Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

This page is for discussion of urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems.

  • Do not report breaches of privacy, inappropriate posting of personal information, outing, etc. on this highly visible page – instead click here.
  • If you're just plain confused, ask at the Teahouse.
  • Before posting a grievance about a user here:
  • Include diffs demonstrating the problem and be brief; concise reports get faster response.
  • To report persistent vandalism or spamming, click here.
  • To challenge deletion click here.
  • To request page protection, click here.
  • To report edit warring, click here.
  • To report suspected sockpuppetry, click here.
  • If you cannot edit this page because it is protected, click here.

Closed discussions should not usually be archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer.

When you start a discussion about an editor, you must notify them on their user talk page.
The use of ping or the notification system is not sufficient for this purpose.

You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

Noticeboard archives

Editor changing lead on biota articles against consensus + massive IDHT[edit]

@Couiros22: has been editing a large number of articles about biota (mainly fish so far), making changes to the lead against consensus, MOS guidance and the Fish Project advice. Typically, if the article title is the scientific name, they change the first sentence from starting with the article title to the common name (not WP:COMMONNAME) and sometimes to an arbitrary choice amongst a number of common names for the species or even ambiguous names. I became aware of this when they edited an article on my watchlist.

A sample of some of his recent changes: [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10] there are way too many to list them all here, but a quick check of their contributions will find plenty more if you want to look.

The editor was first called to task for this behaviour here followed by considerable back and forth involving a number of editors including myself. The editor has continued to make their changes unabated, despite advice and several warnings that action may be taken if they do not cease [11][12][13][14]and most recently[15]. The editor has made further edits since the last warning, as I write this the first three diffs above were made after the last warning. The editor is simply not listening.

The editor does appear to do some useful work on article categories, but I have not checked whether they suffer from the same idiosyncratic approach as that used toward the article leads. I am not sure what appropriate administrative action should be taken here, I am leaning towards a short block to get their attention followed by a topic ban on biota articles, broadly construed, after the block expires or is successfully appealed.

- Nick Thorne talk 15:24, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

This is not a problem of Couiros22 causing major problems or vandalism. The edits the editor is making are pretty trivial, and the errors that he is creating are also relatively minor formatting errors. The main problem is Couiros22 is exhibiting clear WP:IDHT behavior after several different people have persistently and politely pointed out the problems with his edits, and he has just continued onward with the same behavior. This type of editing is not compatible with a collaborative editing environment, and signals that Couiros22 does not care whether people have to go along behind him to correct the errors. I support a removal of editing privileges from Couiros22 for the time being. I am on the fence about whether or not he can persuasively convince the community that his manner of editing against consensus can improve in the future. Neil916 (Talk) 16:56, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
I've been watching this situation develop for some time – I happen to have the user's talk-page on my watchlist. Looking through that page, I see two areas where the editor has come into disagreement with others: the present kerfuffle over fish names, and an earlier one over the categorisation of birds, where two pillars of the birds wikiproject separately took issue with what Couiros had been doing. In both cases there's a fairly alarming reluctance to listen to what others are saying. I don't see that there's been any conflict over, say, articles on French geography, so perhaps this can be resolved without anyone getting blocked. I suggest the same topic ban on all biota articles and categories, broadly construed, that Nick Thorne has put forward above. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:03, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
I've just spent about two hours replacing the article title at the beginning of the opening sentence of a large number of fish articles edited by Couiros22 (more to come, but I do have to sleep sometime). I noticed a large number of category changes as I was working. I did not investigate the appropriateness of those changes as that's a can of worms I'd prefer not to open, but given this reply when queried about a category change by another editor approximately one day after this AN/I thread was started I am not convinced that Couiros22 understands, or cares about, the collaborative nature of our work here. Seeing that reply, I asked who had made that determination here and received this which to me implies a disregard for other editors' opinions. - Nick Thorne talk 14:20, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Couiros22 simply does not engage properly in discussion, seeming to regard all comments, however polite, and however well grounded in existing policies, as a challenge to be resisted. Couiros22 needs to learn that editing here requires consensus and following established guidelines and policies. I support removing editing privileges for a time in the hope that this will lead to better behaviour. Peter coxhead (talk) 14:23, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
  • I'd be interested in other editors opinion on this edit. DexDor (talk) 15:44, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Since the editor continues to make no response to this ANI report I think it is time for a block to get their attention. Per his talk page, he notices that his approach is being criticized but he intends to make no changes whatsoever in what he is currently doing. On June 12 alone he has made dozens of category changes, with no evident support. EdJohnston (talk) 16:09, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
  • That edit is obviously wrong and shows Couiros22 does not understand how categorization works. Fish of Australia (if they are not separated from Freshwater fish of Australia, and even then there are brackish water species) is a subset of Marine fauna of Australia, not the other way around.
I tend to steer clear of categories for the most part, because I am not sure I properly understand how they work on Wikipedia. However, fish of Australia cannot be a subset of marine fauna of Australia because not all fish are marine. Freshwater fish of Australia must logically be a sub-set of fish of Australia, so if fish of Australia was to be put in a higher level category then it would need to be something like fauna of Australia, without the "marine" qualifier. C22's re-categorization does not seem logical to me and I suspect it makes it harder for people to find what they're looking for, not easier, which surely is the point of categories. - Nick Thorne talk 02:11, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
  • The whole matter with the common fish names is that Couiros22 does not follow any logic. He picks certain common names at random and pushes those as the only validly accepted ones. It is becoming a mess and while fauna categorization and proper naming or documenting the various common names is useful, those tasks are now not done, "in favor of" wild and rogue edits that do not create a better encyclopedia. He seems deaf for objections, even when they are sourced and well-argumented and this example here above clearly shows he does not grasp the whole concept of categories. Tisquesusa (talk) 22:51, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
I've been gradually working my way back through C22's contributions re-bolding and moving the article title to the beginning of the lead. To be fair, in a few cases, the articles' leads were either always the wrong way round or somebody else had made the change, either way since I'm there I am applying the MOS. In the overwhelming majority of cases these articles are stubs, so I suspect they do not get a lot of attention, but I'm adding them to my watchlist as I go. I'll be spending some time expanding articles about Australian freshwater fish (my area of interest and knowledge) once I've done, but obviously I can't re-write the entire fish area of the Wiki. I had considered just reverting C22's edits, but without spending a lot of time trying to understand how he has been changing the categorization, I did not feel that was a good ides, however, if others think he is making a complete mess of the categories, then I would support such an action. Meanwhile I will continue to try and undo the damage manually, but it will take a while to get through all the edits. - Nick Thorne talk 02:41, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Proposal for block[edit]

