to the opposition of the current title. Some people feel there is a big difference between zero vs one or two primary sources (still no usage of this name in reliable secondary sources as far as I know). However, if a pledge to avoid the talk page is really felt necessary I'm fine with it. It's not that important. So pledged. And I'll review BLUDGEON; thanks. --В²C ☎ 01:45, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
    • From the 2012 Article titles and capitalisation arbitration case: Born2cycle's editing on the disputed pages and related subjects has hampered efforts at resolution, specifically by excessive responses and not following the spirit of WP:BRD. You mean that wasn't a clue? --Calton | Talk 06:14, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
• I would support the kind of limited ban suggested by User:Thryduulf. If nothing else it's easier and less disruptive than having to repeatedly slog through pages of discussion and periodically place RM moratoriums on the affected pages. ~Awilley (talk) 04:37, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Question: Is there even such a thing as a "middle name" in Scottish law? Or English law, for that matter? Aren't we simply dealing with the rather common case of somebody making false assumption because of American cultural bias? As far as I can see, "Sarah" and "Jane" are both given names. Neither is a "middle name", a concept the Americans seem to have invented as late as the 19th century. --Hegvald (talk) 16:10, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

In the UK, most people have more than one given name, but they usually (tough by no means always) go by only the first of them. Full names are used on official documents, sometimes on bank cards, and rarely in informal speech. There are notable exceptions, such as John Mark Ainsley (top bloke), but for the most part only one given name is in everyday use. And, needless to say, parenthetical references to careers, years of birth, maiden names or spouses, not at all. B2C is demanding that because the real world does not solve Wikipedia's problem the exact way Wikipedia does, so Wikipedia must fix it in a different way that the real world doesn't. Guy (Help!) 19:30, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

• I am WP:INVOLVED in the debate over at that page, and there has been rather a lot said, but I don't think B2C has been at all unreasonable. They have made a case that the current name is not optimal, and been open to structuring the debate along lines most likely to see a good compromise. If anything, it's JzG who's come piling in with "vehement opposes" to reasonable positions, shouting on Jimbo's talk page about how exasperated they are about it all, and generally telling everyone around that we shouldn't be having the discussion. Now they've filed an ANI against B2C for having the temerity to start a move request on a subject which clearly divides opinion, to see if a broad consensus can be reached on a better title. I oppose any restriction, and WP:TROUT JzG for filing this, because it is a content dispute, not a behaviour issue. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 17:45, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

B2C does very little on Wikipedia other than obsessively pursue article renaming often over numerous requests spanning a decade or more. That's the issue. Guy (Help!) 19:30, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

So what? What you call "obsessively pursue article renaming" I see as "bravely pursue consensus-supported titles". As my user page declares, we all choose our roles on WP and I choose as my primary task the area of title stability. So I'm drawn to long-unresolved cases, and I try to figure how best to resolve them. In this case I started a few weeks ago by proposing what I thought was a neutral title that I thought had a good chance of being approved. Within a few days it was clear I was wrong, so I withdrew the RM, but the responses indicated that that "wife of" had more support than I had expected it would have, and support for the current title was limited to only one or two participants. So then I started the new multi-choice RM based on a table, another user proposed another format, and so it went. Regardless of the outcome, please be assured my only goal is to facilitate finding a title that is most agreeable to the community. If that turns out to be SJB, so be it. All I seek is a clear finding of consensus, or as much as is reasonably possible, for some title. Anyway, because of my focus I tend to get into content disputes, and a considerable numbers that disagree with me. You know, if you take a stand on an issue that initially has about half the community support and half the community opposing, you're likely to piss off a few. Hence the bravely part of what I do. Almost everyone commenting here is involved and in disagreement with me on this title, and really should recuse themselves for this AN/I. Anyway, regardless of whether Sarah and Jane are first and middle names, or two given names, she's virtually never referred to as Sarah Jane in reliable secondary sources. Perhaps never. She's essentially unknown and unrecognizable as "Sarah Jane". Using this in the title makes no sense and is misleading. This is why there is such strong opposition to the current title; surely this is understandable. As to the "wife of" disambiguation, this is how almost all reliable sources refer to her. It is a violation of WP:NPOV, a WP:PILLAR last I checked, to judge the title inappropriate without objective basis found in policy, guidelines or usage in sources. And I don't see any such basis in any of the objections to this title - I hope the closer takes this into account. --В²C ☎ 01:28, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

I think this makes sense. This is a volunteer project, and everyone is entitle to spend as much or as little time in any one area as they like. Some people do nothing but vandal fighting, others are WikiGnomes, and evidently B2C likes to spend his time in the WP:AT space. So do I, as it happens, alongside content creation and a few other things. Consistency and stability of titles is a worthwhile thing to pursue, and although B2C is much mocked for his "Yogurt principle", the actual thing it says about yogurt is totally true. After repeated move requests over many years, the article hit a stable title and nobody has ever proposed moving it again since. As a Brit, I would probably spell it yoghurt myself, but I can see the vailidity of its current place. We had the same thing over at New York (state), I don't see that ever going back to the primary topic again, even though it was there for 15+ years before the move. I think a stable title probably does exist for Sarah Brown too. I don't think it's the current one, which is why it comes up again and again, so its legitimate to work hard to try to find one that works for everyone. Something like Sarah Brown (born 1963) or Sarah Brown (nee Macaulay) may be such a stable title. If/when the current discussion closes as no consensus, it just means we'll all be back again in a year or two to resume the argument once again, as happened so often with yogurt and New York. Anyway, all that aside, I still do'nt see anything out of line in B2C's behaviour... we get that you don't want the RM at Sarah Brown to take place, but please do that by discussing the issue, not the person. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 15:26, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Historical vindictiveness against SvG

@JzG: used G5 to delete at least 4 articles:

• Aisha Praught-Leer · ( talk | logs | history | links | watch ) · [revisions]
• Alejandra Ortega · ( talk | logs | history | links | watch ) · [revisions]
• Alex Rose (athlete) · ( talk | logs | history | links | watch ) · [revisions]
• Cisiane Lopes · ( talk | logs | history | links | watch ) · [revisions]

These were created by User:Sander.v.Ginkel. I don't know how many others have suffered the same fate. Over a year ago, User talk:Aymatth2/SvG clean-up/Guidelines thousands of articles were slated for destruction. We were given only a few months to check and restore articles. I was one of several users involved in the checking process. In my specialty area, Athletics, our checklist was 100% checked or so we thought. That was a year ago. Obviously I am an involved editor, but there have been additional revelations to which I have not been a party of. With no notice, articles were deleted. From the story, truthful or not, a couple of the editors checking the articles were socks. But rather than turning the problem over to legitimate involved editors like @SFB: and myself, the content just disappeared. I've been trying to get it back for a week. JzG has evaded and hidden and done just about everything possible to avoid solving the problem he caused. No other administrator has been willing to step in to fix the problem. This is the oligarchy run amok. You will notice, two of these articles have been restored, by me. Those articles had been archived by the Wayback machine. You will notice that with the core starting information, those are now better than they started. In the process of restoring Cisiane Lopes, I discovered that in addition to the destruction of her article, almost all of her internal wikilinks had been manually deleted by JzG.[10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] This goes beyond deleting the article, this is deliberate sabotage to expunge this subject. It took a lot of work on JzG's part to do this sabotage. It made it considerably more difficult to relink this subject back into the wiki mainstream. In the process, it had to be apparent to any wiki editor with the intelligence of a rock that this subject would pass WP:NSPORTS whether it was created by SvG or another editor in the future. What was the goal here? Nothing JzG did was positive or helpful. Instead, it was deliberately harmful.

The two articles that have not been restored do not have an archive available. The only source for a jumping off point for those subjects exists in the content that JzG and all other administrators who work the Undeletion board are overtly refusing to take action on. I've been away for two days, nobody has lifted a finger in that time. Userfy. I will take it from there.

So I know I am fighting a losing battle by opposing one of the untouchable leadership, but I am doing what is right here. G5 should not have been used. JzG should not have done the sabotage. JzG should have responded to the requests to usurfy this content long ago. Whatever minor offense SvG committed, I have seen no evidence of it and I have looked at hundreds of his articles. But the decision to ban him has taken on a life of its own. JzG and other users should be prevented from using G5 or any other speedy functions to delete the content. Any content they deleted should be restored, at least to draft. If there is a problem with the content, we have a process to fix it, AfD. And even though you disagree with an idea, stop doing things in secrecy. You can see who are legitimate involved editors on a subject. Try notifying us. It takes a lot less work to find users like us than it does to find a coherent list of what has actually been deleted. I don't know how many other editors are involved in this content removal. Speaking for myself, if I know about a problem in my area of expertise, I will fix it. I don't really appreciate being used like a trained monkey to fix things, but my goal is to have good content. This secrecy, backroom conversations and speedy deletions are used strategically to evade people like me. The goal is to vindictively remove SvG content and the public be damned. Those users need to take a time out. Take a chill pill or whatever is a good retort. You have to remember what wikipedia is about. All this backroom crap is not it. We have a public face. Look there. Trackinfo (talk) 03:39, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

As the result of a community discussion, SvG was indeffed, so you're claiming that the community is vindicative concerning SvG? I'd rather say that its patience had been depleted. And what's with "cabal", "sabotage", "untouchable leadership", the demand for userfication, and so on? When you use language like that, I'm almost automatically inclined to reject your complaint as being extremely biased. I'm not sure if you haven't crossed the boundary of WP:NPA concerning JzG. Admins are answerable for their actions, but they are not required to put up with abuse such as you've just laid on him. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:54, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

No comment on the G5's but your statement "Whatever minor offense SvG committed, I have seen no evidence of it and I have looked at hundreds of his articles" makes me question your thoroughness. I looked at one SvG article (another editor brought up the deletion) and found an obvious BLP violation in the four sentence version SvG put into article space. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:56, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Not done in secret but in a discussion further up the page [17] Legacypac (talk) 03:57, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

I reviewed a bunch of SvG pages left in Draft and found them sourced extremely poorly and containing exactly the types of errors that lead to draftifying en mass. Better to start over - or for those obscure country handball players from 30 years ago no one knows anything meaningful about - don't recreate even if they were in some Olympic event. Legacypac (talk) 04:01, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

"Whatever minor offense SvG committed" Uh oh, check #Sander.v.Ginkel above and the block log. Is the OP suggesting that the indefinite block was for some minor offense, and now JzG is being vindictive? That is absurd so please reword to account for reality. Johnuniq (talk) 04:16, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

The "minor offense" is in fact getting caught for sockpuppetry at two different Wikipedias. The Banner talk 11:03, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

• I don't think I've ever heard of WP:ANI as being a backroom before. Blackmane (talk) 04:25, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

• Just think how much smoke would be generated by 7,328 people puffing on cigars as they make their deals! Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:39, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Quite the speakeasy! Blackmane (talk) 08:55, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Simply put, Delete is the LAST answer to a problem, not the first. All of SvG's athletics articles were checked by other editors, including SFB and myself. Some of those other editors turned out to be socks. Turn the articles back to draft and let legitimate editors have another shot at fixing a problem. I'm not hard to find. Delete, G5 without allowing usurfy, is effectively salting THE SUBJECT. SvG's work was sloppy, but it was the starting legwork to give other editors a place to hang additional information. I know Aisha Praught-Leer has been updated since SvG went away, so erasing that subject because SvG made the first edit is justified how? I believe I added to Alex Rose as well. So why is SvG's originating the article relevant now? Why punish us? Why punish the subject? Why punish the public by censoring legitimate content? The only explanation is your cumulative vindictiveness against what should be a historical wiki account who hasn't made a legitimate edit in well over a year. Trackinfo (talk) 06:10, 20 February 2018 (UTC) −

• We've had the mass deletions before, whether for sockpuppettry, suspected copyvio, or inaccurate translations. In each case a large number of articles were deleted which should not have been, despite efforts to save them. Certainly in such cases if an editor without involvement in the original situation and with a good record here has been willing to speak for or work on the articles, we have at least tried not to delete them, or at the very least have undeleted them on request. To insist on keeping them deleted by using speedy deletion over the objections of a respected editor is in my opinion not correct. (I have lists of a few dozen myself from such sweeps to restore that I have never been able to get to). Using G5 in a disputed situation is incorrect just as using any speedy in a disputed situation is incorrect.

