Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Welcome to the incident noticeboard

This page is for reporting and discussing incidents on the English Wikipedia that require the intervention of administrators and experienced editors.

  • Please include diffs to help us find the problem you are reporting.
  • Before posting a grievance about a user here, please consider discussing the issue with them on their user talk page.
  • Do not report issues requiring oversight to this page – email oversight-en-wp@wikimedia.org directly with your concern.

Sections older than 72 hours archived by lowercase sigmabot III.

When you start a discussion about an editor, you must notify them on their user talk page.

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

Centralized discussion

Noticeboard archives

Seeking a one way IBAN re Andy Dingley[edit]

For a while now, Andy Dingley had determined that I am a baleful influence that he has to set right and has parachuted into disputes I am having with other editors.

Following on the Vipul paid enterprise matter, I and other editors have been starting to clean up effective altruism advocacy in articles those editors worked on per this COIN thread (I will be bringing a more pointed RfC about that matter soon). Unsurprisingly, other EA advocates have been pushing back here and there.

Andy who, for clarification, is not one of the Vipul editors nor an EA advocate as far as I know, continued his BATTLEGROUND behavior against me and just interjected himself into one of the article discussions here and here, apparently having seen the EW notice one of the participants there left on my talk page. He has never before edited the article or its talk page. (user-search at article, user-search at talk page)

Dealing with advocacy is hard and here we have unpaid advocates teaming up, and are also dealing with content generated by the network of paid advocates who had teamed up. The last thing we need in this effort is HOUNDING wiki-politics complicating things.

There has been a nice calm period since they were blocked for 31 hours, (block notice), back in November 2016 for hounding me at EWN. That was after I had warned them here in November 2016. (see diffs there)

That was after I had warned them here in April 2016 about interfering with SPIs I had filed on a serial-socking hounder. That had followed a very hot period in March per this and this.

I am now requesting an Iban. Jytdog (talk) 20:41, 18 March 2017 (UTC) (redact to clarify, for those who are not reading carefully Jytdog (talk) 22:38, 18 March 2017 (UTC)) (redact - struck badly stated case. My apologies. Jytdog (talk) 18:00, 22 March 2017 (UTC))

  • I'm a vegetarian. A news story this week has been on Memphis Meats, who are vat-growing animal cells to make a "meat". So I went to see if we had an article on it, and guess what I find - Jytdog and his perennial bullying tactics and 2RR edit-warring tatics [1] [2]. I have not edited this article, I commented at Talk:Memphis Meats.
In return I get this, User talk:Andy Dingley#Hounding, again, and now here.
I am sick of Jytdog's behaviour to any number of other GF editors, particularly new editors. His history speaks for itself. He also has a very thin skin, if he calls a disagreement on an article talk page "hounding". And no Jytdog, I didn't "follow you" to that article, I'm a vegetarian (and have often mentioned this) and I'm interested in vat-grown meat news. We are both editors who have been here some years: yet it was you who opened an SPI on me, even after you'd said you wouldn't do such a ridiculous thing. Let alone awarding me a "moron diploma".
As an editor who does "good work" in rigorously enforcing MEDRS, Jytdog has some powerful friends. So a few months back I was even blocked by one of those admins for pointing out at ANEW, also Talk:, that 4RR was a brightline block, even for Jytdog. An admin who then ignored my requests to discuss this. Now you appear to be conflating me with a paid editing scheme - is there any valid reason to bring that up here, or to attempt to connect me to it, or are you just flinging mud?
Unsurprisingly I oppose IBANs. I would like Jytdog to damn well behave himself though, to me and others. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:55, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
  • I don't have enough experience on WP to know the policies for this situation, but I want to provide my perspective as a new user who is very frustrated by Jytdog's behavior, which seems both like very strong advocacy against certain viewpoints (perhaps motivated by inappropriate behavior from those viewpoints, but it's still advocacy) and like very rude, unprofessional, perhaps even harassing behavior. I hope someone who knows more about WP policy is able to do something about this. Utsill (talk) 22:00, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
And Andy's post at the article has succeeded in attracting one of the AE advocates that I was trying to work with at the article where Andy inserted himself. See their contribs. Jytdog (talk) 22:03, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
  • "one of the AE advocates" - or as most of us would describe them, the same editor you've been busy reverting at that article. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:51, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Andy as usual when we interact, you are misrepresenting the situation -- I didn't say you were connected to the Vipul thing, at all. I said you have parachuted into a complex, much bigger set of issues, complicating them with your grudge against me.
More relevant to folks reading here, here is an inappropriate use of an article Talk page by Andy to continue the dispute. Classic WP:BATTLEGROUND. I will not say more here. Jytdog (talk) 21:27, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
"as usual when we interact": every post, a sideways slight at your opponent.
Why post about a paid editing scheme in an ANI post you have raised about me? If you are alleging a connection, then say it. If you are not, then you are simply slinging mud. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:35, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
  • More personalized BATTLEGROUND at the article talk page, here. The disruption is clear. Jytdog (talk) 22:08, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
  • What's battleground about that? You started this by demanding an IBAN, and casting aspersions in your post by implying that there's a connection between Andy and Vipul, a paid editing enterprise, so of course he has to be allowed to defend himself. - Tom | Thomas.W talk 22:16, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
I am sorry you don't understand. Article talk pages are for discussing article content. Andy is creating drama there attacking me, instead of addressing the content issues there. Not appropriate and Wikipedia 101 level stuff per WP:TPG; he should know better. This thread is the place to "defend himself". And my OP did not connect Andy and VIpul. Please stop continuing Andy's misrepresentation. I have added a clarification above. Jytdog (talk) 22:34, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
Oh, I do understand, and don't try to talk down to me, the way you always seem to do in all discussions you get into, no matter who you get into a discussion with, it only makes yourself look bad. You have IMHO no case for an IBAN, and yes, your text did try to connect Andy to Vipul, without a shred of evidence, which also makes you look bad. - Tom | Thomas.W talk 22:47, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
  • So just WHY 'did you feel the urge to include a paid editing scheme in an ANI post against me? You're right, I don't understand. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:49, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Hey Jytdog since you know a lot about Wikipedia (probably more then me) can you tell us what "Boomerang" is ?? Jena (talk) 23:02, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

  • ....... yah ok .. I think he has to stay away from Andy but ... I think in 6 months he is looking at a block Jena (talk) 16:25, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Ach, I also see that in addition to posting about this at the article talk page, Andy WP:CANVASSed Utsill to this discussion, here. And Utsill being a newbie, fell right into that. Jytdog (talk) 23:12, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Given that you're using ANI to slag them off as an "AE advocate", apart from them being the editor you're busy reverting at Memphis Meats, it's only fair to inform them too. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:14, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
Nope, this thread is solely focused on your BATTLEGROUND behavior. The only reason I mentioned the context is because you carrying your grudge against me into this specific situation exacerbated a much larger issue that has already consumed a lot of the community's time. You are again diverting and misrepresenting the problem. If you actually read the links in the OP about the Vipul matter and the COIN thread you would understand what you interjected yourself into the middle of. Jytdog (talk) 23:23, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) Seems like you're the one who is hounding Andy, and not the other way around, checking every single edit he makes, and then quickly posting here, trying to make him look as bad as possible. This thread is not focused solely on Andys alleged battleground behaviour, BTW, your behaviour is also fair game here... - Tom | Thomas.W talk 23:27, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Just how am I "in the middle of" this paid editing thing? Please, humour the diploma-carrying moron here. I'm just talking about meat substitutes, I don't understand this other thing you're accusing me of. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:32, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
You are really not taking the time to understand. The article into which you interjected yourself (and Thomas I already showed that Andy never edited the article, and went to it after an EW notice was placed on my talk page - he followed me to the article, not the other way around) was created by a sockpuppet of an EA advocate as shown here. The two editors with whom I was talking, both edit EA topics as you can see from their contribs and I have already started interacting with them on other articles as part of the cleanup of Vipul's enterprise before discussions happened at this article. Vipul's entire enterprise was EA driven, if you take a few minutes and actually read the links and I anticipate there will be further issues with the already present EA advocates in WP as that cleanup continues. You are not even trying to understand what you stepped into the middle of in your hounding of me and canvassing of a newbie editor. The latter is especially bad form as you are actively trying to screw up the head of a newbie. Jytdog (talk) 00:22, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
Another PA struck out.
Jytdog, as I've already told you, I'm a veggie so I'm interested in vat-grown meat and Memphis Meat (which you've been pruning as NOTNEWS) has been all over my newsfeeds this week. If you're calling me a liar, then come out and say so directly. After all, you've already called me a sockpuppeteer (or was it a puppet?) and today you're dropping me into some paid-editing fracas. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:56, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
Your protestation about what led you to get involved may or may not be true. Others might believe you but give your history with me, I don't, and you came in swinging there with the same things you always say and made a mess of this just as you did the SPIs I linked to above. Your pattern of hounding me and making messes is clear. And even if what you are saying is true, given that history and your already having been blocked once for hounding me, you should have restrained yourself, but you didn't. So you walked right into this, either way. Also, I have removed the edit that you made to my comment above in this diff. You are just going for the trifecta of behavior violations aren't you? HOUNDING, canvassing, and now editing others comments. Jytdog (talk) 01:11, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
So you are outright calling another editor, me, a liar? Thanks for that. It sits nicely along the paid editing attacks. As to "making a mess of your SPIs", the only SPI I encountered you at (apart from the one you filed on me) was poor old CaptainYuge whom you hounded off the project in a month, after you'd made such a hatchet job of the RepRap project page that external press started to cover it. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:47, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
Now you are explicitly lying. Your interference with the many SPIs on Biscuittin is there in the history (your contribs here) and some of your hounding comments (and my responses to them) there were reverted by an admin here. I am asking the community to keep you away from me. The block you received did not wake you up, so this needs to be imposed on you. Jytdog (talk) 15:40, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Question. I check Jytdog's user page and find a link to a GMO topic ban. Memphis Meats wants to grow in vitro animal products. In other words, MM wants to use the genes that produce product and skip the genes that grow other stuff. Does that hit the broadly interpreted GMO predicate? Glrx (talk) 23:43, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
I doubt it. AFAIK, the vat-meat people are avoiding GMO (either because they don't need it, or they don't need the inevitable bad press). It's a problem of getting (genetically) unmodified cells to grow in the vats.
I have no wish to catch Jytdog out on some contrived technicality - but I do wish he would back off his aggression to everyone. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:51, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
I second the motion that jytdog back off his aggression. DennisPietras (talk) 01:54, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
I note his recent reversions of you at Induced pluripotent stem cell and clearly that only slips through, "all pages relating to genetically modified organisms and agricultural chemicals, broadly interpreted" because it's an and, not an or. Now that's brinksmanship. Andy Dingley (talk) 02:11, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
Without commenting on the bigger issues, IPSCs aren't GMOs, even under a broad interpretation. Adrian J. Hunter(talkcontribs) 03:51, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Jytdog, can you explain how Memphis Meats is part of the Vipul paid-editing enterprise, which you stated in your OP? For those wondering about a topic ban violation, WP:AE is that way. I have no comment or opinion on the Jytdog/Andy feuding. Softlavender (talk) 07:06, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
It is not part of the Vipul paid enterprise. I didn't say it was. It is part of the EA advocacy that has gone in WP, which Vipul's enterprise falls within, and which we are going to run into a lot from non-Vipul affiliated editors, as we go to clean up after the Vipul enterprise. (The Memphis Meats article fits into the EA universe b/c one of the EA movement's targets is alleviating animal suffering; Memphis Meats aims to grow meat in vats, from cells, solving the problem with technology.) The MM article was created by a sockpuppet of an EA advocate as shown here. The two editors with whom I was talking, both edit EA topics as you can see from their contribs (here and here, and Utsill especially was strongly resisting removing promotionalism from this article. The killer thing is that Kbog had proposed a decent compromise when Andy stomped in, stalking me, and blew it up, attacking me and the content argument I had been making there. I hope that is more clear. I apparently explained this badly in my OP. My apologies to everybody. Jytdog (talk) 08:02, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
Your OP states "I and other editors have been starting to clean up effective altruism advocacy in articles those [Vipul's] editors worked on per this COIN thread .... Andy ... just interjected himself into one of the article discussions here and here ..." (underscoring mine). Softlavender (talk) 08:49, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
Argh. I first encountered Kbog when I was cleaning up Giving What We Can, which is an article that the Vipul editors worked on. Kbog at first fought the clean up. In discussions with Kbog on their Talk page, Utsill joined in. In that discussion at Kbog's Talk page, Kbog started understanding the problem Ustill did not. Then Utsill added promotional content to Memphis Meats, which I reverted, and that started a conflict at that EA advocate article. Which Kbog had just about resolved, when Andy brought his BATTLEGROUND with me there, complicating the problem. Like I said already, there is a set of EA advocates and we are going to keep running into them at other EA-related articles. The Vipul set of EA articles is a subset of the EA articles in WP. Jytdog (talk) 09:06, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
Front-loading your IBan request with all that irrelevant self-congratulatory misleading material was gratuitous. That said, it's clear that Andy came to the article via the edit-warring notice on your talk-page (edit-warring notice at 12:23, 18 March [3]; Andy's first edit at 18:48, 18 March [4]), and not through a "news story this week". Andy, I'd advise taking Jytdog's talk page off your watchlist and stopping tracking his edits. Softlavender (talk) 09:32, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
dang. I was trying to explain why it was so frustrating when he did it this time; i view the cleanup work as something many people are doing, that i am part of. Andy butting in here hurts the whole effort, in my view. I wasn't aware of being self-congratulatory - thanks for saying that you heard it that way. It is clear that i communicated badly and i appreciate you taking the time to try to figure out what i was trying to say. Jytdog (talk) 10:20, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
The thing is, if you are requesting a one-way IBan with someone you need to immediately make your case, with sufficient probative diffs, that the other person is stalking, hounding, and/or harassing you. Anything else is irrelevant, particularly when it is lengthy and stated in such a way that the interpretation of it is liable to be incorrect. I'm not an admin and I'm not deciding this case, but my recommendation would be for Andy to take Jytdog's talk-page off his watchlist and to stop tracking his edits and other people's mentions of him, and if this gets brought up here at ANI again there will probably be a one-way IBan enacted (if it is not enacted now). Softlavender (talk) 00:01, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
Softlavender, have you read your email? If so, you can assume what I'm asking for here. I would still like an apology from you (and Jytdog, but that's never going to happen) but I do request, as strongly as I can here, that you stop accusing me of being a liar. You know why now. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:01, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Understood Softlavender. The case stated concisely is as follows.

  • Andy originally got angry with me over the RepRap project kerfluffle that was blogged about off-wiki in March 2016 (see that wonderfully titled ANI thread Rude vulgarian editor where Andy latched on) That case involved an SPI into the filer CaptainYuge (here) who was found to have an alt account, used legitimately, but was not running the disruptive account that was mentioned there.
  • Around that same time, two (!) people unrelated to RepRap or Andy started a sock-driven harassment campaign against me and some other folks, which were (after a big mess of sorting) were filed under Renameduser024 and Biscuittin. Biscuittin played games with some of their many socks, and in one of them, did some things that made them look just like Andy acting disruptively toward me, which led to the SPI Andy still complains about here.
  • Anyway in March 2016 Andy took to harassing me at an other article Talk page, writing (among other things) this where he led in with : How did your "disparage every editor and every source, despite knowing nothing about the subject" strategy work for you on RepRap project? Maybe you'll get three adverse media mentions for Wikipedia this time round? and went on from there with similar remarks, which I warned him about per this and this, and you can see other links there.
  • In April he interfered with ongoing SPIs into the Biscuittin matter by interjecting snark and distraction as you can see here and some of his hounding comments (and my responses to them) there were finally reverted by an admin here). I warned him away from doing that here.
  • In April I launched an AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barack the Magic Negro - Andy was the first to !vote (against the nomination, of course) and was out of sync with the community again. He had never edited the article before - This is really obvious and active stalking)
  • In April he did this pure trolling of me, on the Talk page of a paid editor.
  • He then left me alone for a while.
  • In Oct 2016 after this notice was left on my talk page, Andy, who had never edited the article, interjected himself into Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alcosynth with this Keep Another behavioural car crash, and Jytdog is in the middle of it. and this comment. (article was gotten rid of via the AfD)
  • In November, after an advocate who was edit warring promotional, COPYVIO content into an article about a law school left retaliatory note on my page, Andy jumped into the EWN discussion with personal attacks that had nothing to do with the matter at hand here I warned them about that here and he was blocked for 31 hours over that, (block notice).
  • What prompts this filing is that i was in midst of working to remove advocacy from another article related to effective altruism, and was working with two editors with a history of EA advocacy editing (as you can see from their contribs (here for Utsill and here for Kbog) who were arguing to keep the promotional content. One of the two, Utsill, left a notice on my talk page. And Andy, who had never before edited the article or its talk page (user-search at article, user-search at talk page) jumped in and of course included commentary directed at me, like this.
Andy's action here was particularly galling, because a) Kbog, who is becoming reasonable, had proposed a decent compromise when Andy stomped in and blew it up; and b) Andy's action only inflamed Utsill, who was especially strongly resisting removing promotionalism from this article; and c) we are starting to clean up a bunch of EA advocacy articles related to another matter, and I am concerned about this pattern of behavior continuing, especially on the EA stuff.
  • The pattern is clear. Andy sees a notice on my talk page, and goes to where the dispute is and jumps in, making difficult situations worse. I am now requesting an Iban. I have had enough of him interjecting his confused anger into SPIs and already-difficult discussions I often have with advocates in WP. I never have pursued him; he has a continuing pattern of pursuing me. Jytdog (talk) 18:00, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Uninvolved User Comment - Let me just pitch my two cents. I am in no way involved with this situation, but I have lurked and watched ANI for a while (From 2016 onward, mostly for my own amusement, but I do pick up on things.) I have seen User:Jytdog brought here a lot, whether it be by someone else or of his own accord, and he seems very argumentative, almost always seems like he's the one to initiate the tension in these kinds of incidents that could otherwise be solved easily. --Yukari Yakumo (talk) 18:06, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Yukari Yakumo your account is but a few days old. You have never, at least on this account, interacted extensively with Jytdog so how can you be certain he creates tension or is argumentative? It is incredibly unfair to judge him solely on his edits at ANI because generally there will be tension and disagreements by both parties.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 18:51, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
TheGracefulSlick You are right, I suppose. Seeing activity from when I was but an IP does seem very prejudiced. I was noting that he tended to be the one who sparked the tension in these ANI cases as far as I have witnessed from 2016 onward as an IP, but he may have changed since then, or maybe it's just the circumstances of the incident. --Yukari Yakumo (talk) 19:05, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
  • I've been watching this discussion for a while, and it looks to me like there is no chance for any kind of consensus to emerge from it. I'll offer some advice to both parties, take it or leave it. There probably will not be an IBAN at the request of one party or the other, but if the community gets annoyed by ongoing clashes, the community is likely to enact sanctions. Both Jytdog and Andy Dingley: it would be a good idea for both of you to voluntarily act as if there were a 2-way IBAN. Just do it voluntarily. If you see the other user somewhere, go somewhere else. If the other user shows up where you already are, go somewhere else anyway. Do not interact. Do not get concerned with "but he started it first". Do not get concerned with it being unfair if you have to stop editing somewhere that you would like to edit. Life is not fair. Wikipedia is not fair. And if a third-party editor sees more clashes and opens a new thread here, there will be a much more decisive result than what is happening here, and one or both of you won't like it. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:27, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
Thanks Trypto. There is no evidence, at all, of me chasing after Andy - there is plenty of him hounding me. I don't want to interact with him. I will take away from this, that if he pursues me, I will act like I have an iban with him and not respond, and I will wait a very long while to bring another case if he continues doing this and nobody else stops him. I hear you on the annoyance of my bringing this to the community and of my role in the ugliness above. Jytdog (talk) 20:50, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Jytdog - I express a pretty minor difference of opinion with you at Talk:Memphis Meats and what do I get? An immediate ANI post accusing me of being part of a paid editing syndicate, a post so badly skewed that you've since had to strike it through.
I have never opened an SPI on you, even though admitting it was a totally bogus thing to do.
I am not topic-banned from one of the key areas of personal interest.
I do not spend my time hunting reds under the bed, despite having an admitted COI of my own, so secret that it cannot be divulged in detail except to ArbCom
I am not the one indef blocked from the project
Yes, I have been blocked on your account - when you had a friendly admin block me for pointing out that your 4RR edit-warring was a brightline block
Anything else - I ask other editors reading this to just take a look at Jytdog's past and present editing style, the complaints about him open on his talk: and on this same ANI page right now. Andy Dingley (talk) 02:41, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
WP:LAME — Preceding unsigned comment added by JzG (talkcontribs) 13:56, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
Comment: Andy is engaged in an edit war with me on the Honda Fit page. First he protected a false edit (swage cut) that had zero notable sources, then protects his own modified edit. Appears he knows very little about automobiles though is compelled to supervise and take ownership of the Honda Fit page.Lizzziemcdonald (talk) 05:18, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
You have made no edits (under either of your accounts) to WP, other than to remove self-evident and sourced content that the latest model of the Honda Jazz has gained a bodywork crease the earlier versions didn't have. But for a "new editor", you sure found this ANI thread quickly enough. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:02, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Halon8[edit]

An account User:Halon8, inactive since 2012 shows up and reverts two of my edits, which are reverts of a sock of the blocked user User:Жовтневе багаття, calling my edits "vandalism" and asking me to go to the talk page (which obviously contradicts WP:BRD). I would normally decide that they are a sock of the same user and block them indefinitely, but they have a non-zero contribution from before 2012 which does not look as a contribution of User:Жовтневе багаття. Could someone please have a look at this user and decide what to do with them? Thanks.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:43, 22 March 2017 (UTC)


There seems to be a concerted effort by several users to remove all references to autonomous movements in Russia. These sections should be strengthened with sources e.g. http://www.justicefornorthcaucasus.com/jfnc_message_boards/imperialism.php?title=window-on-eurasia%3A-separatism-remains-strong-in-tuva&entry_id=1214897100 , https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=JKuCE2crlhgC&lpg=PA57&ots=DgPz8NyGpt&dq=tuva%20separatists&pg=PP1#v=onepage&q=tuva%20separatists&f=false rather than simply deleted (or deleted if they are genuinely non-existent/no longer active movements- but this need to be evaluated individually not en masse). It is difficult to see how removing large sections of content (where there is clearly evidence for this content) is not vandalism, but I do apologise if I was too quick to use this term. I don't appreciate being called a sock puppet for reverting what were likely politically motivated edits violating NPOV. Since these are contraversial issues they should be discussed on Talk and a consensus reached. Halon8 (talk) 12:32, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

It is great that you "seem" to see a "concerted effort" of several (which?) users but I am sure I did not coordinate anything, just reverted a blocked sock edits. Could you please explain how did it happen that your first edits since 2012 are two reverts?--Ymblanter (talk) 12:37, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

I find wikipedia to be a fairly hostile place which is why I don't edit frequently. The editors who removed content can be seen on the history page - basically you and User: My very best wishes (I thought there were some un-named users as well but I may be mistaken). I was looking for content about Russia's autonomous movements and I found that it had largely been deleted so I reverted it. I apologise that I'm not an expert in wiki-lawyering. I am going to wait for others to weigh in on this. I really don't understand why this can't simply be discussed on the talk pages of the two articles. Many of the 'movements' listed are made up of only a few people (e.g. Yorkshire or Wessex) but without some sourceable definition of what is 'active' and what is a 'valid' autonomous movement then Russian movements should not be treated differently to the others Halon8 (talk) 13:06, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Accusing other editors of vandalism isn't going to do anything to alleviate the perceived hostility. That's assuming bad faith. Kleuske (talk) 13:36, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

I have apologised for using the term vandalism. I still find it hard to understand how any editors would remove such a large amount of content in good faith including for example the well known Chechnyan independence movement. https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/18/world/europe/russia-chechen-ramzan-a-kadyrov.html?rref=collection%2Ftimestopic%2FChechnya&action=click&contentCollection=world&region=stream&module=stream_unit&version=latest&contentPlacement=1&pgtype=collection&_r=0 Halon8 (talk) 15:20, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Irondome tells me that the sockpuppetry accusation has been withdrawn. If so, this should be stated on the ANI and on my Talk page. Reverting someone's edit is not a reason to call them a sockpuppet and open a dispute about them, and a long standing Administrator should know this. They should be leading by example not letting their emotions get the better of them and terrifying editors with threats of blocking. Imagine if I had been a new user who had made the revert - Ymblanter has admitted that they would just have blocked me immediately which is in violation of policy. He/she could have just posted on my Talk page or the article's Talk page to start with. I have incidentally found the section of the Talk page where he had earlier discussed making the edit with My very best wishes, but it is misleadingly not in the existing Russia section, doesn't mention Russia and doesn't really explain anything which has added to the confusion. I admit I was wrong to call him a vandal or assume anything about his motivations for removing the content and I apologise for this, but I would like to receive an apology from Ymblanter for his overreaction. Halon8 (talk) 15:24, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Halon8, as you have mentioned me I must clarify here. I said that "that suspicion appears to have been withdrawn". However Ymblanter in his subsequent comment still has suspicions that you are a block evader. Can you please clarify, are you in any way connected to User:Жовтневе багаття? Ymb above states "I would normally decide that they are a sock of the same user and block them indefinitely, but they have a non-zero contribution from before 2012 which does not look as a contribution of User:Жовтневе багаття". I took that to be a sign that you were not. However Ym still harbours doubts from his comment on my T/P. I think you should explicitly clarify your identity, and we can move forward. Irondome (talk) 15:35, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
To be honest, my suspicions became even worse. Users with the total contribution of 212 edits (an zero between 2012 and 2017) usually do not start by reverts in articles which are under WP:ARBEE, they do not exactly repeat edits of a recently blocked user, they do not wikilawyer, and they do not demand an apology. We have unfortunately seen a huge amount of users with several dozens edits in ARBEE topics who suddenly start adding POV (both sides) and wikilawyer, raising suspicions they are WP:NOTTHERE. Many of them have been taken to CU and found to be socks of blocked users. The standard practice was to block those on the spot, not letting them to waste time of users in good standing.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:43, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Obviously I am not User:Жовтневе багаття. I don't know how I'm supposed to clarify my identity, but I am happy to do what is asked (short of revealing personal information online). I don't think your 'standard practice' is consistent with Wikipedia policy or with the spirit of Wikipedia, but maybe this place is very different these days. Please remember that I am a real person and real people behave in a variety of different ways - we don't usually spend our whole lives editing Wikipedia non-stop. I reverted one set of edits (reverting the removal of long-standing content) - that is not reason to block someone or threaten to do so. You have been aggressive thoughout. You should only be blocking people for disruptive editing not because you suspect (based on very little) that someone is a 'bad' user. NB just because whatever-his-name was a sockpuppet doesn't automatically mean that restoring the material deleted by My very best wishes was a disruptive edit. I didn't look in depth at who had made the edit before I reverted them, and honestly, I would be worried if that was the approach that everyone was taking now (although I likely wouldnt have said it was vandalism if I had checked the user histories more closely). Edits should be judged on their merits not by checking whether someone is in the gang of respected people. Halon8 (talk) 16:56, 24 March 2017 (UTC) And just to clarify, I am in no way connected with User:Жовтневе багаття, I had no knowledge of this person until Ymblanter brought me here and I looked at their user page. Halon8 (talk) 17:01, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Let's try to assume some good faith and competence all around—I think there are just language issues here. Some googling indicates that there might be separatist movements within those "autonomous republics,"[6][7][8] just as there is long-term separatist movement within that other "autonomous" (cough, cough) republic of Chechnya. Based on my reading of the dif you just shared, I think that's what the editor meant. First Light (talk) 15:04, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
Here is the problem. One must at least provide name of the corresponding separatist movement (per sources) to include a separatism movement in the list. Something like Tuva, Chechens, or even "Chechen separatists" is not a separatist movement. Let's keep apples and oranges separately. My very best wishes (talk) 22:14, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes I was using shorthand to refer to the Tuvan nationalist and Yakutian nationalist (aka Sakha nationalist) movements. I'm sorry if this was not clear (I thought we were having a productive discussion about definitions and sources). I have also learnt that I should have said WP:DUE not Notability so sorry for that too.