@Couiros22: has continued their editing behaviour making over 85 edits today alone, even as this AN/I thread continues, changing categorization despite their approach being challenged. They steadfastly refuses to explain their changes, even when asked, not even using edit summaries. I have specifically asked them to explain their approach on their talk page, but they continues to answer with non sequiturs. See here here and here. I have left a final request for them to explain here, although I expect this to be handled in the same non-responsive way as before. I believe it is now time to act. C22 needs to stop making changes until a consensus has been established, it seems to me that the only way we can get them to listen is a block. - Nick Thorne talk 11:02, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

As expected, a non-responsive reply: here. - Nick Thorne talk 11:53, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
Nick, I've reviewed all the present discussion on Curious22's talk page, and while I do see the issues with less than stellar collaborative mindset that have been raised here, I'm also not finding your approach toward Curious to be 100% ideal either, at least at the moment. For a start, I agree with MSGJ below that Curious does indeed seem to be engaging in discussion--you just don't seem to like their answers very much. Which is fair: their attitude is pretty gung-ho and they clearly do not understand the pace at which BRD is meant to work, and I would even go as far to say that if they cannot make an effort to re-calibrate their perspectives on how consensus is formed, they could soon find themselves blocked or removed from certain areas. But your own approach to them (at least at present) is overly aggressive; your unilateral declaration that they are facing their "last chance" is particularly problematic, in my opinion. If I were facing that onslaught of demands to answer your questions, to your satisfaction in every instance, and they were all phrased like that, I'm not sure my responses would be any less curt than those of Curious22.
Now I can fathom that probably you did not start out approaching them this way and that you might reasonably claim that this is the result of frustration with a prolonged argument, which is fair enough. But other eyes are on the issue now, so it may be wise to stop grilling/engaging the editor in this fashion. If they continue to not engage substantially with the community in a review of these matters, very likely they will be blocked, in which case we will have begun to address your concerns. However, I see enough of a haze of antagonism here, that I'm not prepared to write off Curious as a problematic editor who cannot be made to see the need to slow down and discuss, if approached in the right way. Perhaps I am lacking details that would make me less optimistic about the liklihood of that, but I think right now both "sides" need to take a pause and step back, if only for a moment. Snow let's rap 01:11, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
Regarding the "declaration...problematic" part of the above comment: But I've also seen an admin (in a discussion about a very similar editor to C22) say  "I elected to not block since I was not comfortable with the warnings I saw.". DexDor (talk) 07:23, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
I'm afraid I don't perceive the implied relevance. Snow let's rap 10:29, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
More detail: In a discussion (about NotWith) the closing admin said "... they need to receive formal warnings on their talk page to get an administrator to take action.". Nick's comment to C22 was "... Last chance now. What categorization schema are you trying to implement, and where did you get consensus for it?" that you described as "problematic". That leaves me wondering what warning a non-admin can give to a problem editor (who isn't an obvious vandal) that is sufficiently formal without being (in your view) problematic.  However, in this case C22 has already been formally warned (e.g. in Oct 2016) so IMO a block for disruptive editing is long overdue. DexDor (talk) 13:16, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
I still completely fail to see how an admin's general comment (to another editor on a completely unrelated matter) that warnings should be issued before he feels comfortable instituting a block (a very conventional and reasonable position) has anything to do with the statement in question here; I don't know who the admin in question here is, but I feel confident in assessing that they were clearly talking about template warnings and the like--outreach efforts that are expected to come before blocks. That is not the same kind of "warning" as one party to a dispute making an ultimatum to another.
But I really don't want to get into a back-and-forth with you on this. I can elucidate on my perspective for Nick if he likes, but until such time, the more you and I debate it, the more strident the whole matter becomes, and concerns that were once simply expressed (and which Nick may have taken completely in stride) become overstressed and thus potentially become new points of contention--which would completely defeat the original purpose of the comment, which was simply to point out that the breakdown in communication may not be entirely one-sided and that temporary disengagement to let the broader community step in is highly advisable. I would extend that same advice to you; if you and Nick are correct and Curious22 can't be reasoned with, then they will hang themselves with the WP:ROPE that we will try to extend them and you will be vindicated. But if the matter can be resolved short of sanctions, so much the better. Snow let's rap 14:17, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
I don't want to get into an argument about this, but I feel you have misunderstood and mischaracterised what has been going on. You claim we should give C22 enough WP:ROPE, but how much do we need to allow? The editor has made over 18,000 edits with barely a handful of edit summaries and hardly any talk page comments (149 when I last looked), how much more evidence do you need to demonstrate that this editor does not collaborate? They did not stop and engage in discussion when their editing was challenged instead they continued editing up to 80 to 100 articles a day. I do not think it unreasonable to ask what categorization schema the editore was seeking to apply, a quaestion they have yet to answer. How else are we to understand what they are doing? What else do you think I should have done? I suggest you reread the discussion that started here. Note that the editor was being challenged by several other editors for over a month before I made my first comment, yet they were continuing on unabated with their editing in exactly the same way that was being challenged. C22 was making obvious errors that were being pointed out to them, but their response was basically to resist rather then provide a coherent justification for their approach. I am quite prepared to have my actions examined here and I will take any advice given, but I am very disappointed at the superficial way C22's activities have been scrutinised. I expected better. - Nick Thorne talk 04:14, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
Hmmm, I'm not sure what I said that gave you the impression I was suggesting that the matter does not warrant attention, but that was not an intended assertion. And I did pretty explicitly say that I could fathom that there might be history here that could provide context to the heated tone in the exchange on the talk page. What I was trying to impart was that the comments you were exchanging by that point on the talk page were not terribly constructive, nor ideally phrased for project purposes (if you ever find yourself giving an ultimatum as one individual community member to another on this project and you aren't acting in the capacity of a position vested to you by the community, you should check yourself, because chances are you have gone a step too far, even if you started from a place of legitimate concern).
Incidentally, I do understand the awkward position you are in procedurally; WP:Advice pages prohibits you from using WikiProject recommendations as a yardstick for local consensus or disruption, but the activities are taking place across numerous articles and you want a unified discussion to force a recognition that Curios22's interpretations of standards that are at least partially governed by WP:COMMONNAME are off, and that they have pushed beyond BRD to disruption. And yet no single project space stands out as the appropriate place to have that conversation. I wish I could give you that one forum that is irrefutably appropriate to adjudicating the matter, but I admit, it's a headscratcher. But I can tell you that another editor's talk page is not the place, which is why I think (regardless of the number of editors aligned against Curious) that conversation was going nowhere so long as they (Curious) continued to disagree with you--and clearly they were not prepared to concede the matter at that point. What we need to do is figure out where you can get a working consensus that does not violate WP:Advice pages or WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. RfC at WP:VPP maybe? It feels like an awkward fit there too, but it may be the best of non-perfect options. Snow let's rap 23:11, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