The view that some of these articles are trivial and should therefore not be restored is an opinion--indeed, I personally would not work on restoring Olympic athletes with no other information. Preventing someone who does want to do the work from doing it , when the articles pass the currently accepted notability standard for athlete is an overuse of authority. (I personally think there's a good argument for changing our guideline here, but any admin action must follow the accepted guideline in place, whether or not we individually like it). In fact, looking at the examples of Aisha Praught-Leer and Rose listed above, they are not in the least in this category, and would I think pass any reasonable notability standard.

Nobody can think I am in favor of tolerating editing such as that by SVG, but there is still in dealing with them a certain necessary level of respect for each other, and no one admin should be permitted to act unilaterally in this situation. This is not a matter for joking about. DGG ( talk ) 06:12, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

DGG: what we have here is a very specific set of circumstances. The articles were moved to Draft, by consensus. Most of these were deleted under CSD#G13 (SvG has something like 22,000 deleted article starts in his log). Some - not a few, either - were moved back into mainspace by one of two sockpuppets. The more egregious was MFriedman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), a sock of SvG himself, which used edit summaries like "no SvG issues" or "checked", playing the role of an independent editor reviewing articles that had been deemed not to meed standards. The less egregious (and simpler) was Beatley (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), a ban-evading sock of Slowking4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). So after discussion I deleted those articles meeting the following criteria:

• Created by SvG and passed through the process of rejection and move to Draft
• Moved out of Draft by one of the two socks
• No substantive edits, so that if they had remained in draft they would have been eligible for G13 - by no substantive edits I mean nothing other than removing deprecated infobox parameters and adding cats, the kind of semi-automated or automated edit that is only done by virtue of being in mainspace.

I don't think Trackinfo was happy with the original removal of these articles to Draft, and he's sure as hell not happy with this cleanup, but I feel I shuold point out that at no point did he actually fix the issues of poor sourcing and WP:NOTDIR that led to the original move to Draft. There may be a few errors, for which I would of course apologise and correct, but I do not recall seeing Trackinfo's name against a single edit after the move back from Draft to mainspace by socks.

Trackinfo has now taken this to multiple venues including Facebook. He does not seem to like the answer he gets, each time. I'm not surprised: he's a victim of SvG's deceit, probably more than the rest of us. But this is abusive editing and a cleanup activity discussed in the relevant venues. Many of these articles had sources that did not even contain the information they were purported to contain, there is a reason they were rejected from mainspace. I don't think there's much resistance to providing the deleted text for a clean-start for any article Trackinfo identifies, unfortunately his reaction tot hat has been to demand wholesale restoration of the entire bunch because cabal, which doesn't really help anyone who wants to help him. Guy (Help!) 08:50, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Watch the accusations, JzG. I do not have a Facebook account. I'm an obstinate old man, I do not do social media. My entire discussion of this issue has been here, escalating as your administrator buddies continue to back your egregious deletions through their lack of action. During the period of checking SvG articles I did not roll back a single one and found no cause to. Rather than assuming and accusing, show me one where I was wrong. In my contact, SvG created stub articles about lesser known Olympic athletes. When I found they matched the source, usually sports-reference, for the presentation of the basic facts, there was no reason to delete or send them back. I added to most of them as I checked them, a slow, laborious process. On Project Athletics, we have a pretty good layout of blue links in all of our recent Olympic and World Championship results. Those SvG stubs are a big part of that, positive contributions, but there are a bunch of good people following up on those start up stubs, adding little links or entire subjects that help lead others to follow up information. Each deletion wipes out all that cumulative information from a lot of minds. Knowledge. Idiot deletionists do not seem to understand, when you destroy content, you are erasing knowledge. It might be able to be found again, but the communal information is lost, possibly never to return, because a roaming contributor thinks their addition is already saved on the article. Praught was such a stub article at first, except she was involved in a heroic act with a fallen athlete and made the final in the Olympics with a lot of coverage. Since then she was also in the final of the World Championships, has the Jamaican and probably Caribbean records and got married to a notable athlete causing her hyphenated name. And I almost forgot, she found her dad. Her article went from SvG's stub to at least three paragraphs. I'm doing this off the top of my head, so she's not exactly off the radar as was a lot of SvG's work. Rose I believe qualified for the World Championships legitimately, rather than being his domestic token, also multiple paragraphs now. Your blind destruction is inappropriate to the current state of those articles, or what they were before this week. With YOUR record of blind destruction, YOUR obvious irresponsibility, how can we mere mortal editors check the damage YOU have done to other articles, without the ability to see them? If you think you are doing such a good job, try a little daylight and prove it. I'll bet I'll find other articles that could and should be saved. I don't think you'll find any, but certainly a whole lot more than any bad piece of SvG information I let onto mainspace. Trackinfo (talk) 09:44, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Again and again. I see this tactic again and again. Reyk _YO! 10:19, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Trackinfo, I apologise for misidentifying you as the person complaining in the Wikipedia Weekly facebook group. Anyone here who looks at that group may understand the reason for the mistake, but I accept your assurance. Guy (Help!) 11:23, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

• I don't think it would be controversial if these articles were restored on an individual basis. Lada Kozlíková was created in 2013 for example, and has plenty of edits from other users; it shouldn't ever be retroactively deleted as G5. —Xezbeth (talk) 07:57, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Well, most of those are bot and semi-automated edits. I moved it back to Draft:Lada Kozlíková. yes, it was created in 2013, but it was created by SvG, and apart from maintenance edits it is unchanged since he left it. Neither source is a WP:RS, both are directories and both look user-edited. Guy (Help!) 08:55, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm not criticising the decision to delete them, I just don't think it would be controversial if I decide to fish an article out of SvG's deleted contributions. Provided I check it myself for unsourced statements. —Xezbeth (talk) 09:09, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

I agree. Especially if they go back to Draft for cleanup or if you fix them yourself. If I deleted them, please feel free, or if you're uncomfortable due to WP:WHEEL concerns, leave a list on my Talk and I'll do it. Guy (Help!) 09:14, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Guy, the path is simple, if you choose to be cooperative instead of resistive. MFriedman, the sock, moved a bunch of articles from draft to mainspace. As a sock he didn't have the right to do that. So put the stuff back in draft. Its like hitting the undo button. Us mere mortal editors can see what is there and deal with it, AS WE DID OTHER SIMILAR ARTICLES. G5 deletion destroys the content from our perspective. Did you notice how quickly the above article was restored to mainspace? Trackinfo (talk) 21:29, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Except that they have mainly been G13d. As in: deleted. Over 20,000 of them. Guy (Help!) 21:55, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm with DGG and don't really understand what the problem is. If editors have expressed a willingness to work on the articles, I don't see why we can't give them resonable time, e.g. 6 months or 1 year to do so. If these articles were only re-draftified a few days ago, I don't see how they can already be classified as abandoned. The fact that they were draftified longer ago, then incorrectly moved back by socks is largely irrelevant to whether or not they are abandoned. You can't fault others for not working on articles which were not drafts at the time. Or to put it a different way how can a draft have been abandoned if it was not actually a draft for most of that time? For any articles which were still drafts after last time and never moved back, it's probably fair if these are deleted since 4? years or more suggests no one is going to get to these. To be fair, I don't think Trackinfo has helped their case by downplaying what SvG did or by suggesting that these articles were largely fine, but the fact that Trackinfo hasn't approached this well is no excuse for classifying stuff as abandoned drafts when we have no evidence they have been abandoned since they were only re-draftified a few days ago and editors have expressed a willingness to work on them. If evidence emerges that editors are not properly checking these articles, e.g. leaving in BLPvios or copyright problems, then this should be dealt with when it happens. Nil Einne (talk) 02:23, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

There isnt a problem, Trackinfo knows where DRV is. We are not going to re-litigate the SvG articles being deleted for the nth time. If Trackinfo wants a copy of any of the deleted articles, it has been offered to them. If they want to contest the deletion, they know where DRV is. Only in death does duty end (talk) 02:24, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

If Trackinfo wants a copy of any of the deleted articles, it has been offered to them I don't seen an offer. I don't have access to even the two specified articles at the top of this "incident" report. Offer accepted. Where are they? There are about 2,000 athletics articles I cannot determine their fate en masse because the linkage was, to steal the phraseology from above "nuked." I have been criticized recently for calling deletion with terms related to destruction. Obviously the perpetrators of this destruction understand what they are doing. They shouldn't be unlinked was said above. The list I gave JzG on his talk page over a week ago, the only organized list of these problem articles related to athletics, showed all red links. They were unlinked. @Sillyfolkboy: showed a later, partial list where the majority those were in fact in mainspace. My goal is to have all legitimate articles in mainspace. I don't care who created them, I care about providing content for the public. We have the World Championships starting in a week, I care about future editors having a place to hang additional content without having to go through the additional research and effort to create each article anew. With the randomization of the attack done by JzG, I have no idea what articles got "nuked" and which were left. Frankly, I don't know which of these articles were checked by the sock MFriedman and which were checked by legitimate editors including myself. If MFriedman was bad, revert his actions, take the stuff back to draft and let the rest of us legitimate editors check the work. That does not equate with "nuke."

The reason I brought this forward as an incident is because JzG went beyond any mandate by 1) failing to restore an article he deleted on the request of a legitimate editor and 2) he consciously took his time to deliberately remove any linkage to these articles he "nuked." That is sabotage against the subject of these articles. The reason I charged Cabal is because I have made this issue quite present before administrators on several different pages. JzG is a self admitted rogue administrator but the other administrators are backing one of their own through their inaction. That is the "good old boys network" at play. Trackinfo (talk) 18:52, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

@Trackinfo: Please read Wikipedia:Rouge admin. Tiderolls 19:22, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

As of the time I wrote that, JzG has a user box announcing that fact on his user page. I just went with it.Trackinfo (talk) 20:07, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm simply attempting to illustrate the complex relationship between perception and understanding. Tiderolls 20:13, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Some incorrect assumptions underpin this complaint. The pages removed were not something future editors could handlg their hat on. They were poorly sourced guesswork. The most recent numing were creations of an admitted sock puppet in violation of his block. We can't encourage that behavior by saying "oh well" There was plenty of time before thousands of pages were G13'd. WP:TNT applies. Any editor is free to just start the topics they think need covering. We are talking about stuff like East German handball players after all, not some incredibly highly searched topic that really needs a page on Wikipedia. Legacypac (talk) 20:27, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Certainly some incorrect assumptions are being made, by you. You are talking about the articles as they have been presented by SvG and his sock MFriedman. They might be in such condition. They have not been checked by legitimate editors. The ones which were checked should not have been tampered with. The first two, I mentioned at the top of this section, have definitely been improved upon since SvG left. They were on my watch list. They have no business being deleted, but all of you have been preventing them from getting restored since my initial request a week ago. And the ones that were checked by MFriedman should be made into drafts so they can be checked. If I check them, they will get improved. I assume the same will be done by other members of Project Athletics. Of course, you've heard it; when you assume you make an ass out of you and me. There are a lot of asses right now. Trackinfo (talk) 21:19, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

I got sidetracked by restoring thousands of redirects. Upon looking at the two articles in question, the bulk of the content has indeed been added by other editors, so I had no issue with restoring them to the main space as they are. —Xezbeth (talk) 22:09, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Reaction

Thank you Xezbeth for finally, rightfully restoring those two articles.

What this also provides is evidence. Over this entire week, not one of you administrators have considered my argument. Any one of you could have looked at the article to see the legitimacy of my claims, that the articles had been previously checked and improved by other editors. Any one of you, who commented above or who just passed by, could have verified that fact and restored this content. But none of you did. For a week, not one of you did. This screams "good old boys." You need to look at your behavior as a group, as individuals. Why didn't you respect the word of a non-administrator enough to even look? This goes to the credibility of you as a group. No wonder so many editors act and feel like you don't give them any respect. You certainly didn't give me any respect and I have been right on every count. Cabal does exist. My claim is justified.

I suggest you create some new procedures to ensure you don't behave this way toward non-administrators in the future. Now we have an open question. Will you do anything? Or will you attempt to cover this up? Or will you just ignore it again, because a "good old boy" can't be wrong.