I'm sorry I asked for an apology - I did not realise that was not allowed. I'm sorry that my first apology continued to doubt the motivations of the editors - it was clearly not just the use of the term 'vandalism' but my doubting of their good faith that was a problem. I'm sorry I misunderstood Irondome's statement about the accusation being withdrawn. I do not understand the reference to NotHere. I do not understand the reference to ARBEE. If the two pages I edited are under some kind of arbitration, shouldn't there be a giant warning sign at the top of the Talk pages? I do not agree that the articles or material are 'trash' or 'nonsense', I just think they need improving. I do not understand how you can threaten to block someone on the basis of one set of two edits, but I'm probably wrong about this. Please could someone explain in plain English exactly what it is I am supposed to do? I have tried to find someone who can verify my identity but have not succeeded. This is all very upsetting. Halon8 (talk) 18:44, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

I assumed as much (that you were referring to separatist movements within those countries). So, if there are reliable sources showing nationalist/separatist movements within those countries, then they could be added to the list, assuming they are notable enough and current. Seems pretty simple and straightforward to me. Until there is proof that this user is a sockpuppet, can we assume good faith here, or is that asking too much? First Light (talk) 12:41, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
These lists have criteria for inclusion at the top. See, for example, List of active separatist movements in Asia. It tells: " Entries on this list must meet three criteria: 1. They are active movements with current, active members." and so on. OK. One needs an RS telling there is certain separatism movement, rather than a single activist or simply citizens who are not involved in any movements, but have a personal opinion on the subject of autonomy. I would also assume that the movement must have a name, just like any object to be included in any list (e.g. any protein in a list of proteins must have a name, etc.). My very best wishes (talk) 16:04, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

I think this really is a conversation about semantic difference (that should be on the Talk pages not here). In my view, these movements were easily verifiable i.e. the sources I've provided do show evidence of separatist or autonomous movements, e.g. the Moscow Times article says "Chechnya and Dagestan are seen as the main centers of separatism in Russia, but there are also separatist movements in regions including Tatarstan, Tuva, Bashkortostan, Sakha, and even regions where the majority of the population is Russian, such as exclave Kaliningrad and the Primorsky region in the Far East". There is a whole book and many articles about the autonomy movement in Tatarstan https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=7ydo7Idyqj0C&dq=Council+of+Aksakals+of+Bashkortostan&source=gbs_navlinks_s, plus two politial parties advocating for autonomy. There is an article on circassian nationalism. These are well known movements. Social movements can have different names and are not the same as advocacy groups. Books such as https://books.google.co.uk/books/about/Encyclopedia_of_the_Stateless_Nations_A.html?id=OLKKVXgEpkoC&redir_esc=y list movements by the name of the area or ethnic group. The criteria for the lists does not actually ask for a name for the movement - virtually every other entry on the list just says the name of the area. I didn't really intend to get engaged in these articles to such an extent, and if nobody minds, I would really like to just step out those discussions. Halon8 (talk) 11:37, 29 March 2017 (UTC) NB I meant that the Circassian and Tatarstan movements are well known - I'm not sure about about many of the others. However, deleting minority Russian movements while leaving minority movements in other countries creates undue weight. Halon8 (talk) 11:43, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Halon8, I agree with you — it is an artificial and made-up requirement that a separatist group needs to have a name. As long as Reliable Sources cover a separatist social movement or named group, whether given a name or not, it would meet Wikipedia's requirements. As far as notability of these things, that should be determined on the article's talk page or one of the other Noticeboards, not here. Stepping out of discussions that attract nationalistic editors is probably wise. It's hard to find neutral editors who are willing to get into these disputes. It's why I won't touch these articles more than to offer neutral opinion here and at WP:RSN. First Light (talk) 13:16, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

User:Certified Gangsta's userspace[edit]

Certified Gangsta (talk · contribs) has had a long and chequered career on Wikipedia since at least 2006, with many different usernames — YOLO Swag, Bonafide.hustla, and Freestyle.king come to mind — and a long block log. Certified Gangsta was one of his earliest accounts, and he has now returned to that name after being gone for four years. AFAIK, he used to mostly change his name per the proper procedures, which means the block log has come with him. Bonafide.hustla and Freestyle.king are, however, exceptions: those blocks (quite numerous) are here and here. Please note that there are links to those logs in Certified Gangsta's log: look for User:East718's dummy entry on 21 November 2008.

All clear so far? My problem is this: in 2013, Od Mishehu created a page in Certified Gangsta's own userspace, containing a list of six other blocks, all of them from 2006. These old blocks seem to be all now under the name Certified Gangsta, so I don't understand why they don't appear in Certified Gangsta's regular block log. The technicalities of this are beyond me, and I appeal to people to please not explain it here, unless against all the odds it has some interest.

Certified Gangsta doesn't like having this page in his userspace, and has blanked it and asked me to delete it. User request to delete subpages in their own space falls under the WP:U1 speedy criterion, but the case was unusual, and Od Mishehu had specifically written on the page "Note: Please note that this page should not be deleted even if the user requests for it. This is the user's record under old user names."[9] Therefore, I asked Od Mishehu privately if he was all right with me deleting the page, but he's not, and refers to the specifics of WP:U1: "In some rare cases there may be administrative need to retain the page."

I would still like to delete the page, and would like to know what the community thinks. My reason is twofold:

1. I don't see that we need such a scrupulous record at all of blocks that are so old, 2006. Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy.

2. If we really do need that ancient record, then I don't understand the need to keep the list in CG's own space, which is humiliating and chafing for him. I'll acknowledge that he has always been a problematic user, but he's nevertheless a person, and deserves personal consideration just like everybody else. I see where Od Mishehu was coming from when he created the page in 2013, but why not move it somewhere less hurtful, now that the user has returned? Od Mishehu has put a note in CG's block log, at the top, linking to the page. Now obviously that note in the log could just as well link to the same information somewhere else — say in Od Mishehu's own space. I'd appreciate knowing what people think.

Bishonen | talk 17:20, 23 March 2017 (UTC).

  • Oh lord. Delete the thing. Six eleven-year-old blocks aren't going to matter when there are numerous more recent blocks to consider if sanctions are needed again. If there is an administrative need then an administrator can follow the link from the dummy edit in the block log and view the deleted page anyway. TimothyJosephWood 17:29, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
  • I say keep until there's some better way to knit together the user's disparate block logs, though courtesy blanking should be fine. No other user gets to blank their own block logs. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:39, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
    • Users don't get to blank their block logs, but whether this subdocument is a block log is less clear; I've never heard of such documentation being kept in a user's space against their will. Drmies (talk) 17:44, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
Well, the alternative to knitting together the various block logs of a user who's been blocked with multiple accounts is probably SPI. Some idle entry in their user space is probably preferable from a dignity perspective. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:15, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
  • This could have been an interesting debate, but there's a shortcut that takes all the complications out of it: I believe I've confirmed that all blocks and unblocks listed on Od Mishehu's page are already also listed in the actual block logs of Freestyle.king and Bonafide.husla, as already noted by East718 in the current block log. So the subpage can be deleted, it has no additional info that isn't already documented. The deletion rationale should be "Page no longer needed, blocks of previous usernames already documented in current block log by East718" or something similar, so people following OM's link won't be puzzled. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:03, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) Hmm, well yes, then that seems fine. Delete the page, whatever administrative need it was fulfilling is fulfilled by East718's entry. Unless OD has some other reason for keeping it. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:12, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep the page but hide the content (revdel?) so that only administrators can see it. That way everyone would be happy, no public humiliation for the Gangsta' but easily readable for the only ones who could possibly be interested in it, i.e. admins. 18:10, 23 March 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thomas.W (talkcontribs)
We're talking here about a user who has repeatedly changed usernames, and who I suspect (although this is only an opinion) does this to try and prevent users from "remembering" him. He ran for MEDCOM under one username, 2 RFAs undr 2 other names (the second one being Certified.Gangsta, in June 2008), and was back in the December 2008 ArbCom elections under yet a different name. He subsequently ran for ArbCom twice more, the second time under yet a different name. A user like this needs to keep his record with him for everyone to see. Unlike most of us, though, there is a good reason to hide part of it: he got renamed twice before the block logs were transfered for renamed users, and those old names were taken by known troll. This pagfeis a way to keep his blocks, under those names, with him - without making him look like this specific troll at a glance. Admins can confirm that when I created this page, I also hid a dummy line in his block log linking to these 2 accounts. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 18:43, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
But, as I commented above, the other usernames' block logs are *already* listed in his block log, linked to by East718's note. If you're saying your way would have been better, that might be true, but the toothpaste is out of the tube, the usernames and block logs are all linked. This subpage is just a duplicate. If CG prefers it not be in his userspace anymore, it should be fine to delete the page. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:52, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
Only if we unhide East718's log entry, which I think is worse for CG. This was the reason that I did it - I thought that this would be a better way that next time CG runs for additional rights, he can be judged by the community on all and only his own record. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 18:56, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
Oh, I see now. I didn't know that East718's entry was only visible to admins; I could see it, I assumed everyone could. If there's consensus here that the entries aren't needed at all, then delete the page and keep East's entry hidden. If there's consensus here to keep one or the other (instead of just ignoring those old blocks) then I think the choice should be left up to CG: keep the page, or unhide East718's entry. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:03, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
I find it hard to imagine a scenario where some decision has been made on sanctions or rights and somehow this information from 2006 pushes things over the edge. The information is sufficiently stale so as to make the whole think look a bit pointy. TimothyJosephWood 19:46, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
Is this really going to make any practical difference, ever? Are we looking at a potential Arbcom candidate whose application would be stymied only by those small few blocks out of a lifetime of them? How about we get real, delete this stuff to help a real human person in their wish to come back, and go worry about more important things? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:55, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
The point is that each voter has the right to decide for himself/herself how relevant these blocks are; we shouldn't make the decision for him/her. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 04:12, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
Then point voters at the actual block logs, and don't force a user to keep links to them in their own user space like a badge of shame. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:20, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
A userspace page is generally not seen by visitors to the user's userspace unless (s)he actually includes links to them or transclusions of them. The only link I provided to this page is from the user's block log. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 11:33, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
That's an irrelevant diversion - now that the block logs have been found, there is no policy-based justification for forcing a user to keep their own additional copy in their own userspace. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:21, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
I've refrained from commenting so far since I simply want to let this process take its course and minimize any potential drama. However, I do think I deserve credit for always applying username change through the proper channel when I easily could have opted for clean start or exercised my right to vanish like many others do, especially in light of my sporadic editing history over the past 6-7 years (unfortunately, that's just the way my real life has been going). All my contributions over the past 11 years are on this account and I have made no attempt whatsoever to conceal my history, so I think it's unfair for User:Od Mishehu to assume bad faith by opining that I change username as a way to "try and prevent users from "remembering" me". As far as I know, no other users have ever been subjected to one-second blocks and user space "badge of shame" like I have been. And the lack of precedents is quite disconcerting. For example, when User:Sumple was blocked for disruption [10], he immediately abandoned his account in favor of a brand new account User:PalaceGuard008 without going through Wikipedia:Changing username/Simple in a clear-cut attempt to wipe clean his block log. When he was exposed, admins on AN/I concluded that it was deception at best [11] [12] and abusive sockpuppetry at worst [13]. Yet there has been no effort whatsoever to fully document the block log of User:PalaceGuard008 despite the fact that his old Sumple account was once blocked indefinitely for sockpuppetry (later overturned just like many of my old blocks). And frankly, this is just one out of the many examples that I have personally witnessed where problematic users are allowed to bypass Wikipedia:Changing username/Simple and wipe clean their block log, which is something I would never do as a matter of principle. However, I think it would only be fair if User:Od Mishehu takes the initiative to fully chronicle User:PalaceGuard008 block log, including those from his old User:Sumple account, through the administrative use of 1-second block. Last but not least, I would like to thank everyone, in particular User:Boing! said Zebedee for taking the time to participate in this discussion and User:Bishonen for bringing this issue to AN/I. Happy editing!--Certified Gangsta (talk) 03:31, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
The Wikipedia machine has notified me that I have been implicated in this discussion. I am posting here only to say that I object to being brought into this discussion by User:Certified Gangsta, whom I regard as a wholly disruptive, net-destructive user, in this way. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 09:25, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Uninvolved administrative suggestion: What about just making several 1 second blocks making a note of the old blocks, documenting the time and reason they were done.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 22:08, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
  • I'd be okay with deleting the page as a duplicate of their block log, if we can unhide that block log entry from East718 which adds the necessary context. User:Od Mishehu, is there any reason in your view to keep that log entry hidden? Lankiveil (speak to me) 12:13, 24 March 2017 (UTC).
    • The reason I hid this log entry is that there is no reason to connect CG with the new accounts under the names Freestyle.king and Bonafide.hustla (these accounts are Grawp's); I made thwe duplicate so that all community members would be aable to see these block log entries. Should CG ever run for any permissions again (quite likely he will), the community should judge him according to his record, his whole record, and nothing but his record. Giving them easy access to these first usernames violates the "nothing but his record" bit; keeping them away from these log entries violates the "his whole record" bit. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 18:33, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Proposed resolution[edit]

While I recognize the argument that a Wikipedia editor's history should be visible (while noting the apparent contradiction conveyed by cleanstart policy), I note that:

  • The actual block log entries in question do still exist and have been found.
  • The user in question has followed policy regarding the renaming of accounts and does not appear to have attempted to disguise their past through cleanstarting or through other means.
  • There is a policy basis for retaining user space pages if there is an administrative need, but the spirit of that policy appears to be aimed at user pages created by users themselves and not pages created by other editors/admins in their user space.
  • There is no precedent I can find for forcing a user to retain a page in their user space created by another editor/admin without clear consensus.
  • There is only one admin here (the admin who created the page in question) arguing for the retention of the page in question.
  • When a consensus is not established in favour of overturning the status quo, that status prevails.
  • There is no consensus for overturning the status quo with respect to WP:U1.

I therefore inform that community that, in the absence of any clear policy reason for forcing a user to retain in their own user space a page created by someone else, or a clear consensus in opposition to that default policy position, in 48 hours from now I will delete the user page in question in accordance with the provisions of WP:U1. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:04, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

  • Support - As should be obvious. But I will say that I would much prefer it if OM made the point moot, recognized that the consensus is against them on this one, and did it themselves, even if they disagree with it. TimothyJosephWood 13:46, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Forcing a user to keep a page in their userspace for this reason sets a bad precedent. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:41, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Deleted. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:03, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
Thank you User:Boing! said Zebedee!--Certified Gangsta (talk) 00:32, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

User:Bob Henshaw introducing errors en masse[edit]

For over a year and a half User:Bob Henshaw's only purpose on Wikipedia has been to add census information to articles on English villages and parishes. I've seen him regularly pop up on my watchlist and have never interacted with him prior to today, but a few months ago I saw him add blatant errors to a couple dozen of Hampshire villages that I watch. I thought little of it at the time and quietly fixed his errors. However, a cursory glance through his contributions reveals that he doesn't just add nonsensical statements, mangled sentences, and incorrect population figures to just a few stubs, no, he's been doing this every day for every county in England since January 2015. Hundreds of unseen edits. While I think he's been doing this in good faith and don't want to discourage him from adding population figures from the 2011 census (which is useful), the fact is that does more harm than good and most of his edits are disruptive. The problem is much larger than I can put in diffs, but I'll highlight several I've pulled out from his recent contributions at random as examples:

  • After I left him a message on his talk page pointing out his errors, he ignored it and made two more errors to Antony, Cornwall, completely breaking the infobox template twice and not bothering to fix it
  • Adds nonsensical sentences like "At the 2011 Census the population was included in the civil parish of" which makes no sense gramatically and is just fluff. He does this to almost every article he comes across. He also very rarely adds full stops[14][15][16][17][18][19][20]
  • Lately he's been adding the same horrible construction to villages in Cornwall[21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31]. These are only just a few - spot the missing brackets, full stops, and typos.
  • According to the Post Office the population at the 2011 census. According to the Post Office? This is just one diff, but a recent one. "According to the Post Office" is a commonplace phrase in his editing. No idea what it even means. That and "at the 2011 census", not "as of the 2011 census", which makes grammatical sense
  • [32] According to the Post Office again
  • Durford Wood, 14 Dec: Adds that it is in the the civil parish of Rogate. No it isn't, Rogate is in Sussex, a different county. The post town is also incorrect[33]
  • Bentworth, 31 Jan: Adds that Woolmer is in the civil parish of Bentworth. No it isn't, Woolmer is 20 miles away and isn't related at all. Where does he get this from?[34]
  • Flexcombe, 27 Dec: One of the countless "(where the 2011 Census population was included)," sentence again. Flexcombe is not in the parish of Liss, it is in Steep[35]
  • Froxfield, Hampshire, 18 Dec: "At the 2011 Census the hamlet had become a civil parish in its own name".[36] What the hell. It has had its own civil parish for centuries. It wasn't suddenly created in 2011. Where in this source does it say that? He's making it up
  • Finchdean, 16 Dec: The Post Office does not tell you what civil parish a hamlet lies in, maps do. At least he got the civil parish right this time, but still adds in the fluff[37]
  • Another thing he does all the time is adding in the 2011 population figures in an infobox whilst keeping in the 2001 figures.[38] (only one diff, but there are likely hundreds more). I think this clutters the infobox because there's no need to keep an outdated figure
  • At the 2011 census, not "As of the 2011 census". Rare full stop
  • Isington, 21 Dec: " At the 2011 Census the Post Office confirm that the population". The post town is not Alton, it is Farnham.[39]
  • Idsworth, 21 Dec: Another "the Post Office confirm that", but at least the post town is correct this time[40]

The diffs are the tip of the iceberg. You just have to look through his past 250 contributions to see that he is adding these nonsensical sentences and false information en masse in almost every edit. I know that he does this in good faith his editing is very problematic. I would like to propose a topic ban if the gross errors continue. I'm sorry that I can't list more diffs, but I invite you to just look through his contributions and pull out an article at random. JAGUAR  21:08, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

I have reverted a few unreferenced population changes but there are many hundreds, it's getting VERY disruptive, the vast number of poorly edited, unsourced changes. Theroadislong (talk) 22:47, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
I don't quite get why you found it necessary to leave two level-3 warnings and one level-4 warning hours after he had stopped editing. --NeilN talk to me 00:19, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
Doesn't look like he's ever used a talk page. A short block might get his attention. --Tarage (talk) 23:34, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
He's used his twice so he know it's there. I'd rather wait and see if he starts editing without responding. --NeilN talk to me 00:19, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
Do we want to bet on how poor his unblock request will be? No points for "I dindo nuffin" 01:17, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
When I saw the heading of this section I thought it was something serious, like use of inaccurate data or unsourced and unllkely information. Biut these are minor errors in wording and grammar. They do not confuse the sense. I think all that is necessary is for them to be silently corrected, and the standard wording explained to him. DGG ( talk ) 01:30, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
Are we reading the same section? There's an entire list of "inaccurate data or unsourced and unllkely information" just above. --Calton | Talk 03:51, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
I was literally about to say the same thing. There's almost nothing accurate about this person's edits. Putting towns in the wrong county is very serious, let alone not being able to write a simple sentence. Capeo (talk) 04:03, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
Yes, the problem is much larger and more serious than I had previously thought. I went through his contributions a minute ago, skipped 100 pages and pulled one a diff at random. On St Anthony-in-Meneage he has changed the population figure from 178 to 168.[41] According to the source which he got it from, the population is 178 as of the 2011 census, not 168. He changed it for no logical reason. The sentence in the lead now reads "In the 2001 census the parish had a population of 171, increasing to 168 at the 2011 census". Increasing from 171 to 168. Pretty much every edit I'm pulling out either has an error in it or contains a mangled sentence. The list of errors above were mostly from Hampshire, and I could tell right off the bat that the post towns and civil parishes were wrong because I know the local area well. I have no idea how many hundreds of errors he has made nationwide. JAGUAR  12:10, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
I've raised similar issues with this user in the past and been ignored as well - the user talk page has a section from 2016 when he was editing Suffolk articles en masse (my area). Others have added similar concerns as well. I don't think I ever got a response or saw a change in editing style or content. Blue Square Thing (talk) 14:23, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
I am one of the few editors that Bob has interacted with on his talkpage, and I don't think it's his intention to be disruptive, though I agree that some of his edits are unclear or a bit slapdash, and need adjusting or tightening. For example, in this edit, which Theroadislong reverted as not being supported by the source, if you look at the Neighbourhood Statistics page for Manaccan, it can be seen that the figure tallies with what Bob changed it to. Unfortunately Bob didn't change the source. (There remains the question of which source is accurate - it might be that the figure on the Neighbourhood Statistics page includes another unnamed parish in addition to Manaccan - a quite common scenario - whereas the the genuki source does not). PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 14:32, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
Exactly and he is making hundreds of similar edits which might be accurate, but are unsourced or are now cited to the wrong source. Theroadislong (talk) 16:31, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

I have encountered Bob elsewhere on the net. Without wishing to out him, he's an intelligent and knowledgeable chap, but computers aren't his forte. Obviously blocks are not punitive, but I really hope it doesn't come to that as I'm not sure he'd be able to file a convincing unblock request. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:57, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm sure he's doing this in good faith, and I don't wish to antagonise him, but the majority of his edits are either incorrect of malformed. I'm in the process of doing a cleanup of all the Hampshire settlements he has edited, and already found a couple of errors in the first minute. "At the 2011 Census the population was included inb the civil parish of King's Somborne"[42], "According to the Post Office the 2011 Census population was included in the civil parish of Langrish"[43]. I really don't want to see him blocked but the problems are very widespread and I dread to think of the hours of cleanup that is going to be involved. I hope he can change his approach to editing. JAGUAR  17:13, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
I think it's more the case that some of his edits are not clearly written or explained. In the example given above from the Little Somborne article, I think what Bob meant was that the census information for the parish has been lumped together with that of King's Somborne, as can be seen from the map at the Neighbourhood Statistics page for King's Somborne (and also from Bob's edits at the King's Somborne article). I suspect many of his other 'errors' are similar. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 18:07, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
@Ritchie333: Any idea how to reach out to him? He's edited without acknowledging this thread. --NeilN talk to me 19:15, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
@NeilN: I've blocked. I've not used the template, but a personalised message trying to explain as best I can that we're not punishing him. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 19:25, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. I'll have to go through AWB and do my best to remove his awful constructions but I'm worried how many errors there are that people won't be able to pick up. I looked through his user talk page on the SABRE wiki—it seems that he caused the same level of disruption over there as he did here. It's a shame as he could have been a productive editor had he just stuck to updating population numbers themselves. JAGUAR  21:48, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
It does look like the post-town and census changes got all mixed up. Perhaps we could just apply the correct data to the articles. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 20:29, 26 March 2017 (UTC).

Is there any way to mass rollback somebody's edits through AWB or a bot? I have never seen anything this bad before. It has taken me over two hours to fine-tune AWB and yet I had to remove 200 of his malformed sentences manually. I still can't pick out his errors. Every edit of his I have been through so far has had the wrong civil parish in it. So far I've been through over 300 of his 11906 remaining edits and it just screams "nuke from orbit". I can't begin to explain the extent of this problem. JAGUAR  15:58, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure if it's appropriate for me to post this here (and note that I'm not an administrator). If it is not possible, perhaps that a hidden category and a temporary census-update WikiProject may be in order? Software algorithms are often weak at merging old diffs into new revisions; a backlog of cases that couldn't be done would usually still result for human manual fixing, except if completely reverting to an older revision. But I actually don't know much about the current software Wikimedia has, except for the database backend of an old MediaWiki version that I had to port to another database as a job, years ago... PaleoNeonate (talk) 08:26, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. I really doubt it's possible to merge old diffs or rollback one's edits, but it would be a quicker way to get rid of the errors... JAGUAR  19:45, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
This is is a potentially usful bit of info, but in the wrong place. Saying that the population for a hamlet was included into the total for a larger nearby village is a useful comment, but the way he's done it is odd to say the least. He added the text "(where the 2011 census population was included)" in the middle of the introductory sentence so that it now reads "Darite is a village in the civil parish of St Cleer (where the 2011 census population was included), Cornwall, England, United Kingdom." (diff) Why didn't he add it as a separate sentence? - X201 (talk) 09:50, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
His nonsensical statements are everywhere. I reckon three in every four of the articles he has edited has a mistake like that in it. JAGUAR  19:45, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
I know what you mean, but ... this sounds kind of like how blocks are supposed to work... --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:14, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

I've just combed through every single one of his 11,000+ edits through AWB. To accomplish this I split the articles he edited into several lists so it would make AWB load the pages faster. It wasn't that difficult considering he has only made two non-mainspace edits! I managed to rewrite most of his mangled and nonsensical sentences through the "find and replace" function, but I definitely missed some. Every now and again I rollbacked some of his obvious errors if he was the most recent person to edit the article in question. I made almost 2000 corrections in total, but of course AWB didn't fix the errors themselves. To do that would require going through every article, checking the census information and looking at a map to see if the civil parish is correct or if the population figures check out. Cornwall, Northamptonshire and Hampshire were the worst affected, and Kent, Manchester, Somerset, most northern counties and all Welsh counties were almost untouched, although he had edited them. It was astonishing to see that he went through every county in England and Wales in the space of one year without anybody noticing his errors. I'm not sure how to proceed now since AWB is quite limited and many of the errors can only be found by fact-checking. It's a pity that Fram didn't get to this first... JAGUAR  19:45, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Hear ye hear ye. When the above user is one a mission, steer clear. Half of this week's edits they did in 24 hours. L3X1 (distant write) 23:14, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
@Jaguar: The more I think about this case, the more I think that the best course of action is to put every potentially affected article in a polluted hidden category to keep track of them, and then start the slow trudge through them. - X201 (talk) 20:41, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
I suspect almost every edit he has made either has a subtle error in it or an ungrammatical/broken sentence somewhere. I'm sure I didn't fix all of the issues through AWB, but a process like that would take a very long time. It does seem to be one option though... JAGUAR  11:26, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Widespread NFCC violation needs correction[edit]

Right now, File:Noisebridge_logo.png appears on nearly 150 user talk pages, as a result of its inclusion in a mass message. It is, by a wide margin, the most frequently used nonfree image on the project, and all of the talk page uses are improper. This situation came about because someone included the image in a mass message signed by Ben Creasy and Checkingfax. I can't determine who actually sent the message. I don't see any simple way to extract the violation from the message, nor do I see any efficient way to remove the messages entirely: the mess messaging was conducted more than two days ago, and all I can suggest would be that an editor with rollback rights act, followed up by manual removal when subsequent posts were made to a userpage.

I'm hoping somebody with more technical savvy than moi can provide a better option. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 20:36, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Log says it was Checkingfax. I tried to unlink the file but apparently Twinkle does not see any backlinks. Deleting and restoring the file didn't help. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:03, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
Rename it? Andy Dingley (talk) 21:06, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
File removed from user talk pages. — JJMC89(T·C) 21:09, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
Hi, JJMC89. Thanks! You beat me to it! Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 21:18, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict) – 
@Hullaballoo Wolfowitz, Jo-Jo Eumerus, and Andy Dingley:I should be able to remove the image with AWB. Let me work on it. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 21:14, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Bagel7 is under the impression that NFCC policy does not apply to User talk:Bagel7. — JJMC89(T·C) 04:46, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

They should get the message now. --NeilN talk to me 05:09, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
(Non-administrator comment)@NeilN: Maybe adding links to WP:UP#Non-free images and WP:UP#OWN will help clarify things since based upon this edit sum they seem to be misunderstanding both. Some people seem to find those links easier to understand than WP:NFCC#9. Just a suggestion. -- Marchjuly (talk) 09:07, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
Nobody pointed out that their sandbox is not the place for the image either. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 20:10, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
@NeilN: Doesn't seem like it. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:46, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
(Non-administrator comment)@Future Perfect at Sunrise: Why I understand why you made protected Bagel7's user talk, he still does not seem to be getting the message. I suppose you can protect his user page as well; however, if that's really necessary, then maybe the disruption needs to be stopped more forcefully before it spreads to other pages outside his userspace. Both WP:UP#OWN and WP:UP#Non-free image seem quite clear about this thing, so I am totally unable to comprehend why an editor who has been around since January 2006 and who never has been blocked before seems to have decided to stand his ground over something so obviously against policy as this. --Marchjuly (talk) 00:40, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
  • This caught my eye as I visited there once, and know the hackerspace culture to be very open source and generally anti-copyright in nature. (I remember they had a sign on the inside side of the front door explaining how to talk to gentleman callers from the FBI and the like about what their TOR onion router was.) Sure enough, I see that their content is licensed "Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 Unported." on the main page. But even more interestingly, a copyright clearance house asked in 2013 for the right to use this logo on T-shirts and in the Julian Assange movie. Noisebridge's very amusing response is posted on their wiki, and if I might quote a bit (emphasis mine):

"...Noisebridge as a community believes you have the free speech right to use such imagery without having to ask permission -- especially those who you might be implicitly criticising or commenting upon. Such a right is encoded in the existing nature of trademark and copyright with the idea of fair use.