I have made a brief comment on their talk page. Basically I can't see what they are doing wrong. Perhaps the communication style is poor, but I do see genuine attempts to explain their rationale. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:51, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Placing the category "Fish of Australia" within "Marine fauna of Australia"[16] then doubling down by re-adding it when reverted.[17] This is obviously incorrect as "Fish of Australia" includes "Freshwater fish of Australia" which it should be obvious cannot be included in "Marine fauna of Australia". This sort of action seriously questions C22's judgement. Never mind that C22 fails to properly explain their categorization system, only states things like "common sense" and that they have decided what to do as if their decision is the end of the matter. They do not actually explain the rationale behind their approach when asked, simply say "I have already explained" when they plainly have not done so. The burden lies with the one proposing change and C22 has abjectly failed to this when challenged. This is not the way to collaboratively build an encyclopaedia. - Nick Thorne talk 11:42, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
Actually I made a mistake here, they did not place FofA in MFofA, but the other way round. This is even worse as marine fauna should obviously includes crustaceans, cephalopods, zooplankton, corals and other invertebrates as well as marine mammals and probably some bird species. - Nick Thorne talk 19:39, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
By the way, if you'd like an example of C22 muddling up freshwater and marine fauna there's this. Note: The edit summary of my revert of that edit should have read "The rasboras are freshwater fish" (I was editing on mobile and hit the wrong key). DexDor (talk) 05:10, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
I replied to this here which again, you seemed to have freely dismissed. --Couiros22 (talk) 13:39, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
Do you mean this? "Initially I had no idea the category would eventually contain just fish in the absence of other marine fauna, nor that (ini the presence of the "Freshwater fish of Australia" category) there would have to be a sister subcategory entitled "Marine fish of Australia" to "Fish of Australia" - nevertheless it's no alarming matter and perhaps we could just *automatically?* change the title "marine fauna" to "marine fish" ?" What sort of logic is that? Competence is required. - Nick Thorne talk 19:51, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
The above quote came from this edit where C22 ignored the normal conventions of talk page use and gave a scattergun reply to individual points threading their replies within another editor's post thus making it very hard to understand who said what when reading the talk page. This is another example of C22 disregarding the norms of Wikipedia and failing to act in a collaborative way. - Nick Thorne talk 20:01, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Comment. MSGJ, you say that C22 has tried to explain his/her reasons for some of these contentious edits, and I agree. But is that the point? Do you see any evidence that he/she has made any effort to listen to or understand – let alone heed – the concerns of the numerous editors who have questioned those edits (several of whom, unlike me, have extensive experience and/or knowledge in these fields)? I'm afraid I don't. C22's explanations remain at about the level of "yes, but as you can clearly see, it is flat". I opposed a block above, and favoured a topic ban; I still do. But a block is surely preferable to doing nothing, which is simply going to cause this to fester until it comes back here. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 17:45, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

I'm not absolutely opposed to the notion of a topic ban, especially in light of C22's suboptimal engagement, even after the issue has been brought here. But I don't think we're remotely there yet. Here's the problem: C22 hasn't broken any policy or guideline, that I can tell--at least as regards the issues that have been raised here. The "best practice" rules the other editors are trying to enforce against C22's approach seem to be completely idiosyncratic to a group of editors operating out of WikiProject Fishes, if I am reading the situation correctly. This community has been very explicit about this kind of thing, over the years (we've had many community discussions and ArbCom has even ruled on the matter) and has repeatedly affirmed the follwing: the guidance developed at WikiProjects constitute WP:Advice pages only, and cannot be put forward as de facto "guidelines" in WP:LOCALCONSENSUS discussions; only actual guidelines may be used with the effect of policy in such content disputes.
Now, of course we don't have policy on the names of fish, but we do have an MoS entry on point (which in this situation is close enough): WP:COMMONNAME. COMMONNAME states that either the scientific or the colloquial name may be used, and the controlling factor (unsurprisingly) is the WP:WEIGHT accorded to each in reliable sources: "In determining which of several alternative names is most frequently used, it is useful to observe the usage of major international organizations, major English-language media outlets, quality encyclopedias, geographic name servers, major scientific bodies, and notable scientific journals." So, on the surface, this editor potentially has the right end of the policy stick on each of this name changes (though needless to say, they should not be creating a situation where article name and first-mentioned name in article are divergent) and the only way to decide for each of them is to have a local consensus discussion for each article where the matter is in dispute.
Now arguably, if C22 lost all of the present discussions and then went on their merry way continuing to make the same kinds of changes to more articles without supplying corroborating source evidence first, one could argue they are being disruptive and should be banned from those areas or temporarily blocked. But at present, the opposing parties have not made a principled (nor, critically, sourced) argument for why C22 is wrong with regard to any one of these articles. They are simply saying: "our group wants to do it this way by default because we are convinced it is best". And that just doesn't fly on this project. They don't have a clear-cut broad community policy endorsing their perspective over C22's and the MoS language on point needs a local consensus interpretation for each article, based on sourcing--which as far as I can tell, neither side has so much as attempted as yet. There's another, more one-sided, issue which has not been raised here but which was discussed on C22's talk page regarding some questionable categorization. Looking at that content question, I don't feel like C22 has a leg to stand on, but even that issue should be approached through a consensus discussion as to the content, rather than running here expecting this community to block C22 or remove them from the area before even the most basic dispute resolution/content consensus discussion has been attempted.
What we have here is essentially a series of content disputes for which we have established consensus processes for resolving--processes which neither side has attempted to avail themselves of before coming here and alleging intractability. That's not to say that I don't agree with you that C22 could benefit from a more collaborative disposition, but the more I look into the matter, the more I see that a sanction at this time would be very inappropriate, given the lack of consensus discussion in appropriate fora, which substantially negates the assertion of the thread OP and their contingent that "consensus" is being ignored. They haven't attempted to formulate consensus (as this community defines it) through appropriate methods as yet, and that should be their first step. They should try RfCing some of this on talk pages, and if C22 continues to go against the grain thereafter then it would be appropriate to bring them here for a discussion about disruption. Not before this effort has been made. Snow let's rap 23:11, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for your analysis of the situation, I will take your advice on board. However, WRT C22 you say " they should not be creating a situation where article name and first-mentioned name in article are divergent." Yet this is exactly what they had been doing in literally hundreds, possibly thousands, of articles against MOS direction (at least as I understand it) and was the reason I brought this here. - Nick Thorne talk 02:55, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, that's a significant issue, and the problem is even further complicated by the fact that we don't want to encourage C22 to try to "remedy" those disconnects by moving around pages before you all of you arrive at a resolution on the issue. Hypothetically speaking, if he does win any consensus discussions regarding the WP:COMMONNAME of particular articles, then the articles should be moved accordingly once that consensus is affirmatively and unambiguously established, but it would be highly disruptive to do that before the content issues are decided. Snow let's rap 07:39, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose at present time: Per my thoughts in the post immediately above. This is a content dispute and should be resolved through normal consensus processes before one side comes here making behavioural accusations of disruption. If and only if consensus has been established on this matter through WP:LOCALCONSENSUS discussion (rather than efforts to enforce an WP:Advice page as if it were policy), and one party ignores that consensus, do we have a conduct issue. C22's cerititude in their own way of doing things and lack of engagement here do raise concerns that they may defy consensus once it is established, but we cannot sanction on that presumption alone and before the content issue has even been resolved via consensus. Snow let's rap 23:18, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Sound of crickets[edit]