At the forefront of this is the accused administrative editor, JzG. How vehemently has he argued. I do not recall seeing Trackinfo's name against a single edit after the move back from Draft to mainspace by socks. These articles clearly show how superficially and thoughtlessly he deleted content. I believe you would phrase that "misused tools." Many of these articles had sources that did not even contain the information they were purported to contain, there is a reason they were rejected from mainspace. Maybe for other articles. Clearly not these. He argued, with the support of others for a week, and didn't even look at the damage he caused. And the sabotage? The sabotage had nothing to do with SvG. That was just an act of vengeance against the subject of a stub article created by SvG. Additional salt against any editor who might try to revive that subject. And the clearly false accusations of my taking to Facebook. None of this is behavior becoming of an administrator. If administrators were behaving in an admirable fashion, they would have taken disciplinary action. Instead, you just supported his claims.

I bring into question the quality of this entire mass deletion, nuclear option. I call it thoughtless and have suggested for over a year that "thought" is what is needed. We had the articles temporarily identified in draft space. For the articles related to my area of expertise, our Project Athletics checked the 2,000 plus articles first. Unfortunately, MFriedman was one of the editors. The logical reaction would be to undo the bad work of the sock, take it back to draft space. Instead it got wholesale "nuked." You have wholesale prevented them from getting rescued. With a little bit of credibility wind in my sail, I will repeat my claim more specifically; I have not seen any fraudulent content or misrepresentation by SvG. Sloppy, yes. Wrong, no. His massive labor provided the necessary starting point for thousands of subjects. I have not seen an article he created that cannot be salvaged. Why are you so forcefully going out of your way to deny us the chance? Back to the original claim. It only looks like irrational vindictiveness against any article SvG created. I want that content back where responsible editors can see it, rescue it, source it and move it to mainspace where it belongs. What does it hurt to put it back to draft?

I can't speak for other projects, perhaps with less forceful voices. Does that make 20,000 articles disappearing justifiable? I certainly don't think so. I think the first thing that needs to be deleted is the concept of "delete" from your list of options. We delete incorrect information; fraud, deceit. We add sources and improve legitimate content. Let editors do what we do. What is the damage caused by leaving all of this in draft space? All I have seen is artificial impatience. Like the first four articles, do you fear we prove this stuff is legit? Trackinfo (talk) 06:41, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

• "I have not seen any fraudulent content or misrepresentation by SvG. Sloppy, yes. Wrong, no. " Plenty of evidence of such content was given at the original discussion that led to the draftifying of all these articles in the first place. If you haven't seen it, I suggest you look again. This included very serious BLP violations, but also using one source for a BLP where that source (not the actual link, but the complete website it pointed at) didn't include the person involved. We now know that he also uploaded photographs as "own work" which weren't his own work, which I would call "fraudulent work" and "misrepresentation". Of course, using a sock to approve your own work could also be seen as "misrepresentation" and "fraudulent work"... Instead of instantly deleting is work, people were given many months to check the work. While some people did this conscientiously, the majority of these checks were done by himself as a sock, by a sock of banned user Slowking4 who also didn't care about the problems, and by a series of other editors who simply moved all problems back into the mainspace. That your complaints here were not acted upon to your liking has a lot to do with your head-in-the-sand attitude in your opening statement, like "Whatever minor offense SvG committed, I have seen no evidence of it", which indicates that you totally ignored looking at the origin of this whole sorry episode.
• I just took a look at one of his creations during his brief return, and these should be moved to draft space as well. Rianne de Vries: "She won the gold medal in the 1500m event at the 2016 World Junior Championships in Sofia". This seems highly unlikely on the fae of it, as she was 25 years old at the time, a bit old for a junior world champiosnhips. Sure enough, none of the sources nor the 2016 World Junior Short Track Speed Skating Championships article mention her. It's not as if the article is massively long and one error sneaked in. It is a typical short article, with some very close paraphrasing in the few real sentences, and even so he couldn't get it right. Fram (talk) 09:35, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

My sample size is small relative to the number of articles, maybe a couple hundred athletics articles. Every one I looked at could be and was cleaned. Maybe he was better at athletics. Speaking of small sample size, what percentage of active editors were involved in your great decision to nuke all the content? We have a problem with socks. Maybe we need to validate the users who are checking the content in draft space. I've only been editing wikipedia for just short of 11 years. You think I'd qualify? Trackinfo (talk) 09:49, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

If you have any non-rhetorical questions, feel free to pose them. Any article (as long as the subject exists and is notable) can be cleaned, that doesn't mean that this is the best solution. The consensus then was that in many, many cases, the articles contained so little information and so relatively many errors (for stubs) that starting over was easier and safer than cleaning them up. Fram (talk) 10:53, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

• • Ugh. So apparently flooding the mainspace with tens of thousands of inaccurate articles on living people, lying about the source of uploaded photographs, and using a sock account to stuff the crap articles back in mainspace without being checked or corrected are all just "minor offenses". I'd ask what Trackinfo would consider to be a major offense, but in this case we already know: cleaning up the mess. Hence all the ranting and shrieking about secret cabals and "deliberate sabotage". The reason Trackinfo is being opposed on this is not because there's a sinister "untouchable leadership"- a cabal of evil scary kitten-eating deletionists- but because his views are not grounded in reality. Reyk _YO! 11:03, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

You missed the point entirely. You are making me re-detail this and are lengthening my replies as a consequence. I started this incident around four articles deleted by JzG, isolated by SFB on User talk:Aymatth2/SvG clean-up/Guidelines#Sockpuppets. JzG had the ability to look at what he was deleting at the time, in person, and as an administrator he continued to have the ability to actually look at the deleted articles in question. Other admins who commented; NeilN, DGG, Tiderolls had the same ability. I don't know how many other admins passed by. You all assumed Jzg was right and I was venting about something insignificant; SvG garbage. Discussion continued for a full week about two articles Aisha Praught-Leer and Alex Rose (athlete). While I could not see the deleted articles, I was certain that these articles were significantly improved upon since SvG. Now restored, the history of those articles proves ME right, and that I was part of that history. Beyond My Ken said Admins are answerable for their actions, but they are not required to put up with abuse such as you've just laid on him. So who was abusing who? I was being abused by the Administrator and all of you articulately backed him and had through each of the earlier escalations of this case. THAT IS THE CABAL. You take the word from an Admin who is not telling the truth. You pile on with evidence that is not the truth. I could wait for apologies but that is not the real point. I just want to change your pattern of behavior for the future. Stop assuming non-administrators are crackpots. Stop assuming administrators are always right. Stop protecting the "good old boys" when they are wrong. You have the ability to fix problems. Open your eyes and do some fixing.

I rescued two of the simpler articles from Wayback. I didn't change a word of SvG's original content, I simply supplemented. That demonstrated the condition I have found the SvG content I have dealt with. On that page, SFB volunteered to check and thus rescue any SvG created content related to athletics, which I have continually volunteered to do as well. This is a job the two of us thought had already been done a year ago, [18] a status we wish to return to.

So our stated goal got confused by disingenuous contributions by socks. We simply want that content back. I produced lists created at the time of the articles I wanted back. [19] for example. And notice, the draft of articles I recreated Alejandra Ortega and Cisiane Lopes are not linked to the existing articles by the same name. This deliberate unlinking prevents us from producing a coherent list of exactly what needs to be made available for our project. [20] shows a lot that have been rescued. How many have been rescued, how many have not. I can't tell you because the linkage is missing. A little over 200 out of over 2,000 for certain [21] [22] [23] some by me, subsequently improved upon by others. Exactly what I keep saying has happened and should happen. I use that process as evidence of what could become of the other 20,000, given the kind of input we get at Project Athletics. I can't guarantee other projects have that kind of support. It does take support to bring the initial contribution of SvG into clearer focus. He provided the starting point. But certainly all this stuff related to athletics is not junk. The assumptions are proven wrong.

And since this incident was focused on the four articles, lets go back to Cisiane Lopes. I identified seven locations where her name was deliberately unlinked by JzG. [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] In most cases, out of lists of results with many red links, her's was the ONLY name that did not have a link. All of that removal was the deliberate, meticulous work of JzG. What possible use could all that have, except to sabotage? How could someone go through that much work and not notice the significance of this subject? The only answer is vindictiveness. Trackinfo (talk) 16:49, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

The tool most admins use to delete articles is Twinkle. When you delete an article, you get the option to also remove backlinks. I did that on the first few articles but others said that the athletics fans would be happier leaving redlinks, so I switched to leaving backlinks intact. So the "seven locations" where I "deliberately unlinked" the article are actually a single standard action. Guy (Help!) 17:23, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

• Having just read through this whole thread, it occurs to me that Trackinfo needs to smarten up. His contribution here seems to consist primarily of massive TLDR walls of text filled with personal attacks and IDHT rants. If this continues, I suspect a boomerang might be in order. - Nick Thorne ^talk 02:14, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

• But I hope you didn't miss that the walls of text are Reyk's fault, not Trackinfo's. GoldenRing (talk) 10:32, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

• Well, I certainly missed the part where Reyk was holding Trackinfo at gunpoint and forcing him to type. Could you point that out? --Calton | Talk 10:57, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

• I'm puzzled by that claim too, since only one of Trackinfo's rambling walls of text is in response to my comment. Reyk _YO! 11:30, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

• ...wait, I think I missed some sarcasm there. Reyk _YO! 11:43, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

• @Calton and Reyk: Sorry, yes, communication fail on my part there. You are making me re-detail this and are lengthening my replies as a consequence. GoldenRing (talk) 12:51, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Kill the messenger. Threaten WP:BOOMERANG. When I started this at User talk:JzG/Archive 152#Alex Rose (athlete) it was about a single article that had been thoughtlessly deleted. The history: SvG created it here, during the "Clean up" a year ago, it was sent to draft. The sock MFriedman checked it off here, left with three sources. 19 hours later, after I had edited the article, here it had 6 sources. Why is MFriedman or SvG's content relevant any more? That was more than a year ago. Here is what the article looked like when JzG (otherwise known as Guy) deleted it. Show of hands, does anybody think I am not justified in asking for it to be restored? (break for votes) Trackinfo (talk) 19:05, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Instead of restoring the content as a responsible administrator should do, WP:UND If you feel an administrator has erred in closing a deletion discussion or in applying a speedy deletion criterion, please contact them directly., JzG resisted. And resisted.

Further research revealed this was part of a mass deletion by JzG. At User talk:Aymatth2/SvG clean-up/Guidelines#Sockpuppets SFB helped isolate these four named articles. Two were tiny stubs I was able to rescue from Wayback and improve; Alejandra Ortega and Cisiane Lopes. Those were articles started by SvG. Look at them now. Were they worthy of being deleted?

A more important athlete Aisha Praught-Leer had just been updated to include her marriage and name change days earlier. This is what it looked like after SvG started it, but this is what it looked like when it was deleted. Was SvG's start of the article meritorious of trashing all the subsequent content? Again. Show of hands, does anybody think I am not justified in asking for it to be restored? (break for votes) Trackinfo (talk) 19:28, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

They are also a symptom of a much broader deletion effort, the size and scope of which I cannot identify. Failing to get a positive response from the administrator, two days later, I brought the request to Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion#Residual SvG articles, where other administrators could review the decision and fix the problem. No action. In the meantime, I discovered what I regarded as sabotage, apparently something an administrator can cause at the click of a mouse. My apology for the accusation, though I question making such thoughtless, destructive tools readily available. After four days of this, I thought this was a disciplinary problem. Clearly the administrator was not restoring the content as they should, no other administrator would restore the content as they would if they were being responsible (meaning they were taking the word of the administrator, not me thus WP:CABAL), and the administrator was heaping all sorts of unrelated accusations against the content and then myself, based on assumptions rather than taking 5 seconds to see what he had actually deleted. And it languished for two more days until Xezbeth restored them.

Now you all can see what was done and the resistance. When I articulate that, when I suggest you correct for your pattern of behavior and fix the problem, suddenly I am the problem? I don't get it. Is it that you don't want to hear the truth?