Sadly, knowledge of such rights have been eroded over the years by the repeated claims of copyright maximalists, who would have you believe that you must beg to refer to us in your film -- or even that you would be beholden to us if, for instance, you parodied our disrespectful attitude to your concerns with the following image, which includes both of our identifying marks, the Noisebridge(TM) circuit, and the Unicorn Pissing A Rainbow(TM).

So we say tell your friends at DreamWorks to publish (or print, or produce) and be damned. Tell them we fully support them in their brave stand. You can say with confidence that the only conditions under which Noisebridge would sue them and their partners to the maximum damages entitled to us by law would be if it turned out that hackers like us were completely hypocritical nihilists out only for our own egotistical ends."

So, to sum up, I am pretty sure they don't care if we use their logo. 198.58.162.200 (talk) 07:46, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

  • I updated the logo copyright tag to match the published policy on Noisebridge's site. Maybe someone can check to see that I did this correctly? First time. 198.58.162.200 (talk) 08:05, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
198.58.162.200, "Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 Unported" is automatically incompatible with Wikipedia; CC-BY-NC is not the same as CC-BY-SA. I've reverted your change. Whether they care if we use their logo is irrelevant here; if an image is on Wikipedia as free-use, it's giving the right to everyone to use it for any purpose, and while they may not mind Wikipedia using it they may well object to a neo-fascist group adopting it as their logo, the military using it as the logo of a fictional terrorist group in training exercises, or its appearance in hardcore pornography. (All these things have actually happened in the past with images uploaded to Wikipedia as CC-BY-SA.) ‑ Iridescent 08:08, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
OK I get it now-- it specifies no commercial use, so it is non-free. What Noisebridge say above is still hugely ironic in terms of this discussion though. I'm going to send them a link to this discussion.198.58.162.200 (talk) 08:21, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
Your quote from their reply above is omitting the key line From your description, it should be clear to anyone watching your film that you're just using the image to talk about Noisebridge, not claim you are Noisebridge or that Noisebridge supports your film, which makes it clear that Noisebridge were giving DreamWorks consent to use the image under fair use, not releasing it under free use. To hammer the point home as it's such a key issue and so widely misunderstood, something uploaded on Wikipedia as free use means that Work submitted to Wikipedia can be edited, used, and redistributed—by anyone comes into play; I very much doubt Noisebridge want McDonalds or Starbucks adopting their logo for a "new and edgy chain of cyber-cafes". ‑ Iridescent 08:28, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
I never suggested it was available as a free logo for any use. It's available under hte CC license they state. I just thought it was fascinating to hear from the actual logo owner, on the one hand, and to have the actual intention contrasted with the tight rules of Wikipedia on the other. If you knew the culture you would understand the irony and the general approach to copyright. The whole hackerspace culture, and the open software movement it came from, is very much against the kind of control-driven approaches to copyright as are described above. Have a nice evening,Iridescent. 198.58.162.200 (talk) 08:42, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
Astonishingly enough, as people who administer the most influential open-source project in the world everyone on this board is familiar with the culture of the movement. We're also aware that both Wikipedia and Noisebridge are obliged to follow the law, not our personal opinions of what the law should be. ‑ Iridescent 09:01, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
It's not the same culture at all- the free software/hackerpace movement is much more radical, less rule driven and very anarchistic. Wikipedia might have been similar to the FSW movement ten years ago, but now it is more like the dictionary definition of a gigantic infelexible beurocracy! Which is exactly the point here, and the source of the irony. Noisebridge is still free and flexible; Wikipeida is not. C.f. above, and any other ANI entry. Anyway, lighten up. You're making a mountain out of a molehill. I am not advocating any rule changes. Just pointing out some ironies. 198.58.162.200 (talk) 09:05, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Then Noisebridge need to revisit their own licensing, and maybe learn what it actually means. CC makes it easy enough, but what Noisebridge state very clearly in their overt licensing contradicts what they've just said in that communication. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:07, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

My name is Mitch Altman, and I'm a co-founder of Noisebridge hackerspace. I would like to categorically and definitively state for the public record that it is totally OK that our Noisebridge logo be shared with the CC BY-SA license. We do not want the license to include NC. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maltman23 (talkcontribs) 21:43, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

  • a-ha! I was correct, "they don't care if we use their logo."198.58.162.200 (talk) 00:23, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
  • (Non-administrator comment) I think c:COM:CC might probably be a little more helpful than c:COM:L since it lists all the CC licenses accepted by Commons in an easy to understand table. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:19, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
@Maltman23: On the internet, nobody knows you're a dog; which I suppose that you already know, but we cannot simply take "Maltman23" as a valid copyright source. Please do as Andy mentioned above, or follow Wikimedia's procedure to release copyright. TigraanClick here to contact me 11:58, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
  • So is anyone going to say anything about the edit by Bagel of 'Fuck off faggots'? Or are we all just ignoring that? Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:15, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
    • (Non-administrator comment) I removed it earlier today (my time) and Softlavender blocked the account shortly thereafter. Not sure why it was necessary to repeat the offensive part in your post though, when it could've simply referred to in another way. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:24, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
      • Hi Marchjuly, must have been someone else that blocked them because I am not an admin (though apparently I play one on TV). Softlavender (talk) 11:35, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
        • It was FPaS, who blocked for re-posting the image. Not as far as I can see for the offensive personal attacks. Which I repeated here *precisely* because I wanted other people to see as it appears it had been overlooked. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:13, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
          • The block appears to have been for both - the summary is "edit-warring to include non-free images in userspace; personal attacks". Personally, I'd probably have gone for a week, but I think 48 hours is OK. If the user repeats either the edit warring or the personal attacks when the block expires, I'd support a very lengthy block. WJBscribe (talk) 12:33, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
            • @Softlavender: You're right. Sorry for the mix up and unnecessary ping. I was working on Myke Hurley at the time when I removed the Bagel7 post and got things the names mixed up. I actually pinged Future Perfect at Sunrise correctly above, so it was a silly miss on my part. -- Marchjuly (talk) 14:00, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

User:Albignoni making legal and personal threats[edit]

Albignoni (talk · contribs · logs), a single purpose account with 8 edits since: 2015-01-02, edit warring to exclude information about a source which proves that his prior edits (performed as dynamic IPs) were made up. He's throwing legal and personal threats in two languages at me. Quote (from summary of a dynamic IP): you will get problems with my lawyer, and in Polish (as Albignoni): Wydawnictwo Znak i moj adwokat znajda cie, which translates roughly as: Sign Publishing and my lawyer with hunt you down boy".[44] Editing history:

  1. Logged out as 93.230.43.90 (talk · contribs · logs) from Baden-Württemberg, 23 March 2017, removing the same book reference.[45]
  2. Logged out as 149.172.46.139 (talk · contribs · logs) from Baden-Württemberg, 25 March 2017, removing the same book reference.[46]
  3. Logged out as 134.3.199.60 (talk · contribs · logs) from Baden-Württemberg, 7 October 2016, removing book reference and adding the false quote in question but without the actual source-link.[47]
  4. Logged out as‎ 109.192.182.68 (talk · contribs · logs) from Baden-Württemberg, 3 August 2016, the same false quote inserted for the first time with link to Google Books which proves that it does not exist.[48]

Poeticbent talk 03:33, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Blocked the account. Which, BTW, means that any further edits from the user under IPs fall under WP:3RRNO. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:43, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
Hello. A bit of WP:DOLT maybe. The diffs above show the IP removing links to a PDF file which appears to be a copy of a book which is protected by copyright laws - the author died in 2000. In all likelihood, this PDF is hosted in violation of the creator's copyright. WP:COPYLINK clearly says that this link MUST be removed. Thanks and regards, Biwom (talk) 04:15, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
Hi Poeticbent and Ian.thomson, as Biwom says, it looks as though Albignoni was removing a link to an unauthorized copy of the book. I've removed the link, which is dead now anyway. I've also left the quote from the first Picador edition on the talk page (which was apparently in doubt), in case it's helpful. SarahSV (talk) 05:28, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
Please be advised that this affair is not about the Wikipedia article's sourcing per se. The real (!) conflict is all about money and privilege in the real world. The family of Władysław Szpilman received oodles (no doubt) from the producers of the The Pianist (2002 film) for the rights to the story. Ever since, dynamic IPs such as user: 94.254.197.112 (talk · contribs · logs) (not mentioned above) scream bloody murder at the sound of the name Jerzy Waldorff, a renown Polish writer who wrote the book for Szpilman after the war ended. – Here are the samples of relevant edit summaries dating back to 2013 by IP 94.254.197.112 (whom I believe to be the same person): → Gestapo Collaborator and Gangster -antisemitic lies, slander and libel ... Stop devastating of this bio by polish antisemits ... stop vandalism look out - you may get some problems with the justice for lies and wrong information about authorship. – I did not list this incident in my original report only because it was four years old already. Poeticbent talk 15:04, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
Hello. Whatever the wrongs of other users, it would be great if you could show some contrition for repeatedly ([49] [50] [51] [52] [53]) restoring in an article about a copyrighted book a link to a copy of that very book. "Respect copyright laws" is actually something you can read at WP:5P. Thanks and regards, Biwom (talk) 02:53, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
Hello. The internal link to essay Wikipedia:Don't overlook legal threats (posted above) would imply that the Wikipedia article The Pianist (memoir) might be "a ghastly article – either full of lies or a one-sided hatchet job spinning its sources" (end of quote) as our WP:DOLT explains. I'm sure you didn't mean that. Reverting unsupported changes which include faked citations,[54] by single purpose dynamic IPs (with apparent conflict of interest) is part of Wikipedia process. – This however, does not mean that the articles cannot be improved. The link to a PDF copy of the book has been subsequently removed by SarahSV, good enough. I also responded to her note in talk. Wikipedia:Wikipedia is a work in progress. Poeticbent talk 18:55, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
I've rewritten that lead to make the authorship issue clearer. I think all the copyvio links have been removed; Biwom, thanks for removing the last of them. SarahSV (talk) 02:15, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
Protected the page for a month. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:18, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
Doc James, thanks. SarahSV (talk) 16:21, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
Meanwhile, I have received two threatening and abusive emails already from the same individual, one through the Wikipedia email system from user Albignoni and one via facebook, both in Polish and signed by the full name of the person in question. I would not be posting his name here, for some might consider it outing, but I'd be happy to forward the threats delivered to me via Wikipedia email to whomever it might concern, including User:Doc James, SarahSV, and User:Ian.thomson. Thank you, Poeticbent talk 17:40, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
Yes feel free to share with me. I have removed their ability to send email. Not sure what mechanisms FB has for these sort of issues. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:42, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
Poeticbent, I would like to see those messages if you can email them to me. SarahSV (talk) 18:09, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
Done. Thanks, Poeticbent talk 18:25, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Retaliatory Editing[edit]

User:LeakySponge <redacted> has been acting in a harassing manner towards Trevor Eyster. When his own Wikipedia page Henry Wally Laster was deleted, he began attempting to get the Trevor Eyster page removed. His user name is an alteration of Eyster's current project #SpongeyLeaks. He has left comments comparing his page to Eyster's on his User:LeakySponge talk page, on User:C.Fred's talk page, and he left speedy deletion tags on both Trevor Eyster's main page and talk page. He is clearly using manipulating the name of Eyster's #SpongeyLeaks project, and is using his account to harass someone solely because that person has more "celebrity status" than he has. He clearly is holding a grudge, and is using Wikipedia as his new means to harass Eyster. Is there any way to a) Block his IP and b) Disassociate the LeakySponge username from his recent actions? Erinhayden (talk) 09:47, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

I don't see where User:LeakySponge has revealed their real life identity on Wikipedia, so please do not attempt to do so as that is a violation of WP:Outing. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:36, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
(Non-administrator comment)@Erinhayden: Trevor Eyster has been nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trevor Eyster by another editor. If you feel that the article should be kept, then it's best ot make your arguments there. As for LeakySponge, Amortias and Bearcat have left clear explanations regarding notability and how articles are evaluated for it at User talk:LeakySponge#help. LeakySponge hasn't responded to them had has not edited since yesterday when they made this edit to an IPs user talk. Maybe it will be best to take a wait and see approach to see how this plays out. LeakySponge is a new WP:SPA and such accounts tend to make lots of mistakes simply because they know no better. A block at this time seems a bit of a WP:BITE. If the disruption continues, especially now that experienced editors have gotten involved, than the account can always be blocked. As for the username thing, you can always try at WP:UAA, but I don't think this is a violation of WP:IMPERSONATE or WP:ORGNAME. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:26, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
To be clear, I'm not arguing the validity of the Trevor Eyster page needing edits. That is understandable. Please see the comment by LeakySponge on User talk: 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 where he refers to Henry Wally Laster as "his page" and requests it be locked so that only he may edit it. On User talk:LeakySponge, he directly correlates the Trevor Eyster page with his own Henry Wally Laster page and says "I wrote a piece on Henry Wally Laster and hes alive and it got deleted. So yes Trevor Eyster is to be deleted immediately. LeakySponge (talk) 19:28, 23 March 2017 (UTC)" I apologize if correlating the user name and that real life person are considered "outing," but he seems to have done that himself. Regardless, if that user is not that individual, he's stated plainly that, basically, if he can't have a page, Eyster shouldn't either. Erinhayden (talk) 18:14, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
(Non-administrator comment) I'm not condoning the course of action that LeakySponge has chosen to follow, only pointing out that new SPAs often make the same mistakes. WP:OWN, WP:OR, WP:COI and WP:AUTO seem to be a few of the things many new editors have a hard time getting used to at first. LeakySponge has been advised on why his edits are problematic, so now it's probably best to see how they respond. There are enough experienced editors participating in the Eyster AfD to make sure that it's not disrupted by anyone who may have a grudge against Eyster. Moreover, anyone who tries to argue WP:OSE or WP:ALLORNOTHING in an AfD is usually informed fairly quickly that those are not valid arguments to make. Blocks are intended to prevent further disruption, not punish editors for past mistakes. LeakySponge still hasn't edited since the other day, so the disruption has stopped at least for the time being. However, if LeakySponge comes back and continues on as before, he will likely find his account being blocked. Best thing to do here is probably just to wait and see. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:53, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
Rather than implying they are the subject, the phrasing implies that, being the creator of the page, they have ownership. The rest is just run of the mill WP:COI. I was going to post a comment about violating WP:OUTING but Beeblebrox beat me to it. Blackmane (talk) 09:32, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
I appreciate the feedback. As long as the disruptions stop, I'm happy. His previous account was blocked after similar activity, but hopefully this is the end of any personal grudges in this case. Thank you! Erinhayden (talk) 15:27, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Okay, and another one. 50.73.249.121 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) is now on, repeating a fake change to Salute Your Shorts (claiming Henry W. Laster was nominated for an award) and recommending on the AfD page that Trevor Eyster be deleted. There is clearly someone (or multiple someones) that are somehow connecting the two individuals in favor of Laster and in opposition to Eyster. Any guidance is appreciated. Erinhayden (talk) 18:31, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment)I saw the IPs edit to the AfD. IPs can WP:!Vote in an AfD too, so just !voting once is not being disruptive. Moreover, an AfD is not really a vote; I'm sure the admin who reviews the discussion will notice the IPs editing history and the content of the post, and take all of that into account when determining a consensus. The other experienced editors will notice all that as well, so unless the IP starts to get disruptive or other new accounts start appearing out of the blue and "voting", the AfD should be fine. You can, if you want, take a look at WP:SPI and see if you want to pursue something there, but the IP has made only two edits so far and they haven't really established a history of disruption. If, however, the IP starts WP:EW, WP:BLANK, violating WP:BLP or anything else like that, post a warning on their page to see if they will stop. If they ignore it, then asking for administrator assistance seems appropriate. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:04, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
Thank you so much for the info! That's very helpful. Clearly, I'm new to this whole reporting thing. I appreciate the help! Erinhayden (talk) 01:52, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

massive deletions[edit]

User:JzG has been doing wholesale deletes on any footnote citation to a thinktank. about 50+ in the last hour or so. Most of theese are solid rs -- including two I added after studying an issue on food supply. user Rejects using talk page and gives a very poor explanation at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Rjensen&diff=prev&oldid=772281822 Rjensen (talk) 10:56, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

I have been removing large scale link spamming, in this case notably including think tanks. The paid editing of user:Vipul and associates added large numbers of links to libertarian think tanks (Vipul is an associate of Bryan Caplan and added numerous primary sourced sections of the form "Bryan Caplan said X, source, Bryan Caplan saying X on his blog"). I have also been removing references to anti-vaccination propaganda sites, predatory open access journals and other sources we should not be using.
There's been discussion of a very small number of these removals on my talk page, most have been uncontroversial. And when I say most, what with the predatory journals it must be well into the thousands by now.
And every now and then someone doesn't like it and complains. Welcome to the list :-) Guy (Help!) 11:01, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
And there is also talk at User talk:Rjensen. This has not excallated to a point where it needs discussion here yet. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:09, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
Also, this edit [56] by the OP is supposed to be a "fix" for my "bias", claiming that he'd checked the sources. A website called "Farm Policy Facts", of no evident authority, a 404 link to farmland.org, and primary sourced references to someone the OP says he has personally decided is reliable (good job, well done). So this is perhaps not entirely as straightforward as the OP makes out. Guy (Help!) 11:12, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Some think tanks are considered reputable and neutral sources of information about a particular center that they specialize in (e.g. Pew Research Center), others are simply providers of opinion from a particular political perspective. In dealing with think tanks of the latter type there needs to be some kind of indication that their opinion on a topic is notable, and generally it should be explicitly attributed to them as their view. (i.e. not "Charles Murray is a White Nationalist" but "The Southern Poverty Law Center have described Murray as a White Nationalist"). It seems reasonable to remove information based on political-opinion type think tank sources if they do not clearly identify the source, if the view they express can be considered controversial, or if there are more reliable sources available about the topic. When information is challenged and removed, the person who wishes to include it must make the argument for why the source is admissible and the material neutral.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 11:57, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
Meanwhile Rjensen has claimed that WP:NPOV requires the use of biased sources, which is contradicted by the NPOV policy which says " Neutral point of view should be achieved by balancing the bias in sources based on the weight of the opinion in reliable sources and not by excluding sources that do not conform to the editor's point of view. This does not mean any biased source must be used; it may well serve an article better to exclude the material altogether.". ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 12:25, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Links to Library of Economics and Liberty http:// econlib .org/ is one the of think tanks affected. Is it considered unreliable, with no useful information? I know it has a libertarian bias, but some of its content could be valuable.Jonpatterns (talk) 13:06, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
Econlib definitely has good content and pieces published by it have often been quoted or cited in reliable secondary sources. Many of its authors are AFAIK professors of economics. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:01, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
And if there are articles which are good, then they will be published in the peer reviewed literature. The issue here is somewhat analogous to the many SCAM-specific pseudomedical journals: when your peer review consists solely of people who have the same ideological biases, then it is not effective because ideologically consonant bullshit, or mischaracterisations of competing ideologies, are much less likely to be detected. Guy (Help!) 16:47, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
  • The claim appears to be WP:REFSPAM. That policy seems to be about deliberate insertion for some gain other than providing reliable citation. Jonpatterns (talk) 13:12, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
Think tanks have an interest in being linked from a site like wikipedia, so I would tend to agree with Guy that if a another source is available for the same information it should be preferred (unless of course the opinoin of the think tank is itself notable).·maunus · snunɐɯ· 13:18, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
First, a lot of it was deliberate refspam. Vipul blogs at econlib (or rather, econlog, which it econlib's blog), and virtally every article he edited where any ref could be crowbarred in, there it is, loud and proud. He also expanded articles on a number of other econlib associates, and added self-sourced opinions by Caplan, especially, to dozens of articles on high level subjects.
Second, a lot of it was subtle refspam, such as online copies of books by historical figures like Mill, presented as being published by the "library of economics and liberty". This is basically no different to linking to a book source via Amazon: the website is selling something (in this case libertarian ideology, more than product, but that's not a difference that is actually important). Out of copyright books should be ported to Wikisource or linked on Gutenberg or some other neutral source. There's a second more subtle bias too: if we only have online full text for the books that the libertarian think tank likes, are readers more likely to drink of that well, rather than look up dead-tree books with a different perspective? That question answers itself, and is a large part of the reason I think these links have been added.
Third, the "library of economics and liberty" is a libertarian think tank, and in many cases its publications were presented as if they were authoritative and neutral sources. That is an NPOV problem. And I wuld have exactly the same issue if it were the Fabian Society, and in fact I have removed a lot of links to a Marxist equivalent as well.
Vipul's paid editing ring was all about SEO. Removing these links is just undoing that damage. If any of this content is published in scholarly journals, it can be cited from there. We should not use partisan primary sources, and we definitely should push back when people associated with those sources have engaged in years-long efforts to boost their presence on Wikipedia, as is unquestionably the case here. Guy (Help!) 14:41, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
External links/refs are no-follow, so the SEO argument is invalid. Using a primary source (partisan or otherwise) is dependent on the topic and the content. Morphh (talk) 15:37, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
I don't think that can be stated categorically. Consider a recent paid-editing job "we are looking for a strong signal from Wikipedia Page to our website" [57]. – Bri (talk) 16:10, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
That's not really a refspam problem as what's being described here though. That's an article notability, self-interest problem. We also can't speak to that advertiser's competency on the matter. No-follow was added on all external links in 2007 at the request of Jimbo. Morphh (talk) 16:58, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
Every single SEO article I have read that mentions Wikipedia, notes that fact, and then goes on to say that it's still extremely important to promote your website and brand on Wikipedia, including through reference links. These are dark arts, and the people who do it for a living appear to have no morals. Guy (Help!) 20:01, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
  • I also have problems with the way Guy is going about this. This appears like a one-sided machete approach of search and delete for sites he doesn't like (free market think tanks). I've been in organized campaigns to remove econ ref-spam for Austrian school - this is not how it is done. I've not see consensus to remove these sources, no review of the sourced content, no review of the source itself. I've never even heard of Vipul. It's a blacklist and if the article references something in the blacklist, it's bias and needs to be removed. Take a look at this ridiculous tagging of an FA article that has received considerable peer-review and been stable for years. I think this has moved from a well intentioned effort to remove ref-spam into something else. Morphh (talk) 15:37, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
I inclined to agree with this. It has been with good intent but a bit heavy handed. I'm all for finding better sources, but this takes time. Perhaps it would be better to remove questionable reference and initially put in a citation needed tag, rather than chopping whole paragraphs.Jonpatterns (talk) 16:25, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
Or alternatively, rather than delete, add, for example, [dubious ].--Wehwalt (talk) 16:35, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
That FA hasn't been reviewed for ten years, and I strongly suspect it might fail if that was to happen now. It's 33K bigger, there's a whole unsourced section in there, and it's full of weasel wording ("Critics say...", "Supporters claim..." and similar). It does need a good clean-up. Black Kite (talk) 18:13, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
@Black Kite The unsourced section is due to Guy removing the sources as described in this ANI. I haven't reverted it. The large increase in size was likely the last section recently added that lists all the sponsors. Again, I didn't revert it and it hasn't been discussed - it's more of a list than content. That's not to say it couldn't use cleanup, but those are things we can easily discuss on the talk page. Morphh (talk) 18:35, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
The source for that entire section gives you a 404 error. Regardless, even if it was fixed you can't source an entire section - in Wikipedia's voice - to "Americans for Fair Taxation". Black Kite (talk) 18:53, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
I agree with you there. My point wasn't a rebuttal - I also agree that it would probably fail. I was just explaining the current state. At one point that section had several sources but I haven't kept up with it. That's actually one of the edits that I agree with Guy on, so it's a bad example. Morphh (talk) 19:01, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Certainly edits like this or this aren't too clever. Nor is the edit summary remotely accurate. Here and here we see a link to an out-of-copyright textbook being removed because the website hosting it somehow contaminates it as "refspam" (but we keep the ref because it was always relevant, now just without easy access to the online text). Or even valid ELs from elsewhere that are simply in the same EL section.
I have an inherent distrust of any single-issue crusades like this. They rarely give rise to well thought out edits. This batch seems to be based on econlog.econlib.org (which I can't even add) being seen as so non-RS that it should be in the edit blacklist, bulk-removed (and of course BRD then conveniently no longer works, as it's blacklisted from the pleb editors) and then any associated articles AfDed. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arnold Kling Now I can't immediately justify that Kling is notable, or that economists (he's clearly an economist) shouldn't just be removed because they play for the wrong team. And certainly not when that involves facing off against an omniscient, omnipotent admin over a content dispute. But bulk removals with an agenda behind them so rarely give rise to positive editing. Maybe these do need to go. Maybe as a "socialist cuck" my personal agenda agrees with Guy's here, I just don't use mine as a guide to editing. Re [58] I have absolutely no idea what "think-tankery" is and why it justifies summary removal of references like this. I don't like right wing fruitbats any more than anyone else, but sometimes the contemporary fruitbat position on a theory such as hydraulic macroeconomics is still worth knowing. Certainly right wing fruitbats are commentators on the naming of fruitbats. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:15, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
Of your diffs, I would have removed the first one straight away as well - that's just original research (at the very least, it needs an "According to..."). The second one is a blog and whilst not terrible, I'm pretty sure if that's a notable theorem there will be better sourcing than that. The third and fourth are just unnecessary - the cite is already there, I don't see the need for the refspam especially as the online book is available from non-contentious sources. Black Kite (talk) 18:09, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
So you think the first one is a "good edit"?
Read it again.
I'm not disagreeing that, "Econlib must go!!": that's both above my pay grade and also a bit pointless to try and debate when it's such a fait accompli. But this sort of crusade (and I use the word deliberately) makes for bad, careless edits, and these are just some of them. As to the sources, then if they're so widely available then why couldn't they be fixed cleanly and fully at the time? This sort of crusade has regularly been carried out by editors (and I'm not including Guy here) doing Serious Bizniz so rapidly, because the world would end if these awful years-old links stayed there a moment longer, yet at the same time doing things like losing links to online copies (which have a tangible value to our readers). Then the poor bloody infantry are expected to clean up the mess afterwards, restoring links from hopefully acceptable sources - a task which is always far harder to do that way round, than in the right order. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:17, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
That first diff sources the phrase "Mainstream macroeconomics is hydraulic. There is something called aggregate demand which you adjust by pumping in fiscal and monetary expansion.", but the source actually says "Mainstream macroeconomics is hydraulic. There is something called aggregate demand which you adjust by pumping in fiscal and monetary expansion. I wish to reject this whole concept of macroeconomics." So it's actually being sourced with something that not only is an opinion piece, but actually disagrees with it! Black Kite (talk) 19:25, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
Like I said, read it again.
I'm not making subjective judgements about the meaning of the sources cited. I'm just talking about basic editing, where Guy shouldn't leave truncated sentences lying around. And as for your, "(at the very least, it needs an "According to...")", then read it again: it did do just that. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:32, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
No, Andy, you're just doing what you always do: stoking needless drama. Guy (Help!) 19:59, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
Then be more careful with your bloody edits and don't be in such a rush that you leave obviously broken stuff like half sentences. There is no excuse for this, not even when someone as hugely important as your illustrious self is out righting great wrongs against Gotham city. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:43, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
I didn't see the problem at first either, in the first one, but when I did, I fixed it. Andy, be more explicit, less elliptical, to be less dramatic. Dicklyon (talk) 23:08, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
If a few admins here want to appoint themselves as Judge Dredd, being the sole law as to whether some content is permissible or not and protecting the pages from any plebs who disagree, then it's not the pleb's job to do their proof reading for them. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:16, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
Wikt:melodramatic TimothyJosephWood 23:27, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

The perennial problem[edit]

I am seeing above the beginnings of a repeating issue that I have encountered when removing links to predatory open access journals. I will remove, say, a hundred of these, and I will be challenged on a handful. The people challenging me will demand one or more of the following:

  1. No source be removed, however problematic, unless I personally find a better source.
  2. Sources be removed but no article content, i.e. replace the deleted source with {{citation needed}}
  3. When removing sources, also remove all content supported by that source.
  4. How dare you remove X type of source, it's perfectly reliable, you're just trying to suppress Y kind of activity or viewpoint.

My usual approach is to read the text, deciode whether it's likely to be challenged without the source, and then remove either just the source, or the entire sentence if it looks dodgy. So, WP:SYN type claims such as "Anarchists believe this is wrong, source, anarchist blog", I will remove the sentence. "Unemployment is where people have no job, source, partisan think tank" I just remove the source.