ANI on a quiet night

EEng 20:42, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

I think you mean sound of Gryllus assimilis. Fish+Karate 13:44, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
Ahhh! relaxing. I'll try to get Y'all some cicada.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 15:01, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Dr.Koo disruptive editing - continued content removal without justification[edit]

Sadly, this editor has not responded to multiple requests to use edit summaries as recently as yesterday [18][19][20] and continues. Their editing includes completely unexplained content removal on fairly high profile articles like Kazakhstan here, they have also been warned about at least three instances of unexplained removals before [21]. Is it CIR or just don't care? Whichever, it's disruptive. ☆ Bri (talk) 02:20, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Agree with Bri. Dr.Koo often makes rapid-fire edits on an article without using edit comments, making it hard to figure out what he's trying to do. He has been warned multiple times by different users, but refuses to communicate. It's been going on for way too long. -Zanhe (talk) 05:17, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
An admin might consider warning User:Dr.Koo that they might be blocked 24 hours the next time they remove content from an article without providing any edit summary. This outcome could be avoided if they respond here and promise to address the problem. They have never posted on their own talk page since their account was created in 2015, and have never answered any of the previous warnings. EdJohnston (talk) 15:48, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
Dr.Koo was blocked by EdJohnston, having removed content without explanation after Bri notified them of this discussion, and after EdJohnston warned them they might be blocked. I undid several of their unexplained content removals. Their block has expired, and they have re-removed the same content I replaced from two articles (of six or seven total) here and here. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 06:17, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
I have blocked them indefinitely with responding on their talk as the unblock condition. Feel free to unblock if you think this excessive, but they ignored or were unaware of the 24 hour block.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 07:30, 22 June 2018 (UTC)


ImSonyR9 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

This editor has a long history of bad and unsourced edits, as can be seen on their talk page. They recently added content that claims Aap Kaa Surroor (album) sold over 50 million copies, with no references supporting it. I think administrative action is necessary. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:44, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

I had a similar issue with another editor doing the same thing. The solution was to either wait for them to reply (either here or their talkpage) to demonstrate how they came up with their data, or let them continue editing. The proviso was that if they continued editing, but continued to add unsourced info, they'd be blocked. Looks like they last edited yesterday, they've seen the notifications, etc, so lets see what their next edit(s) show. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 07:44, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
Maybe an admin could drop a friendly note on their talkpage about this... Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 17:46, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Block request for User:TPTB[edit]

TPTB (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

As per Talk:CSA Steaua București (football)#RfC on this article's content conclusion, CSA Steaua București (football) should not display any of their claimed honours or original history of Steaua Bucuresti or the article. FCSB, known as FC Steaua București, is considered by UEFA, Liga Profesionistă de Fotbal, and more than three thirds of the Steaua fans as the real club. Everything is linked on both articles as proof. However, this user removed the content on FCSB's page and proceeded to add the honours on CSA's page again, despite knowing about the RfC. I rollbacked both pages because I considered it vandalism, as per the RfC. I think this guy should be stopped from editing these pages again. We keep undoing his edits and he comes back everytime. It's up to you, but I'm sincerely tired of this. BTW, he will probably accuse me of lying again, but everything is sourced in the articles and the links he provides are only from CSA's members point of viea. 8Dodo8 (talk · contribs) 09:20, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Additional background - this and this. This is a long-standing dispute regarding identity/history etc. of a Romanian football/soccer club. For what it's worth TPTB is a clear SPA and a disruptive editor (blocked in October 2017 for personal attacks/harassment). A topic ban on Steaua Bucuresti might be useful. GiantSnowman 09:30, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
If all they edit about is a single topic, is a ban from that topic any different from a block? Fish+Karate 09:59, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
User:Fish and karate, I'm not only editing about FCSB/CSA, I edit about Romanian football in general. I'm not a fan of these teams, I just want the (actual) truth to be displayed. I don't want to see foreigners entering CSA's page and thinking "how does a club founded in 2017 has almost 50 trophies (or whatever the numer is)?"8Dodo8 (talk · contribs) 16:13, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Again with the goddam Romanian football. As soon as we're done with pro wrestling, this should be next. EEng 13:32, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
  • TPTB has reported another editor at WP:AIV over this content dispute. I am inclined to block TPTB for disruption.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 14:24, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
  • To clarify. Has reported 8Dodo8. I'm inclined to block both.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 14:26, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
    • Besides edit warring, which I agree I may be accused of, what did I do wrong? If you read the RfC and all the links provided you'll see I'm telling everything as it is. I'm not a Steaua (FCSB) fan, I'm just trying to improve Romanian football pages as much as I can. And he accuses me of lying. Just read this June 2018 article from LPF, the organization that runs the Romanian League: [22]8Dodo8 (talk · contribs) 16:03, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Cardiff and Blackwood area genre warrior -- rangeblock requested[edit]