And this happens on the same day an article I helped rescue from the dead at AfD shows up on the WP homepage. Trackinfo (talk) 19:50, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Trackinfo - any "high-value" pages (medal winners, etc) can easily be restored, if needed. If you know of any of these that have been deleted, then just ask (I think WP:REFUND is the place) and make the necessary changes to make it BLP sound. Alternatively, I'm happy to recreate any articles for Olympians (and some other sports) that have been nuked. Drop me a note if you want them re-stubbed. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 18:10, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Lugnuts, thank you. I will certainly request restoration of any article I detect is missing, as I did above. I hope your offer will shortcut needing to spend a week through the obviously failed, conventional process. And you have made many valuable additions to the content on SvG articles yourself, made easier because it already existed for you to hang your contributions onto. Since my words are not getting through to the crowd, perhaps you could help explain it to them. I expect you have had your content wiped out too. The problem will come in identifying the damage done by mass deletion. We have to click on, for example, a results page and then on each red link to determine if it was deleted or just has been omitted from our efforts. It will be one article at a time, slowly restoring damage nuked by the thousands in just a few thoughtless clicks. I may not live long enough. Trackinfo (talk) 20:08, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

The Wallace Collection

The editor, Diannaa, has unilaterally decided to remove all the edits that I have recently performed on The Wallace Collection wikipedia page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wallace_Collection), citing copyright violations for all of them. The editor has failed to consider that my content does not wholly match, in very many places, the content that is mentioned on a website they have also cited. In fact, they have applied a cursory look and choose to discriminate based on a glance.

There are two issues:- 1) Copyright Violations 2) General article layout improvements

Moreover, I did not take content from that website, but as I mentioned in my e-mail to them that it is based on Gallery Labels and museum publications. Alas, in some places there is clear overlap where I have not edited the content yet.

Many of the edits were nothing to do with the content that they are disputing but to improve the articles layout following examples set in featured articles, and neither have I introduced further pictures other than a single image, the remaining are those already within the article.

They, Diannaa, have removed all my edits citing copyright violations, which is incorrect as it doesn't apply to all my edits and separately, they have stated they 'won't be restoring the removed images, as the English Wikipedia is not intended as an image repository.', again they didn't bother to even look at my edits closely when most of them where improvements.

Looking at the layout they have decided to revert too, verses the improvements, this is a clear backward step that hardly is in keeping with one of wikipedia's aims for the community, at large, to provide continual improvement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by M.chohan (talk • contribs)

The deleted edits included infringing content. The tools available to us as admins don't allow us to pick things apart like you seem to think we should, all we can do is remove all revisions that contain infringing content. Guy (Help!) 22:56, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

M.chohan, our normal practice when an editor has added copyvio material in a series of edits is to presumptively revert to the last revision before that series of edits began (an editor who adds one copyvio often adds others too, which may not immediately be so easy to identify). That's not quite what happened in this particular case: Diannaa did not remove the content you added with this edit, which to me has every appearance of having been copied from somewhere (or do you say stuff like "This exuberant, animated style explores asymmetrical natural shapes with fountain imagery, foliage and flowers, swirling scrolls and sea animals" while you're eating your corn-flakes?). So forgive me if I ask: did you write that stuff yourself? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 01:00, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

@JzG: We do have some options. You can edit out the offending content during a restore and add attribution for the remaining content, with deleted history, in the edit comment.--v/r - TP 01:43, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Isn't that something the original poster should do? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:00, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Could be. There's no reason to have a "rule" about who should do it.--v/r - TP 02:45, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Sure. On the other hand, can a copyright violator be trusted to get it right? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:04, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

So, I'm feeling like we're in agreement?--v/r - TP 03:04, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Not really, no. The revisions that contain the infringing text still have to be deleted. That's the only admin action that's taken place here. If the OP then wants to replay the non-copyvio edits, nobody's stopping that, but the admin tools don't allow us to selectively delete sections, say. Guy (Help!) 10:38, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

I am committed to revising, substantially, the text that is infringing, I do not seek to violate wikipedia rules. Can I suggest that if you can revert the edits back and permit me ten days to make the necessary amendments, I will remove the text that may be infringing as well as re-write the remaining text to as original research. Should thereafter editors feel that substantive revision has occurred then the article can be accepted as revised, if not, then the editors can make their decision without dispute. Thanks ←M.chohan

Unfortunately, Wikipedia cannot host such content for legal reasons. That is the reason it was not only removed, but deleted from the history. If you asked for an hour or two with the content so that you could completely rewrite it, then maybe we'd consider it, but 10 days is out of the question. Swarm ♠ 02:52, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

• What is left out in this discussion is how amazing, knowledgeable and professional the User:Diannaa is about copyright issues. Is she ever wrong? Not very often. Is she awesome? Yes. I'd be willing to say that she is one of the top ten most level-headed, professional and and rational Wikipedians.104.163.148.25 (talk) 10:51, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

What on earth is that got to do with this discussion? So far the comments made on this discussion by knowledgeable professionals has been nothing short of exemplary moreover its been informative and I appreciate the diligence attached, but I am sure the good wikipedians on here aren't so tied up with providing each other with platitudes and superlatives!

Please read WP:SIGN and also WP:AGF. It's perfectly fair commentary to point out that an editor accused of improper editing is actually one of the best editors out there. Maybe read WP:boomerang too. 104.163.148.25 (talk) 23:32, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Continued personal attacks by new member

Harshrathod50 (talk · contribs) seems to have multiple issues with making personal comments about editors — both in reference to myself, and to administrators on this Wikipedia. Despite this message — just days ago by Let There Be Sunshine, user has continued to make personal comments — including this (stating that they "hate me") and this. While this user may be new, it is becoming quite clear that they might not be here to edit constructively at the encyclopedia, and their continued use of first-person uses (a.k.a. "my text," "my words," etc.) shows signs of potential issues for future consideration. livelikemusic talk! 16:47, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

I wrote the alt text for the visually impaired readers keeping in mind that how they would make an image of it in their minds. But user User:livelikemusic modified entire text to his likelyhood. Using slang words of no classic English use like 'photoshopped', etc. But when I questioned him, he just deleted the section on his talk page, which too is not good for future of Wikipedia. I need explanation from him. I wasn't attacking him but just asking my queries. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Harshrathod50 (talk • contribs) 17:01, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Photoshopped is considered to be a word in common English usage by the folks at Oxford.104.163.148.25 (talk) 10:45, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Hey Harshrathod50: I sincerely appreciate your efforts to improve Wikipedia's accessibility; Alt text is often forgotten by a lot of editors, myself included! However, I think your attitude does need some adjustment: Comments like I hat eyou for reformatting ^(Sic) are incivil, and will not lead to people wanting to work with you. In the case of this specific disagreement, I think "photoshop" is term understood to mean "digitally altered in some way" (see the dictionary definition), but I also agree a description of the alterations is important for an accessible caption. In short, Work with people, not against them. We're all here to build an Encyclopaedia, after all.

livelikemusic: I don't agree that the user is WP:NOTHERE. Whilst I agree their attitude is abrasive, and they need to reconsider the way they approach the project, the underlying spirit of their edits is good, and I geninely, sincerely appreciate users who care about an oft-neglected accessibility tool. I don't think bringing this to ANI was the right decision: Perhaps you should both swing by the Dispute resolution noticeboard, which is more suited to this sort of dispute? -- Thanks, Alfie. ^{talk to me | contribs} 17:19, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

(1) Users are allowed to delete stuff from their talk pages. (2) "Likelyhood"? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:58, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

(3) Is I hat eyou anything like I ♥ Huckabees? EEng 22:11, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Or huckleberries. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:57, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

• As a general aside @Harshrathod50, alt-text like this is spectacularly non-compliant with Wikipedia's rules for alt-text. As a general rule, if the alt-text for any given image is more than eight words it's inappropriately long, and if it's more than fifteen words it's actively disruptive; remember, someone using a screen reader has to listen to all this guff being read out word-for-word. The purpose of alt-text is to say what the image is, not to describe the image; "album cover" would be quite sufficient in the case of this specific example. ‑ Iridescent 19:09, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

• As another general aside, a great idea for a Wikiproject would be Wikiproject Alt Text, which would just be people going around adding alt text where it's missing (which is almost everywhere). Now there's an unfilled need! EEng 22:09, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

I've been looking for something productive to do around WP recently whilst I drum up the motivation to stretch my content muscles: Something like this would be perfect to scratch that itch! 22:33, 22 February 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alfie (talk • contribs)

Bringing it here wasn't the right choice made by USER:livelikemusic. All he did was just get other editors into this trivial matter.

@Alfie: I obediently accept everything you said. Henceforth, i will keep my personal feelings aside before writing anything here. @EEng#s and Baseball Bugs: Please don't turn this into a hoax. Is not this behaviour incivil? Your idea for Wikiproject Alt Text is awesome. I'm gonna join it too. @Iridescent: All your statements are contradicting with the example given in infobox film page. The alt text for the movie poster "PLAN 9" described there is long and disruptive. Please make corrections on this page. It is from here that I learnt how to write alt text. Harsh Rathod 03:10, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

✓ Done. The idea that alt-text is supposed to describe the image is a common misconception. ‑ Iridescent 08:36, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

What did you do? This page is still as it is? Harsh Rathod 09:48, 23 February 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Harshrathod50 (talk • contribs)

✓ Done he only fixed the alt-text in the example, not the displayed markup of the example. Galobtter (pingó mió) 08:22, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

But when I questioned him, he just deleted the section on his talk page, which too is not good for future of Wikipedia. I need explanation from him. I wasn't attacking him but just asking my queries. Unfortunately, this is not true. I did respond, twice, on my talk page — as evident here and here — and the conversation was removed because they wanted it removed, as per their edit summary, so while I don't normally delete discussions like that, I did so. And, unfortunately, this user is still making this a personal environment at other pages, including here and here, despite being told not to make things personal multiple times. livelikemusic talk! 19:36, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Political agenda editor

User:INDICATOR2018 is another user who is only here to push the viewpoint of the Chinese government, contrary to WP:NOT. Edit warring over Japanese, Taiwan, Hong Kong, and Macao stuff; censorship of content referenced to reliable sources simply because it might not reflect well on China, THE USUAL. Admitted to being the same person as a slew of IPs that had been edit warring over the exact same content for weeks previously. Yet never any action against this sort of disruptive editing. The intent of these kinds of "patriotic editors", who are becoming an increasing problem, is completely incompatible with the spirit of a free encyclopedia created through consensus. Citobun (talk) 11:26, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

I support this accusation — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.156.233.252 (talk) 21:59, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Regardless of your continuous accusations, I am only curious about how "the spirit of a free encyclopedia" is "created through consensus". --INDICATOR2018 (talk) 12:10, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Just out of interest, how would it not be? Britmax (talk) 12:51, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

As far as I know, the "free" here refers to free content, a technical term which is unlikely to be related to "a spirit".--INDICATOR2018 (talk) 13:00, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

for "spirit" read "aims" or "philosophy behind", nothing to do with things that go bump in the night. IdreamofJeanie (talk) 13:03, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

It would assist the admins greatly if you could provide some unambiguous examples of pushing PRC propaganda onto articles in a manner that is disruptive. Otherwise this just looks like a content dispute. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 02:57, 25 February 2018 (UTC).

A few examples... IPs that follow are owned by the above user (already admitted by him/her). Here, this user removes the word "prominent" from a description of a jailed Chinese columnist, then edit wars over it for a few days. Here is an example of several edits where the user seeks to downplay Tibetan autonomy. Here, there is a long-term edit war where the same user keeps moving the "Censorship" section lower down the WeChat page. WeChat is a censored chat app in China, similar to WhatsApp – but WhatsApp is blocked because it's not censored. After this user got an account, he/she kept edit warring over the same thing. One of many edits where this user seeks to downplay any autonomy of Hong Kong, Macao, Tibet, or Taiwan – instead going around underlining PRC sovereignty. Here he/she has been edit warring for ages at "Battle of Toungoo", changing the result from "Japanese victory" to "Japanese tactical victory/Successful Chinese retreat". Downplaying ROC sovreignty. Stamping out any scent of HK autonomy. Going about advocating that the viewpoint of the Chinese government ought to be expanded, like here. Pushing pinyin, the Chinese government-approved system of romanisation, even on Hong Kong articles. Pinyin is not used in Hong Kong. Adding POV tag to coverage of sexual harassment in China with no explanation, and edit warring over it.