And yes, I sometimes get it wrong, and the result is usually that it gets fixed and we all move on. In some cases, though, I have had two or three people demanding mutually exclusive combinations of the above, usually because the article or content in question basically has no other source. Of the three, the last is a problem because it does not self-resolve.

Check my talk page for a list of the kinds of crap sources I am removing. OMICS Group journals and other predatory publishers, insane conspiracist websites like Natural News, whale.to and the National Vaccine Information Center, sales pages for self-published books, self-promoting spammers. I'm also active at the blacklist.

This is not some out-of-the-blue agenda against libertarian think-tanks, it's part of a long term personal project to review and improve sourcing. This particular one hit my radar due to conflicted promotional editing by user:Vipul. The problem is partisan, promotional or commercial websites which go out of their way to create a veneer of authority, used as sources on Wikipedia. Guy (Help!) 19:58, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

  • This is a collaborative project, so can collaboration assist?
How about: Discuss first, get agreement (probably not that hard), agree the scope of how far to prune (is a notable fruitbat still WP:N, or do they have to go too?) and then identify the tasks.
What is the difference between removing Econlib as a source, removing content sourced to Econlib, and removing subjects discussed by Econlib? I think this might be harder. Yet many editors, and I am one, feel deeply uneasy about removing content or topics simply and only because it has so far been sourced from Econlib.
Then there is the issue of the PD texts, with copies available from Econlib. These are a far lower priority to remove. They also add value. Per the SEO argument above, it's hard to show that they are damaging or convey prestige. So should they be removed at all? If they are to be, then there is clearly no reason to cut off our fruitbat muzzle to spite our pointy little fruitbat ears. So don't just remove them: tag them first (a 'bot task), identify the canon of texts sourced (probably not that many), find alternative and acceptable free sources for those texts, then text-by-text go through by 'bot and replace (not remove) them. Nothing is lost, the problem is fixed. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:52, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Thanks for still being active on the Vipul front, Guy. The workload you're taking on is appreciated. El_C 03:21, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
  • The pollyanna approach starts with "let's not bite the newbies" (that is, we should encourage Vipul and friends), then continues with "omg someone is reverting refspam without spending an hour to polish each turd". Instead of enabling refspam, those commenting here should be trying to improve JzG's edit at Hydraulic macroeconomics (I can't think of anything better than clicking "thank" myself). Johnuniq (talk) 03:43, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
So how does one improve hydraulic macroeconomics? This is an old theory, largely superseded as being too simplistic. It's attractively easy to explain, but it doesn't seem to match how reality actually behaves. Now the right wing is talking about it again. So is it relevant to that article that the right-wing has re-adopted it? Have they? But with the recent blanking, and the admin-only lock on these articles, it's impossible for other editors to work on that. That is using admin privilege to strong-arm a content issue, and it's far from the first time that we've seen Guy using his privileges to do such a thing. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:08, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
That's an interesting question, but actually not specific to this topic. Wikipedia has people who add content and people who curate. This is a curation issue: the content that was added, is poor. Someone will be along real soon now with some better content - especially since this is a hot topic for right wingers (check the talk pages on climate science topics). The right does currently seem to have decided to collectively re-enact the 1980s, when simplistic notions could be asserted without serious challenge. I think this is one of the reason the centre is struggling right now, because you have many complex problems and, as Mencken would have put it, each has a solution that is neat, simple and wrong. The extremes at both ends don't worry about that, the centre does. Moderate Republicans were part of the reason Trumpcare failed to make progress last week, but those same moderate Reupblicans have basically no voice in framing a better alternative, the strident soundbytes of the House Freedom Caucus drown out all other voices. Guy (Help!) 16:42, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
  • As a partial counter to the headache these occasional complaints cause, let my add my thanks to Guy for working to clear out bad sources. I especially appreciate the removal of citations to predatory journals, but removing the paid-to-have-a-particular-opinion pieces from think tanks is also a very valuable service. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:18, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
  • What where the reasons for blacklisting econlib, was it its libertarian bias, its association with refspam behavior or something else? Jonpatterns (talk) 10:06, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
Spamming. Its POV is irrelevant. Guy (Help!) 15:09, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
I wonder if POV has an influence though. There doesn't seem to have been much effort to search for sources onWikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arnold Kling before nominating it for deletion. Maybe I don't understand what "unique" means in the context of "Google finds fewer than 150 unique hits for this name," but I get 91,400 Google hits for "Arnold Kling" in quotes[59]. Even if "unique" means some kind of limited search, there are 32 results in the NY Times alone [60], so I don't see how it's plausible to think there'd be 150 only in the universe of web pages. How does an experienced editor fail so completely to find sources? --Jahaza (talk) 15:23, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
No, the direction of the POV is not relevant. The fact that the POV is non-mainstream is relevant (as it would be if it was anarchist, say), but the fact that its non-mainstream POV is free market fundamentalism is not relevant, it just happens that this is the POV of the person doing the spamming. If they have been an Occupier then the problem and the fix would be exactly the same. Guy (Help!) 15:29, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
"The fact that the POV is non-mainstream is relevant" and "Its POV is irrelevant" are contradictory. You've also not explained at all what happened with this AFD.--Jahaza (talk) 15:33, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
I see your misunderstanding. The issue here is WP:SPS, WP:PRIMARY, WP:ASSERT and a side order of WP:REFSPAM. The REFSPAM was the flag to review the content, but the core issues are the first three. If this was a mainstream scholarly economics journal then there would be no issue, because we can rely on their peer review, but n this case we're talking about think tanks and fundamentalist free market websites masquerading as independent scholarly sources, and that plainly is a problem. So: the direction of the POV is irrelevant, it's the magnitude that's the problem. It would be the same if it were Occupy or a Marxist site. POV think tanks are not neutral sources, however fervently they might believe otherwise. Guy (Help!) 15:38, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
  • I fully support Guy's cleanup of these low-quality WP:REFSPAM sites. Thanks for doing this work. Before any source is deployed widely and intentionally as it was in the Vipul effort, it is common sense (among experience editors anyway) to check it with the relevant editing community (like a WikiProject) first. If that isn't done, one can expect pushback, as has happened here. If folks who find these references valuable want to keep them, they should discuss them and get buy-in at the relevant WikiProject. This is very similar to what happened with the overall paid edit effort btw. Jytdog (talk) 00:01, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
  • I am surprised, disappointed, and dismayed to find Econlib on the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist#econlib.org Spam-blacklist]. (Who added it?) This is a step well beyond RS analysis or discussion. Is Econlib mentioned on the WP:RSNB? Was there any discussion anywhere? Absolutely not. Instead we read that Econlib is an "agenda driven source"; therefore, a widespread campaign to remove all Econlib-linked references citing REFSPAM, SPS, PRIMARY, LINKFARM, agenda driven, polemical, libertarian, libertarian think tank, free market think tank, and other ersatz rationales to remove the links in undertaken. Never mind the fact that Econlib's Concise Encyclopedia of Economics contains original articles by highly respected professors, authors, and Nobel Prize laureates ([http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/HumanCapital.html#abouttheauthor Gary Becker] and [http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/Information.html#abouttheauthor Joseph Stiglitz]). The removals are not confined to Further reading or External links sections. Swept-up in the purge are in-line citations and material from Econlib and other sources (such as Cato Institute and Pittsburgh Tribune). The original motivation may have been to clear out contributions by Vipul, but was Vipul ever warned about spamming? (Yes, once in 2013 and again earlier this month.) Talk about "agenda driven" – the ideas and scholarship presented by Econlib are of secondary importance. Instead, agenda-driven objections about "dark money", "political activism", "conceal[ed] sources of funding", etc. are motivating this effort to censor WP. – S. Rich (talk) 14:36, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

SportsLair[edit]

This user is just not getting it. also. - Mlpearc (open channel) 19:07, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

@Mlpearc: I think it's going to take a bit more detail than that mate? — O Fortuna! Imperatrix mundi. 19:10, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
@Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi: Well, I was just going through the contribs, seemed clear to me. - Mlpearc (open channel) 19:12, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
Look at the edit-summary, and the previous ANI. I am going to final-warn SportsLair. Black Kite (talk) 19:15, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
@Black Kite: Thank you. - Mlpearc (open channel) 19:17, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
Right... I assumed they were merely quoting from Goodfellas: [61].It would certainly need a fair bit of contextualizing to justify it, I have to say. — O Fortuna! Imperatrix mundi. 19:24, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

It seems that MLpearc is still losing it. I'm usually a fan of various film franchises, and I've been posting notices about the 400-700 word rule on various film articles, but the rollbacker is on the mend for mass-reverting on that topic also. Per WP:FILMPLOT, plot summaries for most film articles should be within 400-700 words, but he saying that I have to discuss mass additions beforehand. SportsLair (talk) 13:32, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

@SportsLair: To add this to an article with this type of issues is fine, to add this to all like pages requires consensus. - Mlpearc (open channel) 13:41, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Hard to detect mobile vandalism[edit]

Thanks to the outsourcing of content to sister projects, some prominent vandalism is much harder to detect and gets reverted slower. For example, earlier today the mobile viewers (nearly 50% of all views) of Pablo Picasso saw the following (yellow emphasis mine):

PicassoVandalism.png

.

The problem is that this vandalism can not be easily detected enwiki, as it is not to be found in the page history of Picasso, nor in "related changes". Which meant that this vandalism on a not-really osbcure page was only reverted after 20 minutes.

Mind you, the same happens on even more popular pages (all examples at the same yellow spot beneath the page title), e.g. Superman had in January the description "UGLY" for 74 minutes, and "Patataman" for 24 minutes in February. Also in February, Iran had the label "العراق" which apparently means Iraq... This lasted for more than 10 hours! Benito Mussolini has had the label "Sir Beg Nose ito" for 11 days in February, "Benito musul8" for nearly an hour in March, "Benito Camela" for nearly seven hours in March, and "Benito desgraciao" for 12 hours in March as well. Elizabeth II was turned into "Elizabeth IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII" for five hours in February.

This kind of vandalism seems to be fairly common and relatively long-lasting (considering that the pages it occurs on are not that obscure). It is hard to detect on enwiki, and most people who do notice will not be able to correct it as they won't know where it originates.

What would be the best method to solve this fundamentally? Fram (talk) 14:38, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

@Fram: It would help to know which sister project experienced the vandalism. --NeilN talk to me 14:42, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
If you see this kind of vandalism, you can click 'Wikidata item' on the left hand side, under Tools, to be taken to the page that was vandalised. Sam Walton (talk) 14:47, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
(ec) Wikidata (but the effects are on enwiki, hence the report here). Note that it isn't just vandalism: Brexit, a page with some 200,000 pageviews per month, says as it first line "The United Kingdom's prospective withdrawal from the European Union is widely known as Brexit". But when you see that page through the mobile view, like about 100,000 people do per month, it starts suddenly with "political aim of some advocacy groups, individuals and political parties in the United Kingdom" which is a bit ridiculous for something decided by referendum and voted in parliament. It is not the aim of some advocacy groups, it is reality, whether we like it or not. There is no reason I can see that the mobile version starts with an extra line of off-wiki content that the "standard" view of the article omits. Fram (talk) 14:48, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
Wikidata stores a description for each article, and that is displayed atop every mobile article. I've removed Brexit's. — Train2104 (t • c) 14:53, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
The reason why I asked is order to solve the problem, we need to know where the problem is coming from. And you're right, regarding the mobile version. Getting rid of that "functionality" should probably be proposed at the Village Pump. --NeilN talk to me 14:54, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
I remember bringing up this exact concern on Mediawikiwiki and Phabricator, about the way the Wikidata description sounds like it is part of enwiki when it isn't. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 14:57, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
  • So let me get this straight - the mobile view of wikipedia is displaying content not on the the wikipedia article - pulled straight from wikidata? Is this an article-level thing from the mobile view? Or is it a function of the mobile-viewer itself? Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:59, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
It's probably a function of the mobile viewer itself. If I look at this page, I see "community discussion page for asking for administrators' intervention on user problems that may result in blocks" atop it. — Train2104 (t • c) 15:01, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
Mobileviewer is effectively a mediawiki extension installed at en.wp is it not? Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:03, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
Dealing with vandalism is usually (at least in part) an admin problem, and this kind of vandalism may well end up at AIV. But it's a kind of vandalism we (as admins) can't really deal with, because we can't reverse it onwiki, and we can't block the vandals either. I first wanted to hear other editors (admins and non-admins) views on this before seeing where this should be raised (if it should be raised at all, perhaps there is an onwiki solution or I was overreacting). Fram (talk) 15:06, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
(non-admin view) I fail to see why a mobile user needs to see content that I can't, and as you say it creates an increased exposure to vandalism. So it seems to me there should be a VP discussion about removing that, per NeilN. ―Mandruss  15:16, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
Is it a local setting though in the mobile viewer (something someone with the appropriate permissions can alter on EN-WP for all incoming traffic), or is it hard-coded into the mobile viewer extension? Because no matter how much the community complains, there is no way mobile viewer will be disabled in any fashion. If its something that can be easily altered on-wiki however, even if its a scripting hack.... Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:26, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
The mobile viewer doesn't have to be disabled. Just tweaked. --NeilN talk to me 15:42, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
Which is what I was trying to get at - a local setting like below would only need an onwiki change, if its something that cannot be altered without altering the mobile extension via the WMF, ultimately short of threatening to disable it, the WMF has historically been resistant to changes. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:54, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
This did it for me, I would assume if placed in common.js (or mobile.js?) it would do it for everyone. — Train2104 (t • c) 15:43, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
  • So mobile reading is at Mobile. Poking around, it appears (!) that the decision to use the Wikidata descriptor (the field that was vandalized, I believe) was noted at this phab thread (although that is a beta version....)
Loads of people view en-WP via mobile (data is here) and in my view this issue is important; I am unaware if there was ever a discussion about replacing content generated by the en-WP comunity with Wikidata content in mobile (not via the app, just mobile viewing through a browser) views of en-WP. I am unhappy about that. But hopefully it was discussed? If so would love to read that discussion.
Pinging User:OVasileva (WMF), who runs the WMF reading team. Jytdog (talk) 17:19, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
This is a good example; apparently- on the mobile viewer- he has a boyfriend, which (equally apparently) the subject denies. An unsourced BLPVIO like that would useually be sandblasted out of existence by now- especially after multiple TP requests. WTF is happening. Is it that ****ing Wikidata forcing this crap on us? I don't know why we have to put up with that- we could end up hosting libel and be unable to remedy it. — O Fortuna! Imperatrix mundi. 18:24, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
@Fram and Sam Walton: I edited it out via the thing on the left, so that's that article resolved- although, of course, the broader issues still stand. Thanks very much for the information and advice here. — O Fortuna! Imperatrix mundi. —Preceding undated comment added 18:27, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
yes you did! diff at Wikidata Jytdog (talk) 22:58, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
Hey Jytdog, reckon this could be the beginning of a long editing career on wikidata for me ;) — O Fortuna! Imperatrix mundi. 06:21, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
"Wikidata forcing this crap on us". You mean like Commons forces their image crap on us ? That seems like a rather insular view of our communities, where your own prejudices are the problem instead of wikidata. —TheDJ (talkcontribs) 11:09, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
Ah, so external crap being shown on enwiki is "your own prejudices are the problem". That's helpful, thanks! Foot has since 7 January had the label "anatomical structure fertebrates" (sic), apart from twelve hours (!) in February when it had the label "bullshit". And this is caused by our prejudices. When an image gets changed, it is usually bloody obvious where the problem originates. And we can upload a local copy and protect that one (like is or was being done for mainspace images). But if Commons vandalism would cause problems here, feel free to start a separate section. However, apparently we may not raise an issue with Wikidata simply because Commons exists as well? Even though Commons is identical information across all languages, while the English language label is language-specific information which thus has no reason to be hosted on Wikidata and could just as well have been hosted here, with less potential for these problems and friction. Fram (talk) 11:34, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
Nope that's not at all what that was about. I simply vehemently oppose a view of 'either you listen to the English Wikipedia right-now, or F-off'. I object to hostile intonations like "[our sisters] are forcing this crap on us", the usage of ultimatums and a general expression of elitism amongst the larger and older projects. I prefer more constructive contributions, but it seems that wherever contributions are different from the contributions people make themselves, there is a very low tolerance towards imperfections and a high level of destructive criticism. —TheDJ (talkcontribs) 14:02, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
Search sample

I should note that my little hack does not hide the descriptions from the mobile search results, where it provides a pretty helpful service to the reader. One possible workaround would be to have descriptions be defined via a metatemplate on enwiki, and then have a bot enforce that wikidata matches it. — Train2104 (t • c) 18:42, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

The problem isn't with the individual reader, the problem is that Wikidata appears to be forcing information into en.wiki via the mobile app, over which en.wiki has no formal control. I agree with Fram and Jytdog's concern about this, and second the suggestion that a VP discussion seems to be in order. (And I do remember that this issue was brought up at the time, and ignored.) It's one thing to play whack-a-mole against socks, but another thing completely to do it because of a systemic dysfunctionality in the software. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:20, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
User:Beyond My Ken it is not just the app - WP appears differently on a browser on a mobile, than it does on a desktop. If you are at a desktop here is picasso: Picasso and here it is, on a mobile: Mobile view Picasso (there is a link at the bottom of every page to the mobile view) Jytdog (talk) 22:52, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
No, I know that, I've accessed the encyclopedia on my phone. I don't think that the difference is a significant issue, as long as the content is the same. It's the insertion of content not vetted by en.wiki editors which concerns me. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:56, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
This is particularly problematic on BLP's (as they can sue) but the potential for abuse elsewhere is huge. We cant have information from a project which has none of the safeguards Wikipedia's policies protect against - being presented as if it was 'Wikipedia'. I mean, imagine if someone added an item to Vaccines at wikidata saying 'Known to cause autism'... Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:59, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
Perhaps the inclusion of an "edit" link on enwiki which takes one straight to the correct section on Wikidata to update the description? Lankiveil (speak to me) 00:10, 28 March 2017 (UTC).
That is only a fix after the fact. Jytdog (talk) 04:51, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
I have no problem with the descriptions, but I agree that if I could see them at the top of their Wikipedia article with a little button to go and edit, that would be much more preferable to simply not knowing what's being displayed without manually checking for each article. Sam Walton (talk) 09:48, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
  • I created T161596 which I hope would go some way to fixing this problem. Sam Walton (talk) 10:13, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
Good idea. Personally, I don't think those short descriptions are a bad thing, I quite like them when using the WP app, but they should show up on the desktop view as well Regards SoWhy 10:25, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
And they should be stored and edited on enwiki, not on wikidata, to make it much easier to control them. They are language-specific anyway, so no reason to host them elsewhere. A specific template could be introduced, and initially a bot could even copy the existing ones from Wikidata if people judge this useful. But this would mean that a change to the label would be immediately traceable and correctable here, and the vandal blocked or the page locked or whatever would be necessary. Fram (talk) 11:34, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
Consider unintended consequences. Like we don't already spend way too much time agonizing over first sentences? We shouldn't add this largely redundant blurb simply because it would be "nice to have". ―Mandruss  12:05, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
Oh, as an extra "first line" of the article, I totally agree. But as a subtext in searches (search box), it may be a useful feature (I wouldn't shed a tear if we don't have this at all, but I can see an argument for it in search. Not in article display mode though, no matter if it is mobile or not). Fram (talk) 12:26, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
Side query - does this appear in the google snippets stuff at the side of google searches? Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:32, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
Yes (well, I'm 99% certain, confirmation would be nice). Fram (talk) 12:46, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Oh well, at least we don't use Wikidata data for most of our articles. Wikipedia versions which were faster and less critical in embracing this progress have just for half an hour proclaimed that Muhammad (a rather essential and often viewed article) was born in 296 in Constantinople, and died in the 2000s (so hardly subtle vandalism). And Tower Bridge (also not a really obscure article) is still being claimed to be a 5 metre long French bridge in wood, opened in 2017! So far, this vandalism has remained in place for 40 minutes. Vandalism on enwiki also can remain for too long, but rarely will vandalism this blatant on articles with this profile remain for so long. On Wikidata, this seems to be the standard. And that's what we send to Google, mobile users, and in many languages many or most infoboxes. Great... Fram (talk) 12:59, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Look, this will require an RfC on Wikidata, or maybe as a cross-wiki issue on Meta. I highly doubt we'll be able to solve it here by ourselves. StevenJ81 (talk) 20:30, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
Pinging @Lydia Pintscher (WMDE): Possibly there are technological fixes that we can put in place, but there's still an issue around vandalism protection in Wikidata that needs to be addressed here. StevenJ81 (talk) 20:34, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
I see zero improvement after OP by Fram. First of all, of course, why is this not huge at WP:VPT, d:Wikidata chat, wiki-mobile or whichever WMF/MW level? Addressing anonymous editors at ANI won't help. Now, people can edit enwiki page without a Reader being able to correct (edit) that. That is not wiki. So why is this not an site issue? -DePiep (talk) 21:03, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
Hey :) Thanks for pinging, User:StevenJ81. Data quality is a big topic for me And Wikidata as whole. It is ongoing work. We've been working on tools to improve it over the past year or two. The biggest thing we've done is probably ORES support for Wikidata. I wrote this in 2015 to explain my general thinking about data quality. What we are working on right now to further improve data quality is improving our constraints checks. When this is done you will see little notifications next to problematic statements so editors can look into them quickly. This will have an API so I am sure we can build additional tools on top of it. As for Wikidata descriptions being shown on Wikipedia: I have and continue to advocate for making sure you can edit them when they are shown. That is however not part of my team's work. I hope that helps. Happy to answer further questions. --Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) (talk) 10:31, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
@Lydia Pintscher (WMDE): No amount of data quality tools or constraints or little notifications will make any difference to the item description on Wikidata, because the design leaves no means to apply constraints or any means of verification to that text. Until descriptions are natively editable on Wikipedia, or can be replaced by locally-supplied text, they should not be forced into English Wikipedia articles. Do you agree? --RexxS (talk) 15:13, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
As I said I believe it is very important and have advocated for it but at the end of the day it is not my call to make. I don't have all the information leading to the current decision. --Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) (talk) 07:57, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi all, thank you for tagging these issues - these levels of vandalism are concerning - we’re interested in providing some background on the feature to help the brainstorming process on solutions.

A bit of background for context:

  • The wikidata descriptions feature displays the wikidata description of an article (if available) under the article title.  The feature was introduced to the mobile website as a way to provide an at-a-glance descriptor of the subject of the article, which may often be obscured due to the location of the infobox. The in-article descriptions were developed as a follow-up to the in-search descriptions that have been available on the mobile website since Oct 2015.  For more information about the background and motivations for the feature, check out the wikidata descriptions page  The feature was initially tested on Catalan and Polish wikipedias and rolled out in stages to ensure sufficient time for gathering community consensus through each rollout.  For enwiki, the feature has been available since January, 2017 following a short conversation on the enwiki village pump

In terms of tracking the changes to these descriptions, the Wikidata team has been focusing on creating easier ties between Wikidata and Wikipedia. Currently:

  1. Edits do show up in recent changes and watchlist if the user has enabled it and is using the non-enhanced recent changes setting (Phabricator: https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T108688, https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T90436)
  2. Edits do not show up in recent changes and watchlist if the user is using the recent changes setting (Phabricator: https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T46874
  3. Edits do not show up in the article history (Phabricator: https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T42358 )

(in addition to the above) In terms of allowing edits on Wikipedia:

  • Currently the android team has built a way of editing wikidata descriptions from within the app - more information on the short descriptions page as well as the project page in phabricator We’re currently rolling it out as a pilot on three languages and our plan is to measure and evaluate the interest for this feature on the apps before approaching the solution for mobile web - we’re curious to know if there is any interest in pursuing a similar solution for the mobile website? Some of our initial mockups and ideas for the mobile website can be found in this phabricator task

@Samwalton9 and SoWhy: - thank you for your ideas on incorporating these features into desktop - this isn’t something we’ve considered so far, but we’re open to suggestions. Are there any more thoughts/ideas around how incorporating the feature into desktop could help editors identify potential vandalism?  Any other thoughts in general? OVasileva (WMF) (talk) 22:07, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

I don't think it matters which particular database this information is stored in, but I do endorse the idea that it needs to be easy to see it and change it from this particular site. Lankiveil (speak to me) 23:50, 28 March 2017 (UTC).
(non-admin view) Could there just be a template at the top of every article that stores the one line description? For example, the article for Donald Trump would have, say, {{description|text=45th President of the United States of America}} at the top of the article. IWillBuildTheRoads (talk) 04:48, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
That would have been the much better solution. There is no reason at all why anything language-specific should be at Wikidata. Wikidata is for common elements, not for text snippets in language X or Y.
@OVasileva (WMF): "this isn’t something we’ve considered so far" That's not entirely true, however such a consideration might predate your product ownership. Part of the problem here is that WMF has a history of testing out something for an audience, without considering or being willing to put the work in to include other audiences. This also shows in the strange separation of products in reading and editing teams, which creates a separation of audiences within products that simply doesn't exist. What readers do, what mobile users do, affects other editors. Dumping a feature in the mobile app, should come with the immediate signal and warning that at some point in the not too distant future you will have to consider how that effects desktop, vandal fighters etc. See also: User:Risker/Risker's checklist for content-creation extensions. Releasing something on mobile, should mean the immediate prioritisation of follow up tasks for desktop (if only to by way of research conclude that no action is required). —TheDJ (talkcontribs) 14:21, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
@OVasileva (WMF) and Melamrawy (WMF):, the main thrust of the discussion is not to roll this problem out to desktop as well, but to remove it from mobile view. "Edits do show up in recent changes and watchlist if the user has enabled it and is using the non-enhanced recent changes setting " is all very well when you a) have the article on your watchlist and b) have enabled this (I had, and have disabled it again as being 99% useless clutter for me, with missing descriptions or not even showing the last change at Wikidata). But when you come to an article and see that it has been vandalized, you should then be able to find in the article history who did this, and revert (and block) them. Or if it happens often, protect the page. None of this is possible or helpful at the moment on enwiki. This is splitting the administration and editing over two sites with no benefits, and thus is a very bad idea. Please turn off the "show labels from Wikidata", and then start a thorough discussion about this to see whether it is wanted, useful, logical, an improvement, or not. Fram (talk) 07:27, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
I note from the linked pages above that at this most recent Mediawiki discussion User:RexxS, who can not be suspected of being anti-Wikidata, made basically the same suggestions and arguments. This was seven months ago, and in typical WMF fashion they agreed with him and then went on with the poor implementation regardless. Luckily, I see that "If there are any problems with the feature, we have a configuration switch built as part of the feature so that we can turn it off very quickly if there are any problems, at any phase."[62] so turning this off very quickly now that "any problems" have been shown should happen. Thanks! Fram (talk) 07:33, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
Indeed. I'm 100% with Fram on this one. I admit to having spent a lot of effort in recent times in trying to find ways that we can make use of Wikidata in Wikipedia, but one fundamental design principle for me has always been that local editors must be able to override a Wikidata value with a local value. It is disappointing that the very people at WMF who ought to be promoting the sensible use of Wikidata can make such an obvious blunder as to use the Wikidata description as a sub-heading in mobile view for the English Wikipedia. By pushing ahead against the advice even of sympathetic editors and causing unfixable problems, they put at risk all the other good work that is going on to make use of Wikidata in a consensus manner. The problem is far wider-reaching than mere vandalism: you can see at User talk:RexxS/Archive 32 #Wikidata... that the addition of a description like "American-born Greek operatic soprano" can easily breach our BLP policies by ascribing ethnicities, or religious affiliations, etc. to living subjects who have not self-identified as such, and for which no reliable sources are available. The description on Wikidata is wholly unsourced – and not capable of being associated with a source – and has no place in an English Wikipedia article unless it can be replaced by text from within Wikipedia. --RexxS (talk) 15:06, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Focus[edit]

We can handwring over the many bigger issues later -- There is one key question for this incident board, and that is: How do we get the WMF Reading team to close this vulnerability to BLP violations by removing this from mobile views, now? I don't know what we can do but folks over there appear to have persistently disregarded clueful advice. We indef people here in en-WP who persistently violate policy. This may be kind of radical but maybe we need to indef the WMF Reading team from en-WP or something. That would not really fix it, but maybe it would get their attention. If not, then what? Jytdog (talk) 22:55, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

I just opened an RfC: Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#Rfc:_Remove_description_taken_from_Wikidata_from_mobile_view_of_en-WP -- Jytdog (talk) 00:08, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Destructive editing of User:Norvikk[edit]

I want to draw your attention to User:Norvikk's destructive editing [63] (all -20 and - 40 bytes). Here I changed the article [64] in accordance to the other articles appearance (before some users explained to me that they aim to reach unification of the topic). After my change user Norvik reverted it [65] and said that it is not a standard and to fake this claim he started removing this code from all other existing articles. I reverted some of his removes and opened a discussion at his talk page, we know how good is wiki notification for a talk page but he ignored my discussion and kept removing. The discussion was opened at 16:34, 27 March 2017 after that he reverted&removed 19 more edits till 16:43, 27 March 2017 9 minutes of active reverting/removing and ignore. Now he has responded at 16:51 when I am already writing this. Note that he were editing all those articles before as well but removed this code and made such removing only after my change to the Georgian article. I see such behavior very destructive and unacceptable for wikipedia. --g. balaxaZe 16:56, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

  • FWIW I had reported Norvikk and another editor for edit warring a few weeks ago[66], Not sure if it's the same content tho, Either way I'm not seeing any discussion from either of you and at this point I'd say you both deserve blocking,
I would strongly suggest closing this and actually start discussing the issues and if Norvikk doesn't discuss it then go to WP:AN3. –Davey2010Talk 17:03, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
    • @Davey2010: here is my opened discussion User_talk:Norvikk#Trying_to_fake_standard.3F this issue is about a code font-size: smaller;. I have waited 17 minutes, opened even the second discussion to stop him and to talk but he ignored and removed everything. The case is not in talking but in willful changes. --g. balaxaZe 17:10, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
      To be honest, if I would get such notification at my talk page, I would also not know how to react. You may want to add some context while avoiding personal attacks; this might actually help.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:34, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
      I wrote everything clearly and gave him enough time, adding of code font-size: smaller; was nothing extraordinary, but what he has done is unacceptable (I could say that my change is identical to German, French and etc. articles but he removed all of them after my change in Georgian one), and as I said in the discussion I do not see any argument why is he removing the code.--g. balaxaZe 17:48, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
No. This is other conversation. I wrote my point of view on my page. Thanks. --Norvikk (talk) 18:20, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

User:Carliertwo and Siouxsie and the Banshees (again)[edit]

In January I opened an ANI thread (archived here), concerning Carliertwo and their editing of articles related to the music group Siouxsie and the Banshees. My intention had been for the community to examine the whole approach of this user, but unfortunately the thread was closed after focusing on one specific incident (Carliertwo not respecting the result of an RfC). My concern is that this user is not interested in Wikipedia being a neutral and balanced source of information, rather they are using Wikipedia as a platform for echoing their own views as a Siouxsie Sioux fan. I write this as someone who owns several records by the group, so I am not a hater of the band seeking to attack them (quite the contrary); I am simply attempting to ensure Wikipedia's coverage of them is neutral. Currently this is not possible, because Carliertwo has a stranglehold over all articles connected with Siouxsie Sioux, and removes all content that does not chime with their own enthusiasm for the band. Comments made about this user at that first thread include the following: "it looks to me like ownership doesn't even begin to describe the contribution count: it is literally all for the band, like some sort of dedicate social media account to ensure that this group is always portrayed in a positive light" (TomStar81), "Carliertwo is not respecting the consensus outcome of the RfC and they are edit warring. The comment on your talk page does have the tone of ownership" (MrX), and "It is pretty damning evidence of being a SPA when all you do is edit on a specific band to achieve your specific POV" (TheGracefulSlick).