Since at least October 2017,[23] someone from the general area of Cardiff and Blackwood in Wales has been genre-warring in music articles. The most recently active IP ranges are Special:Contributions/2A02:C7F:8A1A:7200:0:0:0:0/64 and Special:Contributions/2A02:C7D:1A3E:5D00:0:0:0:0/64, the latter having a longer history of disruption. Can we get a rangeblock or two? Binksternet (talk) 01:58, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

South Korea in the Vietnam War/WP:NOTESSAY (last resort)[edit]

SUTAINOR (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) has repeatedly removed sourced content, adding a personal essay (and not a very good one) instead. I've warned ([24], [25]) the user, but to no avail. I'm not going into 3RR-mode, but the current state of the article is unacceptable. Can I get a few eyes on this, please? Kleuske (talk) 10:06, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Un-related userpage vandalism.
@Kleuske: Sorry to comment on an off-topic issue, but you shouldn't really call JBP a "narcisist" on your user page because BLP applies to user pages too. Also please see WP:POLEMIC. You are of course right about the South Korea thing. --Pudeo (talk) 11:11, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
@Pudeo: Please provide a link to me calling anyone a narcisist on any page. Who is JBP, btw? Kleuske (talk) 11:17, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
Nevermind. The offending statement was added here by User:Dr Nobody. Thanks for pointing that out. It's been removed. Kleuske (talk) 11:20, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
Alright, I thought you had added that. No problem then. --Pudeo (talk) 11:22, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
I really should keep a closer eye on my userpage, because I missed it completely. Thanks again. Kleuske (talk) 11:27, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
Actually, after looking through the history, it looks like several users are guilty of this. This might warrant a listing at WP:RPP. Erpert blah, blah, blah... 16:07, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Vif12vf (disruptively) working under two names[edit]

Editor Vif12vf (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log), who repeatedly edited on a certain article (People's Democratic Party of Afghanistan (PDPA), 10–13 April 2018 but also earlier) under his real user name, started to defend his positions and edits on the connected talk page incognito, under a pseudonym (15 April, as ‘Tiberius Jarsve’). Such behaviour makes any fair debate about controversies impossible and therefore seems disruptive to me: Vif12vf with such goings-about makes it seem as if two people support certain positions of his, while in reality it is one person. Is there any rule against such 'unfair play'? If not: should we not make a rule against it? --Corriebertus (talk) 11:23, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

I have now changed my signature, with the new signature being a compromise. As old signatures will not automatically be changed, this signature is a mixture of the old signature and my username. Vif12vf/Tiberius (talk) 12:43, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
I strongly recommend that you change your previous signatures. —JJBers 13:22, 20 June 2018 (UTC)


This editor is relatively new, has been editing for three months or so. They have been contacted several times by me and others about the articles they are creating, which are poor quality (poor English, unreferenced). Please see User talk:Carcatontss#Ways to improve Prince Eunsin, User talk:Carcatontss#Sources and communication and User talk:Carcatontss#Your new articles. I have pointed out the importance of WP:V and also that communication is mandatory per WP:CONDUCT and WP:DISPUTE. I've contacted them six times over the last two months but am getting nowhere. As they are new, I am not suggesting an indefinite block, but we need to get their attention and make it clear that sourcing and communication are essential. Boleyn (talk) 14:29, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Anyone care to adopt him/her? Erpert blah, blah, blah... 16:03, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
They have literally one communication-type edit in any namespace - replying with "thank you" to a bot about 3 months ago. Might be a bit hard to adopt if they don't reply. ansh666 16:53, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
  • I have blocked the user with a note that people are trying to help them address issues with their edits, and they need to engage. Any admin can lift this block once the issue is resolved, no need to ask me first. Guy (Help!) 07:00, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

IP unsourced editing[edit]

I just picked up edits from IP (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) at a number of music-related articles. They have a pattern of unsourced, relatively minor edits (changing instruments of band members, order of band members, etc) with no consensus that seems extremely familiar; I'm wondering if someone recognizes them as a longer-term case. If it means anything, the IP comes back to Comcast out of Houston. Home Lander (talk) 16:47, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Looks like FlightTime is on the case .... if the IPs start warring, give me a yell and I'll see if my banhammer still works. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:54, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
Just saw this, Ritchie333 it's your call. :P - FlightTime Phone (open channel) 16:56, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
Blocked for 24 hours. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:57, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
Thank you :) - FlightTime Phone (open channel) 16:58, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
Thanks FlightTime Phone and Ritchie333. If anyone else recognizes this IP as something longer-term, give me a yell. Home Lander (talk) 17:06, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
None of the edits are vandalism; it just looks like somebody who wants to contribute to WP but doesn't know where's a good place to do so. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:13, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Agreed, Ritchie, it's just unsourced and without consensus. But something rings a bell, just don't know exactly where... Home Lander (talk) 17:17, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Copyvio by User:Manali1005[edit]

(non-admin closure) Confirmed and blocked sockpuppet. Nanophosis (talk) 18:07, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The above user has been warned about copy vio twice before but has ignored the warnings. here and here. They have now added this claiming it is their own work. There is also a strong chance that they are engaged in undeclared paid editing their editing as they have declared being a paid editor for Vishal Raj Films but have made no edits connected to this company from what I can see but have created promotional pages Teri Bhabhi Hai Pagle and Qu Play. They have had 4 files deleted on commons for copyright problems and a 5th is tagged for deletion Dom from Paris (talk) 16:15, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Some content posted by this editor is recreated from deleted content by User:Milind655. Sock-puppetry and COI for Indian-cinema topics? Someone get my fainting couch. DMacks (talk) 16:23, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
This may be another one as he seems to have a very similar MO User:Kushalprem and has editied the subject that Manila has declared a COI for Vodka Diaries Dom from Paris (talk) 16:30, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

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

Trolling/personal attack(?)[edit]

Nothing more productive will come from prolonging this thread Legacypac (talk) 04:47, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Guy Macon has made very strange comments on Talk:Elon Musk.