Etc etc... the usual low-level political agenda editing and a clear case of WP:NOTHERE. And the above comment by INDICATOR2018 lacks understanding of key Wikipedia policies, like WP:CENSOR. Citobun (talk) 06:44, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

1. Resorting to ad hominem simply doesn't justify your politically-motivated accusations. (the usual low-level political agenda editing, lacks understanding of key Wikipedia policies)
2. In terms of the word "prominent", prior to the editing war(this version), there is no source cited to verify the rather assertive word "Prominent ". So I boldly removed it based on what MOS:PUFF states. Currently, due to this edit made by "Rolf h nelson", this word has been verified. Therefore, I wouldn't argue over it.
3. For your second accusation, it simply baffles me. Please elaborate to me how I ″downplay(ed) Tibetan autonomy″. I made this edit to both make this article in correspondence with Gyaincain Norbu which states Chökyi Gyalpo, also referred to by secular name Gyaincain Norbu, is the 11th Panchen Lama selected by the government of People's Republic of China and state necessary facts. Is that wrong?
4. As for Wechat, please check out my explanation at Talk:WeChat#Edit_explanation before making your accusation.
5. For the ″downplay any autonomy″, I was making these edits to do necessary corrections that Tibet, Macao, Hong Kong are all provincial-level administrations of China.(see Administrative divisions of China) which clearly don't have the same status as China, a sovereign state.
6. Concerning Battle of Toungoo, I would like you to reassess my edits where I restored the deleted content. Plus, the result of this battle also cannot be verified. So both versions are arguably acceptable.
7. For the Downplaying ROC sovreignty [sic], please tell me if I am wrong to say that ROC is a partially recognised state as what List of states with limited recognition states. How could a simple edit of stating facts become dowplaying sovereignty. I cannot understand.
8. In terms of what happens in Category:Hong Kong, please see a third opinion made by Zanhe (talk · contribs):

   "city state" generally refers to sovereign states, see http://www.dictionary.com/browse/city-state and other dictionaries.

   Based on your logic, isn't Zanhe also a political agenda editor?
9. Regarding the Talk:Baren Township riot, my rationales have been quite clear. Also, please check out what "Sassmouth" conveys

   I agree with with INDICATOR2018 At first glance i think paragraph 3 and 4 of of the uygher pov section should be deleted i would like to hear other editors opinions on the matter??? Thanks

   in this edit.
10. For my Pinyin edit, I totally know Pinyin is not used in Hong Kong. Yet we should know that this is English Wikipedia, not HKpedia. At present, Pinyin Guangdong is more prevalent Canton in English.

Finally, I strongly suggest that you verify these edits both personally and thoroughly before making extremely MISLEADING accusations. --INDICATOR2018 (talk) 10:01, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

"Low-level" means "not explicit". It's not an insult. In other words, while many of the edits are defensible on an individual basis, together they amount to a campaign of political agenda editing, contrary to the policy at WP:NOT. The WeChat edit warring illustrates well the overall intent of these editing patterns – your proposed change serves absolutely zero functional purpose except to downplay censorship of WeChat. As despite objections from several users, you rammed it through through blunt force edit warring (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, then the page got protected, then you made an account and reverted again). No consensus and no rationale rooted in any Wikipedia policy. It is clear you are WP:NOTHERE to help build a free and informative encyclopedia, but subtly push content to align with the viewpoint of the Chinese government. Citobun (talk) 14:43, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

I'd like to add that this user's actions have so far mainly been reverted by well-meaning editors, but could hurt peoples' ability to find damaging information about the Chinese government in the future. Not acting to stop this user now would only encourage further action by this user and others who wish to twist the encyclopedia for their own ends. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.156.233.252 (talk) 18:54, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

User:Hitesh Kapil

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

---

Since December, I have sent seven messages to this editor about creating unreferenced articles and failing to communicate. All have been ignored, although the editor continues to edit.

Other editors have also raised concerns, and HK has ignored all messages from editors in the eight months they have been editing. Articles which have been tagged with concerns include: Oakover, Jubbal-Kotkhai, Bagsiad, Thunag and Chachiot. Some are completely unreferenced, others have had different concerns raised, and the unreferenced ones have been raised with them more than once. They have been repeatedly advised to look at WP:Communication is required, WP:BURDEN and WP:V. I'm hoping he will communicate here, but I think he is likely to only respond if blocked. Boleyn (talk) 09:01, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

I looked at some of his edits, going back to December. Pretty innocuous stuff. But yeah, he probably deserves a block for completely ignoring all communication. Perhaps he does not understand how talk pages work?104.163.148.25 (talk) 10:40, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

I've notified him of the AN/I discussion. However, it doesn't look like they know how to use a talk page - or it could be a case of WP:ICANTHEARYOU. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 17:55, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

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

WP:BLP issues at WP:ITN/C

Could someone uninvolved step in to explain to User:Stemoc that he cannot refer to someone recently deceased as a "pathological liar" per the BDP clause of WP:BLP? I'm no fan of Billy Graham, but this is getting disruptive and even though I'm aware that reverting per BLP is exempt from 3RR, I get the impression he's not listening to me or User:Stephen. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 11:28, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

• And ... no, he's definitely not [31]. Black Kite (talk) 11:32, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Calling a cow a bovine is now a crime? look up the description of pathological liar and look at the work done by the person in question. The comment was added to make a justifiable point. people who do NOT know about certain people should NOT be making nominations on their behalf. This is NOT the first time Wikipedia decided to ignore the death of a known international actors by stating bullshit reasoning for it...and it definitely won't be the last. There was no option given by TRM for a blurb when it was obvious to most that that article should have received a blurb nomination. Manish tried to bring that up and Stephen abused his admin rights and blocked him.Why are only "american-known" celebrities treated better than the rest of the world, Is this wikipedia, Ameripedia or Christianpedia, please explain...in detail.--Stemoc 11:38, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

If you look back, it is quite a regular thing for people to be nominated at RD and then get a blurb when there is a significant support for it. Indeed, if you look at Billy Graham's nomination, it was originally posted as an RD [32] (by The Rambling Man, no less) before being converted to a blurb when sufficiently supported. So the discussion at Sridevi is nothing unusual - a number have people have already suggested a blurb so consensus will just form in the usual manner. Manish was just being disruptive trying to open a second nomination, removing other people's comments, canvassing and restoring those same BLP violations despite being warned not to multiple times. And no, you don't get to describe Graham in that way, so please don't do it again, you can compare the two nominations without resorting to that. Black Kite (talk) 11:45, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes but ppl were supporting RD cause no one knew that you can "support blurb", people who voted there are not the same people who vote regularly on ITN/C so if you are going to make a nomination, makes sure you make one which is the better option which in this case was a blurb, i'm pretty sure if the 8 or so people who supported RD were aware that they could support a blurb, they would have done so....--Stemoc 12:00, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

The problem with that is that if people think it doesn't deserve a blurb, they vote "Oppose" and so it ends up not even getting an RD. That's why it usually works the other way round. Black Kite (talk) 13:37, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

• Stemoc seems to be rather POINTy when it comes to religion. I can funnily recall the last time I came across this editor, which was during a 2014 discussion concerning the nomination of the new patriarch of the Syriac Orthodox Church, which he kept describing as a "cult" despite reservations from other editors. A strong reminder that BLP applies to recently deceased individuals and that it involves talk pages as well should be issued. Fitzcarmalan (talk)
  • I'm not the one that keeps pushing religious propaganda and giving it priority to it so if i have to be POINTy to fight that injustice, so be it. My comments there stands true 3 years on, we are prioritizing religious nonsense over real news....That pastor died 4 days ago, its very much "stale news" now, lets have something more far reaching and interesting on the main page instead of the same old same old ..don't you think?--Stemoc 12:05, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
    • Okay, we get it. You're an anti-religion bigot. You're also not going to get your way, so stop spouting nonsense. Nobody is pushing religious propaganda; you're just throwing a temper tantrum because you can't get your precious way. Lepricavark (talk) 13:27, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Stemoc, I very much disapprove of your tone and your direct personal attack here. Before you ever ping me again, you should know that anyone can nominate anything including RD and/or blurbs, and RD noms are regularly converted to blurb nominations. Personally attacking me and then hounding me here is completely unacceptable. I'll be keen to see you never make any such mistakes again, and if that means you are prevented from editing Wikipedia again, that would be a reasonable outcome. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:54, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Just so that Stemoc is clear, since I saw this in one of their recent edit summaries: while BLP is meant to protect living persons, it also extends to those recently deceased like Graham; the moment someone dies, we do not start throwing accusations and other factors into their articles or on talk pages, we still treat that with some decorum. How long after a person dies that BLP still applies varies, but it generally from around 6 months to a year or more if the person was highly controversial. --Masem (t) 13:55, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Nice to get threatened by a serial sock puppeteer and an infamous former (multiple times because our rfa process is a huge failure) admin who the arbcom does not have the balls to ban...and that is what's wrong with wikipedia today, whats that old saying? ahh yes, the inmates are running the asylum....please continue, its not like this project will have a long shelf life..--Stemoc 14:39, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Who's the serial sock puppeteer? Who's the "multiple time" former admin? I guess we should allow you enough rope right now because the continuation of personal attacks will only lead to one result, and that will be well deserved. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:47, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

• Regardless of the BDP matter, the merest review of Stemoc's behavior discloses a history of this sort of slap-happy tossing of insults: I note this AN/I discussion from a year back. Personally my reaction is to ignore them as somewhere between deliberately provocative and simply adolescent, rather like the speech of the man who so prominently figures on his user page, but it would improve discourse here if he were to stop. Mangoe (talk) 14:48, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

  No, I think it's gone beyond him just "stopping" now, further action is required. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:50, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

• Stemoc is not qualified to diagnose Graham, Trump, nor anyone else as "pathological liars". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:20, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
  • (Non-administrator comment) I guess most would agree with that. Question is: is Stemoc qualified to contribute to Wikipedia? Kleuske (talk) 16:51, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
    • Indeed, the answer appears to be no, so it's time to continue on that theme. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:04, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

@Cyberpower678: They just got blocked for 31 hours but that might be worth reconsidering given the fact that they outed themselves as a white supremacist neo-Nazi with this edit summary. (If you don't know what that means, you're in the minority so Google it.) 2602:306:BC31:4AA0:F15A:C440:7077:A088 (talk) 17:07, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Kek != kkk. I fail to see how kek is outing himself as anything other than possibly a World of Warcraft gamer.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 18:47, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Some context for the association between kek and white supremacists is available at Pepe the Frog entry. nwatra (talk) 19:23, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Indeed, no-one was saying kek=kkk, the link provided above is clear for all. A 31-hour block is welcome to avoid the personal attacks, but this has really become sickening and problematic. 20:38, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

With this confirmation of the "kek" problem I'd suggest this user is blocked indefinitely. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:26, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Indeed, I was trying to assume good faith with the use of kek, but continuing to assert false accusations, and using the word again, I've now blocked indefinitely. Any admin is free to review my block.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 23:55, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Good block. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 00:03, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

I thought it, you did it. Support this. Nazis, we do not need. Guy (Help!) 00:08, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

+1 Swarm ♠ 00:12, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

• I would like remind everyone here that PAs are unacceptable, even against problematic users. Please remain civil.—CYBERPOWER (Around) 02:35, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
  • @Cyberpower678: And now Stemoc is unblocked? Where did this come from? What I see here is a consensus the user should be blocked, not a consensus to unblock him. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:59, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
    • I discussed with the user on IRC, and I'm no longer convinced the block was appropriate to begin with. The consensus here is also a bunch of people personally attacking one another, and one user getting blocked for it. Consequently I unblocked after also briefly discussing it on the admins IRC channel.—CYBERPOWER (Around) 03:08, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

      • As someone who has not participated yet, and rarely hangs out at ITN/C, personally I can't say an unblock is a wise choice unless Stemoc agrees to cut out the random insults and attacks of LPs or RDs.

        Sure it may not be the worst BLP problem, but there's really no reason why an editor should be insulting LPs and RDs. I'm particularly concerned if an editor calls a subject covered by BLP a pathological liar and then tries to keep it up when challenged. I'm not so concerned about the history linked above since it looks like in that case Stemoc wasn't calling the LP 'retarded' etc but saying the picture makes them look that way. While I think that's language that should be avoided for multiple reasons, it doesn't quite rise to the same level of concern.

        I am concerned that their talk page suggests they were calling another LP 'dumbo'. While these sort of personal attacks or insults are not the worst thing possible (e.g. calling someone a rapist, paedophile, murderer) they still aren't something that is acceptable especially if an editor keeps making them and insists they should stay up. The fact that these people are probably often called these and worse not just in forums but in opinions pieces etc is still no excuse for them.