Incidents that have made me open this issue again are the following (the third example is the most revealing):

  • 1) Although there had just been an RfC (that I opened) that concluded that the phrase "Tinderbox would be later hailed by the lead singer of Suede, Brett Anderson on his website" should not be included in the Tinderbox article, Carliertwo immediately opens another RfC, this time asking whether the phrase "In 2011, Brett Anderson, the lead singer of Suede, included Tinderbox on a list of albums that he called "current fascinations" should be included in the article.[67]
  • 2) In the article about the album Kaleidoscope, I adjusted a review quote so that it reflected the overall tone of the review (i.e. qualified praise) [68]. Carliertwo has reverted this three times ([69] [70] [71]), each time replacing the overall summary with cherry-picked praise of 2 particular tracks.
  • 3) I found a very critical review, written by Julie Burchill in the NME, of the album The Scream. I found it remarkable that our article didn't have this review in the 'Critical reception' section, though it did contain long positive comments about the album made by other NME journalists, just not the actual official NME review. So I added a quote from the review [72]. Carliertwo reverted this, stating that I must have found the review on a fansite, and hence I couldn't "advance the veracity" of Burchill's article [73]. So, I added a link to a scan of the review in a copy of NME Originals [74]. Carliertwo reverted this and replaced it with an attack on Burchill's review that is almost hysterical in tone [75], at the same time denying readers the possibility of even reading a quote from Burchill's review.

I am very concerned about the actions of this editor and think that, while they continue to treat Wikipedia as a mouthpiece for reflecting their own views, it will be impossible for any Wikipedia article about Siouxsie Sioux (and related subjects) to achieve any kind of neutrality. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 21:48, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Defense: reply of Carliertwo: Introduction

  • Definition and difference between a SPA and a Stewardship. A "wp:Stewardship of an article (or group of related articles) may be the result of a sincere personal interest in the subject matter or an interest in a cause or organization related to the article's subject matter. The editor might also be an expert on the subject matter, or otherwise very knowledgeable of the topic, and able to provide credible insights for locating reliable sources. "
  • 1) For your information, I almost entirely wrote a wp:GA for Join Hands. I have made a huge research to create section about legacy, finding the right quotes. All the legacy sections on these SATB related articles have been written by me, I let you measure the good work at Siouxsie Sioux article. [76]]. If you want to get rid of a good contributor who has historical content, you have to have this in mind.
  • 2) A 2nd RFC on Tinderbox (Siouxsie and the Banshees album) for including a different sentence while using the same source was discussed a few months ago: my version was accepted with a wp:consensus [[77]]. Palecloudedwhite didn't mention I have a consensus, he wants a revenge apparently.
  • 3) For The Scream (album) article, I have added secondary sources as Julie Burchill's review was seen as controversial by many critics. These secondary sources are by legendary John Peel DJ, biographer Brian Jones and I can add another one from Paul Morley who also highly criticized Burchill's review two months later in the NME. Julie Burchill is a journalist known for writing with venom about all the punk and post-punk bands, secondary sources are perfectly valid in this case. So, where is the wp:OR  ? Comment about Pale, Pale had initially used a reference from a fansite where he took the title of the review "Well, what would Edvard Munch have said.", which meant he hadn't checked back then the veracity of the review and didn't own the original (mistakes of sources are common on fansite). Yesterday, he found a reproduction of the article on a NME reissue which doesn't mention the title of the review anymore "well, what would Edvard Munch have said. So that's why he withdrew the title "Well, what would Edvard Munch have said" ffrom the source. I was right but Pale forgot to present you this important fact. Now, it is still said in the article, that in the same paper, Julie Burchill published a scathing review, later judged as this by her peers as I have explained it with sources in the article.
  • 4) For Kaleidoscope (Siouxsie and the Banshees album), I included a source with quote from the Melody Maker, Pale wanted to change it, I don't consider this idea better. Regarding The Scream (album) and Kaleidoscope (Siouxsie and the Banshees album)', there are talks to discuss.
  • 5) PaleCloudedWhite is not far to be a group hater, I invite you to read the hysterical tone he used here [78] : on 1 February 2017 he wrote: "Boy George writes in his autobiography about meeting Siouxsie Sioux when he was youn of me and the bandger, and says, {{She was haughty, irritated by those attempting to brush with greatness. The new punk stars were every bit as puffed up as the seventies rock dinosaurs they despised", then presumably it's absolutely OK to add this, plus any other quotes I find in primary sources, to the Siouxsie Sioux article}}? ". It is his frame of mind.
  • 6) Concerning the review, Pale also wanted to include this pure bashing "the sound of suet pudding" out of the blue which shows Pale's agenda. We never included pure hatred from critics inside quotes for wp:neutrality. Carliertwo (talk) 22:58, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Well I'm thrilled to see nothing has changed. I'm thinking editing restrictions (like topic banned, broadly construed, from anything remotely related to the band). Who be with me? TomStar81 (Talk) 21:59, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
Why ? Pale forgot to tell you he lost the 2nd rfc which ended with a consensus saying the source is valuable. Now, Is there a consensus at the talk of the Scream? The review is still mentioned and there are secondary sources from very famous people who criticized Burchill's work. see below . for TomStar81 You entirely have to read the defense before banning and I hadn't written it yet Carliertwo (talk) 23:14, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Support TomStar81's proposal - I faintly remember this discussion in January and share Star's "thrill" that nothing has changed. Readers deserve the full story about the band (and their albums/singles) so it is terribly unfair to censor reviews just because they are contrary to one editor's personal preferences.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 22:18, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
Why ? Pale forgot to tell you he lost the 2nd rfc which ended with a consensus saying the source is valuable. Now, Is there a consensus at the talk of the Scream? The review is still mentioned and there are secondary sources from very famous people who criticized Burchill's work. see below . for TheGracefulSlick You entirely have to read the defense before banning and I hadn't written it yet Carliertwo (talk) 23:14, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Support topic ban. The NME thing is blatant evidence they are incapable of editing neutrally in this area. Only in death does duty end (talk) 22:45, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
See below. the review is still mentioned. for Only in death. You entirely have to read the defense before banning and I hadn't written it yet before your ban. Carliertwo (talk) 23:14, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
I didnt vote support because the review is/is not in the article, I voted support because you thought this edit was an appropriate response to someone criticising your pet band. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:18, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment I've just had to revert (most of) this editor's large changes to Mogwai, as well. Nothing ridiculous, but they'd merged sections in the article into one without any reason whatsoever. Black Kite (talk) 22:49, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment - As someone who also listens to this group, I can say without a doubt that all articles should be written from a neutral point of view, and most (if not all) claims should be backed with reliable sources. The same goes for all articles. However, what I can also say is that editing a specific set of articles does not automatically make the user an SPA. Most editors stick to articles about their interests to begin with. DarkKnight2149 23:53, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
So by not replying by an oppose, you let them ban me, and let these peoplewho are not aware of the agenda of this group hater, and don't care at all of all the massive work with sources that I have made on wikipedia, win de facto. Darkknight2149 Carliertwo (talk) 00:12, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
Let me put it this way - If they're goal is to make the group look bad, they should not be editing Siouxsie articles. At the same time, if your goal is promote them, neither should you.
Also, sources are absolutely necessary, but it is possible to use them and not be neutral. I'm not going to "pick a side" (for lack of a better term) here since I don't have a history with anyone involved and don't know what is characteristic of their or your behaviour. DarkKnight2149 00:42, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
Fine, I have added secondary sources from John Peel and a biographer but apparently you haven't seen them at The Scream (album). Do you mind clicking on this link or is it too much to ask [79] ? He doesn't have anything to prove that I am not neutral whereas I have one against him as he included the non neutrality quote "The sound of a suet pudding". Darkknight2149 Carliertwo (talk) 01:05, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Editor is wasting all of our time here with this nonsense. --Tarage (talk) 00:45, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
As Tarage has never contributed to any historical content on wikipedia apart discussing banning on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents and writing on talks, their voice is more than measured. Carliertwo (talk) 00:58, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
Adorable. I'll look forward to seeing your block log then. --Tarage (talk) 05:12, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
This is rich, you wrote that my contributions are nonsense whereas I wrote a GA and the valuable content/good sources of these articles were written by me. Judging people without knowing their work is a speciality from you. Thanks for confirming that your pleasure is seeing good contributors being banned. Carliertwo (talk) 05:36, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
You can stop the personal attacks and digging your hole any time now buddy. --Tarage (talk) 18:01, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Important CommentSurprisingly, three users had already given a ban without even reading the defense, without even seeing I have added secondary sources and the Julie Burchill's NME review is still mentioned in article. Carliertwo (talk) 23:00, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
  • as this ANI is canvassed, could well known users of the SATB articles write their point of view about my work and the umerous volume I have added on wikipedia ? Gentlecollapse6, Greg Fasolino, Woovee, J Milburn, LessHeard vanU, SilkTork, If you want to get rid of a good contributor because of a witch hunt begun by a group hater who is against my person and refuses to swallow that he lost a 2nd rfc against me by a consensus, it is your choice. Carliertwo (talk) 23:26, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
Carliertwo this ANI was not canvassed. He was quoting us so it is appropriate to ping us when our edits are mentioned. You, on the other hand, did just canvass a group of editors. You also keep called PaleWhite a "group hater" just because he added a review from a somewhat controversial, but notable, critic.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 00:37, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
Would you explain us why people who know all my good work, could not write here whereas Pale's first RFC was cancelled by a 2nd rfc with a consensus for my version which means that his first ANI was retrospectively abusive and was just a witch hunt. He thought to include bashing from Boy George about this group (see the quote in green above) and now in the article about The Scream, he wants to include bashing such as "the sound of a suet pudding" where is the neutrality? Have you read my secondary sources from legendary John Peel and biographer of the group? No you didn't obviously. All the Burchill's quote he added was a manoeuvre to include this derogatory term about the album "the sound of a suet pudding", no neutrality. TheGracefulSlick --- Carliertwo (talk) 00:43, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
TheGracefulSlick failed to address anything about the following points: the fact that there are secondary sources for Burchill's review and the fact that Burchill's review is still mentioned in the article. Carliertwo (talk) 00:54, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
Carlietwo I'd be happy to as soon as you address the multiple non-neutral ANI notices you sent to friendly users calling PaleWhite a "hater". Thanks.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 01:29, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
TheGraceFulSlick doesn't even know what a wp:stewardship means. I note the refusal to discuss'and reply about why the reason of banning is justified whereas Burchill's review is still included in the article and widely commented by secondary sources with experts such as John Peel. TheGraceFulSlick also supports the idea of including a bashing of Boy George towards this group by Pale, which is trivial content and she also supports the inclusion of a non neutral quote by Burchill such as "the sound of suet pudding". Carliertwo (talk) 02:18, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
Carliertwo please do not put words in my mouth or question my competence. I have edited much more music articles than I can count so I think I know a thing or two. I said I'd be happy to discuss when you address why you think it is okay to canvass editors.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 02:24, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
You accused me to be a SPA and you don't even know that the rfc for which the previous ANI was created against me, was later cancelled by a new consensus. Are you sure you are of good faith ? without mentioning that you hadn't even waited to get my defense before voting for a ban. Read my wp:GA about Join Hands, and read the first comment of Darkknight2149 above and ponder. Then when you'll have thought about this, I will be happy to discuss. TheGracefulSlick. don't worry people have a brain and the users that post on SATB related articles will not take for granted my subjective comment. They will judge facts and the content of articlesCarliertwo (talk) 02:35, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
I have got a lot of difficulties to believe that contacting you, an user who accused me of being a SPA in an ANI opened for a RFC which has been cancelled, is not canvassing. Knowing that you don't know anything of my edits of the SATB related articles. But you said, that contacting people who do contribute on articles about music and who didn't take part to the previous ANI concerning me, is canvassing. This is rich. TheGracefullSlick. Carliertwo (talk) 02:42, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
I really enjoy when an editor accuses me of competency issues, lack of good faith, and insinuates I do not have a brain: all without a single diff! I'm just going to wait for other editors to jump in (hopefully some you didn't canvas) because this is no longer very productive.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 02:50, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
No I said that the people I contacted on their page won't take for granted that I consider Pale close to be a band hater and wanting to take a revenge for losing a 2nd rfc against me. People will take a look at the edits, they are users of music related articles. However you can't denied accusing me being a SPA, the quote is above, and you can't denied voting for my ban far before I posted someting here today. Whatever I post, you don't mind. All the things I have said are wrong according to you apparently. I was just asking which point of my defense reply you agree with and which one you disagree.Carliertwo (talk) 04:14, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
TheGracefulSlick I have just read what canvassing was really about, and withdrew all my edits at the talks of people who edit at music related articles and replaced the message by another short neutral notice. I'm new at ANI. Anyway, you're gonna win and could feast your victory with a cup of champagne in a few days. Congratulations. Thanks for your kind messages and at least admitting well accepting to admit a bit that Burchill's review was "controversial". I guess it is a satisfaction for me. I presume you're gonna let Pale erase all this part and let him doing what did he say earlier "denying readers the possibility of even reading a quote from Burchill's review", well in this case "denying readers the possibility of even reading from Burchill's" peers who were skeptical of her work. Carliertwo (talk) 05:51, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
Please stop pinging me. You are mistaken, I'm not here to "win" anything. You're continued attitude at article talk pages [80] and your sarcasm with me suggests why you need a topic ban. By the way, your comment in the diff I provided mischaracterized PaleWhite for no reason whatsoever.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 06:10, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
"Which diff you provided" are you talking about ? I disagree with your attitude. If banning a good contributor without any warning is normal, I don't think this is measured. Carliertwo (talk) 06:16, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
Ugh...the diff in my last comment. And here is what I was pointing to specifically: "Pale's will to include a derogatory term such as 'The Sound of suet pudding' shows how his frame of mind. Be ready to see him post plenty of negative, things on SATB articles shortly and in the forthcoming years". I guess I also need to ask you to stop "thanking" me for my edits which you know pings me like an actual ping.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 06:32, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Ban+block NPOV, edit warring, bludgeon, and attacking other editors for their lack of brainpower. This editor clearly has a boen to pick with others over anything. That attack on Tarage was pretty poor. A few weeks perhaps? L3X1 (distant write) 03:14, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
Ban from what, do you want me to never edit again on SATB related articles knowing that I have been adding all the good quotes, content and sources from 10 years, and seeing that I entirely wrote a GA ? In a limited time or endlessly and is being a stewardship allowed ? When there is war editing on an article The steps are usually, request demand for a third opinion, discussion, rfc and then if a rfc is not respected an ANI. Canvassing is when you contact people to get support. Pale contacted people from the previous ANI to support him, so I asked neutral people to write their point of view. Another question, will the secondary sources be erased whereas they are comments from John Peel who is the number specialist of music in England ? for L3X1. And have you read all my defense reply above the comments Carliertwo (talk) 04:00, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Note The canvassing continues. Blackmane (talk) 05:04, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
  • note I just read what is canvassing, I thought it was contacting people. I am a newbie at ANI, never been interested by banning attack judging, people. So I'm gonna erase the messages at pages of people I contact to only post a neutral note. Carliertwo (talk) 05:38, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
  • After reading through the examples given, and Carliertwo's general editing, I can see the reason for concern. Sadly, Carliertwo's story is fairly common - we are urged to look out for paid editing, but I find our main weakness is unpaid editing by subject enthusiasts who seek to praise their subject a little too much. Yet the bulk of Wikipedia is built by such enthusiasts. The majority of articles on certain popular subjects, be it video games or pop music, have a positive bias. Putting in the neutral balance is the job of neutral editors who come along after the fans have created the article and provided the bulk of the material. And it is the responsibility of all experienced editors to explain to the fans what is happening and why we need to do this. Mostly this is accepted. In Carliertwo's case it seems it is not. Fighting to put back in a trivial, non-encyclopaedic and undue sentence that Brett Anderson liked Tinderbox is not the sort of behaviour we wish to see. On the other hand, the edit warring in Kaleidoscope is two sided. Carliertwo did not completely revert the adjust - the phrasing "Paulo Hewitt gave the album qualified praise" was left intact. During the edit conflict PaleCloudedWhite did not attempt to discuss the matter on the article talkpage or Carliertwo's talkpage, but continued to edit war. I don't think topic banning Carliertwo is an appropriate solution, because I'm not seeing sufficient reason for that. I do think though that it needs to be stressed to Carliertwo that we are not a fan website, and that what we are trying to do is write neutral, balanced and informative articles on Siouxsie and the Banshees for all readers, which means including the negative and the positive in appropriate amounts; which means that we don't cherry pick reviews for the bits we like best, but we aim to give an accurate summary of what was written' which means that if another editor adds material or questions what you are doing, you engage in a discussion as to the best way forward. But this also applies to other editors as well. As experienced editors it is our role to reach out to and explain things to newer or less experienced or knowledgeable editors. We don't shout at them, ban them, or block them, we assist them to understand the Wikipedia way. That way everyone wins. If any editor continues to misbehave after advice has been given, that's when we come in with the heavy stuff. Looking at Carliertwo's history, he has made mistakes, and been given advice. That happens to all of us. There has been a few comments regarding ownership of Siouxsie and the Banshees articles, but not to the level of a ban or a block. I think what is needed here is to let Carliertwo be aware that the community wants cooperation from all editors, and that articles must be neutral in tone. Any concerns are to be discussed rather than fought over. If Carliertwo can acknowledge that he now understands what the issue is, and promises to be more collegiate going forward, I think this matter can be closed. SilkTork ✔Tea time 09:49, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
  • I concur generally with what SilkTork' said and their recommendation. As an additional note, as someone who was worked on the Scream article in question, I would say that simply quoting a sourced review is sufficient. We do not need, and should not, add in an entire additional set of sources commenting on how a particular sourced review is invalid. It's irrelevant, for example, whether John Peel thinks Burchill's review was bad. That does come across like a "defense" of the band/record. If it hasn't already been edited down, it should be.Greg Fasolino (talk) 18:12, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Carliertwo's bias continues to show on his talk page. He also, again, accuses PaleWhite of bad faith without any proof whatsoever in the same edit.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 19:27, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
Yeah I too am getting sick of this. If the user is only going to use their talk page as a means to attack other editors, I request that it be revoked for the duration of the block. They have provided nothing of substance to the argument since getting blocked. --Tarage (talk) 20:30, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
The crucial sentence in SilkTork's comment above is "If Carliertwo can acknowledge that he now understands what the issue is", because at the moment I see no evidence of this. In their most recent post on their talkpage they state that they do not wish for a certain part of the above-mentioned NME review to be used because it "looks like an useless cherry on the cake used as a weapon by PaleCloudedwhite". A weapon? How is it possible to discuss additions to articles if these additions are regarded by this user as weapons? In the same post this user also advises another to "beware of Paleclouded's attitude and check his edits. I think that he has got tons of edits ready and once I'll be gone, he's going to present a pile of edits in the same vein." Oh, thanks for filling in my Wikipedia diary for me - I had been wondering what my future involved, and now I know. It seems to me that this editor regards editors who challenge them over SATB articles as enemies, and all sorts of nonsense ensues because of this. Just look at how my comment about Boy George became mangled; in the second Tinderbox RfC, I tried to illustrate the undesirable logical consequences of Carliertwo's argument by using a quote Boy George had made about Siouxsie Sioux, [81], but at the top of this thread Carliertwo throws this quote back as an example of my "frame of mind"? What? At the start of this thread I state clearly that I have records by the band and am not a hater of the band. Carliertwo's response? To canvass several editors, informing them I am a "group hater" and that "he wants to let us believe he is not a SATB hater and and doesn't have an agenda on wikipedia, waiting me to be banned and then adding negative critics and erasing good reviews". How is it possible to discuss articles - as SilkTork advises - with an editor who has such a bad-faith attitude? It would be great if blocks and bans can be avoided, but what is the alternative? Unproductive contorted stalemate situations with a user who from the outset regards people such as myself as enemies using 'weapons'? PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 08:15, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
In an ideal world we would all get on with each other, agree all the time, and meet up for cherry pie and coffee, but sometimes there are awkward incidents, awkward individuals, and disagreements - that is the nature of Wikipedia editing. I understand your frustration, though there isn't a huge history of problems with this user. There have been minor mistakes made, and advice given. Most users have made mistakes. There has been some edit warring, but generally it takes at least two users to make an edit war. I'm not seeing that we have given this user sufficient guidance regarding the concerns with their editing and behaviour, nor am I seeing that their behaviour is sufficiently damaging to warrant a ban. While I agree with you that it was inappropriate to call a second RFC so close after the first one, and while I disagree with the outcome of that RFC, this is not a banning incident as this sort of thing happens all the time. Calling the RFC was not evil, and there were enough who supported not only the premise of the RFC, but also that it was called. Having an editorial disagreement is not evil. This happens all the time. We work through it. Sometimes this is tiresome, sometimes we learn that we were wrong, and most of the time the article is strengthened. I note that through all these problems that Carliertwo has worked toward a compromise. I find that encouraging rather than cause for a ban. We tend to only ban those who consistently refuse to listen to reason, and who make little or no attempt at compromise. Carliertwo is not perfect, but none of us are, and he is working in the right direction. SilkTork ✔Tea time 11:19, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Proposal to implement a topic ban[edit]

Its been 24 hours since this thread was opened, and there does seem to be consensus that something more needs to be done about this problem since rattling the saber didn't work last time. Therefore, I propose that we move to adopt a measure that stating that Carliertwo is hereby topic banned from all articles on or related to Siouxsie and the Banshees, broadly construed, and that the topic ban shall be in place indefinitely with an option for Carliertwo to appeal the topic ban after a period of one year by petition for a review of the topic ban at ANI. @MrX, TheGracefulSlick, PaleCloudedWhite, Only in death, Black Kite, Darkknight2149, Tarage, L3X1, and Blackmane: You were either pinged here when this opened or have opined above that this is the best course action, so I am recalling you here to get your input on this proposal. Gentlecollapse6, Greg Fasolino, Woovee, J Milburn, LessHeard vanU, and SilkTork you were pinged here at Carliertwo's request. As it would be irresponsible of me to disregard Carliertwo's earlier insistence that you also be involved in this matter, I would like to invite you to weigh in this matter as well, in the spirit of AGF. TomStar81 (Talk) 08:04, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

  • Conditional Support Enough already, we need to end this disruptive behavior. If Carliertwo isn't going to change then this option is the next best thing. TomStar81 (Talk) 08:04, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
    • I want to make it clear here that I am not advocating for anything being done while Carliertwo is blocked, that would be unethical. I am merely moving forward with a proposal here to gauge the interest in topic ban. We will of course be patient and wait to hear back from the accused, as AGF necessitates. In the mean time, though, it would be beneficial to here back on the proposal insofar as its points relate to the case. It seemed we were agreed above that a topic ban would be a good idea, but I'm uncertain if an unblock condition would be a good idea. I'm also uncertain if it would be wise to debate the merits of revoking the topic ban at ANI. These points we can discuss without needing to wait for Carliertwo, as they are simply a matter of weighing the needs of the community against the allegations here. If we all agree on the points than the proposal then if the topic ban does turn out to the favored option we will be on the same page. TomStar81 (Talk) 15:55, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
  • I've just looked and note that Carliertwo is under a 48 hour block so is unable to respond here. If Carliertwo is able to reflect on the concerns raised, and give an assurance that he will discuss concerns rather than engaging in edit wars, that he will take on board that Wikipedia by the nature of what we are includes negative comments on subjects, even Siouxsie and the Banshees, and that he will abide by consensus, then a ban is not necessary. We should wait until Carliertwo is able to respond. SilkTork ✔Tea time 10:57, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
  • I concur with SilkTork and would like to see Carliertwo given a chance to show they understand why their approach was wrong. If they cannot learn to be more neutral and less defensive of this band/articles, and continue to express conspiracy theories about PaleCloudedWhite's motives and editing biases, then yes, a ban is necessary. But perhaps Carliertwo can learn. Yesterday I tried at length to explain these problems to Carliertwo, perhaps it will sink in. I think, considering that this editor has in fact done much good work on the SATB articles, they should be given one more chance to learn how to be a more neutral WIki editor.Greg Fasolino (talk) 13:55, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment (Neutral) - Whatever the result is, I think we should wait for the user's current 48-hour block to expire before making a decision and closing the discussion. We should see what their response is. Their response and/or defense is important, even in the hypothetical situation where the user shoots themself in the foot (not to outright predict that they will). DarkKnight2149 14:11, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment - If they can explain why their approach was incorrect, tone down the snarky retaliatory comments, and follow-up through with a more neutral mindset, then I would see no reason to implement a topic ban. Let us see what Carliertwo has to say when they are unblocked and we can decide.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 14:23, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
  • I'm fine waiting till the block expires. Carliertwo is a 10 year veteran here, while not as prolific as other editors with the same tenure, they have nonetheless been a solid contributor and that warrants consideration. Blackmane (talk) 20:43, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
And given that one of the articles they created currently has Good Article status (in addition to what you just said), I'm inclined to agree. DarkKnight2149 20:47, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Reply of Carliertwo: After reading advices and explanations, I realize that I've made a mistake of judgement. I shouldn't have withdrawn this review (quote + source) and only let her name appear and a simple mention of her review. I had done this because I've read many times she's a controversial writer, and as none of her articles is available on Rock's Backpages, I took it as a sign that maybe her work was not accepted by all of her peers. With the benefit of hindsight, I recognize, I was wrong as the only criteria that matters is the reliability of the source. (Her review was supervised by an editor in chief before publishing). I understand now very well the concerns of NPOV that my revert has raised. The next times, when I disagree with an edit and when one of my edits is reverted, I will use the talk, will try to find a compromise and in the end, abide to the consensus. I will also work to be more civil when I have a criticism to make. Carliertwo (talk) 15:59, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

An "anarcho-capitalist" is waging an eternal edit war on the "libertarianism" article[edit]

User:IWillBuildTheRoads has been waging an edit war on the Libertarianism lead for months now.