Is this a joke that I am unaware of, or what is the explanation for this? Hrodvarsson (talk) 23:38, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

"Looks fine the way it is now. I am always amazed at the amount of effort some people put into trying to label famous people as being from their favorite country. Don't they have anything better to do with their time?" is hardly trolling or a personal attack .... Your reply on the otherhand I would consider to be trolling and in all fairness Guy has a point .... If you're genuinely offended by that one reply then I would suggest you log off and find another hobby. –Davey2010Talk 00:05, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
I did not create this section after the first comment, it was more so the second one about the "challenged persons" and "handicap space". I also have not said I am offended, not that it particularly matters. In any case, can you explain how my comment is trolling, yet the original personal remark is not? Implying my favorite country is South Africa (it isn't) and then saying my editing is the result of a pro-South Africa bias is not a problem? And again, making comments about "challenged persons" and "handicap space" seems quite inappropriate. Looking at Guy Macon's talk page, someone else has warned him about personal attacks after he made a similar comment in an edit summary a couple weeks ago. Hrodvarsson (talk) 00:21, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
@Hrodvarsson: Please remember to notify the parties of a discussion, I've done it now. Bellezzasolo Discuss 00:27, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
@Bellezzasolo: I did. Guy Macon removed the notification. Hrodvarsson (talk) 00:29, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
@Hrodvarsson: Ah. trout Self-trout. Bellezzasolo Discuss 00:31, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
So let me get this straight. Guy made an off color comment about people wasting time on Wikipedia arguing about something trivial. Something that happens ALL THE TIME HERE. Hrodvarsson took offense to it, and Guy gave Hrodvarsson a perhaps overly snarky remark back due to their offense. And then Hrodvarsson decided that this was horrendous enough to come here to bother all of us with. I'm sorry, Bellezzasolo, I'm gonna have to borrow that trout for these two. There is absolutely nothing actionable here. Guy, tone down the snark please, Hrodvarsson is sensitive to it apparently. Hrodvarsson, get thicker skin or get off the internet. Someone else close this. --Tarage (talk) 00:52, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
I don't think "overly snarky" quite covers that second post by Guy. I'm going to repeat it here in full for consideration, because I think it flies past WP:C (a pillar policy, I feel some here with an acid tongue are too prone to forgetting) at such a speed that I don't think it should be quite so readily dismissed as you are inclined too:
"I am sorry. I had not realized that you are a delicate flower who gets triggered by such mild comments. True, being able to survive the rough and tumble of a normal conversation is a rudimentary skill that many of us "normal" people assume everyone has an easy time of mastering, but we sometimes forget that there are "challenged" persons in this world who find these things to be difficult. If I had known that this was true in your case then I would have never have exposed you to even the slightest criticism. It just wouldn't have been "right". Sort of like parking in a handicap space. I wish you the best of luck in the emotional, and social struggles that seem to be placing such a demand on you."
I'm sorry, but that's not "snark"; that's outright passive-aggressive, inflammatory and just plain non-collegial, from start to finish. I don't know that I view the idea of a sanction as remotely likely here, but I'm even more certain that Hrodvarsson should not be lambasted for being overly sensitive or hyperbolic for bringing the matter here; that comment was outright hostile and clearly meant to directly (and fairly aggressively) insult another editor. At the very least this thread is worth the while to bring the matter to attention so that we can make it plain that this is brightline inappropriate behaviour. I don't know if there is extra context here that we are not seeing from that one page, or if Guy was having a bad day, but that was uncivil, plain and simple. It's also worth noting that this is the second time in the last couple of weeks that Guy has implied mental retardation/disabilities on the part of a party he is in dispute with: [26], which was further coupled with a "go fuck yourself, asshole". Again, clearly not acceptable under even the most generous interpretation of WP:CIVILITY. Snow let's rap 01:09, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
My point is Guy never would have posted that if Hrodvarsson hadn't gotten their bonnet in a bunch over a harmless comment. I second my statement, grow thicker skin or get off the internet. --Tarage (talk) 01:49, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
Maybe so, but that excuses exactly nothing. Whether Hrodvarsson's response to the first comment was the proximal cause of Guy's second comment is rather an inconsequential question--the comments were still way out of proportion to the circumstances and per se inappropriate on this project; there's no such thing as context where those comments are not completely incivil, and frankly disruptive. Snow let's rap 01:59, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
Hasn't the duplication of comments in edit summaries been popular for some time? Natureium (talk) 01:47, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
Your name offends me..... Expect an Arb case in due course :), Jokes aside tho the generation today always look for something to be offended at and it's only getting worse. –Davey2010Talk 01:28, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
Well that's a polemical, tar them all with the same brush, argument from authority if ever I heard one. Even if you knew Hrodvarsson's age (and I doubt you do), we don't need to speculate on the perceived over-sensitivity of a given generation (or any social class) in order to decide whether a comment violates our community's civility standards. To do that we look at the specific comment/conduct of specific editors, without regard to who they were targetting and how offended they were by it. For example, if an editor told me "STFU you stupid cunt" and I shrugged and went about my day, and even posted "LOL, ok, whatever" an admin would still be certain to block that user, and for good cause. Guy's comments may be a bit short of that, but some of the ones that have been cited here from the last couple of weeks are sufficiently hostile to other editors and the spirit of stable collaboration that if you don't see a problem with them, I wonder if WP:Civility links us both to same policy... Snow let's rap 01:40, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Response from Guy Macon[edit]

There are two things that I would like everyone to understand.

First, it has been my policy for many years that if any Wikipedia administrator asks me to stop doing something I immediately stop, whether or not I agree. If it's important to me I talk it over on the admins talk page, and if it is really important to me I may ask AN and see if multiple admins disagree (this hasn't happened yet - the talk page has always resolved the issue). So by definition, if I get blocked either I violated my own rule or the block will be without warning (I do realize that some things get you blocked with no prior warning) and the admin will have decided to block a user with twelve years of editing Wikipedia, 40,000 edits, and zero sanctions of any kind.