        I'm actually not so worried about the kek issue, since I'm not seeing any other evidence of white supremacist leanings from the editor. There is always going to be the question of how you handle stuff that has become associated with some horrible movement or person but also has some other meaning for other people. Should these people completely abandon something just because of the association or do they keep using it? To give an example, given my Chinese heritage, I do often use the number 8 for fun, including 88 particularly when it comes to money (e.g. 88 cents). I didn't even know of the other association for this until a few years ago and that was long after I even started using wikipedia. Of course if someone likes to hang out at the race and intelligence, Black Lives Matter, The Holocaust and other such pages and use kek or has 88 on their username, there is going to be major concern.

        In this case, the lack of any other evidence suggests to me at worse it may be some lame form of trolling than any real white supremacist leanings.

        Nil Einne (talk) 04:39, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

        • Looking again at their talk page again, I see another concern. They seem to have unnecessarily insulted someone who appears to be the husband of a subject by outright rejecting the claim with a silly "I'm Brad Pitt, Angelina Jolie's ex husband, nice to meet you" comment. Sure we always have to take care and ask for verification where necessary with someone's self identification. However there is no need for random insults, and in this particular case it was fairly silly. From what I can see, while the editor could have been lying, it was also easily possible they were telling the truth. (It was very important that the copyright issues were resolved, but again that could have happened without the silly insult.) Stemoc really sounds like an editor who has no clue how to deal with BLPs. Nil Einne (talk) 04:52, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
          • So just to be clear the block was made on personal authority for attacking other editors. However having talked to the user, and reflected, Stemoc wasn't the only one attacking yet he was the only one blocked. I unblocked after thinking it through and discussing it with the other admins. With that being said whether or not Stemoc should be blocked for BLP issues, I won't comment, and will defer judgement to other admins.—CYBERPOWER (Message) 05:00, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
          • (EC) I'm reminded in particular of this Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive961#BLPVIO and Stephen Miller (political advisor) discussion concerning another editor. Sure the attacks there were more serious, still we really need to cut down on editors thinking it's okay to toss out random attacks on LPs (or RDs). At least the editor here didn't start making the attacks in this thread, still it seemed clear they werein no way willing to accept what they did was wrong, or more importantly that they needed to stop. Nil Einne (talk) 05:04, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

This is a very poor unblock decision. Personal attacks and BLP attacks and continual white supremecy usage should not be tolerated. Having a "chat on IRC" is completely inappropriate and should be strongly discouraged as subversive and completely non-transparent. This sets a very disturbing precedent. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:29, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Is reinstating a self-reverted action wheel-warring? GoldenRing (talk) 10:44, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Technically it isn't. Otherwise it would set the door wide open for admins to prevent someone else taking action by doing some action and then reverting their own action. Plus, there is clear consensus here that the user should be blocked, and some nebulous IRC discussion between the (un-blocking) admin and the blocked user doesn't overrule that. Fram (talk) 10:48, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

@The Rambling Man and Fram: My block was strictly for making personal attacks, and it's not like others haven't attacked him in the process, yet he was the only one blocked for making them. So with that being said, I considered my block unfair and undid it. After which I pulled back, and left the decision to block based on the BLP issues to another admin. I'm not getting involved in this issue anymore.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 13:44, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Probably for the best. Conducting these kinds of activities via IRC is definitely not appropriate. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:47, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Well that kind of just happened. He approached me on IRC and we had a civil and pleasant discussion about the block, after which I felt my block was premature. I should have let the thread continue to play out instead. Lessons learned, and experience gained.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 13:52, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Y'all need to understand something here. By referring to Graham as a "pathological liar" for espousing Christian faith and belief, simply because he does not share that belief is bigoted beyond words and not only a personal attack on Graham , but on every Christian in the world. If it weren't so repugnant, it would almost be humorously ironic that his block was made indefinite when it appeared he made an obscure reference to the KKK, but it's just fine to insult every Christian in the world. Indeffd is the appropriate result here, just as much as if he'd made a blatant racist or antisemitic attack. John from Idegon (talk) 18:01, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Indeff has been reinstated per the obvious consensus here by John. Bravo. 18:10, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Basketball results of Serbia

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

---

So currently we have edit wars going with Serbia men's national basketball team participation in

• EuroBasket
• FIBA Basketball World Cup (talk page discussion)

Some Serbian editors, especially Bozalegenda (talk · contribs) and Gagibgd (talk · contribs), claim that Yugoslavian (+Serbian and Montenegrin) achievents are inherited to Serbia, while FIBA clearly doesn't support this idea. Besides discussions at those talk pages, we had discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Basketball#Yugoslavia,_Serbia and Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Basketball/Archive_12#Yugoslavia_/_Serbia - where someone actually wrote to FIBA, getting answered:

"Titles and medals won by teams previously cannot be "assigned" to a certain new country - unless this new country is a result of direct renaming of the exact same country.

Hopes this answers your question.

You can find all medallists with the name they participated in EuroBasket here:

http://www.fiba.basketball/eurobasket/2017/all-time-medalists"

And here are FIBA sources by team

• Yugoslavia 1965–2002
• Serbia and Montenegro 2003–2006
• Serbia 2007–present

We clearly need a admin point of view, because those editors won't stop the disruptive edits with ridiculous explanations. --Pelmeen10 (talk) 13:28, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

• I've fully protected the articles for 4 days, but this is a content dispute. Administrators do not have higher authority in determining what content should be used on an article.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 14:02, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

• How does one editor's personal opinion outweigh authoritative sources? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:14, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
  • You make your case on the talk pages of the articles. if they keep putting "personal opinion" ahead of reliable sources, then follow the guidance at WP:CONTENTDISPUTE to settle the dispute. Iffy★Chat -- 16:15, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

FIBA ARCHIVE OFICIAL [[33]] the current edition is frontally wrong in Eurobasket 115.72.12.24 and Bozalegenda FIBA Basketball World Cup User:74Account —Preceding undated comment added 16:34, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

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

Mustafa Pasha Mosque

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

---

The page Mustafa Pasha Mosque has become the victim of a bad WP:USURPTITLE incident. User:Mftanet has (in good faith) moved the original page to the new title Mustafa Pasha Mosque-old and then re-written the article (with identical pictures, infobox, lead para, nav boxes, etc) at the original page title. User:Mftanet appears to be a fairly new editor, who has usurped the page title, rather than simply editing the original page. As a result we have lost some content, and all of the extensive page history. Some of his new article will be very useful, although it requires serious copy editing (for spacing, syntax, content, and other issues). I am very happy to copy edit, but my main concern is the loss of the original page history, as well as the creation of the random article Mustafa Pasha Mosque-old. Can someone assist in sorting out this small mess? Timothy Titus ^{Talk To TT} 18:57, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for acting so quickly. I have left a message on the talk page of User:Mftanet inviting him to collaborate in editing the article, but requesting that he does not try again to replace the page. Timothy Titus ^{Talk To TT} 19:34, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

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

Old account inaccessible

My old account and email (Darren1988cdm) are inaccessible. Could an administrator move the talk page over to this new account? How do I go about proving I am the owner of the old account? Darrencdm1988 (talk) 20:01, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

@Darrencdm1988:, because I was concerned this might be a compromised account, I posted about this on this page above. Alfie ran a check user and has verified both accounts as you. Also above, Oshwah has made the rather practical suggestion that you simply redirect your old talk page to the one you're using now. — Maile (talk) 20:09, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

@Maile66:, Important distinction: I didn't run a checkuser, I put in a request for a checkuser to run a checkuser. There'sNoTime ran the actual checksuer, IIRC. Other than that, you're correct! -- Thanks, Alfie. ^{talk to me | contribs} 20:12, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Alfie Thank you. I was close, but no lollipop. — Maile (talk) 20:15, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

• I've merged the old talk page history with your new talk page, so it's officially the same talk page under a different name (the old page still redirects to the new one). As for proving you're the same person, as indicated above, it's already been proven by a checkuser, and that's it. You won't have to worry about it coming up again. Swarm ♠ 02:20, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. Could this also be done with the user contributions page as well? Just curious. Darrencdm1988 (talk) 06:43, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

@Darrencdm1988: Sorry, the user contributions are fixed to the account in question and cannot be moved to another user (well, a developer probably could but won't). You can always link to your old account's contributions on your user page and your signature. Regards SoWhy 11:31, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

"Math vandal"

Not too long ago, no more than a few weeks, we had someone vandalizing math articles, inserting formulae and stuff like that--but I can't remember a name. Please see the work of User:Qazxswdfghjkvy6euevdttcvcw5vy, who can hardly be a new editor. Drmies (talk) 20:03, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

That looks to me like someone experimenting with Wikipedia's math editing features (WP:MATH). As a user of those features I can confirm that it takes some practice. I don't see any edits of Qazxswdfghjkvy6euevdttcvcw5vy other than in their user sandbox, which is a good place for such experiments. Of course it's possible that they are connected with some past vandalism that I didn't see or don't remember, but nothing like that is obvious from looking at their current contribs. 173.228.123.121 (talk) 05:38, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Persistent changing of apostrophes and quotation marks: straight to curly

Hgrosser (talk | contribs) has changed straight apostrophes and quotation marks to curly several times (e.g., [[34]], [[35]], [[36]], [[37]]), in violation of MOS:STRAIGHT; has been warned more than once (e.g., [[38]], [[39]]); and has removed such warnings from his/her talk page more than once (e.g., [[40]], [[41]]). Would it be appropriate for an administrator to intervene?—Anita5192 (talk) 20:03, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

In looking at their userpage, they state they edit using a script called wikEd. In looking at your diffs provided, and some other of their contibs, it looks like they do mainly copy editing and the curly changes appear as secondary changes. In looking at the talk page diffs provided, one was from Sept 2017 and the other from Nov 2013 -- can't judge maliciousness by those. In the 2017 diff, an editor expressed concern that this was a script glitch, which I suspected as well. Pinging @Cacycle: who maintains the script to see if they know if this is a known bug. HTH, Rgrds. --64.85.216.76 (talk) 21:02, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

• I've warned the user. If they do it again, let me know.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 21:30, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
  • This is not a problem or bug of wikEd as far as I can see. Cacycle (talk) 13:41, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
    • @Cyberpower678: This user has done this again today with this edit: [[42]].—Anita5192 (talk) 18:03, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Unsourced infomation

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

---

Paulo Ferrari Jr. (talk · contribs · logs) A user named Paulo Ferrari Jr. has added unsourced infomation into "Proposed acquisition of 21st Century Fox by Disney" article.

Diffs: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Proposed_acquisition_of_21st_Century_Fox_by_Disney&type=revision&diff=827554677&oldid=827536179

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Proposed_acquisition_of_21st_Century_Fox_by_Disney&diff=next&oldid=827574773

Due to unsourced infomation that he added 2 times, this user might get a block. 2A02:C7F:963F:BA00:F0E4:E7FB:6914:F2A8 (talk) 20:57, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

I see no effort to communicate with this user. Please start there.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 21:10, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

This user has adding unsourced infomation so, anyone block without adding anything with talk page. 2A02:C7F:963F:BA00:F0E4:E7FB:6914:F2A8 (talk) 21:22, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

RBI applies to sockpuppets and I don't a claim or link to any puppetmaster, so it wouldn't apply at this point. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:28, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Repeated unsourced infomation is a grounds for a block. This user may needs to be blocked due to 2 times unsourced infomation in "Proposed acquisition of 21st Century Fox by Disney" article. 2A02:C7F:963F:BA00:F0E4:E7FB:6914:F2A8 (talk) 21:31, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

No it is not, especially for new users unfamiliar with policy, now drop the stick.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 21:32, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

WP:WHYBLOCK: persistent posts of unreferenced, poorly or incorrectly referenced, or potentially defamatory information about living persons:, Wikipedia users can be blocked if they put persistent unsourced or poorly sourced infomation. 2A02:C7F:963F:BA00:F0E4:E7FB:6914:F2A8 (talk) 21:38, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

See also: WP:Editing policy. Adding unsourced information is not a violation of policy, unless it is contentious (and they edit war), or a BLP violation or they are intentionally being disruptive or putting in false information. But putting in unsourced information in good faith is not a violation of any policy. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:39, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Adding on to Dennis Brown's comment, this user was not engaged, is probably unaware of policy and you should have made efforts to explain to the user what they're doing wrong. No one is going to block unless the user has demonstrated that they are doing this intentionally. Now go talk to the user.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 21:51, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Key word: "persistent". As in, after 3 or 4 warnings. Swarm ♠ 00:17, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes, twice without either a warning or good advice is not "persistent". Far from it. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:35, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

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

Can an IP range be banned from certain articles?