– this is all over the exact same edit. This user has been unilaterally shoving the same thing into the lead for months now. Talking does not help. This is clearly a POV pushing issue and a tremendous waste of everyone's time. Could you please consider a topic ban? fi (talk) 22:19, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

A topic ban? He was blocked and that didn't change his behavior. Whatever good would a topic ban which cannot be mechanically enforced, do? Just block him again for longer to stop the disruption. Note I haven't looked at the issue at all, it just seems the proposed solution is a bit of nonsense. John from Idegon (talk) 22:57, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
A point of information, please: where does IWillBuildTheRoads call him- or herself an "anarcho-capitalist"? Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:59, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
In the comment section. The username is a right wing political "meme"; this wouldn't matter at all if the edits weren't clear POV-pushing and article archives weren't packed with similar Rothbard-themed usernames involved in similar incidents which eventually ended in lengthy bans. fi (talk) 23:03, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
Could you explain how "IWillBuildTheRoads" is a Rothbard-themed username? IWillBuildTheRoads (talk) 01:12, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

He knows he doesn't have consensus for the lede change and his recent block [82] clearly didn't get the message across. Start with a 1-month topic ban. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 23:40, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

I suggest that we at least wait 24 hours to allow them to explain themselves before we break out the blocks. If they don't respond or continue to make the edit, then we can talk about sanctions. I don't see that a topic ban is going to do any good when the much stronger option of a short block has failed to have the desired effect. Lankiveil (speak to me) 00:13, 28 March 2017 (UTC).

Finx, I have made this edit once since the time we were blocked. The reason is because you stopped responding to the talk page discussion. I pinged you and waited five days, but there was no response. If you want to remove or change reliably sourced material, you need to be able to explain it or at least cite a reliable source for the removal. So, Finx, why don't you head on over to the discussion and respond to my comments? That would be the productive thing to do. This also isn't POV pushing for two reasons. First, this is actually just "reliable source pushing"; every change has been supported by multiple reliable sources (some even peer reviewed). And second, this change is actually a compromise between our preferred leads as I explained a while back on my talk page (this was a response to someone asking where consensus was reached):

Sure. Just for some background info, Finx began removing reliably sourced material from the lead with a justification I didn't believe to be accurate or sufficient for the removal of the info. We discussed it on the talk page, making little progress. Saturnalia0 fortunately came along and made the post starting with "The SEP defines..." (SEP stands for Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.) In it, he or she said that until reliable sources that support Finx's view are presented (which could hopefully lead to a more permanent solution being agreed upon), his or her "suggestion is to leave the term [self-ownership] in the lead (i.e. modify the current revision) and add the SEP as a source (it is, after all, what a reliable source says)." He or she also said that "if 'rule of law' is to be kept it should be attributed to right-wing libertarians." I decided to implement this (possibly temporary) compromise between the original version and Finx's version. But, I decided to take it one step further and just remove rule of law entirely (remember, Finx wanted rule of law removed). Unfortunately, this wasn't enough. The edits were reverted by Finx without explanation (to his version with no compromise). It was discussed on the talk page more, and Saturnalia0 decided to change it back to the compromise version, but with an additional attribution that some left-libertarians deny self-ownership (I added a citation needed to the statement afterward). I thought this would be enough, because Finx's argument has been that some left-libertarians deny self-ownership (even though the SEP says otherwise). It still wasn't satisfactory for Finx. This time, however, the compromise was reverted with no explanation: [83] [84] (a vague, inaccurate explanation was only given on the talk page after I reverted these edits). I asked him about it on the talk page, but he said I was simply misunderstanding the reliable sources (however, his explanation for why contradicts the actual text of the sources). Then, he flat out denied any compromise had ever been made followed by more reversions with no adequate explanation: [85] [86] [87]

IWillBuildTheRoads (talk) 00:55, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

There's a lengthy discussion on the article's talk page on why this user is deliberately playing stupid and making deceitful claims by removing sources from their intended context. Not only is there no consensus for those statements, but User:IWillBuildTheRoads has managed to convince literally no one over all this time, yet keeps spamming the changes despite repeated warnings and noticeboard incidents. fi (talk) 01:28, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
Finx, in the lengthy discussion on the talk page (which you've stopped responding to), you are the only person who has claimed I'm "deliberately playing stupid" and "making deceitful claims". This is a violation of WP:AGF. You're also the only one who has claimed I'm "removing sources from their intended context". You've made this baseless claim multiply times, but never given any justification for it. I've analyzed the context of the source showing why it clearly supports what is being cited. I've rebutted your claims, but you haven't responded to my comments. In the various threads (including the most recently active one), there are multiple comments of mine you haven't responded to. I pinged you and waited five days (which I thought was reasonable), but you haven't given any counterarguments. There were only ever three people active in the discussion: Saturnalia0, Finx, and myself. As the block quote above explains, Saturnalia0 proposed the compromise lead, which I attempted to implement. Since he proposed it, he was presumably OK with it. Thus, it's misleading to say I've convinced no one, since Saturnalia0 proposed and therefore agreed to the compromise I implemented. Moreover, I can't find any users on the talk page you have convinced either. Since a majority of the discussion took place between you and me, it's not very meaningful to talk about how many people we've "convinced". I don't intend to make a tu quoque argument, but you have also been banned and have multiple warnings for the same article. Seems a bit like the pot calling the kettle black to me. IWillBuildTheRoads (talk) 02:29, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
AGF applies before two months of WP:ICANTHEARYOU. You have no consensus for your ancap narrative, for reasons that were explained to you very plainly. You have been asked for months, by multiple users, to stop your abusive editing. You were offered an RfC and dispute resolution for your unique creative interpretation of the sources' context, which nobody shares. The discussion is over. fi (talk) 02:37, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
WP:ICANTHEARYOU would only relevant if the rest of the community had reached a consensus that agreed with you, which is not the case (if anything, it's the opposite). After all, I'm not the one refusing to accept the compromise after it has been agreed upon by others. (I'm not saying you have to accept it of course; I'm just saying it's somewhat ironic that you're accusing me of WP:ICANTHEARYOU.) We've both been asked to stop our disruptive editing (in fact, both of us were blocked), so your statement applies equally to both of us. After I was banned, I made no changes to the lead until all communication from you on the talk page stopped with no explanation. You're the only one who's claimed I have a "unique creative interpretation of the sources' context" as far as I know. The discussion is not over, because when I questioned how I am misinterpreting the context of the sources, I received no reply from you. When I asked you explain why you were removing reliably sourced content from the lead, I received no answer. And when I asked what objections you have to the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy source, I received no response. If you can provide an answer to these important questions, I urge you to continue the discussion on the talk page. IWillBuildTheRoads (talk) 04:38, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
I have spent literally weeks assuming good faith and attempting to give a point-by-point breakdown of why your edits are inappropriate. In response, you plug your ears and hum and say everyone is "absolutely full of garbage"; I did not open this issue to debate the article or to do this back-and-forth. I am asking for administrative action because you will not stop vandalizing the article and wasting other peoples' time. fi (talk) 05:41, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
OK, that's taking what I said out of context both textually and temporally. Notice how the next edit, which was mere minutes later, has the edit summary "Change statement to be more professional". If you look at the diff, you can see that I removed my innapropriate comment right after I added the post (before you would have seen it). I would argue that on the whole I have handled myself professionally (but I encourage everyone to look for themselves and form their own judgments). Accusing me of vandalizing the article is a perfect example of assuming bad faith. While we both may disagree with each other, we know very well that neither of us are adding vandalism to the article (see WP:VANDNOT). IWillBuildTheRoads (talk) 06:04, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Proposal[edit]

This has gone on far too long, I suggest that the two warring parties either agree to mediation or be topic banned form that article. Guy (Help!) 13:44, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

There is not "two warring parties." There is one single party that wants to shove specific USLP talking points into the lead with no regard for verifiability or consensus. fi (talk) 15:59, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
You just made my case for me, well done. Guy (Help!) 22:41, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
Your unsolicited snark notwithstanding, it's still just one repeatedly warned and sanctioned POV warrior vs every other editor involved. Mediation was offered and then rejected, as this user unilaterally decided he doesn't need consensus. fi (talk) 22:44, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
This is inaccurate. Insisting that we not remove content supported by multiple reliable sources isn't POV pushing. Mediation was offered by Saturnalia0, who proposed a compromise. I accepted it and began to advocate that version of the lead instead of the original. Nonetheless, Finx continued to change the lead to his or her preferred version, with no rationale given for ignoring the mediation. IWillBuildTheRoads (talk) 23:59, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
So, basically every word of that is a fabrication, which anyone can confirm by looking at the article talk page and noticeboard history. fi (talk) 00:09, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
As for my claim that I agreed to the compromise, we can verify that on the article talk page, Saturnalia0 suggested the compromise. I responded with "This is a good NPOV compromise that I agree with. I have made the changes to the article." As for my claim that you changed the lead to your preferred version multiple times with no rationale given, see [88], [89], [90], and [91]. I'm not sure what you are trying to say about the noticeboards. When you reported me, we were both blocked for 24 hours. IWillBuildTheRoads (talk) 01:33, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
In a sense, Saturnalia0 was a mediator who proposed a compromise for the lead, which I agreed to. I fully welcome any further mediation. IWillBuildTheRoads (talk) 16:04, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

User:Yh00157 - inability to read talk page, constant unsourced and undiscussed moves/edits[edit]

I have some concerns re the above user re apparent disregard to talk page notices regarding marking edits as minor, the first dating back to 2014, and the most recent being a bit more than a fortnight ago. The user is also now moving pages without consensus and no visible proof regarding the moves - I have (un)moved Stadler Eurolight to its original name of Vossloh Eurolight as no proof was offered for the name, other than the summary "factory ownership change"; the main Vossloh article citing that ownership was changed but nothing saying branding would be too. I have a feeling that the user may be a sock of blocked user D47817 but cannot find too many similarities other than inability to read their talk page and topic similarities. Would an uninvolved admin/experienced editor care to investigate and evaluate what action should be brought forward? Thanks all. Nördic Nightfury 13:33, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

I think this is either incompetence or just blatant vandalism. Either way I think that the user should be prompted to respond, lest they banned from Wikipedia entirely should they continue to ignore warnings. I don't like to suggest banning right off the bat, but this seems like long-term nonsense going on and sanctioning should occur. UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 15:04, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
I've had concerns with this editor going back six years (earliest at User talk:Yh00157#Update tag). They have never replied to one of my messages on their user talk page; in fact, their only edit to that page was 09:49, 12 February 2011. So there is a definite communications problem here. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 17:10, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
A block is needed here; from their contributions log, they know that their user talk exists since they removed a less than polite note from an editor asking what on earth Yh00157 was doing, and only a block will force this user to confront and discuss their problems which date back a number of years. Listing every single edit they make as minor when some are very much major changes is not helpful, but doing it for several years is a problem that requires a block. jcc (tea and biscuits) 17:48, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
I definitely see a lot of page moves and edits without consensus, and many warnings on the user's talk page that have gone ignored. Since this ANI thread was started and the user notified after their latest edit, I say we wait and give the user an opportunity to respond here. If the user proceeds with making edits or page moves like this and without discussion or consensus, I support blocking. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 06:59, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

For info - he has started editing again today. I see Redrose has fixed a DAB link put in by the subject. Nördic Nightfury 12:49, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

  • I have blocked the user for 31 hours for continuing to mark non-minor edits as minor, and ignoring warnings on their talk page and the discussion here. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:59, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
    With this edit, I guess that Yh00157 has seen the message. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 10:23, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
Redrose64, jcc, Oshwah, Ivanvector:- I've de-archived this as the user appears to be at it again - marking edits as minor when they are not. Nördic Nightfury 06:46, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Next time, a link to the archived thread plus a brief summary is better. No need to copy the whole thing. I dropped them a note.El_C 06:55, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Despite your note, he's still continuing with exactly the same behaviour, adding unsourced material and marking everything as minor edits. Here is just one example among many. He's obviously learned nothing from his recent block, so apparently needs a longer block, or probably indef until there is reason to believe that he has understood the problem. --David Biddulph (talk) 11:50, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
  • I have now blocked the user indefinitely, as it's clear they intend to continue persistently marking all of their edits minor after having been told repeatedly to stop. This is a WP:CIR block. I'll have no problem with any other admin unblocking if the user makes any reasonable good-faith effort to address their block, but as they've yet to respond to any talk page warning in any way other than blanking the page, I find it unlikely. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 12:41, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
Having done some digging, the user appears to be of Korean decent, from this edit; with the emphasis thereon in with British Rail - related articles, with a few what appear to be Asian gaming companies long the way. I do still think there is some substantial socking occurring here, as Ivan says WP:CIR is an issue with this user. Either he knows what he is writing but doesn't understand it, or he knows he is breaking the rules. I'm tempted to ask for a checkuser to come along to do a quick check. Prior to them creating an account, they were editing from the IP 125.137.16.146. Nördic Nightfury 14:07, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
Ivanvector - I need your expertise here, I found a weird edit by an IP (here) on the last page Yh00157 edited before they were blocked, could the IP be linked?

Nergaal and rollback[edit]

While it is possible Coffee could have handled the situation differently, they were within their discretion as an admin to go ahead and revoke rollback, and there seems to be no enthusiasm for overturning that decision at this time. Nergaal is free to request it at WP:PERM should they desire to have it back in the future. There's really nothing more to be discussed here. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:48, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

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

This morning, Nergaal (talk · contribs) was edit-warring on 2017 Westminster attack and using rollback for edits that were not unambiguously vandalism. Coffee (talk · contribs) asked him to self-revert, which Nergaal did not do in time, so the rights were removed. The conversation broke down from there, with various mild insults flying. I've since had a word with Nergaal; it seems he was in a bit of a flap this morning, overreacted, and has now apologised. So could the community see clear to him getting his rollback returned? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:36, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

For those looking, the edits in question appear to be [92] and [93]. EvergreenFir (talk) 18:41, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
Does he do enough dedicated countervandalism to warrant him having use of the perm? I'm going to try and find his RFP. L3X1 (distant write) 18:43, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
Can't find the RfP, but as he is an established user I guess he can have it back. Coffee's behavior was a little weird, maybe to much caffeine yuk yuk However in light of policy, I don't see a whole bunch of CV work, so it appears to be an IAR thing. L3X1 (distant write) 18:54, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

I want to hear Coffee's side of the story first, and hopefully he will agree to restore rollback. Otherwise we're going to need community consensus. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:58, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

I can't find any anti-vandalism work by the user, but I can find prior warnings for edit warring and a short block for move warring, as well as improperly reverting other users talk page comments. PeterTheFourth (talk) 19:09, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

  • This was unambiguous abuse of an advanced permission. When it was brought to their attention, Nergaal gave an argumentative response in which he implied that he didn't even understand what Rollback is for (i.e. anti-vandalism only). Nergaal is not involved in anti-vandalism work and very rarely employs Rollback, but I was able to easily find additional recent misuse of the tool: [94][95] This is further misuse of rollback, in an edit war, on a topic that is under Discretionary Sanctions. Revocation was nothing less than wholly warranted and I'm hard pressed to think of any reason that should be overturned. Swarm 19:52, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Rollback can be used to revert socks too. Adding this before I get nailed for rollback abuse. --NeilN talk to me 20:05, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

@Swarm: Undo this or you will lose your admin rights, please. Nergaal (talk) 20:02, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

@Swarm: I'm losing my patience. You have 12 minutes to undo your edit, with an explanation of how your admin privilleges in the edit summary. If it isn't done by then, I will revoke your admin rights. Nergaal (talk) 20:04, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
Not. Helping. --NeilN talk to me 20:07, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
[H]ow your admin privilleges in the edit summary—I don't understand this sentence. El_C 20:12, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
I missed the word "abused". Nergaal (talk) 20:24, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
Yeah... no... Given that response by Nergaal (specifically, an attempt to do to Swarm what Coffee did to Nergaal), I see no need or compelling reason to restore rollback rights. Rather, there's evidence that the rights are not understood and may be abused to granted again. Nergaal, you've squandered Ritchie333's good faith efforts to help you. EvergreenFir (talk) 20:20, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
So let me get this straight: me copy-pasting what I got in my talkpage from an admin IS ok, but me doing it to an admin is NOT ok? Nergaal (talk) 20:21, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
Said more clearly: an admin making threats out of the blue to an editor without citing any policies is fine by the standards expected of an admin. Nergaal (talk) 20:23, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
You're trying to imply that Coffee was acting unreasonably, which is not the case. Had you been versed in Rollback policy before using the tool, you would not have been confused or taken aback by Coffee's messages. You would have understood what you did wrong, apologized, and self-reverted as was properly requested. Swarm 20:26, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
Dude, when I get threats I like to inform myself of the exact policy I am accused of. If you think I should not be confused and taken back by aggressive comments from an editor that did not even introduce himself as an admin, and then bend over and try to apologize (and request him nicely to penetrate my anus so I can be as submissive as possible to somebody I don't even know /s), then for sure somebody here is abusing their position of authority. Nergaal (talk) 20:36, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
Whoa, just chill. El_C 20:44, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
This wasn't some vague policy you violated. This is basic stuff. You were using an unbundled administrator user right that had been granted to you, in a way that isn't allowed. If you read the rules before using it, you would already be informed. You don't just get to use advanced permissions however you want and then "inform yourself" on policy after someone calls you out. You didn't get shafted by a bully administrator. You got caught misusing an advanced permission and you lost that permission. Simple as that. Swarm 20:53, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
@Swarm: You keep on missing the point I am making. Personally, my contributions seem to receive 0 appreciation here, which I cannot change. At this point I don't care about the rollback option myself. I am genuinely disappointed that you all seem so keen to disregard my contributions and opinions. You guys run your club and defend your peers. But I find it incredibly outrageous that none of you guys see any problem with the abusive behavior of one of your peers. Or you refuse to see it when somebody with a longer history of editing wikipedia than you is pointing it out. Nergaal (talk) 21:00, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

() @Nergaal: I literally don't see any "abusive behavior". You were told to self-revert, which was warranted. You had a permission revoked, which was warranted. Then, when brought up here for review, rather than acknowledge the fact that you messed up, you're attempting to victimize yourself, claiming that the admin cabal is ignoring abuse by one of its own. Ridiculous. The only abuse here is that which you've committed. Swarm 21:17, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

I was told to self-revert or else. In the 11 minutes passed between the initial threat and the removal, I have made two attempts to ask for clarifications, and only got another 2 threats and 2 more passive-aggressive comments. And you see nothing problematic with that. Oh and check out this fun fact: Coffee's thread came right as I was a typing a message referencing wp:CENSOR. Nergaal (talk) 21:28, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
Acting admin note - Notice these, three, edits which occured after my warning. Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 21:51, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
You mean I was in the middle of trying to resolve a dispute on the talkpage in question while you dropped in and said "remove or else"? Do you don't think it is ironic that in the 3rd one I mention WP:CENSOR? Nergaal (talk) 21:58, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

[edit conflict] Just to clarify my stance here: I don't care about my personal rollback rights, since apparently to people here, my anti-vandalism work is non-existent. However, I have a serious hard time understanding how such an aggressive, unconstructive, inflamatory behavior of an existing admin towards an established editor is completely ignored receives absolutely no reproach. Nergaal (talk) 20:32, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Nergaal was being facetious --NeilN talk to me 20:55, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Comment: Just foresaw the ranks of Nergaal, and it doesn't seem to have enough ranks to even become a bureaucrat. The comment it posted, regarding trying to revoke an admin's rights, could be a suspected and potential threat, which is usually against Wikipedia's standards. SportsLair (talk) 20:34, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, let's burn him to the stake. /s Nergaal (talk) 20:37, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
@SportsLair: I have a question: "The comment posted, regarding trying to revoke a user's rights, could be a suspected and potential threat", is this "usually" against an admin's conduct standards? Nergaal (talk) 20:41, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, of course. And so is burning someone to the stake. You better watch what you're posting here. SportsLair (talk) 20:42, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
So you find in normal at this point that absolutely nobody has been critical of the actions of the involved admin? Nergaal (talk) 20:47, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
Only a legitimate bureaucrat can grant and/or revoke adminship. You don't have that kind of rank. SportsLair (talk) 20:48, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
My, bad, I forgot to add the "/s" to those lines. Nergaal (talk) 20:51, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment I have rollback, as do scads of editors, and I have never once pushed that button. I only got it because it is required to use Huggle. It's not even required for STiKi, which is better. Coffee's action was warranted in my opinion. This is a very minor penalty, Coretheapple (talk) 21:02, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
I've checked WP:ADMINCOND, WP:ADMINACCT, and [[96]] also. Nergaal (talk) 21:09, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
I was just about to add (EC) that if Coffee changed his mind and gave you back your rollback rights it would be no big deal either. Coretheapple (talk) 21:09, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
  • I am pretty sure absolutely none of this would have happened, and none of this would have had to happen if, from the beginning, Coffee would have said something along the lines: "hey dude, looks like you are not using the tool as intended; you might want to freshen up on the policies of using it" instead of "Undo your last rollback or lose your rights, please". Nergaal (talk) 21:20, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
  • I tend to agree with this as that's the approach I use when I come across misuse of rollback. A little more blunt wording but basically, "Please look at Wikipedia:Rollback#When_to_use_rollback. If you use it for anything else you'll lose that right." --NeilN talk to me 21:31, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
As you can see here this is what I asked right before the admin's removal. Nergaal (talk) 21:36, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
  • @NeilN: Is that the approach you use when the editor's need for the tool is "non-existent" (as perceived by me, and apparently as said by the editor by themselves here)? Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 21:54, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
Editor's need for the tool is "non-existent" [...] apparently as said by the editor by themselves here [citation needed] Nergaal (talk) 22:01, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
"my anti-vandalism work is non-existent" (your comment dated 20:32, 28 March 2017 (UTC) which all can find by simply looking up a few lines) Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 22:06, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
since apparently to people here, my anti-vandalism work is non-existent. It should be pretty obvious to anybody deserving admin privileges, and deserving to make judgements from and admin's perspective, exacty what the point of my comment was, and how is it different to what this "admin" is trying to make it sound like. Nergaal (talk) 22:09, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
Your use of commas did not make that part of the sentence required at all... unless I'm somehow forgetting my knowledge of English. Further, this is another example of you misusing the tool to edit war. Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 22:17, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
C'mon Coffee. You took his quote out of context. Lepricavark (talk) 04:02, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
  • @Coffee: An admin gave them the tool. I don't particularly care why or how often they use it. All I care about is that they don't misuse it and I try to convey that with the least drama possible. That starts out with a pointer to the guideline and a warning that tries not to come across as a threat. A couple weeks ago it was, You might want to read WP:ROLLBACK: "Standard rollback may only be used in certain situations – editors who misuse standard rollback (for example, by using it to reverse good-faith edits in situations where an explanatory edit summary would normally be expected) may have their rollback rights removed." and that ended with the editor apologizing and giving thanks for the reminder. YMMV. --NeilN talk to me 22:11, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
Somehow, in the middle of all this drama, that made me :) Nergaal (talk) 22:32, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Acting admin note - I would like to point out, for anyone interested, that the revocation was done per this specific line in WP:ROLLBACK: editors who edit war may lose the privilege regardless of the means used to edit war. As Nergaal had used rollback to edit-war (and had had warnings for edit-warring in the past) I perceived this to be a clear case for immediate removal, after being given a fair amount of time to manually undo their rollback (considering their activity level, 15 minutes seemed adequate). Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 21:18, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
    • The time was not calculated starting with my warning, but with their use of the tool (either way... 5 minutes would have been more than enough). I also find it hard to believe that they did not read the section header of the message I sent them. Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 21:30, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
      • What section header? Nergaal (talk) 21:37, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
        • The one you clearly clicked on to make this edit (notice your edit summary). Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 21:43, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
          • Again, you refused to clarify what you are talking about. I asked what are you talking about in [you have until 08:40 to undo your edit, with an explanation of how you violated the policy in the edit summary. If it isn't done by then, I will revoke your rollback rights]? Nergaal (talk) 21:50, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
Hi there. In the eleven minutes elapsed between the initial message and the removal, you have made zero effort to clarify that this is what you are talking about, and instead, you made three threatening edits to my talkpage, and another three passive-aggressive ones. Meanwhile, on the same talkpage, I left two edits asking for clarifications and another one a minute later. Nergaal (talk) 21:24, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
That's not a personal attack. Now you're just reaching. 74.70.146.1 (talk) 23:56, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
Obtuseness abounds in this reply. Nergaal (talk) 01:16, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
In your reply to the IP, yes. Lepricavark (talk) 04:02, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
  • just an opinion (uninvolved admin). Nergaal clearly misused rollback. I note that being reverted is annoying, but being reverted by use of rollback is *very very much* annoying because it implies the reverted editor was somehow way out of line (vandalism, or whatever else clearly non-constructive). I know that because such misuse is not as rare as it should be, so I have been so reverted on occasion. Two conclusions out of this: if Nergaal does not have a history of repeated abuses, I think a warning would be enough for now; to Nergaal, if you do get rollback back, please use it only for vandalism, it is not a tool for quick editing, it is very unpolite to use it (not to mention it is also against policy :-). Also to Nergaal, I think I understand your frustration, but very rude language helps little, and may, rightfully so, get you in more trouble. Finaly Coffee was also rude. Their initial message was exceedingly blunt. There is no link, or at least an explanation, of what is expected to undo - "last use of rollback" is vague. Such blunt intervention, leaves the editor with less chance to a timely reply; also, it makes the actions, the administrator's included, to be checked and thus accountable. Then, successive messages, within *one minute* and then six minutes, with escalating warnings are not helpful. Losing patience if one does not get a reply within seven *minutes* should not be normal behaviour. An abuse of rollback is not a pressing matter. A ultimatum with *six minutes* to comply is completely out of line, the undue rollback action could have been undone by the admin - or anyone - and then the abuse could have been discussed without the drama. So, I think Coffee should be asked to be more polite, more patient, and explain their reasons when contacting editors. - Nabla (talk) 22:27, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
    • There is clearly a pattern of misuse (to edit-war, no less). Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 22:47, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
    • Also, how is "your last use of rollback" "vague"? Seems incredibly specific to me. Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 23:05, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
      • I almost forgot that I made this very specific clarification as well, directly after my first edit (and before the editor's response to my warning). So now, I'm really confused. "There is no link"? There is very clearly a link supplied. "the undue rollback action could have been undone by the admin" - Yes, but that entirely misses the point of me giving them a chance to keep their rollback, which is in no way required by the rollback policy if an editor edit-wars by any means. They were editing very aggressively so I gave them an equivalent warning. I don't have patience for edit-warriors (especially on high-visibility articles that are on our main page). Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 00:15, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
  • I think this case really highlights how the rollback rules are out of touch with current editing trends. In this case, the whole big dispute occurred because the rollback tool was used, instead of hitting undo, which would have been nearly as fast, and if no edit summary was included, would have the same result. To the extent the use of rollback gave Nergaal and advantage in this edit war, it was trivial. The rule is a legacy of a time when Twinkle wasn't used by many editors, and that one click revert was a bigger difference from how a non-rollbacker could edit. Now, the only two uses of rollback being a user right are to gate access to huggle, and to prevent vandals from using it to roll back edits over a large number of articles at once. This would have been better dealt with as routine edit warring, but policy is what it is, and it clearly did justify removal here. This isn't the place to change the policy, but as a result, I would support restoring the right in light of the promise to comply with policy, and the very small risk the user right presents in this case. Monty845 00:27, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
Ah, all things make sense now. I vaguely remember getting the rollback when the system was enabled, before the time edit summaries didn't have auto-completes. No wonder I don't remember reading the rollback rules that are currently in use, since I assume they were crafted at some point later. Again, I don't particularly care about the rollback itself, since a few people give it a "grandiose crusader-like power, where you have to be of the right faith to be allowed to use it". What I am genuinely worried in all of this, is a random admin coming and harassing me in the middle of a dispute. As much as I might have been wrong in my dispute I had earlier, I don't see how is the standard so much lower for an actual admin. I genuinely don't understand how even at this point there has been no worries about the un-administrator-like behavior Coffee has exhibited throughout this. I cannot AGF on his behalf at this point, and I genuinely believe he has a subjective stance on the article and, out of the blue, tried to force a dispute into the favor that aligned with his opinions. He has displayed highly aggressive behavior on a topic that is bound to have people already flared up. IMHO, admins ought to be impartial referees in disputes, and every-single-little-thing that he has done points towards the complete opposite. Yet, even at this point, most people here refrain to even consider pointing a finger at him. Nergaal (talk) 01:06, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
  • This is a bizarre comment. Rollback is an unbundled admin permission that we grant to trustworthy editors who are literally only asked that they use it how it's intended to be used and not in disputes. If you must edit war, please don't use your special advanced permission to do it. That's literally all we ask. Failure to pay any heed to that should result in revocation of said permission. Could Coffee have approached it in a more gentle manner? Sure. Is it inappropriate that he didn't? Absolutely not. This is standard operating procedure, abusing tools is disruptive editing and we don't go groveling to users who abuse advanced permissions and ask if they could maybe stop. When you actively abuse advanced permissions, the previous trust that entitled you to them is null and void. The only reason there's a "dispute" here is because the user is screaming "admin abuse" rather than owning up to their transgressions as most established members of the community normally would. Swarm 03:58, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
  • NAcom As this is borderline insanity (though humerous for a little while), I would like to give my opinion on the matter; both as an univolved vandal cop and a admin-wannabe. I am not NPAing anyone here, just being frank. I do not wish to offend or further enrage anyone. I don't think Coffee should of given a 15 minute ultimatum. I think an hour is more reasonable. 15 minute ultimatums scare me, because my schedule is so random I could easily not see the notice, or might save the "You have a new message on your talk page" for the next session, esp. if my ESP tells me its unimportant. I would be mortified to discover an admin was trying to contact me, and I had burshed it off as "probably some angry IP". Though we have all misused rollback at some point in time, I feel using rollback in an content dispute/ew is worthy of removal of the PERM. Nergaal received the rollback tool on 2/1/08, given by administrator User:John Reaves. I cannot find the RfP or dialogue regarding this, though.
  • My feelings on the re-instatement of the right are mixed. As Nergaal doesn't do vandalism (which is ostensibly what the the tool's sole pupose is), the reasonable literal materialistic part of me says "no." But as Nergaal is in good standing, and has many other tools, and wants to be a sysop, the sensable sane me says "sure, he had it before, why not have it again." But this whole discussion is off the charts. Fascetious comments, seudo attacks (in my eyes), and the lack of let-it-go-ness make me think "another content editor." A whole big show over whether or not misuse of a tool a couple time should result in the tool being removed is disruption in my eyes, and as Nergaal fundementally has not demonstated a need for rollback, I !vote no. Thanks for hearing me out. L3X1 (distant write) 01:58, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Since people asked when rollback was granted, User:Nergaal has had rollback since this request in February, 2008. EdJohnston (talk) 04:10, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Strange situation. Nergaal should not have been edit-warring with rollback, but Coffee could have been more patient and certainly more diplomatic. Coffee's comments on Nergaal's userpage are aggressive and heavy-handed, and the admin could have tried harder to clear up any confusion before removing the rollback. Nergaal hasn't made a very good impression in this thread and isn't acting like someone who should have rollback, but I think many of us would be frustrated by this kind of treatment. Lepricavark (talk) 04:10, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
  • TBH, I don't understand the process here. But if this kind of a harassment from an existing admin if acceptable in all your eyes, there is absolutely no surprise why the project is going downhill. Bleah. Nergaal (talk) 06:27, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
  • @Swarm: Obtuseness abounds in your comments here. You continue to refuse seeing any negative behavior of an existing admin. There is a non-negligible number of admins like you that expect from regular users to bend over and present their assholes for some raping every time admins like Coffee feel like. Admins like you and Coffee are not versed in WP:ADMINCOND, WP:ADMINACCT, and [97] policies that should govern admin behavior. I have a hard time understanding how my actions deserve the punishment I get, while the actions of and admin, explicitly against such policies do not lead to any sort of admonishment to the said admin. Nergaal (talk) 08:46, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