I note that the one person above who thinks I went too far (Snow Rise) is not an admin, but rather an ordinary user trying to convince the admins to sanction me, and that he himself writes things like "I've seen a lot of needlessly antagonistic contests of wills come through this forum over the years, but genuinely don't know if I ever seen a discussion go from zero to grudge match (and in record time) over such an utterly trivial difference in content"[27]

Second, it is my considered opinion that Hrodvarsson is what I call an "outragist"; that is someone who purposely takes umbrage at normal behavior. Often a bit of minor ridicule is enough to make them realize that this won't work with me, but on the other hand it is entirely possible for me to take the minor ridicule too far. Hopefully my rule above will correct me if that happens.

It is also my considered opinion that this ANI filing, with the wide-eyed innocent "Is this a joke that I am unaware of, or what is the explanation for this?" comment is simply Hrodvarsson doubling down and trying the same trick here. I admit that I was snarky and that I may have been too snarky, but I deny that I was in any way unclear.

So if you want me to stop being snarky in general, just ask and I will do my best to tone it down. If you simply think that I should no longer be so snarky with Hrodvarsson, consider it done. I now believe that he is so invested in feigning outrage that it is beyond the power of a bit of minor ridicule to stop, and I don't intend to have any further interactions with him.

Of course I may be wrong. He might really as easily offended as he claims to be. If so, I don't see a bright future for him considering the nature of discourse on the Internet. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:59, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Guy Macon, please stop being snarky in general. The seven or so sentences quoted above indicate that you were taking some sort of pleasure in skewering your opponent, and your behavior was unseemly. That does not help build the encyclopedia. There are plenty of social media sites where you can vent at will. Our discourse is not the discourse of Reddit or 4Chan, but rather of volunteers collaborating to build an encyclopedia. You pointed out that Snow Rise is not an administrator as if that mattered. It doesn't. Any editor can comment on any other editor's behavior and administrators have no special authority in making such evaluations. We just have the power to impose sanctions if the behavior is egregious. So, tone it down, please. And accept input from all of your fellow editors, whether or not they are administrators. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:18, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
OK, I will, as is my personal policy, comply. I will do my best to be less snarky. And, although I comply whether I agree or not, in this case I have no disagreement with the actual request; asking someone to be less snarky when they were being snarky is entirely appropriate.
I do disagree with your suggestion that I comply with any request by any user and I disagree with the assertion that being someone who has been vetted by the community as being trusted to deal with user behavior is the same as some random editor. Unless you order me to do otherwise I intend to continue to comply with all requests by admins and to evaluate requests by ordinary users on a case-by-case basis. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:38, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Where did I give you the impression that I want you sanctioned? I said that nowhere above, I think you will find with reflection. My response was not really even inspired so much by you as for the (quite perplexing in my view) assertion that Hrodvarsson was being histrionic by bringing his report here. I personally think that's a perfectly reasonable comment to want to bring to the attention of the community -- but I do think it fair to say we apparently have very different views of the threshold for clear-cut violations of WP:CIVILITY. This is honestly something I did not realize until now, because I have shared a community space with you certainly on hundreds of occasions across the years, and I honestly have no memory of you being particularly caustic, sarcastic, or hostile in the way that appears in some of your recent edits brought to attention here. So trust me that I have no agenda to get you sanctioned and I can't speak for Hrodvarsson but if you two aren't going to be engaging eachother, that seems like all the resolution anyone was going to seek here. In any event, I'm not sure why you would like to make this about me, or for that matter about any admin or "mere" community member who may respond to you. Your offer to comport yourself with administrator expectations is admirable, but even better would be engaging with why that comment was not appropriate and goes, I'm sorry, just way beyond "snarky" or "maybe even a little too snarky"; snark isn't six sentences of sustained insults dripping with disrespect and antagonism. So I'd like to present two things to you. The first is the lead sentence from WP:CIVILITY:
"Civility is part of Wikipedia's code of conduct and one of its five pillars. The civility policy describes the standards expected of users and provides appropriate ways of dealing with problems when they arise. Stated simply, editors should always treat each other with consideration and respect. They should focus on improving the encyclopedia while maintaining a pleasant editing environment by behaving politely, calmly and reasonably, even during heated debates. Wikipedia's civility expectations apply to all editors during all interactions on Wikipedia, including discussions at user and article talk pages, in edit summaries and in any other discussion with or about fellow Wikipedians."
The second is your comment:
"I am sorry. I had not realized that you are a delicate flower who gets triggered by such mild comments. True, being able to survive the rough and tumble of a normal conversation is a rudimentary skill that many of us "normal" people assume everyone has an easy time of mastering, but we sometimes forget that there are "challenged" persons in this world who find these things to be difficult. If I had known that this was true in your case then I would have never have exposed you to even the slightest criticism. It just wouldn't have been "right". Sort of like parking in a handicap space. I wish you the best of luck in the emotional, and social struggles that seem to be placing such a demand on you."
Do you -- not a mere concerned (or unconcerned) community member, nor even a legion of admins -- do you find those two things to be in comportment with one-another? Because while I never thought we were headed for sanctions here, and think the OP's issues are resolved if you are saying you are going to avoid them, I think this is a legitimate question for the community to be asking you, and your hostility to my non-admin status and my worthiness to be questioning you not withstanding, I doubt I'm the only one wondering it. Snow let's rap 04:53, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

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

Attack by Tarage[edit]

(non-admin closure) IP blocked. Amaury (talk | contribs) 01:09, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Tarage called me stupid for no reason when reviting my edit. (talk) 01:03, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Someone feel free to block this dumbass. --Tarage (talk) 01:06, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Please stop cursing at me. (talk) 01:07, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Please stop editing. --Tarage (talk) 01:07, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

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

User: 2600:1700:A2A0:FB50:4874:4902:ED4A:3C93 Inappropriate Behavior[edit]