IP using range 175.45.116 keeps bring disruptive on 2017-18 A-League changing soccer to football, normally not a problem but with Australian articles, football is known as soccer there as per WP:NCFA. See IP 175.45.116.69, 175.45.116.70 and 175.45.116.74 all recently did this edit. They don't normally do it enough to end up banned, but as per 175.45.116.69 even after getting banned, they are back doing it again. Just wondering if there is a way to restrict them from editing the article or do we just have to keep managing by reverting them. NZFC^(talk) 06:05, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

175.45.116.64/28 is the range, but it doesn't seem like enough to warrant a rangeblock. You should perhaps request protection at WP:RFPP. Nihlus 06:09, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Ok, thought I'd check. Don't really think it needs page protection because there is legitimate IPs that edit it and approval would be more troublesome than just reverting this IP. NZFC^(talk) 06:13, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Interference with editing Sukhoi Su-25

Four years after the discussion was started on the technical performance of the Georgian Su-25 airplane, editors User:Acroterion and User:Ahunt have expressed their intention to suppress any discussion of the performance of the Su-25. Such discussion is warranted because there is a wide range of valid performance possibilities, and an informed understanding of the performance and limitations is not possible if the issue is being WP:OWNED and controlled by a small group of editors.

At issue is that the WP article states that the "Ceiling" of the Su-25 is 7,000 meters, but the designer/manufacturer says the ceiling is either 10,000 meters or 14,000 meters, and these editors are trying to block any discussion of why there's a difference in the published numbers. The facts are available from reliable sources, and the discussion of the facts would be useful to readers.

User:Ahunt posts:

"There is plenty of proof that Russian trolls are working here on Wikipedia and your edits may result in you being blocked if an admin judges that you are here to disrupt Wikipedia for national reasons. Take it at that and as per the cited Arbitration Committee decision refrain from pursuing this any further."

User:Acroterion says:

" I have tried to warn you that, as per the ArbCom decision you are risking a block,"

NOTE: I have not edited any specs on this page, I'm only requesting a discussion on the issue of the performance numbers. For simply proposing to discuss this topic, User:Ahunt says I should "refrain from pursuing this any further"; User:Acroterion appears to be threatening to block me from discussing this topic. This seems to me to be an extremely uncivil approach to discussion.

I'd like to request that these two editors be advised to stop interfering with a legitimate discussion by using innuendo and threats of Wikipedia blocks, and that if they continue this behaviour that they be blocked from any further discussion on the Sukhoi Su-25 page or the Talk:Sukhoi Su-25 page.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Santamoly (talk • contribs)

@Santamoly: Did you notify them of this post?--Dlohcierekim (talk) 09:39, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes although without signing there either [43] [44]. Santamoly, please remember to sign your posts on talk pages (including noticeboards) using four tildes ~~~~. See WP:Signing for more info. Nil Einne (talk) 09:43, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

As has been widely reported outside Wikipedia [45] [46], the Russian performance data for the Sukhoi Su-25 has been manipulated to support theories that a Ukrainian Su-25 shot down Malaysia Airlines Flight 17. This is noted at the top of the article talkpage. After the issue was extensively discussed on the talkpage in 2014, Santamoly has recently been urging the use of the falsified data [47], [48], and has entirely ignored advice that the data is not usable because it was altered with the intent of manipulating Wikipedia and has been specifically noticed as such by outside sources. Santamoly has had a severe case of IDHT [49], [50]. I placed a DS notice concerning Eastern Europe on Santamoly's talkpage [51] [52] which got this [53] bizarre response.

Both Ahunt and I have advised Santamoly that continued advocacy of using dubious or outright falsified sources is a non-starter, and that they may be subject to AE sanctions if they persist. Since Santamoly found that advice threatening I advised them to come here if they wanted to pursue it farther. Per standard procedure I would not take AE action myself, but would make a request of other admins, but here we are. Acroterion (talk) 10:55, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

I cannot add much to what User:Acroterion has written above, that summarizes things well. Perhaps a checkuser would be appropriate? - Ahunt (talk) 13:01, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Basketball results of Serbia

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

---

As we have edit wars going with Serbia men's national basketball team participation in EuroBasket and FIBA Basketball World Cup, there are some stuff that need to clarified. Currently, in the medals section, results of Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia are merged with the results of FR Yugoslavia, while the results that Serbia are separated from FR Yugoslavia's. Although we know that it is also like this on FIBA's website, which is being used as a source for this article section, that data is completely and absolutely WRONG. SFR Yugoslavia and FR Yugoslavia are two completely different countries. The first one consisted of 6 countries (Serbia, Montenegro, Croatia, Bosnia and Herzegovina , Slovenia and Macedonia), and it broke apart in 1992. The new country, FR Yugoslavia, consisted of Serbia and Montenegro only. In 2003, FR Yugoslavia was renamed to "Serbia and Montenegro". In 2006 Montenegro decided to separate, leaving Serbia as an independent country. Serbia is a successor of FR Yugoslavia (not SFR Yugoslavia) in all aspects, not just in sports, but in all others. If you open the page Serbia men's national basketball team, you'll see that results that this team has accomplished, are also the ones accomplished during the existence of FR Yugoslavia. So, all in all, the stuff on FIBA's website is either a mistake, or is just a result of poor knowledge of history and countries heritage. Users Pelmeen10 (talk · contribs) and Cyberpower678 (talk · contribs) keep trying to disprove this, keep pushing false data into this article, using source that doesn't have the correct data.

It is in all our's interest to have the right data displayed to all wikipedia visitors, and in this case, many people will keep being confused about this, and we will never have peace on this article. -- Gagibgd (talk) 10:13, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

This seems to be a classic case of a WP:Content dispute that doesn't belong here since we don't rule on content disputes so most of what you said is irrelevant to us at ANI. Try talking on the article talk pages. I'd note the talk page of Serbia men's national basketball team was last edited 17:55, 3 February 2018‎, EuroBasket was edited recently, but your name is absent and FIBA Basketball World Cup was last edited 17:44, 15 September 2017‎. If these disputes all concern the same thing, it may be worthwhile centralising them somewhere, but you need to leave the appropriate notifications in each talk page etc. If you cannot resolve it amongst yourselfs, try some form of dispute resolution none of which should involve ANI. Also you don't seem to have followed the big boxes and notified either editor of this discussion as required when you initiated it. I will do so for you. Nil Einne (talk) 10:47, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Also this seems to have already been raised above by one of the editors you are complaining about and closed for similar reasons in a discussion with the exact same title Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Basketball results of Serbia. All of you need to stop thinking ANI is going to resolve this for you since we're not, that's not how wikipedia works. Well unless it involves blocking all of you for edit warring or some other form of disruptive behaviour but you can avoid that by talking in the appropriate places not continually making ANI threads or edit warring. Don't just think the other party is at fault, since there is a very good chance you equally are. Nil Einne (talk) 11:02, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

I see there is also discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Basketball#Yugoslavia, Serbia but your name is still absent. Bringing a content dispute to ANI is never a good look, but it's even worse when your name is absent from any discussion attempts. Nil Einne (talk) 11:11, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

If an authoritative website has incorrect information, don't come here to complain - send a note to that website's owner. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:48, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

@Gagibgd: "Serbia is a successor of FR Yugoslavia (not SFR Yugoslavia)" – Then why in another article you are edit warring: Serbia men's national water polo team, you claim Serbia inherits also SFR Yugoslavia achievents (by mispresenting a source)? And with this sentence: "Serbia's national team is widely considered to be the best team in the history of the game", it's pretty clear what's your agenda. --Pelmeen10 (talk) 11:23, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Because FINA recognizes Serbian water polo team as direct successor of both SFR Yugoslavia and FR Yugoslavia (also does FIFA). That is not the case with FIBA, which is also a mistake. When people from Serbia see these articles, where Yugoslav medals are separated from Serbia's, everybody is in a disbelief and they don't take wikipedia seriously, since they all know that Serbia is a direct successor of both of those 2 countries. -- Gagibgd (talk) 12:16, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

When are you going to write to FIBA and tell them they've got it wrong? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:25, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

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

Repetead WP:WIKIHOUNDING accusations at Talk:Battle of Szina

There is a classical dispute regarding the language of place-names on Talk:Battle of Szina. Furthermore, an accusation of WP:WIKIHOUNDING was launched 13 times in the discussion thread. Maybe an administrator is needed for a mediation, to break the infinite looking loop. 123Steller (talk) 12:56, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

User:ChieftanTartarus - WP:NOTHERE block?

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

---

Saw this user at ANi recently [54] then watched them at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peter Wang (cadet) and on my talkpage User_talk:Legacypac#Personal_Attacks_@_AfD_Peter_Wang. They are making wild accusations against various editors and acting very troll like. I've come to the conclusion that this user is not at Wikipedia to contribute constructively. Rather than present an exhaustive list of diffs, I suggest you look down their last 100 plus contributions [55] to see very few have been constructive. The edit summaries highlight some of the problems. Pinging involved editors User:Ivanvector (just hatted some nonsense); User:GB fan (just templated [56]), User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (reverted today [57], templated [58]), User:Premeditated Chaos (told user they were off base) and User:Swarm (templated) [59]. He's already been blocked by User:Only in December for personal attacks and harassment. He keeps threatening to take me to ANi and/or get me blocked, so... let's discuss Legacypac (talk) 14:41, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

(responding to ping) I think it's too early to be bringing this here, really. The user's getting into some trouble at a contentious AfD where there's been a lot of suboptimal behaviour. Sometimes the best way to deal with these things is to ignore them, and I think this is one of those. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:46, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

I don't think a block is needed, but I do think a friendly admin should drop them a note on their talk page about behavior and participation expectations. Note I also participated in that AFD, and I saw the exchange on Legacypac's talk page, which did not paint the Chieftan in a good light. Those methods may have worked with the Brutes in Halo, but are not the best way to act on Wikipedia. Mr Ernie (talk) 15:51, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

He trash talked me on his talk page, accused me of being incompetent, accused me of not being a native English speaker and accused me of canvassing then takes me to ANI because I asked him to clarify his comments (and warned him that I'd treat him as he treated me) if anything, the user who brought up this ANI needs to learn to stop being so hot-headed and acknowledge AfDs get heated, otherwise they should avoid AfDs lest they get a less understanding editor. He's lucky I didn't take him to ANI as I said I would do. Chieftain Tartarus (talk) 16:10, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

The complainant also notified me about this ANI in a rather menacing manner and failed to use the template to do so. Chieftain Tartarus (talk) 16:14, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

ChieftanTartarus, I see you have removed Legacypac's notification of this thread with the edit summary of "Notify me properly". You were notified correctly. All that is required is that you are directly told that you are being discussed at ANI. The notification did that, there was nothing menacing about the notification and a template is not required. ~ GB fan 17:07, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

I have made nearly 900 contributions to the encyclopedia and am a member of two wiki projects, that's not exactly what an unconstructive account does, (which is another thing you've accused me of). As for the previous block, it was for the phrase "how dare you", which you have used against me. It's against guidelines for you to use previous blocks as evidence in your argument. Chieftain Tartarus (talk) 16:18, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

@Swarm: knows I templated them, it was part of the humour (hence the barnstar) once again you've failed to read in context and have grabbed everything you can to attempt to discredit me. Chieftain Tartarus (talk) 16:23, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

@Premeditated Chaos: will be able to back me up in saying that I never said they were 'off base' (whatever that means) at all, in fact to the contrary, we got on well and they tried to assist me in understanding where you were coming from. We never argued or had any conflict. So out of your witnesses, most of them are either invalid or to the contrary while, one of them is already in a bad place with administrators, this whole discussion is a waste of time for the Administrators in my opinion. Chieftain Tartarus (talk) 16:40, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

What is this 'hatted nonsense' that was to have supposedly happened between me and User:Ivanvector? I'm looking through the edit logs and see no such conflict (perhaps why you've failed to link it?) Chieftain Tartarus (talk) 16:45, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