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

Misconduct by User:Doc James in removing a properly cited article[edit]

User:Doc James removed on article on Heart failure medications that was properly cited with highly credited sources obtained from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed. He claims there was a copy and paste issue for a couple sentences, but everything was put in my own and my collaborator's words except for a few minor sentences that my collaborator copied and pasted with proper citations that could have been removed or changed without the deletion of an entire article. Additionally, he claims that the same article already exists; however, this is not the case, for the article on Heart failure medications described very detailed animal models, mechanisms of action, and indications for heart failure drugs that are very important for researchers like myself investigating the said drugs. I ask that the administrators undo the delete with the exception of the few sentences that must be re-edited and look into User:Doc James, for he does not know or understand how useful this information is for pharmacologists, cardiologists, and electrophysiologists, yet persists to make edits that are detrimental. Thank you! Sazhnyev (talk) 18:45, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

This user has been making some strange edit.
Here he links antiarrhythmic agent to his newly created page. When we have an actual article on that topic.
Here he links the term "medication" on cardiac arrhythmia to his newly created page.
And he does this all the while well claiming that this new page was not about "cardiac antiarrhythmics".
Part of the text that was copied and pasted can be seen here and is at least 227 words.
On my talk page they claim the copyright issues were his collaborator's and he just copied them into Wikipedia.
The piece was mostly based on primary sources and we already have an article called Management of heart failure Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:54, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
As already mentioned to User:Doc James, those link edits are not strange because my page consisted entirely of antiarrhythmic drugs, which would not have been too hard to understand if User:Doc James was experienced in this field. As far as the copied and pasted material, it can be very easily removed and re-edited with sabotaging an entire, very useful article. Sazhnyev (talk) 18:59, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
Over two hundreds words is too much for a copypaste. El_C 18:57, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
Yes yes exactly. That page you created consisted almost entire of antiarrhythmic medications so why was it called "heart failure medication"? And why were you not working on the article we have already on antiarrhythmics? The page you created was a co tract and a "copy and pasted" one at that.
Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:04, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
My article contained many more words than 227. Me and my collaborator can work on rewriting the 227 words, but this article is of high importance for researchers who are experts in the field. As for the page on heart failure that he is talking about; it is absolutely useless in regards to the research that my article presented Sazhnyev (talk) 19:08, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
As for his claim that I simply used my collaborators information, me and my collaborator were working on this together right next to each other, and it was overlooked that their few sentences or so were copied and pasted, which is again something that can be easily fixed without deleting and article. Sazhnyev (talk) 19:08, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

More copied "Verapamil binding is voltage-dependent with affinity increasing as the vascular smooth muscle membrane potential is reduced. In addition, verapamil binding is frequency dependent and apparent affinity increases with increased frequency of depolarizing stimulus." from[98]

And this "adrenaline induced ventricular arrhythmias were examined in halothane anesthetized guinea pigs... Arrhythmogenicity was significantly increased with vagotomy and higher concentration of halothane. After injection of diltiazem at 0.5 mg/kg, the arrhythmic ratio (the number of ventricular ectopic beats divided by the total heart beats) was significantly reduced compared with the predrug control value (0.69 vs 0.04, P0.05)." from [99] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:13, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

The table assembled on the new page I created was different from the existing article on antiarrhythmic agents. It provides detailed animal models that other pages don't offer. Sazhnyev (talk) 19:15, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
If it's intertwined with that much copypatse content, the onus is on you and your collaborator to redact those from the article. There has to be no copyvio. El_C 19:38, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
Yes, and I'm willing to fix the mistakes, but I am unable to access the source code for my article. Sazhnyev (talk) 19:57, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
To restore the article we would need to revert to a version without any copyright violations in it. There is a version available, the very first one (admin only). If we did that it would then be eligible for deletion under WP:A3 as there would be no substantive content in the article. ~ GB fan 19:46, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
@~ GB fan could you provide me with the source code for that version by adding it to my user page? I am unable to access it because it says that the article is restricted to administrators. Thanks Sazhnyev (talk) 19:55, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done, but I doubt it will be much help. El_C 20:20, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
Thanks! Is there a way to access the source edit code for my entire article so I could work on it? It contains 45 references that I've compiled, which are essential for my edits. Sazhnyev (talk) 20:31, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
Maybe via email, if you have it enabled. El_C 20:38, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done. El_C 20:41, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
Thank you so much! Glad to see people who actually know what they're doing. Sazhnyev (talk) 21:06, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
Are you sure you want to go down that route? Doc James is a doctor and a long time Wikipedia admin,. You, on the other hand, appear to be a rude and obnoxious person with an agenda and a hearing problem. Guy (Help!) 22:40, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
Not collaborating with other individuals is an aspect of being rude - he heedlessly deleted an entire article with valuable information for researchers in the field of pharmacology and cardiology without considering the possibility of promoting improvement in the article. Thus, before you attack an individual's intent, know both sides of the story and approach things objectively. Even if he really is a doctor, his actions aren't justifiable by the carelessness of assuming that what he doesn't find useful is such for everyone else - that's just being disrespectful. Sazhnyev (talk) 02:58, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
Can someone please evaluate if this article, which appears to be based on one specific paper (?), is in violation of WP:OR? Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:26, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
@Sazhnyev: It appears you have not read this discussion, or have not understood it. Different people above have explained the problem—copying text from other sources is not permitted, and that is the only reason the page was deleted. Clicking the red link Heart failure medications shows a pink box with a very clear explanation of why the page was deleted. It was a copyright violation. If unsure about anything, try clicking the links in the message and reading them, then ask at WP:HELPDESK whether it is really true that people are not allowed to copy text from other sources to Wikipedia (answer: yes). To collaborate, it is first necessary to read messages from others, then take the time to comprehend them. Any reply should engage with the issues raised. Johnuniq (talk) 03:32, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
@Johnuniq, you have misunderstood or completely missed my point. He could have only removed the few sentences that contained some cited copyright material added by my inexperienced collaborator. The entire article did not have to be removed because it needed a few minor fix-ups. Any decent person would understand that. Sazhnyev (talk) 03:42, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
A decent person (El C) put the article without the copyright violation on your talk page (diff). Did you notice that El C also commented "It's blank, there's nothing there"? Johnuniq (talk) 09:48, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
Sazhnyev: If you're suggesting that the article could have been kept with the copyvio sentences removed but the history kept, no this isn't generally allowed. This has already been mentioned before above, and really after this blew up you should have read WP:Copyvio. We can only keep the revisions without copyvios. This means if the copyvios were inserted very early on, there is basically nothing to keep as was apparently the case here. If there is some non copyvio content amongst that copyvio content, then it's possible that content could be re-used but you should take great care in doing this. As mentioned above, if you are re-adding the content the onus on you is to make sure it is completely free from copyvio. Often when an article is new and there is substantial copyvio concern it's better to just started again rather than trying to salvage anything. In any case, the content was emailed to you, something you could have requested earlier rather than complaining about the correct removal of copyvios. If you have any complaint, it's the person who created this mess by inserting the copyvios in the first place, something which is a very serious issue on wikipedia, and not those who wasted their time fixing it. New editor or not, people need to understand our copyright policies and requirements as it's a fundamental part of wikipedia. Nil Einne (talk) 11:43, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Ongoing disruption by User:Sazhnyev[edit]

We have an article called antiarrhythmic agents which is exactly the same topic as the cardiac dysrhythmia medications this user has created. This has been explained to Sazhnyev both on my talk page and above. This is a Wikipedia:Content forking and he has been trying to get around this for some time (see his creation of heart failure medications). Rather than working on the existing article using high quality sources they continue to persist and continue to use small primary sources. At this point I am wanting to propose a topic area ban from health care widely construed for one year. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:07, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

  • Support At first I thought this was a new user given the WikiEd tag on the top of their page but it turns out they've been editing for almost a year. If after all this time they haven't learned about copyvios, medical sourcing, and haven't learned to listen before lashing out then a stronger measure needs to be taken. Capeo (talk) 21:56, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
  • user was a student editor (Spring 2016 course page) last spring who came back to do more on their own time, which is nice, but their conduct here (their first significant foray back since the class ended per their contribs) has been horrible; they have added weird/bad content, ignored every bit of input from other editors that they have been given here and elsewhere, have tried five ways from Sunday to force this content into WP, and been insulting in the meantime.
    • odd obsession with animal models; content based on old/primary sources added to several articles about antiarythmic drugs: dif, diff, diff, diff
    • their contributions are apparently "important" per their edit notes: diff, diff, diff
    • in response to feedback, just removed Doc James initial response from their Talk page, and wrote these lovely things on Doc James' talk page dif (please read, starts with What do you think you're doing?); diff (includes Why do you feel the need to do what is not asked of you?); diff (includes How is that so hard to understand?? The article on Heart failure medications went into a much greater detail describing animal models and indications that researchers use in their studies! If that's beyond your understanding, then editing Wikipedia articles on antiarrhythmic heart failure drugs is not in the realm of your expertise!) and see above.
    • On this specific content, first added it here to Cardiac arrhythmia, edit warred to restore it here, tried to create it as a new article here, and ignoring several warnings about where it should go, and about COPYVIO and then again tried to create a new article here.
Seems like this person is an EXPERT (they noted here that the information is related to a research project in their lab) and could contribute a lot but they need to get grounded on how WP works. In addition to difficulites that academic scientists sometimes have adapting to WP, they seem to have some hangover from student editing, where students are actually taught to create some block of content and to dump that into WP, rather than trying to improve existing content and think about things like WEIGHT in a given article and meta-editing across related articles (that is a whole other kettle of fish)
A year seems weird. I would support an indef with the standard offer, which could let them back in 6 months but they would have to show that they understood how they have acted completely wrongly. I think a lot will depend on how they respond here. Jytdog (talk) 00:26, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

User:Domdeparis[edit]

@Domdeparis: has lost a deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Myton Warriors and instead of taking the defeat with grace, s/he has resorted to leaving a bogus personal attack template on my talk page. I did not "attack" Domdeparis, I simply asked questions about their motive and potential COI in the deletion nomination. They failed to provide a reasonable response but I gave them the BOTD anyway. Now, even if I had launched a personal attack, they would still have no authority at all to leave such a template as only warning. The correct thing to do if they believe I've breached Wikipedia policy would be to bring me here to ANI, as I am now doing with them. What I'd like as an outcome here is an administrator officially scrubbing the bogus warning from my talk page and Domdeparis officially warned about their counter productive behavior on this matter. Thanks Skemcraig (talk) 18:47, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

My initial thoughts are that Domdeparis should come up with a better AfD nomination statement next time (such as why attempts to follow WP:BEFORE failed, for instance). Anyway, the AfD closed as "no consensus", which is a de facto keep, so you should take solace that the article was not deleted and move on from there. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:52, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
reply @Ritchie333: point taken, it probably would have avoided a lot of grief, I will endeavour to do so next time, thanks for the advice. Domdeparis (talk) 07:58, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
I'm delighted with SoWhy's closure and his closing comments, for sure. I just don't expect nonsense templates on my talk page by users who didn't get their way at an AfD discussion, which is why I'd like it officially scrubbed off as I don't deserve my reputation (well, very small reputation) here besmirched by a bogus warning from a biased editor with no right to make it. In fact, as a touch of irony, this could be viewed as a personal attack on me by Domdeparis. Also, I did mention a few days ago at the AfD that I no longer wished to communicate with Domdeparis as nothing more constructive could come from it. Skemcraig (talk) 19:03, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
There is no "officially scrubbed off", and there's no consequence to getting a warning other than the fact you've been notified of the policy. If you're not doing anything wrong, no admin will take any action just because someone placed a warning notice. You're allowed to remove warnings (or almost anything else) from your talk page if you wish to. That's a confirmation that you read it, but not that you agree with it or consider it valid. Domdeparis, for your part, try bringing up issues in your own words rather than using a template. Seraphimblade Talk to me 19:12, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
Hi @Seraphimblade: in the Afd discussion I explained multiple times that I did not appreciate the accusations without proof that I was acting in bad faith and I asked Skemcraig to stay on the discussion and to avoid personalising the discussion and to AGF which he seemed incapable of doing making statements such as "I call it as I see it" "You're not doing much to dampen my worries that you're operating with some kind of COI here" "it's possible the nominator may have a preference for nominating club articles of one sport for deletion, whilst willingly ignoring the identical club articles of thier favorite sport", "I look forward to ScrapIron / Domdeparis nominating all the amateur rugby union club articles for deletion in the near future... (I won't hold my breath!)". Maybe a level 4 warning was too mush but making multiple insinuations and accusations directly aimed at me just based on his personal questioning is very unpleasant and detracts from the discussion. Domdeparis (talk) 08:11, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
Skemcraig, there is no winning or losing of deletion discussions, it is not a contest or a game. There are nominators and there are participants and then a decision is made if an article should be kept or deleted based on the discussion. As Seraphimblade said, if you don't want the warning on the talk page, remove it. ~ GB fan 19:34, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
You know what I mean by "lost a deletion discussion", s/he nominated the article for deletion and failed to argue the case, resulting ultimately in a no consensus closure. As for the advice by you and Seraphimblade regarding self removing the comment, I'd prefer an administrator to delete/hide Domdeparis's revision. Failing that, Domdeparis actually self-reverting would also be nice (I won't hold my breath on that one), but if I have too, I'll revert it myself at a later date. Thanks to everyone who's commented so far for the advice though, it's appreciated. Skemcraig (talk) 19:41, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
GB fan, every debate of any type has a winning side and a losing side, and is in fact a contest to see which side can present the strongest arguments while debating fairly. That doesn't automatically imply battleground behavior. I have to smile whenever someone objects to common usage of "win", "lose", or "opponents" with reference to debates. Most English words have multiple senses and we shouldn't assume one sense or the other when the intended sense is ambiguous. To outlaw the word "lose" is not unlike political correctness. ―Mandruss  19:55, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
An AfD is not a debate.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:59, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
WP:AFDFORMAT: "AfDs are a place for rational discussion of whether an article is able to meet Wikipedia's article guidelines and policies. Reasonable editors will often disagree, but valid arguments will be given more weight than unsupported statements." Emphasis mine. Sorry, but that sounds very much like the general definition of debate. Later at AFDFORMAT: "The debate is not a vote; please do not make recommendations on the course of action to be taken that are not sustained by arguments." Emphasis mine. ―Mandruss  21:39, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
I don't much care what that says. I agree that AfD is a discussion, though; after all, that's it's title. The rest is silly. What about AfDs where everyone agrees on a particular result? I don't recall debates like that. In any event, the saddest thing is that you treat an AfD like a debate. Worse, I imagine you're not alone.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:48, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
For what it's worth, I thought the policy was that AfD's are discussions where the deletion of an article is debated rather than voted on, hence the use of "!vote" rather than "vote". Skemcraig (talk) 21:56, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
I will never apologize for, let alone allow any editor to make me feel guilty for, presenting the strongest case I can, in any important discussion. I would expect no less from my opponents, and may the strongest arguments win. And the possibility of a unanimous AfD hardly justifies the statement, "An AfD is not a debate." ―Mandruss  22:00, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
Hi just to point out that Skemcraig accused me 9 times during the Afd of being biased of having a vendetta and of being of bad faith because I refused to go looking for similar pages in rugby union, I asked him multiple times to stop and to concentrate on the discussion which he refused to do. I then posted the warning on his page because he clearly wasn't going to and it was only after this warning that the Afd was closed as no concensus. He didn't take the time to verify the time line as my warning was at 8:30 and the discussion was closed at 13:10 so this ANI is pretty pointless. Multiple accusations of bad faith without proof can be considered a personal attack. The page did not meet NORG as there were no references and I did carry out a search for sources but all I could find were routine ones. During the discussion 1 single source was added and as NORG states a single independent source is rarely enough to prove notability. As I stated in the Afd I have no agenda I came across this page whilst following the trail of a vandal and as it stood it did not meet the criteria. I am not going to apologise for nominating the page and annoying this editor. He claims that I have some kind of vendetta against rugby league. As far as I can remember the only rugby league page I have edited was Hull F.C. to undo the work of a vandal and his sock puppets who insisted in adding fictitious players to the squad. If I had something against the 13 a side game I would have left it I think rather than researching the team composition and undoing the vandalism. Having done this I opened a sock puppet investigation which blocked the puppets and as part of due diligence I verified that the various users had not vandalised other pages and that's how I ended up here. I do not deny that I prefer the 15 a side game because I used to play but I do deny having the slightest vendetta. My grandfather played both games. Domdeparis (talk) 05:41, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

I've decided to revert the bogus warning by Domdeparis on my talk page as per administrator advice here. I've also left a note in the edit summary explaining why and I've also advised Domdeparis against repeating their actions. As for their reply here, the continued assertion that the article in question fails WP:NORG despite myself and several other editors now explaining that it doesn't (or that at best NORG is unclear on the matter), just shows the mentality of the person behind the account. An unwillingness to accept that they were/are wrong and shouting "AGF!"/"NPA!" when questioned about their AfD nominations are very worrying behaviors from somebody who is actually quite the veteran here. Anyway, with any luck, Mine and Domdeparis paths will not cross again on Wikipedia and their past and future behavior here will no longer be any of my concern. Since no administrator was willing to do the revert on my talk page (I understand why), the AfD that started all this is over and I have no wish to further communicate with Domdeparis, I'll consider this matter to be over. I'll leave it up to an uninvolved user to close this thread (or not if that's the preferred position). Thanks again to everyone here for their comments and advice on this matter. Skemcraig (talk) 22:36, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi @Skemscraig: I think that if you look carefully nobody advised you to revert anything but reminded you that you are not obliged to leave (almost) anything on your talk page and if you want to remove the warning you can. The most important thing IMHO is that you read it and even if you don't agree with the warning you now know that repeatedly accusing others of bad faith without proof is often upsetting to those that you accuse, and as you have been advised you should move on. I have taken on board the advice and from now on will try and be clearer in my nominations to avoid this kind of situation in the future. Happy editing! Domdeparis (talk) 07:34, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
"You're allowed to remove warnings (or almost anything else) from your talk page if you wish to."Seraphimblade / "As Seraphimblade said, if you don't want the warning on the talk page, remove it."GB fan / followed up by "but if I have too, I'll revert it myself at a later date. Thanks to everyone who's commented so far for the advice though, it's appreciated." – Me!
It is quite clear that to remove the warning is to revert/undo your edit to my talk page which is what I was advised to do and what I did. Skemcraig (talk) 09:12, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
  • @Skemcraig: FYI, but whether you remove the warning or not is somewhat of a distraction really. Whether it stays or it goes, you are deemed to have read it with either action. So, unfortunately, the warning itself still stands in the history, and by extension, in the collective memory. Hope this clarifies it for you! Cheers, — O Fortuna! Imperatrix mundi. 09:27, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for the heads up Fortuna. On the back of that, I'd like to formally request again that an administrator delete/hide the Domdeparis edit from my talk page history. Cheers Skemcraig (talk) 12:03, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
@Skemcraig: Sorry, no. Possibly incorrect or incorrect warnings do not merit revision deletion. --NeilN talk to me 12:20, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I doubt there is any policy-based reason to do so per WP:DELTALK. You are free to revert it if you disagree but none of the reasons for deletion apply. My advice: Just walk away. This discussion has run its course, it's clear that you and Domdeparis will not agree and there is nothing you or he did that warrants further discussion. It would be in all our interest if all involved parties spend their time here more productively. May I suggest trying to establish a notability guideline for rugby teams? Regards SoWhy 12:26, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
Consider me walked away SoWhy. I'll leave it to the more experienced editors here to come up with a notability guideline for amateur sports clubs, which I agree is badly needed. IMHO, WP:RL, WP:RU, WP:WPF and many many more sports related WikiProjects are going to need to collaborate very closely on this. Skemcraig (talk) 12:32, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
A final thought: There is no monopoly on who can suggest new guidelines and sometimes things will not happen if everyone considers it to be somebody else's problem. Be bold, make the first step and propose something; the talk pages of the WPs you mentioned or Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) is a good place to do so. All "more experienced editors" started out small. Regards SoWhy 13:03, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
it's a good remark I have already tried to change the WP:NRU criteria by opening a discussion to try and get the Georgian players the same status of notability as other teams because Georgia is now considered as a high performance union but it's almost impossible to get some kind of concensus. It would be so much easier to have notability criteria for teams rather than just NORG but it would have long reaching consequences for all sports I think. Domdeparis (talk) 13:31, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Rangeblock request - Cartoon Vandal[edit]

Rangeblock implemented on 179.60.96.0/21 by NinjaRobotPirate (non-admin closure) EvergreenFir (talk) 16:05, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

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

There's been a range of IP addresses vandalizing Adventure Time and Regular Show articles. They seem to not want the shows to end, and are removing information about the series finales. See some sample edits here: [100], [101], [102], [103], [104].

The range is 179.60.90.0 through 179.60.100.255. See 179.60.9* and 179.60.100.* for range contribs. I do not see other edits of this nature outside this range (see 179.60.*).

According to this website, the CIDR ranges are:
179.60.90.0/23
179.60.92.0/22
179.60.96.0/22
179.60.100.0/24

Given the contribs from the range within the last year, there appears to be little-to-no collateral damage resulting from a range block. Thank you. EvergreenFir (talk) 20:09, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, 179.60.96.0/21 (179.60.96 through 179.60.103) will take care of the job. If it needs to be widened, you can contact me on my talk page. I'll start off with a one-week block, and we can go from there. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:05, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
@NinjaRobotPirate: Thank you! EvergreenFir (talk) 04:45, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

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

User:TheBlackKnightConfirmes[edit]

Yet another WP:NOTHERE conspiracy theorist. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:11, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

With the past only two edits, it seems that something is suspicious, and there seems to be nothing new, depending if a previous account is overlapped. SportsLair (talk) 23:24, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
When a conspiracy theorist posts things that are remarkably similar to things posted by a previous conspiracy theorist, there is a tendency to assume sockpuppetry. In reality, conspiracy theories tend to have lots of true believers who read the same webpages, so I choose to WP:AGF. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:51, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
So the belief that this conspiracy theorist is the same conspiracy theorist as the last conspiracy theorist is a conspiracy, then?

Violence threat?[edit]

User indeffed and page deleted by Ian.thomson. (non-admin closure) EvergreenFir (talk) 16:06, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:LandSharkRecon/sandbox&oldid=772616559

Probably a joke but can't be sure. Emergency have been notified just in case. Adam9007 (talk) 03:16, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Indeffing and deleting as WP:NOTHERE. Even if it is a joke, I think it's safe to assume they're not here to help. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:23, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

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

Admin User: Majora[edit]

I have been pursued and intentionally harassed by an administrator named Majora.

First, she has pursued file images that I have uploaded and mislabeled them to claim that I did not have valid permission to upload it. After I told her the rationale and the justification, she could not justify herself and instead basically stated that she had power and I did not, so she doesn't "have to help me." She then said the author of the picture had to email Wikimedia with the WP:Consent form, which was false, but I complied with her instructions anyway. Even after the author submitted the consent form on March 24th, the picture was still taken down without question or regard.

Secondly, this same admin user trolls the files I upload and the pages that I create, specifically the page that I created for Grace Akinlemibola. She inserted a condescending comment that I had to reverse regarding one of the countries listed as being a city that "no one will notice" since the listing accidentally included a city instead of a country.

Third, this same admin user who trolls this page Grace Akinlemibola kept deleting a comment that I included with a source and ultimately had me blocked (by another admin user Coffee) even after she had additional admins (Jim1138) join in to delete this comment.

Fourth, Majora is the same admin user who had me blocked for 48 hours when I was attempting to reverse this same comment.

Finally, this same admin user (Majora) is trolling the same page (Grace Akinlemibola) and immediately contesting my uploads while lying about a Wiki policy that is not correct. Even on the page she refers to, it states that there are reasons to do what I did. Yet she simply stated it's a policy and laughed about me getting blocked by stating, "this didn't end well for you last time."