I just got a message on my talkpage see here making unsubstantiated claims that I am a sockpuppet without providing any proof and making threats to delete my edits and comments. I suspect that this anonymous IPV6 user is User:Bankster or someone associated with User:Bankster trying to openly intimidate and threaten me in order to stop me from making edits. Additionally shortly thereafter the aforementioned anonymous IPV6 message was deleted by User:Bankster and replaced by a long incoherent diatribe. Both the Anonymous IPV6 user and User:Bankster should be immediately have their editing privileges locked for an indefinite period of time for inappropriate behavior. I honestly feel concerned about my safety because it seems that both the anonymous IPV6 and User:Bankster has taken the "My way or the Highway" approach when it comes to editing on Wikipedia. YborCityJohn (talk) 06:06, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Uh, Bankster is in an edit war with the same IP on their user page. It's impossible for the two to be the same person. —Jeremy v^_^v Bori! 06:08, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
I’ve blocked for 31 hours. The blanking is allowed, but the edit summaries, etc. and editing pattern as a whole are disruptive. TonyBallioni (talk) 06:09, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
@YborCityJohn: I wasn't involved with that warning on any matter. This IP address which was used to post that is currently blocked for disruptive editing and currently under investigation for being a sockpuppet of banned user Vote (X) for Change. (edit conflict)--Bankster (talk) 06:14, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
@User:Bankster, I realize that now and apologize. YborCityJohn (talk) 06:16, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
@Bankster:, Vote (X) is in the UK, not Los Angeles, so this clearly isn't them. Also, please don't place sock tags on dynamic IP user pages. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 11:24, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

publication of Marco Missana[edit]

Left a final warning for Missana.marco. Guy (Help!) 06:54, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


this is the answer of Italian Society of Physics. If you give me the address, I can forward it.
Dear Dr. Missana,
in reply to your request we are pleased to grant you the permission to reproduce the English translation of the requested article, free of charge, provided that
- full credit (journal title, volume, year of publication, page, name(s) of the author(s), article title, original copyright notice) is given to the publication in which the material was originally published by adding: with kind permission of Società Italiana di Fisica
- the link to the original publication is added (
- Copyright (Year) by the Italian Physical Society 
With our best regards,
The Editorial Office
Giornale di Fisica
Editorial and Production Office
Societa' Italiana di Fisica
''[contact info redacted]'' Bologna (Italy)

''[contact info redacted]''

In Wikipedia is it better to insert the link to this page or directly to this other Regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by Missana.marco (talkcontribs) 07:33, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

No clue as to what this is about, but I'm pretty sure that release is not compatible with our licensing. John from Idegon (talk) 07:48, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
@Missana.marco: What John from Idegon said. This may be what you want-- or I'm more familiar with This does not look like something we deal with on this board.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 08:01, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
Also it looks like they are asserting copyright. That is not suitable here. COntent must be public domain, GFDL or creative commons.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 08:03, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
Seems to be an attempt to continue this archived ANI thread. @Missana.marco:, did you read WP:FRINGE as requested? What the other editors say above also applies - you can't add copyrighted text anywhere on Wikipedia, and the email you reproduce asserts the copyright of your father's article text. Adding a reference to an article is in general fine, but as you have a direct conflict of interest you should not do that yourself, nor should you edit articles to add your father's theories. Use the talk pages of the relevant articles to suggest changes - this has all been explained on your user talk page before, so please take a little time to go through the information there. Thank you, --bonadea contributions talk 08:22, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

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


Taken care of. RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:04, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hi, Am I correct in thinking this should be revdelled ? ... I emailed Oversight an hour and nothing's been done, Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 12:51, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

 Done RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:04, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

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

Lists of songs by non notable artists[edit]

Warnings go back to the spring of 2016. I don't even want to take a good look at how many hundreds of edits may require reversion. The good news is that some of the edits added notable musicians. The bad news is that many haven't, and distinguishing between them will require sifting through sand. It's pretty clear that the account hasn't taken the warnings, or guidelines, seriously. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 00:00, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

How about linking a few here, so editors know what you are talking about. — Maile (talk) 00:03, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
The 88. IP's contribution history for the last several days is nothing but these edits to articles like List of songs about London. And none of these are referenced, the IP only adds wikilinking where it can be done. Arguably I think those whole lists are a problem and delve into OR, this is just a tip of the iceburg, but ANI is not where that should be decided. --Masem (t) 00:07, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
[28]; [29]; [30]; [31]; [32]; [33]; [34]; [35]; [36]. These are just a few from the last few days. To repeat: the IP was warned more than two years ago. This is the perfect place to bring this. It's a lengthy abuse of editing privilege that appears to have never been addressed. This starts with a block, and follows with clean up. That the lists are problematic is another issue; at the moment I'm reporting long term issues with an individual editor. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 00:14, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
But yes, those lists are immense cruft repositories. So perhaps any action directed toward an individual is futile. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 00:28, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

User:ThePierrasse (again)[edit]

Please see previous thread at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive979#User:The Pierrasse. I opened this in March because the editor wouldn't communicate or add references. They were given a final warning; their response is at User talk:ThePierrasse#Referencing, where they state: Then you might as well block me right away and take your final warning back. Nobody is required to contribute to this encyclopedia. They have edited rarely since, but have ignored my further message about sourcing. Their edits since then are at: [37]. They are small additions to existing articles - and the additions are not referenced. ThePierrasse has made it clear, despite an ANI and being pointed to the policies on sourcing and communication, that they see communication and sourcing as optional and nothing has convinced them otherwise - they have stated that they don't intend to keep to our policies. I think only an indef block is left. Boleyn (talk) 06:33, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

I blocked the editor for a month, and made it clear that they must provide references. The next block should be an indefinite one, if it comes to that. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 08:26, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
Although I view both the call for action here and the block appropriate to the circumstances, I think it is worth mentioning that some of our policies were overstated on the talk page, with regard to communication in particular. In reality, there is no formal requirement to engage when undertaking editorial tasks. There have been discussions sporadically throughout the years opining on just how far those habits can be taken towards the extreme, but for a certainty we have a handful of highly productive contributors who have not said a single word anywhere in talk or project space, and they are not seen as being de facto disruptive as was implied on their talk page. That said, it is a simple reality that if you want to edit like this, then you can never edit war and must desist from any controversial activity or habit when another editor raises it with you, because persisting in behaviour that leads to a dispute and then refusing to engage certainly is, at that point, actionable.
Of course, in this instance there is another factor altogether; refusal to source, which is what Cullen quite rightly predicated their block on. So I don't mean to imply that anyone here did other than what they should have in these circumstances. But I did want to raise attention to the fact that telling a newbie who doesn't want to (or is not ready to) engage in community processes that they must do so is probably not a winning strategy in all instances. Put another way, if they were otherwise editing the encyclopedia non-controversially (and/or dropped matters that they were challenged on) there is no purpose to compel them to join our happy little community more substantively. Though come on, why wouldn't they--we're great people! ;) Snow let's rap 08:58, 23 June 2018 (UTC)