[60] Legacypac (talk) 16:53, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Okay, I think six comments in a row is sufficient. Please give others time to weigh in. And please don't say things like this. Lepricavark (talk) 16:47, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Apologies to you but I feel that it is my right to defend myself against such baseless accusations. Just a reminder that you should not include the 'https:' in your diffs and start from the '//' Chieftain Tartarus (talk) 16:51, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Yeah, this is why I suggested sometimes it's better to just ignore it. @ChieftanTartarus: it's clear you don't understand some of the jargon we regularly use (like "hatted comments") and that's fine, but please don't assume everything you don't understand is an attack. Legacypac is referring to this; we call the "extended content" box a "hat". Him calling it "nonsense" was a bit uncivil, I prefer "off-topic". Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:53, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Also, what you wrote about dropping the https: in diffs is not correct. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:53, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

No one should be blocked here. Both sides need to back off some. What started this whole thing was ChieftanTartarus removing this edit as a personal attack and subsequent templating of Legacypac. I do not see any personal attacks. Things escalated from there with both editors conduct. ~ GB fan 16:55, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

And that was not the first time in that AfD that Chieftan demonstrated a lack of understanding of what constitutes a personal attack. See this. Lepricavark (talk) 16:57, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

I have disabled Twinkle to prevent myself unwittingly templating regulars again (evidently I cannot help myself but use Twinkle to save myself time) Chieftain Tartarus (talk) 17:00, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

I missed that one. What ChieftanTartarus seems to be referring to is definitely not a personal attack. ~ GB fan 17:01, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes that wasn't a personal attack, it was me telling the user to watch their words as to not escalate a conflict with a separate user. While their comment wasn't a personal attack, it could have led to conflict with another user. That's why it was an informal warning Chieftain Tartarus (talk) 17:03, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

But GB fan this was [61] Legacypac (talk) 17:04, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

This is Wikipedia not the playground. This is like a childish argument. I've read back on it and it's just you saying 'he did this' and me replying 'well he did that'. Your as much at fault here as I am. It would make more sense to drop this and move on rather than for both of us to continue getting hot-headed about it. As the phrase goes, it takes two to tango Chieftain Tartarus (talk) 17:07, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

@Legacypac: Also you shouldn't be trying to avoid linking with pages [62] to cover your tracks especially since the issue with that user was separate and agreed that we should not communicate with eachother. You're intentionally conspiring to escalate the situation. If anything you should be blocked for hounding me and distracting me from matters which actually warrant my attention. Regardless, I'd settle for the administrators rejecting this petty issue. As I can see from this edit, [63] you're consistently hot-headed about anything related to this Florida shooting. You should not let emotions cloud your judgement. Chieftain Tartarus (talk) 17:53, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm not seeing anything hot-headed in that diff. Lepricavark (talk) 18:13, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

@ChieftanTartarus: Wikipedia is not a playground. Neither is it a battlefield. You've disabled Twinkle which is a good first step. The next step is for you to learn what a personal attack is and leave other editors' comments alone. If a comment is that problematic, a more experienced editor will deal with it. The phrase, "running before you can walk" comes to mind here. More inappropriate removals or warnings may result in a block for disruptive editing. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:02, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

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

Violation of edit rate by Ser Amantio di Nicolao

Greetings, I just wanted to report that it appears Ser Amantio di Nicolao is again violating AWB's terms of use edit rate rule. He is currently editing at a rate of 25-30 edits a minute without an apparent bot flag. Far above what is normally allowed. 2601:5CC:100:697A:F55F:44A4:194F:D883 (talk) 14:44, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Notified. GMG^talk 15:12, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Sorry - I didn't realize I was getting quite so out of hand this morning. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 15:26, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

1000 edits in the last 1/2 hour alone, all to add yet another box at the bottom of articles (these things are proliferating at a quite alarming rate, considering the limited use most of these links have), which has the peculiarity of starting of with our favourite unreliable database, wikidata. As that is not intended for reading, and is unreliable, and more reliable links are given in that box anyway, I fail to se why it is included (never mind as the first link), but in any case ading thousands of boxes in such a fashion should be done by bot if there is consensus for it, or not at all if there is no consensus for it. Fram (talk) 15:30, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

The more reliable links are stored in Wikidata, and Taxonbar pulls the links from there. Plantdrew (talk) 15:39, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Which is not what I asking, but thanks anyway. Take Triprismatoolithus: the taxonbar shows the Wikidata ID, and the Fossilworks ID. The Wikidata item has no information at all apart from that Fossilworks ID. So why do we have the Wikidata item (which is already shown in the left sidebar anyway) here, as it is an unreliable site anyway and offers no extra information? Note that in the code, an editor is now adding the Wikidata ID inside the template as well to get rid of some unnecessary maintenance parameter[64], making this even more an example of the overkill this is generating everywhere. Any reason why reliable links are not stored in enwiki, and why unreliable links without extra information are given such prominence? Fram (talk) 15:45, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

The template that stored reliable links to six databases on enwiki was deleted in favor of taxonbar. Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2016_December_14#Template:TaxonIds. Plantdrew (talk) 16:09, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

...And the "wd" link then added as the first link after that TfD had concluded: [65]. Fram (talk) 16:15, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

So, is this a discussion about Taxonbar and Wikidata, or an ANI? If the former, I believe the best venue is either WT:TREE or Template talk:Taxonbar. Ser Amantio di Nicolao's edits are desirable by WP:TREE via discussions at Template talk:Taxonbar. If strictly ANI, where is the evidence that IP tried to resolve this issue with Ser Amantio? Isn't ANI the last resort, not the first?   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  15:54, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes, the IP should have taken this up with Amantio. No, whether the edits are desirable by one project or not, they are not acceptable in this way (making thousands of rapid-fire "test" edits from a non-bot account). Furthermore, Amantio adds them without the "from" parameter, which adds them to a maintenance category, which you then clean by adding the from parameter (which doesn't change anything on the eventual page but removes the maintenance cat, hurrah). If this parameter is needed, it should be added in the same run as the taxonbar, not in a second run across the same articles. Which is yet another reason why this is better as a bot task, approved and tested to see whether the changes are needed and complete. As for taking this to WT:TREE or even worse the template talk page, I'm rather tired of insular projects or template editors deciding the addition of thousands (sometimes hundreds of thousands) templates or wikidata links without actual consideration of more general consensus, standards (e.g. authority control doesn't add the Wikidata link, but the taxonbar, which does the same thing, adds it as the first link?), ... We already had multiple RfCs and discussions about specific cases where WD was linked from articles or used to automate tasks, which mostly ended either in "no consensus" with a lot of opposition, or in "remove it from the mainspace" completely. It is, to put it in biological terms, a pest, an unwanted invader which is popular with small groups but has a lot of resistance elsewhere. Fram (talk) 16:03, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Well, to the former point, I'll admit that I got carried away. I do sometimes...especially if my internet connection appears to be working better than usual. Apologies for that; usually I respond fairly well to a newspaper smack about the nose, though today my brain was elsewhere for a variety of reasons.

To the latter point...it seems to me that such things as the Taxonbar do have their uses, especially as it relates to collection of external links. Similar to Authority Control, near as I can tell.

I have no feelings as to whether or not this is better done by a bot. If it is, I'm happy to hand over the task. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 16:07, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

I can easily roll this into WP:BRFA#Tom.Bot 2 (which has been very slowly making its way through BRFA). It might have to go through re-trial, and another several week's wait, or possibly faster given the added attention this had garnered.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  16:13, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Just let me know, please. :-) --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 16:20, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Talk:Heat-not-burn tobacco product#RfC about rolling back before socks edited the page

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

---

Please could another admin step in to address this - I closed a fairly innocuous and stale RFC here, with a clear unanimous consensus to roll the article back to its pre-socked state, and to protect it for 6 months. As full protection is never usually necessary to stop sock puppets, I put extended confirmed protection on the article. The originator of the initial RFC, User:QuackGuru has undone the edit I made the the article (implementing the consensus), and started a second RFC asking the exact same question but reiterating that full protection is the only acceptable outcome. This seems a strange thing to do to me, but I would like a second opinion on what to do and how to proceed. Cheers, Fish+Karate 15:02, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Oh, and when I queried it with the user, it got removed ([66]), with no response. Fish+Karate 15:03, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

• Good close - full protection is not justified at all for sockpuppetry. We don't protect because of user demands, we protect to prevent disruption, and ECP is well within admin discretion. I would have gone with semi until there was evidence that ECP was required. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:10, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

  The socks in question, such as User:Weidong_Sanquian and User:Augustina_von_Meyszner, wouldn't have been stopped by semi-protection. Fish+Karate 15:19, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

  Well then that's good justification for ECP. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:20, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

  Yep. Thanks for closing the second RFC. I'll mark this as closed. Appreciate your help. Fish+Karate 15:20, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

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

User:Tamas0103

Tamas has been receiving warnings about creating poor articles for some time, see User talk:Tamas0103#Please take a little time to look at the suggestions Wikipedia editors are giving you from 16 months ago. They have never edited their talk page, so may be unsure how to do so, but it's really easy and they've been editing quite a while. I'm also assuming a language barrier may be an issue here, but if it means the editor can't work out these issues, then they would be better, as has been suggested to them before, editing only in languages they are fluent in.

I have left several messages at User talk:Tamas0103#Sources, over the last month, but Tamas has continued to edit but not to reply. I have directed them towards WP:Communication is required, WP:V and WP:BURDEN, but they just continue. Boleyn (talk) 18:00, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

User:Sanajeh

I have sent several messages over nearly a month about creating unreferenced articles, see User talk:Sanajeh#Sources, but Sanajeh won't respond, but continues editing and continues creating unreferenced articles like Kiangyousteus.

I have directed them towards WP:Communication is required, WP:V and WP:BURDEN. They have also been contacted by other editors about this issue, see User talk:Sanajeh#About sources and reversions. Boleyn (talk) 18:00, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

accusing other users of vandalism and spreading propaganda without any basis

User LittleOx keep on accusing other users of vandalism and spreading propaganda without any basis. With these actions LittleOx damages other users' reputation. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_European_countries_by_average_wage&action=history — Preceding unsigned comment added by Attarte (talk • contribs) 18:02, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Notified. GMG^talk 18:16, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Considering LittleOx is reverting changes so that they agree with the cited source, "without any basis" is definitely incorrect. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:20, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

I've checkuser blocked the OP as a sock of Krikskraks and blocked the master for 1 week for WP:SOCK violations.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 18:49, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Troublesome IPv6 editor

These last days tens, if not hundreds, of Judaism and Israel-related articles have suffered from a IPv6 editor who has made inferior changes to See also and External link sections. This editor uses no edit summaries. What can be done? I mean e.g. this editor, or this one. Debresser (talk) 19:14, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

This is the same network or person. These two IP addresses are both under the same /64 range, which is normal to have happen on IPv6 networks. I've blocked the IP range for 36 hours for vandalism. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 20:21, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

User:Tea1212

I have contacted this editor several times over two months, please see User talk:Tea1212#Sources about creating many unreferenced articles. They won't respond or address the issue. I have directed them to WP:Communication is required, WP:BURDEN and WP:V, but no change. Boleyn (talk) 19:16, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Paul Thomas explained this phenomenon. Fans want to write the narratives of their fandom, NPOV and sources be damned. If it were me, I'd block Tea1212 per NOTHERE. Chris Troutman (talk) 19:26, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

I would be careful about making that accusation, Chris - see WP:NOTNOTHERE. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:59, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Salemleo89

Salemleo89 (talk · contribs) is an obvious sockpuppet of Jack Gaines (talk · contribs)/SuperPassword (talk · contribs), as seen by use of "#AlanJacksonKilledCountry" and "Look at the lyrics" in edit summaries when changing song genres to "Bro-country" despite no valid sources. Please block and tag. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 21:50, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

I have provided many sources, including setlist.fm. Also, many songs that I have changed to bro-country, including Night Train and Move, have been sourced. Thanks. --Salemleo89 (talk) 21:51, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

They have not been sourced reliably. Setlist.fm is not a reliable source. I know who you are because you've created a dozen accounts in the past to spread your misinformation. There is literally no other proof that Alan Jackson sang those songs. Nor are you providing sources that any of his music is "bro country". Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 21:56, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Sock blocked.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:00, 26 February 2018 (UTC)