Someone as vindictive and ill-spirited as Majora should not be an admin. I think her admin rights need to be removed from either her username or whatever other name she also goes by since I believe she also has another account. I have even stated before how Majora has biased edits and should not touch the page. She needs to be stripped of her admin rights. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheWikiKing7 (talkcontribs) 05:42, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Majora is not an administrator. Master of Time (talk) 05:47, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
(Non-administrator comment)@TheWikiKing7: Just for reference. Majora is not an administrator. Also, when you start an ANI discussion about a particular editor, you are supposed to notify them by placing a message or Template:ANI-notice on their user talk page. This is give them a chance to respond to any claims you might make about them. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:05, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for your comment, Marchjuly. Majora has rights regarding file uploads, though. I think she is an admin or at least has some type of extended privileges. Whatever privileges she has need to be removed. And I did leave a comment on her user talk page. --TheWikiKing7 (talk) 06:10, 29 March 2017 (UTC)TheWikiKing7
TheWikiKing, I think you're the one who needs to step back here. You are the creator and by-far-major contributor to an article about someone who is, at best, marginally notable; you have filled the article with poor references, self-published sources and the like. You were edit-warring to force a ginormous image to stretch across the entire page, in violation of both our manual of style and common sense. By bringing scrutiny to Majora's appropriate actions, you have just brought more attention to the issues with your own editing. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:17, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
See also Anti-Corruption Lawsuits filed by Grace Akinlemibola; there's a bunch of claims and allegations about living people sourced to nothing more than a slew of unsuccessful lawsuits. I have nominated both of the articles for deletion as unsalvageable and unsuitable for the encyclopedia. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:36, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
Hi NorthBySouthBaranof, it seems that you are making the argument that if a person does not like the content of an article, that person can automatically delete the article. The lawsuits are also still pending. You also never mentioned the atrocities committed prior to the "edit-warring." Majora had a file I uploaded removed without cause and her only justification was that she had more power and she attempted to bring about even further hurdles. She used foul language when attempting to suppress the files and had the file removed even after the additional steps were taken. Since then, she has consistently pursued anything that I have uploaded and touched. It's nonsensical. --TheWikiKing7 (talk) 06:52, 29 March 2017 (UTC)TheWikiKing7
It's not a question of what someone doesn't like, it's a question of whether the content of the article complies with our foundational policies. The articles in question are filled with unsupported claims that named living people are "corrupt", among other issues, and basically have no independent reliable sources. I have left you a note on your talk page explaining these issues. Wikipedia is not a free speech site, it's a project to write an Internet encyclopedia, and if content submitted by an editor doesn't comply with our policies, it can and will be deleted. That's the process I've initiated. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:55, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
TheWikiKing7, I think you are editing in good faith, so you really need to spend some time going over Wikipedia policies on the type of articles that are accepted here. Any article must meet the standards at WP:GNG. This person has clearly has not "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." Legal documents and lawsuit filings do not qualify as the type of sources needed. Those are Primary Sources (see WP:PRIMARY). One of the reasons for these standards and policies is so content can be decided by policy and not by what people like or don't like. The fact is, you are the one who is trying to base inclusion based only on what you like and want, rather than on policy. First Light (talk) 07:58, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Comment TheWikiKing7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) was blocked for persistent addition of unsourced content. TheWikiKing7 was warned and given advice a number of times by Majora 1, Coffee 1 2, and Jim1138 (myself) 1 2 TheWikiKing7, restored the content shortly after the block expired here with an ES of Undid revision 772332133 by Majora (talk) BLP violation; vandalism TheWikiKing7 seems unwilling to get that an image on Twitter is not an RS. Jim1138 (talk) 09:27, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
TheWikiKing7, based on your editing, I'm close to blocking you per WP:NOTHERE. Wikipedia is not the place to gain publicity for Akinlemibola and her lawsuits. Please:

  • Stop using primary sources like legal filings, especially to make claims about living people. [105]
  • Stop characterizing removals mandated by our WP:BLP policy ("Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion") as "BLP violation, vandalism". [106]
  • Stop with the attacks on living people. BLP applies everywhere. [107]
  • Stop casting aspersions on your fellow editors. [108]

Be aware that any more disruptive editing will probably result in a block. --NeilN talk to me 12:23, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Coffee, as I (unfortunately) have a job and need sleep, I am just now seeing these comments. I updated the sources or explained further in my revisions. You picked one line from the revisions. The image that was added was the last update that I had input. Prior to then, I had stated things such as "I used the word 'said' to balance the foundation," etc. Right now, you are picking and choosing and attempting to justify yourself because you didn't read through the history prior to blocking. I was giving explanations but also tagging as vandalism because I wanted these items to be noted. --TheWikiKing7 (talk) 16:25, 29 March 2017 (UTC)TheWikiKing7
I would note that I was not the commenter above you, it was in fact NeilN who provided the above evidence/warning. Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 05:29, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────@TheWikiKing7:You need to step back and slow it down here. We all know Wikipedia can be confusing, especially when your re a new user. That is why so many others have tried to guide you, and to point out things you seem unaware of. When you're new at something, it behooves you to listen to people who know more about it than you do, and yet we see you arguing back with everyone right here in this thread, refusing to even acknowledge that Majora is not an administrator, let alone acknowledge the issues with your own edits. This leaves the rest of us wondering how you are ever going to be able to have a positive, mutually beneficial editing experience.
And if, at the end of the day, you seem to simply reject how Wikipedia works in favor of how you want it to work, you are just going to be blocked. We don't actually want to do that, we'd rather have you happily contributing new content and enriching and expanding the encyclopedia, but if you reject all guidance and just go it alone it's pretty much inevitable. The fact is, diving right in to creating new articles is almost always a bad idea if you haven't taken the time to understand basic policies like using reliable sources first. Wikipedia is user-created, but it does not function like other such websites, it has rules for how things are done, in particular when it comes to living people. You need to make an effort to learn how things work if you want to do good work here. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:23, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Well isn't this just fun to come home from work to. To start with, I've taken the liberty of striking out the word "admin" in the section header as I am not an admin. Don't want to mislead anyone there. For those of you that don't know me, my primary work here is patrolling the file namespace (with the occasional article expansion thrown in for kicks). While I may not know everything, my previous work with OTRS and on Commons has lent me the knowledge of copyright law to fit in quite nicely amongst the images. This started when TheWikiKing7 uploaded a file with the claim that "it is on Facebook under the public setting so it is public domain". There was some steps in the right direction and the photo on Facebook was amended to have the beginnings of a copyright license release. Unfortunately, the release was not complete and therefore unaccepted. When I explained that to them they claimed that I was essentially lying going back to their original "everything on Facebook under public is in the public domain" pointing to Facebook's Terms of Service as their proof. I again, explained to them why their interpretation was incorrect and they took that as me being racist (this was on the file talk page of the image that has since been deleted). After being accused of such a thing I decided that it was better to stop communicating with TheWikiKing7.

That does not mean that I did not continue to keep an eye on the file page as well as on the pages it was being used on. This is my standard operating procedure for every file I tag or take issue with. As copyright is a serious business I always want to make sure that potentially infringing images are taken care of promptly and in the correct way. As for this claim: She inserted a condescending comment that I had to reverse regarding one of the countries listed as being a city that "no one will notice" since the listing accidentally included a city instead of a country. That is categorically false. The only edits I performed on that page was condensing refs using refill, removing BLP violating material, and fixing images to comply with the MOS and our image use policy. As a side note (albeit unimportant one), last I checked I am male and continue to be so.

So, what we have here is a single-purpose account, whose only goal on Wikipedia is to promote Grace Akinlemibola's lawsuits against other people, and who denies basic Wikipedia policy even when it is explained to them. I am asking that this be closed before something comes back upon the OP. --Majora (talk) 21:35, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

A little help please[edit]

DEALT WITH:

Edit warrior blocked. Beeblebrox (talk) 06:59, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

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

Trying to flag down an admin. Can we get a little help over at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:SeederOfTheDugudup_reported_by_User:EvergreenFir_.28Result:_.29. 20ish reverts and counting, tried posting at the vandalism noticeboard but it seems like no one is awake. InsertCleverPhraseHere


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

Not sure what to call this.[edit]

User warned by El C. (non-admin closure) EvergreenFir (talk) 16:08, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

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

The IP user 86.138.197.222 has been doing some odd stuff on the page NTL Incorporated, like here [109]. Vandalism? Promotion? Spam? Either way, shouldn't be there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scientific Alan 2 (talkcontribs) 08:48, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Revert, warn for copyvio, and carry on. El_C 10:55, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

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

Falsification of cited material, removal of mentions of genocide in relation to Srebrenica[edit]

No edits since being warned. If disruption continues, let us know :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 06:25, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

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

Ivci99 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) has been removing mentions of genocide and falsifying what cited sources say on articles including and related to the Srebrenica massacre. I have given them template warnings, but I wanted to mention it here in case anyone recognised the pattern of edits, as I suspect a returning vandal. DuncanHill (talk) 14:35, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

It appears that they have ceased following the second warning. We should keep an eye on these two articles in case the contentious editing resumes. I looked through the last year of the histories of both articles, but didn't see any obvious sock patterns. caknuck ° needs to be running more often 16:27, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

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

Andy Dingley[edit]

OP says they don't need any help. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:03, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

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

ANI for disruptive editing, poor faith, taking supervisory ownership of the Honda Fit page. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Lizzziemcdonald_reported_by_User:Andy_Dingley_.28Result:_.29

My initial edit; The Honda Fit does not use swage lines. There is no legitimate source content for it. I clearly stated why I removed it.

  1. [110]

In poor faith Andy provides no reason to revert my edit.

  1. [111]

Again I remove the false information pointing out that there is no source for it.

  1. [112]

Andy states to look at an image. Creased stampings on one-piece body panels are not swage lines. And looking at an imagine does not subsitute a legitimate source

  1. [113]

Yet again I removed the unsourced and false info.

  1. [114]

Now Andy inserts that the third-gen Honda Fit has a "pronounced side crease". He likely does this by googling Honda Fit side crease, unable to find legitimate sources and instead settles on The Car Connection. TCC is not a printed publication and little more than an advertising website that rarely meets the standard for inclusion of encyclopedic content, there are much better and more respected buyer's guides out there like Kelley Blue Book as well as numerous printed publications. By and large TCC had fallen into irrelevance in 5-10 years ago.

  1. [115]

I remove the TCC and the side crease due to it's lack of notability. Virtually all modern vehicles have deep side creases, hardly unique to the Honda Fit or the third generation model. Googling 'Honda Fit side crease' returns a CNET review pointing out the side creases for the 2nd generation model. [116]

As one would expect of an edit warrior he restores his own edit. At which point I stopped bothering since as far as I was concerned he has taken ownership of the article and will continue reverting my edits over and over again.

  1. [117]

Lizzziemcdonald (talk) 14:42, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

(Non-admin comment) Lizzziemcdonald, you will need to inform Andy Dingley of this, see the red text at the top of this page. Nördic Nightfury 14:50, 29 March 2017 (UTC)+
I see that it has been done by NeilN, just bear in mind in the future. Nördic Nightfury 14:53, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
@Nordic Nightfury: She did, Andy deleted it. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:06, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
@Floquenbeam: To be fair there was no report here when Andy deleted the notice (after presumably having checked here). 'Lizziemcdonald' posted the ANI-notice on Andy's talk page at 13:56 UTC, and Andy deleted the notice at 14;01 UTC, but the report against him wasn't posted here until 14:42 UTC, i.e. 41 minutes after Andy deleted the notice about a then non-existing ANI-report... - Tom | Thomas.W talk 15:22, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
Aha. True. I bow to your superior detective skills, I hadn't noticed that. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:25, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
I think I am reading this right, you have a content dispute and instead of talking about it on the article's talk page, we get people reverting back and forth. The solution is to talk to the other editor's involved on the talk page and if needed use dispute resolution. ~ GB fan 15:02, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
Where's the content dispute? There was no source for swage cut however Andy kept reverting my edits, then added his own variation and used the closest thing to a legitimate source he could google. All newly introduced cars have deep side creases; Acura ILX, Lexus IS, Toyota Prius, Toyota Camry, Toyota C-HR. Should someone google "side crease" for a mediocre source then add it too all the articles they desire? The third-gen Fit is hardly unique or notable for its side crease.Lizzziemcdonald (talk) 15:38, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
The content dispute is you do not believe the content belongs and Andy believes it belongs. The two of you are in a dispute about whether the content belongs in the article. That is something that should be discussed on the article talk page. ~ GB fan 15:44, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
It's not much of a content dispute with Andy twice restoring unsourced misinformation after being informed it's unsourced misinformation. Then modifying it to "side crease" with one poor quality source (TCC) he could find via google. If someone is disputing the content addition then a single near clickbait level advertising source isn't sufficient for its addition or hardly worth edit warring to keep.Lizzziemcdonald (talk) 16:05, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
As an example googling Honda Ridgeline flying buttress or Honda Odyssey lightning bolt gets numerous legitimate results. Googling side crease and adding a poor source is being a (Redacted).Lizzziemcdonald (talk) 15:43, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
(That's a lot of 1s). Why do you deem it an incident today? What administrative help are you looking for today. El_C 15:03, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
Wiki formatting isn't easy, let's not make fun of editors with 26 edits to their name. And I can see why a new editor would think this is the place to come. @Lizzziemcdonald:, User:GB fan has it exactly right. I'll go close the ANEW report if it isn't already, no one actually ever told Lizzziemcdonald about WP:EW. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:10, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
Not making fun—pointing out that preview is your friend. El_C 15:26, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
My mildly righteous indignation at the treatment of a newbie is tempered by the fact that I just noticed Lizzie warned Andy about edit warring in her first revert. So yeah, maybe not quite as new as I first assumed. Anyway, ANEW report closed, Lizzie warned further edit warring will result in a block, Andy should be aware of that too, and GB fan's advice still holds. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:19, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
No help, figured I'd bring what I feel is another editor's poor faith edits and ownership of an automotive page while knowing little on the subject to the attention of the admins. I have no desire to further edit the Honda Fit page, it was hassle enough to remove false unsourced information. Lizzziemcdonald (talk) 15:54, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
Neither party has posted a single time on that article's talk page, so you're equally culpable and I encourage both of you to review WP:DR. But we shouldn't open ANI complaints unless our own hands are fairly clean. Welcome to Wikipedia. ―Mandruss  15:13, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

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

KarmaChameleon[edit]

Could someone please evaluate the contributions of User:KarmaChameleon? His edits to various pages with material about "Muslim sex abuse rings" have generated multiple warnings from various editors, all of which resulted in more battleground behavior. I don't think there is enough here for a block, but a warning might very well help the situation. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:52, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

I've closed the MFD and deleted the page,and am about an inch away from a WP:NOTHERE block as this user seems to have a very specific POV they wish to push. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:26, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

@Beeblebrox: any opinions on this remaining. Amortias (T)(C) 20:37, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

N Deleted. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:40, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
He comes and goes. 2607:FB90:2400:E371:C053:7479:A6C9:8B28 (talk) 21:08, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
♪♫♪ El_C 21:14, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
The WP:NOTHERE-hammer swings. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:51, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── he's asking for a block review. Uninvolved admins... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:14, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
Declined by El C a couple of minutes after you left this note. Nyttend (talk) 22:20, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
Asking again. I am involved (I commented in the MfD, edited the article and warned him). Black Kite (talk) 00:32, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
Symbol declined.svg Declined. Request number 3 is usually considered the "make it or break it" for unblock requests, we'll see if they show some self-awareness if they decide to appeal again. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:11, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Steve Bannos COI[edit]

Reported user blocked; page will be monitored. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 06:22, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

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

An editor known as SteveBannos Has made three edits to the articel sharing his name. including a bad image addition, and EW over redlinks with me and [[User:|Serols]]. NOTHERE L3X1 (distant write) 23:10, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Notified, fixing ping Serols L3X1 (distant write) 23:11, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
Soft blocked due to the username issue (famous name). ~ Rob13Talk 23:25, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
Thankee. I'm going to watch his page for a few days, per DOLT. L3X1 (distant write) 23:52, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

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

Rangeblock requested[edit]

Range 78.165.0.0/16 is blocked for two weeks. If further disruption occurs, let us know. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 09:12, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

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

Per Drmies' comment here, I'd like to ask an admin (whose able to do so, that is) to perform a range block on these ranges;

The sockmaster in question is EMr_KnG. Thanks in advance, - LouisAragon (talk) 01:31, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

@LouisAragon: can you give me some kind of background on this? How do I tell which of these edits are from EMr_KnG? Or are they all from him? NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:14, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
@NinjaRobotPirate:, Hi. All IP's that made edits on Turkic/Turkish-related topics, Iranian-related topics, and Kurdish-related topics, are his (that's his one and only "niche"). Per the X!'s tools link you gave, that'd be these IP's in addition to the three I already mentioned above. Had a look at their edits, and they're all pretty clear cut I might add;
Hope this answers your question. - LouisAragon (talk) 03:50, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
Alright. I'll have to do a wide range block to get them all. There's a little collateral damage, but it mostly seems to consist of an edit warrior who likes arguing about tanks. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:39, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

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

User 24.34.58.178[edit]

IP blocked for 24 hours for creating attack pages and disruption. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 12:58, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

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

24.34.58.178 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · edit filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) an experienced user given the familiarity with AIV, undo, templates, etc, is attacking editors, hounding, and edit warring. Has been attacking Dr.K. and myself (Jim1138).

  • Rather misconstruing events on AIV here

Would someone please clarify with 24.34.58.178 that these actions are not productive, in with WP:CIVIL, and should be avoided? Thank you Jim1138 (talk) 01:56, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

At least two Doctors are on it (Drmies and Dr.K). I think we're in good hands. El_C 02:02, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
I appreciate the humour El_C but this IP is aggressive and has a tendency to stalk. This is not a good combination. I agree with Jim1138's assessment. I add that at some stage the IP appeared to back off at first, although with a grossly attacking edit-summary: Let's see if this works you guys. Can you keep your mitts off a completely blank, utterly obscure page? Or maybe you've still got the bloodlust of playground bullies? Let's find out. Can you let it lie?. However, immediately after that, the IP then came to my talk leaving a trolling message calling it a "quiz" and referring to Jim1138 and NewEnglandYankee as a "swarm of vandals". When I reverted the trolling, the IP came back leaving an attack in the edit summary. Since then, the IP has followed my edits to two talkpages of editors I warned and left the attacking messages as Jim1138 describes above. I would like the IP to be warned about the stalking and the PAs from the two talkpages, where the IP stalked my edits, be removed. The battleground antics of this IP don't belong in a collaborative environment. The IP also has extensive knowledge of meta wiki terms such as "sockpuppets" and "meatpuppets", very surprising for a brand-new editor:

I also got attacked by what smells suspiciously like a gang of meat puppets of DrK. Based on the timing and similar patterns of behaviors, they might even be sock puppets. Same aggressive accusations and "warnings" (threats!) about edit warring, same immediate (and snotty!) reversion of anything on their talk page that was unflattering, etc.

Quote: Based on the timing and similar patterns of behaviors, they might even be sock puppets. This supposedly brand-new editor talks like an expert SPI investigator who can accurately differentiate between meatpuppets and sockpuppets. That's really unexpected. Dr. K. 03:13, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
Copy that. El_C 03:42, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Sure looks like a preventative block is called for. Jusdafax 03:24, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
  • We're spending too much time on this. Drmies (talk) 05:21, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
  • IP, stop hounding Dr.K. and Jim1138. That's it. Drmies (talk) 05:28, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
Drmies - You need help with this, or are you good? Also, see response. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs)
User:Oshwah, I was going to let everything depend on the IP's response, and El_C's block is fine with me. Given that they made quality edits I figured we could give them one more chance to return to that kind of editing, but they chose to focus on trolling. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 12:30, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. El_C 06:28, 30 March 2017 (UTC)


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

More ARBPIA shenanigans[edit]

Need an admin to keep an eye on Talk:List of violent incidents in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, 2017. Some shenanigans, with the RfC and Survey having been modified long after people had responded to them([118][119])—making it seem as if people had been responding to this new text. And generally, questionable WP:TPG behaviour. Thanks. El_C 07:40, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

All I did was to neutralize the RfC header. Since my alternate phrasing was objected to, I am trying to discuss on the talkpage to get a consensus wording. But El_C is getting hung up on procedural matters without addressing my point about the neutrality of the RfC header. Anyway, I have no intention to modify the RfC text as I said there already. But sure, whatever. Kingsindian   08:01, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
It's far from procedural, people have already responded to the RfC, have already !voted on the Survery—you are adding text to the RfC and Survery after the fact, making it seem as if they responded to your points. That's so basic, I'm surprised you still think it's okay or merely procedural. El_C 08:08, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
I suggest the shenanigans are not wholly on one side, as you appear to be suggesting. You stood by quietly while this odd behavior took place, by the editor your own edits consistently support in this area. This is one sequence on that utterly irrational page, where all sources for definitions are ignored and editors just opinionize.
  • (3) Then two minutes later 20:20, 29 March 2017 he opened an RfC. I.e. first he reverted then (presumably to block any other editor from restoring the elidesd information), immediately opened an RfC.
  • (4) While discussion had barely begun, he then went back to the article and removed 20 minutes later further material in the edit, content that is reported in all the sources. here, namely

’Her son Mustafa Nimr had been shot dead when a vehicle he was in, driven by a drunken driver on drugs, rammed past a checkpoint in Eastern Jerusalem during a night raid, by border guards who mistook them for terrorists in September 2016. Palestinian sources say she was shot in the chest and left to bleed to death after a altercation with police at the site. She was with her daughter at the time.’

Again, please note that for 3 years, these lists have always had such circumstantial details of any incident when a separate article on the incident does not exist. No one has ever objected to that.
But that is exactly what he did!
  • (8)In other words, SJ made a revert, and simultaneously, registers his point on view. Before anyone has the time to discuss it, he then opens an RfC which automatically blocks the editing process. Then he goes ahead and re-edits the page. When I open an RfC reformulating the badly worded (in my view) RfC SJ introduced, he replies that I should do what he himself just did a few minutes earlier. That looks like precisely the gaming of the strict rules which has been mentioned on the AE page. El_C seems to me to have dropped any administrative care in neutrally evaluating the behavior of both sides..Nishidani (talk) 08:39, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Nishidani, as always, seems to forget conversations. There has been talk page discussions about property damage and the need for an RFC. All one has to do is look at the talk page and read. Sir Joseph (talk) 13:54, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
Anyone who thinks I forget, can examine quickly the 5 articles from 2015, 2 years, confirm that over this period (a) house demolition entries are extremely commonplace, and that (b) on the talk pages no significant challenge was made to this practice.
One user questioned demolitions. My judgement as to their inclusion was confirmed by a third editor.(b) A drive by reverter elided one example. The subsequent talk page discussion backed my judgement, with 2 editors supporting it.
  • (4) List of violent incidents in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, July–December 2016 . No talk page challenge.
  • So one had (a) a protocol on the first page defining the content to be included in this series, i.e., house demolitions. For 2 years of daily editing over 4 articles, there were 2 editors who reverted on the grounds that house demolitions were not ‘violence’. 3 editors supported my judgement, and the protocol. That was the editing norm.
In other words, you ignored the protocols governing these pages in making 3 reverts of material long included, March 13, March 20, March 29, as supported by 2 prior discussions. I was referring to these. The breaking of the convention was thrice made without addressing the consensus in the archives.Nishidani (talk) 15:26, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
I am just trying to keep a semblance of order, while each side accuses me of being for the other—I can only imagine the multiple-RfC chaos if I wasn't there. El_C 09:01, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
For the record Nishidani is being disingenuous—I supported his suggestion to rename the article. But now there are battle lines? One RfC at a time, please. El_C 09:04, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
No. For the record, I am sticking to the known facts, which you do not address on the talk page. I have the distinct impression that, while exercising an administrative role, your approach has recently been consistently partisan. I may be wrong, but documenting a perceived problem and arguing one's point of view is not battling. It is what editors do. To say so is to accuse me of bad faith (disingenuous means 'failure to be candid or sincere', a wiki euphemism that is a violation of WP:AGF.Nishidani (talk) 09:15, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
I agree with El_C in that changing the header, proposal, request, etc isn't proper after the RfC has gone live, and users have given input on the request with the wording as it was when submitted -- shouldn't be done, generally. Usually, if wording in that area needs to be changed, it should be discussed in that discussion. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 09:08, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Nishidani takes my comment, then he bulltetpoints it and makes me !vote by copying it with my username attached. I'm telling you all, questionable WP:TPG behaviour. El_C 09:14, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

This is piddling, for want of WP:AGF, E_C.
Earlier I wrote in response to you that the removal of demolitions you backed would means months of work because they have always been uncontroversially included. I asked you for a creative solution, along the lines of 'changing the title'. You responded
Yes, changing the title also works. I'm game with that. El_C 21:44, 29 March 2017 (UTC).
I didn't think there was a copyright problem, requiring consent for requoting a remark made by someone else earlier. You took umbrage. Okay. A note saying you thought this improper was all that was required, not (and it looks odd) going to AN/I and raising a complaint about putative 'shenanigans' regarding myself and another editor. That only looks unneutral, going ballistic over commas etc.Nishidani (talk) 09:41, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
Just leave me in peace. El_C 09:55, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
I mean no offence, but if you report me or anyone else, automatically those whose editing behavior you describe negatively as 'shenanigans' naturally set forth their views. That offends my sense of being a conscientious contributor, whose problems lie in trying scrupulously to reason here, rather than play games that smack of ruses and insincerity ('disingenuous') You can't report something to elicit another administrator's action against them and complain then that the inevitable responses are disturbing your equanimity, surely? So, fine, let's drop it. Nishidani (talk) 10:04, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Here's the basic point: The current RfC wording is bad - nobody seems to agree on what "actual violence" means. And the wording was not discussed before the RfC was opened, so it had no consensus in the first place. What I did was to remove the RfC header, so that one can finalize the wording before others waste their time responding to an ill-formed question. It was reverted, and since then, discussion on the talkpage is going on. I have no interest in procedural games, and there's nothing to see here anyway. As I said, I have no idea why this was brought to ANI. Kingsindian   09:18, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

You already asked that and I already' answered: because I need someone else to keep an eye while I'm away. El_C 09:26, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
I am happy with more eyes on the talkpage, admin or otherwise. Kingsindian   09:39, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

List of terrorist incidents in Sri Lanka[edit]

Currently all the ‘terrorist incidents lists by country’ pages in WP including the master list – List of terrorist incidents do not use the term ‘non-state’ in page titles. However user:Obi2canibe is insisting that the List of terrorist incidents in Sri Lanka should contain the term "non-state" in its title, going contrary to the other lists of terrorist incidents. I have discussed this issue at the talk page of the article with him before, but he is not accepting the definition of “terrorist” accepted in WP for these kind of pages. He has reverted moves done by my self and user:Kristijh (in August 2016) to remove the word non-state from the title previously. Hence I would like to seek administrator intervention to solve this issue that has been going on for some time now. ---LahiruG talk 11:07, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

User: 172.58.225.248[edit]

The ip-adress 172.58.225.248 needs to be blocked. He/she has reverted good edits made by a user only because this user has a name associated with homosexual orientation, and referred to his/hers own homophobia as the reason for the reversion: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/172.58.225.248--Aciram (talk) 14:44, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

I gave the user a Level-4 warning for the comments in the edit summary, since they were not warned (also, you might want to notify them of the ANI discussion as it says above). My sock-sense however is tingling with this IP...RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:50, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Access page on Google search[edit]

Please admin i am unable to access my page when I search for it on google https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olila-Ebhugh_Abureni [[[User:Emmanuelebidan|Emmanuelebidan]] (talk) 14:57, 30 March 2017 (UTC)]— Preceding unsigned comment added by Emmanuelebidan (talkcontribs) 14:54, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

There is a certain amount of time before a new page is indexed by search engines. I'll be honest, I do not know what that time is. --Darth Mike(talk) 15:03, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Darth Mike, I got the impression the new user was simply looking for his article. Emmanuelebidan, I'm not sure what's the status of the page you got from Google, but your article is here: Olila-Ebhugh Abureni. Oh.. it was just there a minute ago, but I see it has just been deleted per WP:A7: "Article about an eligible subject, which does not credibly indicate the importance or significance of the subject". Sorry about that. For another time, the simplest way to find your own contributions is to go to "contributions" in the row of personal links that you can see top right on all pages. Welcome to Wikipedia and happy editing! Bishonen | talk 15:11, 30 March 2017 (UTC).
It's also been deleted per CSD A7 RickinBaltimore (talk) 15:08, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks [[[User:Emmanuelebidan|Emmanuelebidan]] (talk) 15:13, 30 March 2017 (UTC)] I don't understand really because I was writing about the Olila-Ebhugh stool., a stool like similar to other Traditional stools [[[User:Emmanuelebidan|Emmanuelebidan]] (talk) 15:33, 30 March 2017 (UTC)]